[Phil_the_Author]

Ran,

I also think that you have chosen an arbitrary measuring stick, top 50 world course, and are using it as a defining line the wrong way. There are others who are proving themselves the equal of Doak & C&C yet who don't or can't be measured that way. A good example is Mark Parsinen. The latest ranking of the top 100 modern courses in GB&I show Kingsbarns as #1 & Castle Stuart as #2. Parsinen clearly can't be measured by your stick yet is determined to leave a legacy of having built great golf courses. He develops and is invovled in them to the point of riding the bullldozer where necessary. He is a modern day George Crump rather than a Tilly. So is Mike Keiser and his accomplishment out at Bandon.

I believe, as dfo you, that we are clearly in a very definable NEW golden age of golf course design & construction. Ours has both the great artists and administrators equal to the first one. What it also has that the first one didn't, is a true very large group of architects who have shown an ability to equal those presently at the top if but given the opportunity. Example, Gil Hanse...

I think you need a new measuring stick, that is all, and you will see the missing artists of this new golden age...

[Mac Plumart]

Phil...

Excellent post.

But here's the question...what measuring stick do we use to figure out the masters of the new golden age?

The rankings are vitally important to me as they are the first place people go to find the best work of golf course architects...just like Ran did.  To figure out the best of the modern guys, isn't GW's best of modern the place to go.

However, we've seen the conflicts of interest and biases inherent in these lists.

So, to my question and the point you raise in your post...

What is the measuring stick we should use?

[JESII]

What it also has that the first one didn't, is a true very large group of architects who have shown an ability to equal those presently at the top if but given the opportunity. Example, Gil Hanse...

Phil,

COuld you expand on this comment a bit? Thanks. It reads to me that you think the level of designer just below the two or three accepted leaders of the first Golden Age could not match the leaders result on their best site/opportunity...if this is what you're saying, I would disagree with that premise while asking who you would call the top architects of the original era...assuming the list is as close to as short as the one presented in this thread.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim, I see how it sounded that way, but that wasn't my intent. look at Ran's assumption. He credits Mackenzie as being above all others and then lists a fair number as "nipping at his heels." He then states that Doak & C&C are WAY over everyone else despite there being a good number of very talented architects that RAN is evidently not putting in the Tilly, Flynn, Raynor, etc... category. I think he is wrong because he measures the historical standings of today's group based upon a world top 50 ranking of courses, whereas the others are judged based upon a lifetimes body of work done during the ENTIRE golden age. Doak & C&C and all the others are only partway through what this time will be looked back upon as the second golden age. It is for that reason that I feel he doesn't recognize the entire body of great works and for the simplest of reasons, they haven't been built yet.

Recently a thread asked who was the greatest architect based upon 5 courses in a 10 year period. In effect, that is how Ran (IMO) is judging today's Golden Age architects. He, as do the rest of us, need to take a longer view of this time and recognize that this "new" golden age" is only partway accomplished. There may be fewer courses being built in the US, but there are a lot of courses being built elsewhere in our world and on land every bit as dramatic as the Monterey peninsula...

Ran's question, if it is valid, is one that needs asking in another 15 to 20 years; not now...

Mac, I also disagree with your premise that, "The rankings are vitally important to me as they are the first place people go to find the best work of golf course architects..." Today, just as in the first 30+ years of the 20th century, most golfers sought to play the best courses, and this when there weren't course rankings as there are today. In 1898 Tilly wrote about the reverence he felt approaching St. Andrews by train for the first time and what the courses there and the great players there meant to the game. he spoke of how all players from around the world felt, or should feel, this same awe.

Look at the articles written throughout this time. There is a constant review of new courses and comparisons made to the great courses everywhere; and again, this without any annual magazine rankings.

Great courses have always been recognized for what they are. Rankings have never been needed for that...

[Forrest Richardson]

There are great comments here — to a thoughtful question. I like Nuzzo's idea that some clients do not "rush" the masters. I think that may be very true in some instances.

I believe it is a combination — twofold for the most part:  

(1) The work of Tom D. and Bill Coore is excellent, and their is great restraint to do anything mediocre. Even when an old project that may be less-than-ideal is unearthed, you will hear an immediate disclaimer. I applaud this by these two geniuses of golf design. It speaks volumes about their focus to great sites and great work.

(2) There is a strong bias toward certain architects — and a bias away from others. This is a very difficult theory to prove, but I have always felt my intuition about such things to be spot on. In all my travels, meetings, encounters, etc. with panelists, golf design enthusiasts, writers and others, I sense a certain "in crowd" that transcends the opinion of the common golfer. Call it what you will, it's probably a lot like the wine tasting of the elite wine tasters — simply put, there is a tendency to trash some very good work, not because of the work always, but who signed the artwork.

And, by the way, the second part of my thesis should not take away from the brilliance of those who are doing terrific work. But, I do believe it casts some light on the process of the lists that Ran refers to, and that we all rally around.

[Mac Plumart]

Phil...

I like your post, but think it falls short of what I would love to learn from you.

In your previous post you state the following to Ran...

"I also think that you have chosen an arbitrary measuring stick, top 50 world course, and are using it as a defining line the wrong way. There are others who are proving themselves the equal of Doak & C&C yet who don't or can't be measured that way."

I am interested in knowing what measuring stick we should use?  As I am interested to learn who these great modern day architects are.

I state..."The rankings are vitally important to me as they are the first place people go to find the best work of golf course architects..."

which is a fact, not a debatable point, because it relates to me and me alone.  The rankings are vitally important to me as they are the first place I go.

Your comments allude to the fact that there is somewhere else to go, which is what I am very intersted to know.

I think you kind of answer that by saying read magazine articles and talk to people and get the general scuttlebutt from the "insiders".  Do you think I am capturing the essence of your answer?

Thanks...as always I value your input and am simply seeking to learn your view point.

EDIT...to build on this potential answer.  By reading the posts on this site, I have learned a lot about Lester George, Mike Young, and Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point.  I am not overwhelmed by their names in the magazines, but perhaps they've got something to dig deeper into.  Thoughts?

[Rob Rigg]

Ok - building on what I mentioned earlier - and some of the other posts discussing similar ideas.

How many courses were constructed during the Golden Age? A ton right.

How many non-RE courses were constructed in the past 15 years or so? Some, but not a lot?

So you have Doak and C&C consistently killing it with great sites, Parsinen doing his thing in Scotland with Kyle and Gil, but also some good work in country by Gil and team, Mike DeVries, Nuzzo at WP, Whitman, etc. and also David Kidd producing some very compelling/polarizing non-RE courses, along with lesser knowns like Dan Hixson at Wine Valley, Axland & Proctor at Wild Horse, Baxter Spann at Black Mesa, which are other courses that rate, at least in the GCA pantheon.

While the number of New Golden Age quality courses is not as high as the previous Golden Age courses, the breadth of architects who have done high quality work is a sign of a positive future provided that Developers like Keiser, Parsinen, the O'Neills, and new ones continue to step up and provide a canvas for these artists to work. I realize that this look fairly dire now (there is a rumor about a really cool course in the works in Portland, OR) but things may turn for the better.

I think the gap between C&C, Doak and everyone else is there in terms of number of quality courses, but there are one and two offs that modern archies have done that are at least competitive with the two bellweather minimalist firms.

[Ronald Montesano]

If you are not C&C or Rennaissance, are you The Knack singing "My Sharonna"?  I think not.  Give the properties that the aforementioned geniuses were offered to any of the guys with one great course and you'll see their numbers grow.

In the first Golden Age, golf was so fresh, so new, that many architects could shine.  And, given the lack of earth-changing equipment, they couldn't do enough to screw up the sites. 

For the same reason, the first Golden Age had a bunch of architects who were doing more or less the same thing, although their bunkering and green sites do vary.  None were doing runway tees, heroic carries over water and amoeba bunkers.

Let's divide the architects working today into Golden Age-style and mid-century (a la RTJ) style.  Take some of the sites that Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones 2, Jones 3 and Hills have been given and turn them over to guys who think differently.  Once again, you don't have the gap.

Bombs away!

[Robert_Ball]

It should also be noted that the renovation/restoration work taken on by Doak and C&C has been very respectful of the Clubs that hired them.  From what I've seen they take great care to retain the original architect's design and the historical appeal of the course.  I think this has significantly helped them grow their brand and reputations.  Maybe I'm wrong but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a member at a course they've worked on (Piping Rock, Creek, Camargo, Pasa, Valley Club, Prairie Dunes, Lakewood, etc) who didn't think highly of their work.

They have a sincere appreciation for Golden Age design and their clients can tell.  Ditto Hanse, Whitman, DeVries and many others I'm not yet familiar with.

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:

Strangely enough, I don't think much of our consulting work has led to new work.  That may change in time, but a lot of the places we consult are old-money clubs which are not populated by potential developers.  I don't believe our consulting had any effect on getting the job at Pacific Dunes, and I know it didn't at Cape Kidnappers ... the only job I would partially attribute to our consulting reputation is St. Andrews Beach.  But, I'll have to amend that if I wind up getting a new project in Rio, as my friend here was the green chairman at Morris County in NJ 15 years ago when we met.

Forrest:

I think we would both agree that golf course architecture is no different than any other business ... the top brands are always overrated, and the real gap in quality between them and their competition is not nearly as wide as it is perceived to be or as the market says it is.

However while everyone here seems to focus on bunkers, I think the real gap between Coore & Crenshaw and us and most of the rest is our ability to route a course without ever hitting a dead end, but even more so, our detailing of greens.  I do not believe there have been that many architects in history who had the ability to build a great set of greens ... and those are all the guys who are famous today.  So while you may think that "architect X" is being unfairly criticized by the "in crowd", I would suggest that it is not just the name of the artist but the detail of greens shaping that creates the gap.

[JESII]

Phil Young,

Thanks - we're on the same page.

Todays leaders will leave an opening for someone else at some point and the cycle will continue.

I need to get out and see more of these guys work...both Stonewalls and Hidden Creek are the only ones I've seen from either of these teams.


Really intriguing comment, Tom, about green detailing...what is the education/training process to get to the top of that segment of the business?

[Michael Rossi]

As mentioned before, time on site by the GCA plays a large part but could the gap today be assisted by those GCA's that have the ability to not only design but have the ability to sculpt or have the best sculptors (shapers) working for them.

The best laid plans go out the window once the dozer drops its blade. As I understand it the projects that get the greatest praise have the GCA onsite to approve almost everything or the GCA get down and dirty themselves.

Of the projects past and present being considered the elite is this true? For the projects nipping at the heels of the elite are the GCA's as involved?

Tom do you change shapers or use the same guys for all your projects, does C&C?

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

Both Bill Coore and I have a handful of guys with whom we have worked for several years, as does Mike Clayton in Australia.  Jim Urbina worked for me 18 years, Bruce Hepner 17, Brian Slawnik 12, Brian Schneider 8, and Eric Iverson 7 [but Eric and I go back twenty years, too].  Those guys don't do all the shaping anymore, but the guys who assist [Kye Goalby and Jonathan Reisetter and four or five others at times] have all spent several years around us learning what we like and how to build it.  We do like to have a new face every once in a while, as we figure we may learn something from them or find another star in the making.

Of the guys I named, the only ones who could build a great green the day they started working for me were Schneider and Iverson; Brian had spent months on the maintenance crews of Pine Valley, Merion, Sand Hills, etc., and Eric had 10+ years on the equipment and enough time around great courses before he came over to us.  For everyone else, it's been a combination of learning to run the equipment while also being exposed to all of the great courses that we have consulted on, and putting the two together.  I really don't know that there are a lot of independent shapers out there with the latter expertise; most of them started on the dozer when they were young and have never worked on anything but modern designs.

Also, as Ian Andrew alluded a week or two ago, no great green is done when the guy gets off the dozer ... the green has to be finished with the same care with which it was created, and that is not going to happen in a very big company where the dozer guy has already moved on to the next project before the last one is complete.  The finish process is generally where anyone I know has learned the intricacies of building great greens ... it is a bunch of very finicky little details that have to be put back together just so.

[Michael Rossi]

Thanks Tom.

I thought (hoped) that would be your response.  Rod w and Jeff M do as you say with their team i believe, run the equipment and get down and dirty with the details. I know that Ian A has done so with his reno work. 

Did the golden age set of GCA's have the same depth in their teams? Did they or their right hand man do the details on their greatest work?

[Mike Hendren]

The dynamic Ran calls to our attention is reflective of similar changes in society and many professional or industrial endeavors.  The Marathon automobile was produced in Nashville from 1914 to 1918 at Southern Motor Works.  There were likely plenty of manufacturers producing quality automobiles in this early era.  What killed the company?  Perhaps a change in consumer taste, but more likely a lack of demand for other reasons.  

I throw out the following answer to Ran's question:  There is precious little demand for new great golf courses worldwide, and particularly in the U. S.  Possible reasons?  There are plenty of great golf courses in existence, many of which have capacity be they public or private.  Also, today's golfer places little, if any premium, on great architecture with affordability, ease of access and conditioning being of greater import.  In the case of private clubs, there is precious little correlation between wealth and golf course architecture acumen, emabling architects to "get away with" solid, though not great designs (think Fazio, whose work I like better than most, and his strong portfolio of 6 and 6.5 rated golf courses).

Also, I would agree that Doak and C & C lead the list of today's practicioners, but I am extremely reluctant to put them in the same company, as Ross, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Flynn, Raynor, Colt, Tillinghast because, as Vince Gill sings "everybody's crazy 'bout the next big thing."  It seems to be no course can be considered timeless without the benefit of time.  No better example exists than Old Macdonald, which has apparently broken into the World Top 50 before opening - a testament to the fact that Keiser and to a lesser extent Doak, are capable of generating terrific free PR - Doak in particular plays this web-site like a maestro. I do, however think that 50 years from now Doak will join that fraternity and while I am a huge fan of C & C I have yet to see the multiple dimensions in their work that Doak's work displays.  Talking Stick South suggests they're plenty capable and I must admit I have only seen a portion of their work.

MIke

[Ryan Farrow]

There are great comments here — to a thoughtful question. I like Nuzzo's idea that some clients do not "rush" the masters. I think that may be very true in some instances.

I believe it is a combination — twofold for the most part:  

(1) The work of Tom D. and Bill Coore is excellent, and their is great restraint to do anything mediocre. Even when an old project that may be less-than-ideal is unearthed, you will hear an immediate disclaimer. I applaud this by these two geniuses of golf design. It speaks volumes about their focus to great sites and great work.

(2) There is a strong bias toward certain architects — and a bias away from others. This is a very difficult theory to prove, but I have always felt my intuition about such things to be spot on. In all my travels, meetings, encounters, etc. with panelists, golf design enthusiasts, writers and others, I sense a certain "in crowd" that transcends the opinion of the common golfer. Call it what you will, it's probably a lot like the wine tasting of the elite wine tasters — simply put, there is a tendency to trash some very good work, not because of the work always, but who signed the artwork.

And, by the way, the second part of my thesis should not take away from the brilliance of those who are doing terrific work. But, I do believe it casts some light on the process of the lists that Ran refers to, and that we all rally around.

Forrest I have to disagree with your second point, yes, there is certainly a bias towards these guy's  but they earned it. I get sick to my stomach sometimes with the lovefest that goes on here sometimes  But if a golf course is good, it is good. I don't see people on here railing against "good" or "great" golf courses. They almost always get their due no matter who built them, or who signed their name. And If they don't get their props here, then its in the mainstream opinion of golfers and these courses stay busy and stay open. You can't say that about some of these "other" courses.

I'd like to hear of some of these "good" courses that get trashed just because of the architect.

[Tom_Doak]

Did the golden age set of GCA's have the same depth in their teams? Did they or their right hand man do the details on their greatest work?

Michael:

Most of them had a team of some sorts, some of whom got more recognition than others.  MacKenzie delegated a lot of his field work to associates like Hunter and Jack Fleming in California, Perry Maxwell at Crystal Downs, and Russell and Morcom in Australia.  Perry Maxwell also had the Wood brothers building his greens.  George Thomas had Billy Bell for a lot of his work.  Macdonald, of course, had Raynor, though there is no record of anyone doing greens shaping for them.  Hugh Wilson had William Flynn; the Fownes brothers had their superintendent, whose name escapes me today.  And Pete Dye had 100 different guys at various times, many of whom have gone on to do good things on their own.

Donald Ross had a number of associates and a number of construction foremen that supervised his courses -- but there is much argument today about who really did what or where the real talent lay.  I've heard no names associated with Tillinghast; I'll leave that question to Phil Young, but if he says it was all the master, take it with a grain of salt.

In some cases you could say these guys HAD TO have that sort of help because they got big and got busy, but that is another answer to this question.  I decided 8-10 years ago that it would be impossible to compete with the big names in the business if I only built 1 course per year, no matter how good it was; instead, I'd need to build 2-4 per year to have enough critical mass to compete directly with the best Fazio or Nicklaus course out of the ten they opened every year.  I think I had that figured right, and I think that will hold back a lot of the guys being mentioned as the ones waiting in the wings.  Perhaps now, with fewer courses being built, it will be easier for those guys to compete with the big names while only doing one course at a time; but then again, it's tougher today just to stay in business at all.

[Kalen Braley]

However while everyone here seems to focus on bunkers, I think the real gap between Coore & Crenshaw and us and most of the rest is our ability to route a course without ever hitting a dead end, but even more so, our detailing of greens.  I do not believe there have been that many architects in history who had the ability to build a great set of greens ... and those are all the guys who are famous today.  So while you may think that "architect X" is being unfairly criticized by the "in crowd", I would suggest that it is not just the name of the artist but the detail of greens shaping that creates the gap.

Tom,

Thats an interesting comment because of the 4 courses I've played of yours, the greens while really good, aren't what really stands out to me.  Its mostly the routing, specifically the nice variety of holes and the way in which they come at you always presenting some new challenge and puzzle to figure out with loads of options.

For example, 14-16 at RCCC.  3 consecutive par 4s that couldn't play more different from each other in terms of shot requirements, length, options, look, style, and all 3 are just super fantastic holes. 

Its this constant variety from one hole to the next, that rarely if ever gets repetitive that makes for fun rounds that never get stale.  I've seen very very few courses that accomplish this anywhere near as well as courses like Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, and RCCC.

[Mike_Young]

I like the work of both TD and CC and give them kudos for attaining the work they have attained....
It seems to me some of the answers are trying to answer the question:  Where is there such a gap within high end architecture?  and others answer the question : Where is there such a gap at the high end "of" architecture?   There is not much gap for the first question yet there is a huge gap relating to the second....

Here are some random thoughts on the matter...really random....
For the client they seek....
Talent/quality combined with good promotion will win out over  lesser talent/hype with great promotion all the time....

In the past 40 years most all signature firms have one thing in common...a professional golfer....Tom was able to develop a strategy and get his name out w/o such and that is quite a feat IMHO.....but as TD mentioned above re Pacific dunes....notoriety has to be achieved before one can get access to the great sites...

Both TD and CC seem to work best w/o bidding out the projects to large contractors...they have particular guys within that do the work.....I think the business model of the last 30 years whereby a tedious set of plans is justified so that a developer can bid the project to several general contractors who will build from a set of plans and not expect many site visits is not as viable as it once was....so often large quantities of paper have been used to justify fees and to make owners think they had more than they really had....part of this was a back scratch thing within the industry between the booming architect business and the contractor business....often a signature archie could tell the builder...Put #7 green from Weinerville National on the # 2 green site at Tater Salad Creek.  Do we ever hear much talk of Michealangelo's drawings of his statues etc....not much...people want the object.....same for golf courses....

The high end of architecture became a marketing business more so than a talent business....and so many within the organizations did not realize that the high fees were mostly marketing fees with a small portion being for design....

The high end of golf design is art first whereas many of the day to day projects are more technical, functional driven....and having said such how often have yo ever seen great art transcend from father to son....mentor to associate etc....rare...

More power to these guys that get these sites and as PM says..most importantly...these clients....and for the rest of us ...gotta just keep doin yo thing....

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Thats an interesting comment because of the 4 courses I've played of yours, the greens while really good, aren't what really stands out to me.  Its mostly the routing, specifically the nice variety of holes and the way in which they come at you always presenting some new challenge and puzzle to figure out with loads of options.

For example, 14-16 at RCCC.  3 consecutive par 4s that couldn't play more different from each other in terms of shot requirements, length, options, look, style, and all 3 are just super fantastic holes. 

Its this constant variety from one hole to the next, that rarely if ever gets repetitive that makes for fun rounds that never get stale.  I've seen very very few courses that accomplish this anywhere near as well as courses like Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, and RCCC.

Kalen:

A huge part of that is having such a great piece of property to work with, and a client who will let you put the variety of holes where they fit, instead of wanting you to make room for a road, or running up against a property line.  After that, it is just a question of being relentless, and never falling back on the fact that we've found some great holes as an excuse for others to be not as good.

I am convinced that another architect could have come up with excellent routings for all three projects you mentioned.  I am not convinced they would have put five talented guys out there to build each course, and built a set of 18 greens with the same variety as the golf holes themselves.  I do not think some others set the bar for success as high; by contrast, at Pacific Dunes I had already set the bar for myself ridiculously high; and since then it has been a point of honor for all of my associates to try to match or exceed that standard, and for me not to let down at all after working so hard to get here.

I was never so pissed off as in reading a GOLF Magazine panelist report last year in which some panelist opined that I "delegated too much" at Rock Creek.  It was right up there with when Cleve Trimble opined that I had already built my masterpiece in Bandon and did not think I could exceed it in Valentine.  Maybe that is the crack that the next young architect needs -- not something that we fail to do, but just the assumption of others that we will not be motivated to stay on top.  But how many people HERE really think that?


And a P.S. to Mike Young -- the other architect who had his own crew to do all the artwork, as you know, was Mike Strantz.  His guys did not go around seeing a lot of other golf courses, but they understood HIS style and were determined to get it just right.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

No salt needed! Tilly was more involved with the design process than the building. He made detailed models that he wanted to see followed as exactly as possible, but he used a number of construction guys who were known for their great hands-on work. Let me give you an example.

At Brook Hollow he used three different people to oversee construction and build the greens on three separate occasions. The original 1920 design was done by David Honeyman Jr. His father worked with old Tom Morris and Jr. came over and spent his early years in Mexico as a golf professional before getting invovled in construction. He also built a number of Tilly's Pennsylvania courses, among them Sunnehanna. When BH was redesigned and built anew in 1923 he used Frank Hughes, who also oversaw construction of a number of Donald Ross courses. In 1936, Tilly advised BH to redesign several greens during his PGA tour and recommended Perry Maxwell to the club to do the work. 17 greens would be redesigned and after they were finished in 1939, the club was so pleased with the work that they asked Maxwell to stay on and oversee a changeover of Bermuda to Seaside Bent grass for the greens. This was finished a year & a half later.

As a result of these mens talents, Brook Hollow's greens have always been recognized as outstanding.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

I had no idea all of those guys were involved at Brook Hollow.

I wonder if Coore & Crenshaw knew that when they were working on the Tillinghast course they were restoring a set of Maxwell greens.  They might well have known, but I don't remember them mentioning it anywhere.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

No one knew. All thought they were restoring the 1946 version of the Tillinghast greens. Now Tilly did do the redesigns for a number of the greens, but not all of them and they were all built by Maxwell. Another surprise is that 8 different architects have worked on BH through the years and this doesn't include a few changes done by the club itself. All this information and more was recently uncovered through a careful course evolution history that the club commissioned.

Still, the routing is almost all Tilly and the bunkering was restored well by C&C to the Tillinghast style.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()