[JMorgan]

What are they? 

Anyone care to outline the weighting of work done towards design ownership of a course?

Seems like a pretty straightforward methodology.

Why don't we have a point of reference here on GCA?

If we have reached a point in our understanding of golf architecture history where with regard to every extant course we can say to what extent an architect worked on a course and specify what was created by whom, then isn't it time to establish a database that determines without a doubt who designed Course X, starting with A?

[Steve Burrows]

I am not sure that it matters.  Or at least it SHOULDN'T matter.

Too often people get hung up on having this one particular name or company to assign credit or blame for a given design.  To me, this only works if that single person quite literally designed and constructed the golf course with the help of absolutely no other outside agency.  But this will never be the case.  So many people are involved in the design and construction of a golf course, in the same way that many people are involved in the design and construction of any other architectural structure.  I can say with some degree of certainty, for example, that Richard Meier did not single-handedly design and build the Getty Center in Los Angeles, or (to bring this back to landscape oriented design) the same for Andre Le Notre at Vaux-le-Vicomte in France.  Or, who cares that FDR was an "architect" for the New Deal?  Throughout history, the tendency has been to remember only one name, to glorify and even deify, that one person.  What about the millions of people who slaved away to make it happen? 

Ultimately, though the vision of the one person may be noteworthy, I think that such rigid attention to detail on attribution is unfairly beneficial to that person, and is subsequently demeaning to those who make an honest contribution to the project: the contractors, the day laborers, the CAD monkeys, the administrative assistants, etc.  What is the real value in declaring that it is a "Thomas" golf course, or a "Fowler" golf course?  In the end, it is simply a golf course.         

[Sean_A]

I am not sure that it matters.  Or at least it SHOULDN'T matter.

Too often people get hung up on having this one particular name or company to assign credit or blame for a given design.  To me, this only works if that single person quite literally designed and constructed the golf course with the help of absolutely no other outside agency.  But this will never be the case.  So many people are involved in the design and construction of a golf course, in the same way that many people are involved in the design and construction of any other architectural structure.  I can say with some degree of certainty, for example, that Richard Meier did not single-handedly design and build the Getty Center in Los Angeles, or (to bring this back to landscape oriented design) the same for Andre Le Notre at Vaux-le-Vicomte in France.  Or, who cares that FDR was an "architect" for the New Deal?  Throughout history, the tendency has been to remember only one name, to glorify and even deify, that one person.  What about the millions of people who slaved away to make it happen? 

Ultimately, though the vision of the one person may be noteworthy, I think that such rigid attention to detail on attribution is unfairly beneficial to that person, and is subsequently demeaning to those who make an honest contribution to the project: the contractors, the day laborers, the CAD monkeys, the administrative assistants, etc.  What is the real value in declaring that it is a "Thomas" golf course, or a "Fowler" golf course?  In the end, it is simply a golf course.         

Steve

I am afraid that is the way of the world.  Pick a field and credit inevitably boils down one or a small group of people.  A great many are necessarily left off the list if only for convenience sake.  I sort of like how movie credits are and I am envisioning this sort of thing one day, but for the most part, people don't care.  It would be cool if when archies listed works completed on web-sites that more detail was included, but again, for the most part, people don't care about that stuff.

J

I am not convinced folks do now enough about very many projects to be specific and as you can see on this site, there is obviously not a clear way to go about with attribution.  Personally, I think it would be nice if the original archie was always mentioned along with any major (what is major?) redo archies and separate archies (from different companies) were also mentioned if they redid a few holes or whatever.  I never like an associate/partner archie within a firm a being credit when there is a head cheese about unless the head cheese gives the credit to the associate/partner. The head guy gets the credit unless he OFFICIALLY (not some lark about a three sentence blurb from a newspaper 75 years old) gives the credit away.  However, if possible, I think the name in bold letters should be one and only one name.

Ciao 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

JMorgan

Read the North Shore thread.

It's a case by case situation IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

J -

The name in bold (to borrow Sean's phrase) belongs to the man who routed the course.

Period. Full Stop. End of story.

After that comes the name(s) with an asterick -- all those who have contributed since that original routing.

And, since we're not worried about saving ink or type-set, the number of names with astreicks is limited only by our knowledge of the facts. Every renovation or restoration large-scale or small can be listed, in chronological order.

That's what a full/accurate attribution should look like, it seems to me.

Others can then feel free to debate the relative importance of each of the contributers to the quality of the current course. That debate can be endless and acrimonious and fun -- but it isn't about attribution.

Peter    

[Tom MacWood]

JMorgan
Why do you need rules? Are there rules in architecture?

[Ian Andrew]

I am not sure that it matters.  Or at least it SHOULDN'T matter.

It matters because it’s our work and experience that brings us work. It matters because it’s this which helps define our legacy as an artist. It matters a great deal.


Let’s start with the idea of renovation and restoration. In any restoration, the restoring architect should never get credit for the work. The original architect should be the only one listed. I think that an architect must fundamentally change before there is any credit given. Bunker work, grassing work, tees or even rebuilding a few greens is not enough. For me the grey line of indecision begins with rebuilding all 18 greens or building more than 3 holes. That’s my line to where credit begins to be given, but I’ve always thought the secondary role should be made clearer. I have never worked on a renovation or restoration project where I should be listed and I have built or rebuilt a number of holes.

I have always believed that whoever routed the golf course should be given design credit for the course. Routing is so essential that even just a routing is enough to be listed as the designer or co-designer. I think if another architect (a different designer or from with-in the firm) picks up the entire project including design work from a “stick” routing, they should get credit as a “co-designer.” On the other hand, I think if the architect is in the field on behalf of the firm, but did not have a hand in the conception of the holes; they should not get credit. I’ve been involved in both scenarios.

I think if an associate has laid out the course and taken it to completion on behalf of a company they should get design credit. Hurdzan Fry is a firm that handles this well, where they name themselves as the architects of record and then name the individual designer. I always thought this is a wonderful way of giving credit where credit is due. I have been involved in this scenario and received no credit.

As a researcher and historian, I always want to find the architect who actually should be given credit rather than just listing the most popular architect as the architect of record. This practice pisses me off because so legacies are being ruined through the practice. Since we want to learn from architects, its very important to have an accurate body of work to understand. If the accreditation is wrong, it can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the architect’s philosophy or body of work. While unlikely, it could influence other work at other clubs.

So why does this matter? Well to some it does not, whereas to others like me it does matter. Sometimes the credit issue can be the wedge that drives a company apart. I like to receive the credit for the work I do, whether it was for my former employer, or work I’ve done on my own. I use my legacy to get new work, so this really matters a great deal. I’m proud of what I do and I think it is important that people know what I have done so I get the proper consideration for new projects.

It matters a lot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm with Ian. Hell yeah, it matters!

Now granted, when about 29,990 of 30,000 golfers a year at one of my affordable muni courses don't care at all, but just enjoy the day, in part because of my work, in that sense it doesn't matter at all.  But it matters to a few golfers, and it matters to those of us seeking more work in the same field.

And, while I am generally sympathetic to giving partial credit to those on my staff who did so much leg work, I am also leery of divvying it up too much.  If an associate routes a course, using my office space, errors and omissions insurance, reputation, and guidance (which you can never really guage in most offices....who knows what teaching and training, or one idea or comment spurs the routing in the right direction?) he has done some good work, but could never have done it without that framework (or at least couldn't at that time)


Young associates (and lots of others) do love to claim a rightful share of credit, but in the end, the head of the office with the contract to do the work should get 90% of it (or more) for really making it happen and taking responsibility.  Its like pilots getting credit even when 90% of the flight is on autopilot - they are still responsible when things go wrong.  Success has a thousand mothers, but failure always rests with the top guy.  No associate ever admits to having worked on a project that came out poorly!  But everyone wants an exagerated piece of credit for the work on the good projects, whether they were on site a day or a year.

BTW, I do like to know, as much as anyone sort of the methodology and who did what kind of stuff.  But, the above is why I kind of disagreed with Tom MacWood on the North Shore thread about crediting White along with Raynor when Raynor had the contract to design the course. Yes, many people have input, which is interesting backstory.  But, if Raynor had a legal contract to design the course, its a simple matter to say he designed the course.  Following the "no rules" theory of attribution is fine, but with all the competing agendas (like White trying to build his credentials in all areas of golf) it is easy to distort the picture (based on my experience)

I am sure Raynor then, and guys now want to get the credit for the work they do.  I know that applies to associates, but in the end, if they want the credit, they need to go out on their own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm agree with Sean, Steve and Peter.

I also think that the router deserves the primary credit.

But what happens when the routing is altered, such as at Belmont or Plainfield ?

JMorgan,

So many courses get altered internally, making it next to impossible to define and/or determine attribution.

As Steve points out, North Shore is a good example of how much we didn't know.
And, attribution should be on a case specific basis, not a general basis.

I also agree with Tom MacWood in that there's no need for rules, just common sense and impeccable research.

[Mike Cirba]

What if multiple people, such as a comittee, do the routing?

Isn't the bottom line simply that whoever is responsible for decision-making and results where the buck...and the credit...should rest?

[Patrick_Mucci]

What if multiple people, such as a comittee, do the routing?

Mike,

Do you know of a golf course where a committee did the routing ?

Isn't the bottom line simply that whoever is responsible for decision-making and results where the buck...and the credit...should rest?

NO,

That's the developer, ie, Mike Keiser, Kenny Bakst, Roger Hansen, etc., etc..

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Many courses were routed by a committee, or more than one individual.

Pine Valley, Merion, and Cobb's Creek come immediately to mind, as does NGLA.

As far as your other contention in terms of responsibility, are you saying we should change the design attribution of all of the courses at Bandon to Mike Keiser, and change the attribution of Sand Hills to Dick Youngscap?

No, instead, the person responsible for the design of any course is the person who is asked to design the course.   It's that simple.   

Even if someone designs their own course on their own land they've made a conscious decision to assign that responsibiility to themselves, and not someone else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are always some outside inputs, from owners, managers, supers, design associates.  I use the term "primarily responsible" as my guideline.  As described above, if that is a gca firm, then the head(s) of that firm get the credit. 

The owner and associates (and shapers and ditch diggers) will have to settle for knowing deep down that they made a positive contribution to the project.  That said, most gca's will freely give some credit to those who really helped.  And that said, even when someone puts out a great idea, someone else still has to mesh it with others and flesh it out to really be the final product.

[JMorgan]

From Ian and Jeff's responses (thanks for your real-world perspective), it does seem as if attribution matters quite a bit -- at least to the person creating the course.  If you're in business and (as KBM and Tom D., too, pointed out in a former thread on crowd-sourcing GCA) you depend on your name to garner business and feed your family and keep your creative spirit alive, then attribution matters.  I can't see how it could be otherwise.

From the perspective of someone who enjoys sussing out who did what work on a course, esp. when that person is responsible for creating something that overwhelms me on an emotional and/or intellectual level, attribution matters. 

Similarly, if I like a song, I want to know who wrote it, who played on it, who produced or engineered it.   Ditto other artforms.

Steve, your North Shore work is a good example of studying each course on a case by case basis.  If attribution did not matter, John Newport wouldn't have that story. 

Pat, I do think it's worth the effort to tease out those changes to the architecture. Steve's adventure (or George Bahto's lifetime CBM/Raynor/Banks passion, Phil Young's Tillie research, Neil Crafter's recent Mackenzie stuff, Joe and Mike's Cobb Creek work, etc. ad infinitum majority of threads on the site) demonstrates that it is possible. 

But it still does not dismiss the need to determine who did what work on a course and how one establishes some sort of heuristic outside of common sense, which is not always "common" from person to person.

Tom M, certainly one does not systematically design and build a course according to prescribed "rules" of golf architecture, but design attribution has little to do with how the creative process unfolds, and more to do, broadly, with the end results of and subsequent changes to that process.   

From the tenor of other attribution threads, one would imagine that there aren't many mysteries left out there, which is obviously, as Sean notes, not the case. 

Thanks for providing a methodological starting point, Peter and Sean.  For me, too, the soul of the course is established with the routing and with the sequencing of individual hole designs within the original routing; owners may or may not make modifications to individual holes over time, alter the original routing, redo holes in part or whole, etc.  All of these activities change the course in some manner and affect one's GOLF EXPERIENCE, no? 

[Peter Pallotta]

"For me, too, the soul of the course is established with the routing and with the sequencing of individual hole designs within the original routing; owners may or may not make modifications to individual holes over time, alter the original routing, redo holes in part or whole, etc.  All of these activities change the course in some manner and affect one's GOLF EXPERIENCE, no?"

I think they certainly do, JM. I'd say they might even radically alter the design itself, and could either markedly improve (at least from one perspective) or significantly mar (at least from a later perspective) the inherent quality of the golf course and its design.

BUT - those seem to me to be fundamentally different questions from one that asks about attribution.  (And I won't quibble with Mike C about whether the original router and name in bold could/couldn't be a committee).  

Yes, I can easily imagine an instance in which the 'building up' of the design in later years and by other architects -- e.g. the adding of fairway bunkers in ingeniously strategic places, the altering of green contours such that shots 'work backwards', making positioning off the tee more important than ever before -- could in a very real sense effect the GOLF EXPERIENCE profoundly.

But we're not talking about that -- or at least I don't think we are -- or at least I don't think we should.

I think we're talking about the essential bones of the original course, of the original design -- its flow and the way it used the land and the way it alternated required shots etc etc. In short, we're talking about the ROUTING.

And so, if we want to create a definitive list of ATTRIBUTIONS, it seems to me that the one name in bold has to be that of the original architect -- or committee -- that routed the ORIGINAL course.

After that, as I say, I see no reason at all not to list every other person who worked on the course with an asterick next to his name and as much detail as possible on what they did.

THEN, after this stage is done, we can have all the discussions we want about the QUALITY and PLAYABILITY of the CURRENT design, and have all the arguments we want about who of the many who had a hand in the development of the current iteration should get most credit for it.

But again, that seems to me a different question.

Peter      

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Many courses were routed by a committee, or more than one individual.

Pine Valley, Merion, and Cobb's Creek come immediately to mind, as does NGLA.

Pine Valley doesn't count as GC died prior to completing the course.

With Merion, no one knows who actually routed the course.

With regard to NGLA, there's no documented evidence that anyone other than CBM routed the golf course.



As far as your other contention in terms of responsibility, are you saying we should change the design attribution of all of the courses at Bandon to Mike Keiser, and change the attribution of Sand Hills to Dick Youngscap?

NO,

That was a response to a post you made, where YOU STATED :

Isn't the bottom line simply that whoever is responsible for decision-making and results where the buck...and the credit...should rest?


Evidently you didn't read my post correctly.  It was in the context being a response to another post implying that  [/color]

No, instead, the person responsible for the design of any course is the person who is asked to design the course.   It's that simple.

That's NOT what you stated previously.
You're contradicting yourself.  

Even if someone designs their own course on their own land they've made a conscious decision to assign that responsibiility to themselves, and not someone else.

If someone designs their own course, on their own land, then, they're the architect of record.

[Tom_Doak]

JMorgan:

I tried to outline my own thoughts on this somewhere deep within the North Shore thread, but that is now buried under an avalanche of posts.

It is unfortunate, but I don't think there can be a simple rule of thumb for the question of credit.

While I am quick to second others' thoughts on the importance of routing a course well, sometimes that just isn't the whole story.  A few examples:

1.  George Cobb routed Harbour Town.  Pete Dye's creativity turned it into something very different.

2.  As Kelly suggested, Tom Fazio did the routing for the original course at Stonewall.  I changed a few holes of it, so according to Ian's rules, we should share credit.  But Tom Fazio is not going to WANT the credit for it, both because he had no control over the finished product, and because he doesn't want to let Stonewall use his name for free.  And the changes I made DID matter.

3.  Several well-known player-architects have very likely NEVER routed any of the hundreds of courses done in their names.  They pay the guys who do those routings to stay in the background; and the guys who do the routings sometimes have very little to do with the project after that point.

So, a simple rule is going to miss the boat in all kinds of circumstances.

As for heaping the credits onto multiple individuals, I have no problem with sharing credit; I only have a problem with the inconsistency of it.  When Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones take full credit for the hundreds of courses they've done, my sharing the credit six ways on the 29 I've done is just not an apples-to-apples comparison of our roles.

Not so long ago there were thousands of courses where no one really knew the lead architect, much less who played the key roles in running the project or shaping the greens and so forth.  And despite all of the megabytes devoted to the subject on Golf Club Atlas, it is still difficult or impossible to determine whether certain historical figures had an influence on the design of certain historical courses -- so, they are rightly, largely ignored in the conversation.  

While I know there are some here who love to dig and to question the attributions we've lived with for so long -- and sometimes bring new information to light -- I think it's largely a fruitless exercise if you apply that standard to just a few famous golf courses and not to all the others.  You are likely to imply in the process that the greats of years past had less to do with their masterpieces than with their other projects, when the truth is often the opposite -- they had more to do with these few courses, but there are just a lot more people competing for a little piece of those particular pies.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It is so, so inconsistent.... I'm looking in to some of the Irish courses and to say who had the biggest influence is almost impossible in many cases (and that's even without knowing all the back-room names)...

To give credit to the person who routed the course is also almost impossible in many cases, the primary two cases that come to mind so far being Lahinch (see the photo-thread on this page) and Ballybunion.... So many significant routing changes were made at these courses that attribution is meaningless...

My aim with The Irish courses is simply to try and log all the changes the courses have undergone in to a coherent prose, looking at pure Design aspect (routing, visibility, safety, strategy, bunkers, length), Site aspects (vegetation, erosion, changes in topography) and Maintenance aspects (all the usual suspects)...

With newer courses, all you can do is note the changes and let history and marketing decide... People will always put spin on things... or go for the easiest answer...

From a professional development point of view from GCAs, attribution is a different matter...

[Tom MacWood]

JMorgan
The field of Architecture has been at this a lot longer than Golf Architecture, what rules does Architecture follow with attributions?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Many courses were routed by a committee, or more than one individual.

Pine Valley, Merion, and Cobb's Creek come immediately to mind, as does NGLA.

Pine Valley doesn't count as GC died prior to completing the course.

With Merion, no one knows who actually routed the course.

With regard to NGLA, there's no documented evidence that anyone other than CBM routed the golf course.



As far as your other contention in terms of responsibility, are you saying we should change the design attribution of all of the courses at Bandon to Mike Keiser, and change the attribution of Sand Hills to Dick Youngscap?

NO,

That was a response to a post you made, where YOU STATED :

Isn't the bottom line simply that whoever is responsible for decision-making and results where the buck...and the credit...should rest?


Evidently you didn't read my post correctly.  It was in the context being a response to another post implying that  [/color]

No, instead, the person responsible for the design of any course is the person who is asked to design the course.   It's that simple.

That's NOT what you stated previously.
You're contradicting yourself.  

Even if someone designs their own course on their own land they've made a conscious decision to assign that responsibiility to themselves, and not someone else.

If someone designs their own course, on their own land, then, they're the architect of record.

Patrick,

Now that's just silly contrarianism for it's own sake.

Even the most blindly-biased Macdonald-phile scrambling for a hint of evidence that CBM did some of the routing would have to concede that Richard Francis routed at least some of the holes at Merion (if you recall his "midnight ride" to Lloyd's house), and George Crump routed some holes while HS Colt did some others WHILE Crump was alive, and weren't you one of those buying into the romanticized, historically-disproven theory that CBM AND Whigham routed NGLA in a day or two on horseback so they knew exactly what parts of the property to purchase, and you completely ignored my Cobb's Creek example, and besides,  there are countless other examples of multiple individuals involved in routing golf courses so let's just move forward and bog down this otherwise interesting thread. shall we?    

[TEPaul]

"With regard to NGLA, there's no documented evidence that anyone other than CBM routed the golf course."


Patrick:


With regard to NGLA, there is no documented evidence either that only CBM routed the golf course. If you think there is then where is that documented evidence and what is it?  Show it to us if you think that evidence actually ever existed. 

[JMorgan]

And for the very reasons pro and con and nebulous stated above, there should be a methodology, which suggests multiple steps and rules plural, to make attributions.  Eighteen holes, finite combinations over a period of time from start date to present, even if it is on a course by course basis.  The rules sift out with the examples.

All of us use some form of decision-making in saying CBM or Hugh Wilson or "Cobb but really Dye" designed this or that course, etc., so why is such an idea outlandish or difficult?   These heuristics are built into our brains so it's not such a stretch!   

I'm not saying it is a simple process, for then we would not have so many threads on this discussion board to reference (dare I mention Merion?) or countless books, magazine issues, etc. 

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, JMorgan.

Rule #1 -- For the first ten to twenty years of the course's existence, the designer of record is whomever the owner says it is.

Rule #2 -- After that, all hell breaks loose.

Rule #3 -- Long-term, the guy who routed the course and the guy who made the final call on the shaping of the greens are the ones who should be recognized.  Bunkers are just window dressing on most courses, so moving them counts for nothing.

Rule #4 -- Anyone who has changed the routing of more than two holes, or rebuilt and changed more than two greens, should receive redesign credit.  I suggest that "changes" qualifying for attribution should be EXPENSIVE changes, so that architects will not be tempted to make little changes in order to attach their name to a famous course.  [I'm sure someone will be SHOCKED that I insinuated such a thing, to which my response is:  www.reesjonesinc.com ]

[Ally Mcintosh]

As an example (whether correct or not), I believe EIGCA attribute redesign status on their website to an architect who has redesigned 3 holes or more (as Tom suggests)... meaning rerouting or entirely new green complexes I would imagine...

In the end though, it's all fruitless, isn't it?

Attribution is only good to the club who is trying to sell green fees / memberships or to the architect who is trying to sell himself for the next project... And it will be others who have more power in deciding how to promote the work they've done anyway...

You don't become a GCA to have a course "attributed" to you... You become one because you love the process of designing courses...

I undertook looking in to the Irish courses not to get the right attributions in place but to work out exactly how the courses have evolved at the hand of man...

[Carl Johnson]

Okay, JMorgan.

Rule #1 -- For the first ten to twenty years of the course's existence, the designer of record is whomever the owner says it is.

Rule #2 -- After that, all hell breaks loose.

Rule #3 -- Long-term, the guy who routed the course and the guy who made the final call on the shaping of the greens are the ones who should be recognized.  Bunkers are just window dressing on most courses, so moving them counts for nothing.

Rule #4 -- Anyone who has changed the routing of more than two holes, or rebuilt and changed more than two greens, should receive redesign credit.  I suggest that "changes" qualifying for attribution should be EXPENSIVE changes, so that architects will not be tempted to make little changes in order to attach their name to a famous course.  [I'm sure someone will be SHOCKED that I insinuated such a thing, to which my response is:  www.reesjonesinc.com ]

Why is it that what Tom says always seems to make the most sense?  The only thing I would add (purely as a personal view and not to challenge Tom's perspicuity), as rule #5, is "Repeat Rule #2."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()