When and where credit is due

[David Stamm]

I've really enjoyed reading the new Golfweek and kudo's to Brad and his staff to making this come together every year. While we may not agree on everything in the rankings, I think all of us appreciate the effort that goes into it.


While reading it, a question pops into my mind. It seems that sometimes a course will be given credit to an architect who is performing a renovation and his name is put front and center on the course and the original architect will be mentioned secondly, or in Kittansett's case, not at all (Flynn). At first I thought the course or club wanted to maybe highlight a more well known architect for marketing reasons or prestige, but in a case like Kittansett, Flynn is obviously a more well known name than Hood. In my discussions with Wayne, the course is exactly the way Flynn designed it according to the drawings and one could make a case that Hood shouldn't even be on there at all. In addition, Mackenzie and Jones are given sole credit for AGNC when we all know how much the course has changed and how many have performed changes there.


Wayne Morrison mentioned Merion in a previoud thread and that Flynn should be given co design credit and I agree. How about Dick Wilson and what he did at Seminole? Chandler Egan is responsible for the bunkering at Pebble Beach and Herbert Fowler made 18 what it is today. Only Thomas and Bell are mentioned in regards to Bel Air, but dramatic changes were made by most notably Dick Wilson.

My question is, when does the architect get credit for a course when "there's been more than one cook in the kitchen". For the most part the rankings are spot on with credit and list the names according to timeline. But these are some of the things that leave me wondering. Is there a critieria for when a name should appear? Is there a criteria when a name should no longer appear?

[wsmorrison]

David,

On lists like the one in Golfweek, there is only so much room to make attributions.  Though there is a desire to get it right, it can get pretty complicated.  As far as Merion and Kittansett go, while it may be impossible to say without doubt, who did exactly what, it is clear that Flynn should get the credit for Kittansett and partial credit for Merion.  I've brought up Toomey and Kittansett in the past, I don't know when/if the attributions will be reevaluated.

[David Stamm]

David,

On lists like the one in Golfweek, there is only so much room to make attributions.  Though there is a desire to get it right, it can get pretty complicated.  

I understand Wayne. I'm just curious when should it warrant mentioning in a ranking list like this. I agree if everything was included in the list, it would take up the whole issue. But since this list carries some weight, I wonder when is it appropriate to mention another name. I guess it's just a judgement call.

[BCrosby]

David -

I sympathize with your concerns. In the world of gca, attribution rules are a mess. No. That's too generous. There are no rules at all.

Another nutty example is East Lake. It was an original Bendelow course. Ross changed the routing on most of the holes, but not all. Bendelow is never given design credit. But after Flynn's complete redo, Hood still gets some credit at Kittansett?

This topic has come up before. I think some rules ought to be laid down and applied consistently.

Let me suggest two inter-linked rules.

The first rule is that the original designer ought to get design credit unless the second rule obtains.

The second rule is that if a designer reroutes a majority of a course or if he makes other significant changes that alter the overall playing characteristics of the course, he ought to get the primary design credit.

I do not pretend to think these rules will clear up all ambiguities. To the contrary, there will be as much debate as we have now. But they will at least provide a framework for debates. Right now there are no frameworks. Our debates here tend to end up with people chasing their tails. We all recall the recent Merion thread.

I have enormous respect for Whitten's survey on architects and the courses they designed. It's scope remains breath-taking to this day. But too often he relied on club-based information. That's not meant as a criticism. There are just so many hours in a day. Ideally, I wish he had been able to do more independent research and used more consistent attribution rules, perhaps like those I suggest above.

Bob  

[David Stamm]

Thanks Bob. I like the ideas for a framework of rules. True, it would probably set the stage for even more debate, but at least we have SOMETHING to go by for when to give credit and when not to. I agree major changing of the routing would be the first and foremost scenario to look for in deciding.

[Brad Klein]

David,

You raise a great issue and it's actually one that causes more headaches for me when we do these lists than anything else I ever do at Golfweek. Once we have all the information in place, producing the ratings is easy; it just takes a click of the button. But editing the final lists and checking the proper attribution of credit are very complicated.

In part, as Wayne alludes, the limitation is space. We have to fit onto a certain page space. But we also can't sacrifice accuracy. Bob Crosby's rule holds true -- credit the original architect, plus subsequent ones where they've made significant routing changes. The problem comes when there are so many intermediary tweaks, what counts as routing change (Maxwell moving ANGC's 7th and 10th greens; RTJ Sr. shifting the 10th and 11th don't quite qualify, arguably). When Pete Dye reroutes Brickyard Crossing or Fazio reroutes Pinehurst No. 4, that's easy. It's when we get to total redos of an existing and preserved routing that I really start getting headaches. I'm not sure I can be as consistent as I'd like because there are so many different circumstances.

Obviously, a list published in or as part of a book will be more comprehensive than a list such as we produce. But even if we can't be comprehensive (i.e. every major change at ANGC) we can at least be accurate.

For example, we give RTJ Sr. renovation credit on Oakland Hills because his work on the existing routing completely changed the bunkering and the strategies of the holes. Tom Fazio's massive renovation of Quail Hollow didn't touch the routing but put an all-new playing surface down on top of the existing one. Yet in the case of restoration, we basically leave off the name -- thus no mention of Ron Prichard for bringing back Franklin Hills. But when Doak redoes Atlantic City CC and adds some holes and combines other elements, we do give him credit, though in that case we kept it as a Classic whereas with a more extensive such renovation (Brickyard Crossing) we'd call it Modern. In the case of Sea Island GC-Seaside Course, it's easy to call that a Modern, since Colt & Alison's 9-hole layout from 1929 was joined in 1970 by Joe Lee's nine, then all altered by Fazio.

Keeping track of all of this is pretty hard, but it is important to have some guidelines. And then Wayne Morrison ruins everything by telling us that Toomey didn't actually "design," he just partnered on construction with Flynn. Oh well.

Basic rules of thumb we follow, in priority:
-list original architect of the basic course that exists today;
-list subsequent architects who contributed to the rerouting of more than two holes (if that can be determined);
-list subsequent architects who contributed to major modernization and alteration of the fundamental character of the golf course (RTJ on Oakland Hills, but not Maxwell or Fazio at ANGC).

Always keeping in mind to keep it simple and readable within alloted space.

Note: moving a green isn't really counted as "re-routing." We save that for actualy moving entire holes-- such as the Fazios did at Inverness or Oak Hill (for better -- or much worse!).

[wsmorrison]

Brad,

I appreciate the effort you go to get things as right as possible in terms of methodology and attributions.  You simply cannot please everybody in an effort such as this.  I would strongly urge that you remove Toomey from design attributions as he did not do any golf course design and it perpetuates the misconception to have him listed.

As for Merion, holes 1,2 (last 50 yards),10-13 are Flynn.  Significant remodeling was done by Flynn on 8 green (under Wilson's oversight), 14 and 15 greens after Wilson's passing.  Nearly all the bunkering was redone by Wilson/Flynn and Flynn with assistance from Joe Valentine.  By most any standard, Flynn ought to get some design credit.

Bob,

Flynn did not redo Kittansett.  It was from the beginning a Flynn design.  Hood was mistakenly given design credit.  The course was built to Flynn's plans (we have most of the holes--some are missing from the file and are so noted in the original records).  He was on site and did all the design work.  The club lore is that Flynn did the routing and Hood designed the holes.  This is incorrect and now recognized by many at the club.  They now have facsimile copies of the drawings and are kind enough to join us for the Flynn Invitational.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

This question asked in all seriousness: do the changes at ANGC over time warrant its transfer into the "modern" category?

This is in no way to impugn the changes but simply to note the significance of them; doesn't the course play substantially differently today vs. pre 1960, and not just in terms of conditioning? (I would categorize the added length not as a "change" insofar as the intent was to ask the same shots of modern golfers as earlier generations.)

Would the course and changes be assessed any differently if it were a "modern"?

Is some of its drop in the classic category due to changes?

In his interview, Daniel Wexler said he classified the original course as "lost":

"You can like or dislike the modern Augusta National (to me, the relative lack of excitement at recent Masters speaks volumes) but when you consider angles of play, hazard placement, green contouring, the addition of rough and the planting of trees, it can objectively be stated that Augusta is a thoroughly different golf course from that which Jones and MacKenzie created."

Do you agree?

Mark

[David Stamm]

David,

you raise a great issue and it's actually one that causes more headaches for me when we do these lists than aything else I ever do at Golfweek. Once we have all the information in place, producing the ratings is easy; it just takes a click of the button. But editing the final lists and checking the proper attribution of credit are very complicated.

In part, as Wayne alludes, the limitation is space. We have to fit onto a certain page space. But we also can't sacrifice accuracy. Bob Crosby's rule holds true -- credit the original architect, plus subsequent ones where they've made significant routing changes. The problem comes when there are so many intermediary tweaks, what counts as routing change (Maxwell moving ANGC's 7th and 10th greens; RTJ Sr. shifting the 10th and 11th don't quite qualify, arguably). When Pete Dye reroutes Brickyard Crossing or Fazio reroutes Pinehurst No. 4, that's easy. It's when we get to total redos of an existing and preserved routing that I really start getting headaches. I'm not sure I can be as consistent as I'd like because there are so many different circumstances.

Obviously, a book list will be more comprehensive than a last such as we produce. But even if we can't be comprehensive (i.e. every major change at ANGC) we can at least be accurate.

For example, we give RTJ Sr. renovation credit on Oakland Hills because his work on the existing routing completely changed the bunkering and the strategies of the holes. Tom Fazio's massive renovation of Quail Hollow didn't touch the routing but put an all-new playing surface down on top of the existing one. Yet in the case of restoration, we basically leave off the name -- thus no mention of Ron Prichard for bringing back Franklin Hills. But when Doak redoes Atlantic City CC and adds some holes and combines other elements, we do give him credit, though in that case we kept it as a Classic whereas with a more extensive such renovation (Brickyard Crossing) we'd call it Modern. In the case of Sea Island GC-Seaside Course, it's easy to call that a Modern, since Colt & Alison's 9-hole layout from 1929 was joined in 1970 by Joe Lee's nine, then all altered by Fazio.

Keeping track of all of this is pretty hard, but it is important to have some guidelines. And then Wayne Morrison ruins everything by telling us that Toomey didn't actually "design," he just partnered on construction with Flynn. Oh well.

Basic rules of thumb we follow, in priority:
-list original architect of the basic course that exists today;
-list subsequent architects who contributed to the rerouting of more than two holes (if that can be determined);
-list subsequent architects who contributed to major modernization and alteration of the fundamental character of the golf course (RTJ on Oakland Hills, but not Maxwell or Fazio at ANGC).

Always keeping in mind to keep it simple and readable within alloted space.

Note: moving a green isn't really counted as "re-routing." We save that for actualy moving entire holes-- such as the Fazios did at Inverness or Oak Hill (for better -- or much worse!).

Thanks Brad. I can only guess as to what an enormous undertaking this must be every year. And I do know there is only a limited amount of space. This was just one of those things that leave me scratching my head sometimes.

[TEPaul]

"Do you agree?"

Mark:

I do not agree.

ANGC looks quite a bit different because of "prettifying" etc and has been lengthened a lot and had fairways narrowed, trees planted etc because of its on-going dual use as a members course and a top-flight annual championship course but essentially its the same routing and the same basic architectural makeup that was originally built. A few greens have been moved, actually more in the early days than later but that's not at all unusual for any course of its age.

The best way to explain ANGC's architectural attributions is to do a complete and comprehensive "design evolution" report on it but it is definitely a Mackenzie/Jones golf course and to call it anything other than that would be inaccurate, in my opinion.

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

Thanks for the correction on Kittansett. I misunderstood the meaning of an earlier post.

Mark -

No. ANGC belongs in the Classic group.

Using the Crosby Attribution Rules ("CAR"), though there have been significant changes - some of which violate both the express and implied intentions of MacK/Jones - those changes did not change the fundamental playing characteristics of ANGC.

Clearly the playing characteristics of some holes were materially changed, but not enough to treat ANGC as a new, modern design. Thus under the CAR, design attribution should not change.

BTW, ANGC's drop in the GW rankings was entirely appropriate in light of the tree plantings and new rough. You makes your choices, you pays the price.

Bob

[George Pazin]

The best way to explain ANGC's architectural attributions is to do a complete and comprehensive "design evolution" report on it but it is definitely a Mackenzie/Jones golf course and to call it anything other than that would be inaccurate, in my opinion.

And in this vein, it seems odd to me to give RTJ Sr. credit for Oakland Hills. The routing and bones of the course are Ross's, no?

(I don't have the issue, so I don't know if RTJ Sr. is given second billing, or top billing, so maybe someone could provide that info.)

To me, when assessing design credit, I would think the routing is the single most important thing. After that, someone significantly altering the bunkering or altering greens would be the next most critical factors. Adding length wouldn't merit much of a mention, imho.

Perhaps the architects would be the best people to chime in on this issue.

[Brad Klein]

Wayne,

I'm not making any changes in Flynn's design credits until your book (not just the draft manuscript!) is in hand and I can make them all at once.

[wsmorrison]

Bob,

Sorry, I was not very clear in my initial post.

Brad,

Fair enough.  We're close to working out a deal to privately publish the book as it has grown to 1500+ pages and 3 volumes and morphed into a reference source for everything (and then some) to do with Flynn and golf.  Hopefully it will be out sometime this year or the start of next.  We still may do an abridged commercial edition, but we're not sure.  In any case, our publisher may still turn out to be our printer.

I don't know what the market is for 3 volumes (including a DVD with all drawings and writings) and approx a $200 price.  But if we can sell a couple of hundred the first few years and then a few every year at clubs and elsewhere, we think it will be done.

[George Pazin]

We're close to working out a deal to privately publish the book as it has grown to 1500+ pages and 3 volumes...

And I thought you and Tom P wrote a lot on here!

A few case studies with prominent, well known examples would probably go a long way toward establishing the types of guidelines Bob Crosby advocates.

Bob, how would you attribute something like East Lake? Or something like Garden City?

One thing I feel is that, whenever there is any doubt, the original designer should receive the most credit.

[BCrosby]

We're close to working out a deal to privately publish the book as it has grown to 1500+ pages and 3 volumes...

Bob, how would you attribute something like East Lake? Or something like Garden City?

One thing I feel is that, whenever there is any doubt, the original designer should receive the most credit.

Agreed. The original designer gets the benefit of the burden of proof. Any follow-on designer has to carry the burden before he can claim design credit.

In the case of EL - under my proposed rules - Ross carried tnat burden of proof and deserves the design credit. He fundamentally changed the routing and playing characteristics of EL from the original Bendelow course.

I don't know enough about GC to have an opinion.

Bob

[Brad Klein]

Wayne, I've changed my mind. I'm only going to make those revisions if you DON'T publish the book.

[TEPaul]

"To me, when assessing design credit, I would think the routing is the single most important thing. After that, someone significantly altering the bunkering or altering greens would be the next most critical factors. Adding length wouldn't merit much of a mention, imho."

George:

I think that's very well put. I'd second all of that.

Another very important factor, in my opinion, is to create an intelligent and understandable demarcation between changes to a course as a result of just maintenance practices and the remarkable architectural alterations resulting from long term mainteance practices (including tree planting and growth) and changes that are not maintenance but strictly architectural.

All of us are probably guilty of thinking the effects of strictly long-term maintenance practices are actually architectural changes in the vein of redesign or something.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

We had a thread here three or four years ago where we tried to resolve the credits for all the top 100 courses.  We only got through about five or ten of them before we gave up trying:

Does Colt deserve to be on Pine Valley?  How about Allan Wilson, Charles Alison, or Tom Fazio?
Who all deserves to be on Pebble Beach?

Etc, etc.

The reality is that with a magazine list you can only print the 1, 2 or 3 names who are deemed to have had the most to do with any single course.  There will always be some debate about that, but trying to credit EVERYBODY who had a role would just encourage people to tinker their way to immortality.  I think Geoff Cornish started down the wrong path when he listed "consulting architects" in the credits for his book, even when they had done virtually nothing on the course.  (As just one example, he listed himself as a "remodeler" of Crystal Downs.)

[Mark Bourgeois]

Are there any instances where a course has changed, particularly in the design intent or playing strategy, to such a degree that the original architect asked that his name be removed?

WWAD: What Would Alister Do?

[Brad Klein]

Mark, ask Mike Young about that one.

[Mark_Fine]

This is a very tough question.  We worked on one course a few years ago that must have had at least a half dozen architects make substantial changes to it (move greens, add/delete holes, some re-routing, re-bunkering, adding tees/changing lines of play,...) not to mention the changes that were made by green committees done without an architect that were substantial as well.  Who gets credit and who doesn't?  

On a similar vain, how many people would want to belong to a "Walter Hatch" design?  Probably not many.  He gets little to no credit (in the public eye) for his work with Ross yet had a lot to do with his success.  The same goes for J.B. MoGovern.  I believe he was even one of the orginal 13 ASGCA members.  

[wsmorrison]

As the USGA's golf architecture archive and research center becomes a reality, the necessary information for those interested in a course's architectural evolution and attributions will be readily available.  

From another perspective, we have documented all of Flynn's design work so that record will be available sometime in the near future.  

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
That USGA archive and research center will be fantastic when finished and I applaud the efforts of all for making the investment.  I agree with you that much of the "necessary information for those interested in a course's architectural evolution and attributions will be readily available", but it will still be subjective and require lots of research and personal intrepretation to determine design credit.  

I just recently sat with Sean Tully for a few hours going through articles and other research findings as we tried to determine who really designed Berkeley CC (now known as Mira Vista).  It is touted as a Willie Watson course and Willie was surely involved with the construction.  But Tully's research as well as that done by Forrest and I for the master plan (as well as what Tom Ferrel and I have done for a Hunter article) are leading us to believe that it very well could be Robert Hunter's original design (maybe his only one as well).  It would be a great find if it is true but we may never know 100% for sure.  Maybe Sean will chime in with his thoughts on this one.

[wsmorrison]

There is no absolute known as design credit.  If all available information is compiled and made available, each can make his own subjective determination according to their own standards for design attribution.  All I'm saying is there will be a central clearing house for golf architecture and it will aid in determinations.  

I understand there is room for interpretation.  There are some that give design credit without knowing all the information available such as Macdonald and Whigham at Merion.  I don't think we will ever know what Macdonald and Whigham did at Merion so there is no need to speculate and make attributions based solely on interpolations of vague statements.  All existing information  will be available to everyone so that interested parties can make their own informed decisions based upon their own criteria.  They will not have to rely upon determinations made by unknown processes.