[Jeff Dawson]

In an earlier post I opined that production houses build boring uninspiring golf courses. Taking a look at Golf Magazine World Top 100, 26 of the top 100 courses in the world were built post 1950. Frankly I am surprised that there were that many. Personally I think the list tops out at about 18 but that's for another post. If you think about it shouldn't modern golf courses dominate the top 100 since we have much better equipment, technology and know how. Even Fazio has said this era has been the best for golf course design.
Proving my earlier point that production houses seem not to pump out much in terms of quality....here is a list of the modern designers who made the top 100 and the number of courses they have on the list...

Fazio (0) shut out, zero, not one
Nicklaus (1) solo
Coore/Crenshaw (3)
Doak (4)
Dye (6)
Muirhead (1)
Fream/Dale (1)
Kidd (2)
Phillips (1)
Weiskopf/Morrish (1)
RTJ (2)
RTJ II (1)
Harmon (1)
Hills (1)
Hackett (1)

Is anyone else amused that Eddie Hackett has as many on the list as Jack.....

Another way to look at the quality of modern work is to see what percentage of a body of work by a designer is on the list.....

Fazio 0%
Nicklaus 0.7% (This number gives him credit for Dye and Muirhead work)
Coore/Crenshaw 17%
Doak 14%

Is this proof that production houses just don't turn out great golf or is it just a lack of imagination or even worse..... a lack of talent?

I guess mailing it in off the CAD just isn't working............

[John Moore II]

Well, thats not always true. Donald Ross was well known to build a great number of courses back in his time, many of which he saw the site hardly at all.

However, depending on which publication you read, those two designers have significantly more designs in a top 100 list.

It all depends on which list you read, my friend.

[Garland Bayley]

...Is anyone else amused that Eddie Hackett has as many on the list as Jack.....
...

Loving it Jeff, just loving it!

[jeffwarne]

Proving my earlier point that production houses seem not to pump out much in terms of quality....here is a list of the modern designers who made the top 100 and the number of courses they have on the list...

Fazio (0) shut out, zero, not one
Nicklaus (1) solo
Coore/Crenshaw (3)
Doak (4)
Dye (6)
Muirhead (1)
Fream/Dale (1)
Kidd (2)
Phillips (1)
Weiskopf/Morrish (1)
RTJ (2)
RTJ II (1)
Harmon (1)
Hills (1)
Hackett (1)

Is anyone else amused that Eddie Hackett has as many on the list as Jack.....



[/quote
actually that list is flawed...

Hackett's got at least 3-4 more that belong on that list.

[Rob Rigg]

Jeff - this is very entertaining!

Has anyone done the analysis on the "other" list?

If I had to pick one I think that Golf Mag is "better" because the GD list is full of stuff that has been sitting there for ages - like Sahalee or Eugene.

Always good to see fellow Oregonian David Kidd representing with as many or more courses than either of the RTJs, the Faz, Jack, etc.

I wonder if Hanse will crack the list with Castle Stuart, Kidd with add another with Mac Dunes, and Doak will add another with OM.

Further proof that even the magazines, who get ad revenue from "production house courses/communities" - or used to at least, recognize the superior value provided by an architect.

[Sean Leary]

How many of the moderns are not seaside or links...

[Mike_Young]

I am so sick of hearing these damn list discussed.  How many on here play at a top 100 club on any list?  Maybe 5???
How many on here enjoy the house they live in and are satisfied with it?  Yet do they think it is not an acceptable, comfortable good home because it is not on the list of top 10,000 homes in America?
How many drive a Camry, honda or other excellent quality vehicle but go home and write about the Maserati or Bentley blog/site
These list are subjective....they are for one thing...to sell magazines..oops two things..to also sell ads to the listees. 
Go play golf....for most of us there is a damn good golf course within 20 miles....

[C. Squier]

They also sell GCA's services apparently

http://www.mydgolf.com/press

[Wade Whitehead]

The Lists are so often dismissed (here) as inaccurate, or worthless, biased, or ill-informed unless, of course, they help prove a point.

WW

[Mike_Young]

They also sell GCA's services apparently

http://www.mydgolf.com/press

Clint,
You are correct..so they are there for three things....but I didn't pay for it
AND...I think I have said before and will say again that the industry and the game will be much better off when no one knows who the architect was...trust me ..list do me no good

[Tom_Doak]

They also sell GCA's services apparently

http://www.mydgolf.com/press

Busted ! 

Using the GOLF Magazine top 100 list is a pretty silly standard for judging a body of work.  99% of courses start with a 0.000001% chance of making that list.  But, I don't mind if you use it.

[Mac Plumart]

Say what you will about those lists, but Golfweek GA list is where I first heard of Longshadow.

You know what...they were right...it is one of the best public courses in the state.  IMO.

[Mike_Young]

They also sell GCA's services apparently

http://www.mydgolf.com/press

Busted ! 

Using the GOLF Magazine top 100 list is a pretty silly standard for judging a body of work.  99% of courses start with a 0.000001% chance of making that list.  But, I don't mind if you use it.

My post said I was sick of hearing list "discussed"  ......  I would rather hear about the cheater line....or something....but right now I am in the middle of a tornado warning....sitting in the doorway eating chocolate ice cream....while the siren goes off....

[Mike_Young]

Say what you will about those lists, but Golfweek GA list is where I first heard of Longshadow.

You know what...they were right...it is one of the best public courses in the state.  IMO.

Thanks Mac bu tI am afraid of the present conditions.....cheers

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff — You have an interesting post.

In order to complete the circle of your premise, you would need to:

1.  Assume the "lists" you cite are somehow authoritative for the purposes of your premise...maybe they are valid for this purpose  

2.  Assume, as someone suggested, that Ross and others were not "production houses" in their own right

3.  Make a leap of faith to conclude that the lists complied today somehow transcend eras — for example, how does a modern list "view" classic work versus modern work...how does the absence of lists from the 1930s affect our ability to look at lists today...and, what will the lists of the year 2042 look like? In 2042 will the "awful" work of the 1960s be regarded as "cool" and retro? Will the "production work" that is apparently so distasteful in modern times be the lava lamps of this new age?

 

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

You don't have to depend on any golf rag to give you the list. This website has already let it be known your assertion is true.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42368.0/

[B. Mogg]

Partner in Golf Club Atlas Advisory Services, a strategic advisory group focusing on club design, operations, golf course architecture and maintenance

From Mr Dawson's Blog......

Is Golf Club Atlas now in the golf design business?! Just curious is all......

[Mac Plumart]

Partner in Golf Club Atlas Advisory Services, a strategic advisory group focusing on club design, operations, golf course architecture and maintenance

From Mr Dawson's Blog......

Is Golf Club Atlas now in the golf design business?! Just curious is all......

I saw that as well and wondered if there was an outside entity related to this site that provided speical services.

[SB]

Fazio 0%
Nicklaus 0.7% (This number gives him credit for Dye and Muirhead work)
Coore/Crenshaw 17%
Doak 14%

By this analysis, Doak mails it in 86% of the time, and Coore/Crenshaw are uninspired 83% of the time.  Not terribly impressive.

In the US list, Fazio has 4 and Doak only has two.  I guess Tom mails it in for his US clients.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Thanks for that info. I guess I need to start blogging on financial management and cross posting my thoughts here on my own blog. (Full disclosure - some of my thoughts here do make it in modified form into my column in Golf Industry Magazine every month)

Jeff Dawson,

I still wonder if Top 100 lists are truly the way to judge a gca?  For instance, Fazio has dedicated his career to very aesthetic, very playable courses for wealthy, but presumably aging country club members, rather than being dedicated to designing only world class courses on spectacular sites. 

Is there anything wrong with designing a course you could play every day the rest of your life rather than what for most (other than apparently you) is an occaisional memorable golf round miles and time zones from your personal residence?

It seems like some berate gca's for building courses too tough (i.e., top 100) on one hand, and then beat them up for not trying to build a top 100 course in someones back yard for enjoyable every day play.

Forgetting the top names, how would you rank a Floyd Farley who brought affordable golf to the midwest throughout his career? While gca nuts obviously appreciate the top guys more, wasn't that a fairly noble calling for Farley?

[Garland Bayley]

...
It seems like some berate gca's for building courses too tough (i.e., top 100) on one hand, and then beat them up for not trying to build a top 100 course in someones back yard for enjoyable every day play.
...

I guess I just gave up my goal of playing Pac Dunes and Sand Hills as I now know they are too tough. I better play Old MacDonald before it gets to top 100 status and gets too tough.

[Sean_A]

Kelly,

Thanks for that info. I guess I need to start blogging on financial management and cross posting my thoughts here on my own blog. (Full disclosure - some of my thoughts here do make it in modified form into my column in Golf Industry Magazine every month)

Jeff Dawson,

I still wonder if Top 100 lists are truly the way to judge a gca?  For instance, Fazio has dedicated his career to very aesthetic, very playable courses for wealthy, but presumably aging country club members, rather than being dedicated to designing only world class courses on spectacular sites. 

Is there anything wrong with designing a course you could play every day the rest of your life rather than what for most (other than apparently you) is an occaisional memorable golf round miles and time zones from your personal residence?

It seems like some berate gca's for building courses too tough (i.e., top 100) on one hand, and then beat them up for not trying to build a top 100 course in someones back yard for enjoyable every day play.

Forgetting the top names, how would you rank a Floyd Farley who brought affordable golf to the midwest throughout his career? While gca nuts obviously appreciate the top guys more, wasn't that a fairly noble calling for Farley?

Jeff

Of course one should be comparing an archies work in terms of success by what the brief stipulated.  As you say, not all courses can be great and a great many were never intended to be great.  The problem with that is very people know what the archies' marching orders are nor what their budgets and endless other constraints are.  From this PoV I very much agree with awsHuckster.  This is why I have always thought it better to critically assess courses more from the perspective of how much would one like to go back given all the important criteria of the "rater" and consequently how highly (or not) would one recommend said course.  Trying to figure how good courses are just from a quality of design PoV is way beyond the realm of nearly everybody on this site and even everybody at times.  One day, folks will admit to this and be much more ready to acknowledge how much personal preference plays a role in these matters.  So far, all we can point to in deciding which courses are top dogs is weight of opinion - often times from so called experts.  I for one am not ready to rely on this method.  There are far too many instances of crazy shit happening based on weight of opinion.  

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

I love Jeff B's post.

Of the courses I've played, I rated Kiawah Ocean as my favorite.  I've only played it once, the wind was up to about 30 MPH, I was the only one on the course, it as a truly beautiful and sunny day...ideal conditions in my opinion.  Every shot was a challenge, every challenge seemed different and unique, with how the wind was the routing's quality was really highlighted.  I played excellent (given my 11.8 handicap and the conditions) and I had a blast and I can't wait to go back this summer.

BUT...........would I enjoy playing that course every day?  I often wonder about that...I think the answer is no.  But, of course, I am not sure.

However, I do love playing at St. Ives which is a Tom Fazio course 10 minutes from my house.  Tricky in spots with enough interest to keep me playing it and if I want a real challenge I can back up to another tee box.  If I want to work more on my short game...I move up.  The new greens keeper keeps the greens running between 10 and 11 with a real nice and true roll.  So that is nice to putt on.  And they are kept fairly soft to accept approach shots. 

St. Ives is fun to play and work on your game and enjoy a day with your friends.  Kiawah is a test of your game that I look forward to on an annual basis.

[Jeff_Brauer]

...
It seems like some berate gca's for building courses too tough (i.e., top 100) on one hand, and then beat them up for not trying to build a top 100 course in someones back yard for enjoyable every day play.
...

I guess I just gave up my goal of playing Pac Dunes and Sand Hills as I now know they are too tough. I better play Old MacDonald before it gets to top 100 status and gets too tough.

Typical stupid over reaction.....I did say that those kinds of courses are great for occaisional change of pace and special experiences. I enjoyed them when I went and trust you will to.

The question still remains as to why gca discussion focuses 99.99% on the .0001% of top courses and why (as a corrollary) we spend 99.99% of our actual gca discussions discussing how to stop the 0.0001% of golfers represented by the pro tour.

You guys often seem to think you have all the solutions to the world of golf's woes....have you ever considered that you are perhaps some of its biggest problems?  You demand courses you can't play!

BTW, every round of golf has a unique motivation, whether to see old friends, friendly competition, etc. Few like to get beaten by opponents, and fewer still like to get beaten up by the golf cousre, except on an occaisional basis.  Stats prove it, whereas opinions here don't.

[Jim Nugent]

One flaw in making this comparison iis that many modern architects haven't finished their careers yet.  How many top 100 courses will Doak have in ten years?  Won't surprise me if the number is 10, considering he already has at least six.  C&C may have a similar number.

On the other hand, I think you hit the nail firmly on the head about, e.g., Jack.  His firm can produce lots of real good courses.  But little to nothing that is inspired, and will ever crack the top 20, 30 or 100.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()