Statistics

[Ted Sturges]

I confess I don't get any golf magazines anymore.  I had viewed the Golf Magazine World and US Top 100 courses lists online this year.  I was in the dentist's office today and the September issue of Golf Magazine was in the waiting room, so I reviewed it during my longer than anticipated wait.  It was interesting to me that they included in their "the rank and file" section the stats about different architects and their "success percentage" for how many courses they have built vs. how many courses they have (currently) in the World Top 100.  David McLay Kidd leads the way at 16.7% (2 for 12), followed by Mr. Doak at 13.8% (4 for 29) and C & C at 13% (3 for 23).  They also listed the worst percentage list toppers, Gary Player at 0% (0 for 300+), Arnold Palmer at 0% (0 for 237), and Tom Fazio at 0% (0 for 199).

It got me thinking about how potential clients might view these stats.  My question to the panel is:  If you had an amazing piece of land, a piece of land you thought could produce a very special golf course, and you knew the above statistics...would you consider hiring Tom Fazio?  For the better part of two decades, he was "the man".  If you had plans to build a course, his name was at the top of your interview list.  Understand that he likely leads the industry in real estate sold on his golf projects...so I'm not saying that the land (in my hypothetical question above) is a real estate development property or not.  If that statistic had been published and understood by potential owners prior to 2013, would it have impacted the volume of projects he has garnered?  

I'm sure he is not happy that this particular statistic was published, and I'm wondering will it affect future business for him, or does he have a steady stream of new business year in and year out no matter what?

Just curious what everyone thinks about this.

I also wish they had published the stats for MacKenzie, Colt, Ross, Raynor, Tillinghast, Dye and others.  I think it is an interesting statistic to consider and assess the work done by these architects.

TS

[Matthew Petersen]

I'm certain Fazio would point to his percentage on the Golf Digest list, which is quite high.

[Mac Plumart]

It depends, Ted.

Is the owner trying to build a course that will garner a good membership base and/or lots of rounds played and, therefore, yield the base of a good business?

Or...

Does the owner want to place highly on the Top 100 lists and garner critical acclaim?

To answer the second question is easy, look at the lists.

To answer the first, you'd have to be privy to the financials of the clubs in question.  Maybe Fazio's courses build a nice foundation for good clubs?

[Howard Riefs]

I'm certain Fazio would point to his percentage on the Golf Digest list, which is quite high.

Furthermore, it's a non-representative stat for Fazio the bulk of his business is in the U.S.  He has only eight courses outside of the U.S.  

[Tom_Doak]

It's a pretty silly stat, since it depends mostly on the property you start with.

Also, I'm 5 for 29, unless they are giving Jim Urbina all the credit for Old Macdonald.  I think that puts my % slightly ahead of David's 

[JC Urbina]

Tom,

Just think, I am 1-1  That is pretty good in anybody's book.

Ted,  That would pass David, but as Tom suggests, who's is counting.   

 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

You're up there with G. Crump and W. Fownes, as long as you don't put your name on anything else.

[David Harshbarger]

Jim:

You're up there with G. Crump and W. Fownes, as long as you don't put your name on anything else.

No reason Jim can't keep hitting: 2-2, 3-3, 4-4.....

[Mike Nuzzo]

Updated List
Coore 5/23 = 22%
Tom 5/29 = 17%
Whitman 1/6 = 17%
Hanse 1/11 = 9%
Kidd 1/12 = 8%

I do like these the best
Player 0/300
Palmer 0/237
Fazio 0/199

Nicklaus 2/380 = 0.5% Credit for 1 goes in part to Desmond

[Jim Nugent]

Mike, is one of the other Nicklaus courses Harbour Town?  If so, Dye mostly designed that one. 

[Jud_T]

You'd think with 200+ courses built, most of which are higher-end projects, that just statistically you've gotta have at least 1.  Unless of course you're style is seen as dated and/or your work is simply sub par...

[Jim Nugent]

Jud, I think one reason Jack doesn't have more courses in the top 100 is that he does not spend much time on any one.  A few days, as I understand it.  Contrast that with Muirfield Village.  Like CBM and NGLA, or Ross and Pinehurst, Jack has worked MV over and over, for decades. 

Jack has gone back to the original Dismal River course, several times, and made lots of changes there.  By all reports, the course has greatly improved.  Would a number of GCAers now consider it top U.S. 100? 

I bet he could improve lots of his other courses, if he put in more time at them as well. 

[Jud_T]

Jim,

Wouldn't not spending sufficient time on a project qualify as sub par work by definition?  I'm not talking about spending 40 years getting every blade of grass right, but if a number of courses could be more than modestly improved with another visit or two.  Could the same be said for Palmer and Player's work? In fact, not to pick on Jack in particular, isn't this the hallmark of rent-a-player GCA?  Occasionally when a really good associate is involved, like say at Diamante, or when a player gets very attached to a project and spends sufficient time, good things can happen, otherwise you're simply paying for the designer name.

[David_Elvins]

It's a pretty silly stat, since it depends mostly on the property you start with.

Also, I'm 5 for 29, unless they are giving Jim Urbina all the credit for Old Macdonald.  I think that puts my % slightly ahead of David's 

Maybe they gave you half a point for co-designs? 

[Eric Smith]

A lot of ink for a silly stat.

[Ted Sturges]

To Jim Urbina:  I apologize for not putting you at the top of the list at 100% (1 for 1).  I agree with you...100% is good by anyone's measure.  Much better than the numerical nickname I gave you when you were building Quail Crossing (004).  "Mr. Bond".  (inside joke).  Do you still have that hat?

To Howard:  I don't think you understand the argument.  Agree that Tom Fazio's work has been focused on the US...but all the courses in the US are eligible to be in the Golf Magazine World Top 100.

To Tom Doak:  Thank you for correcting your totals that I took as gospel from the pages of Golf Magazine.  Though I agree with you that this is kind of a silly statistic, I don't believe it is irrelevant.  For Player, Palmer and Fazio to have zero in over 700 chances does reveal something.  Your argument that it all depends on the site you get is also revealing.  Great sites must be "earned" don't they?  You would not have gotten the Pacific Dunes site had you not produced outstanding results on sites prior to that one.  You would not have gotten some of the sites you have worked on after PD had you not produced the outstanding course you built there.  It's the chicken or the egg argument.  0 for 199 suggests lots of chances to earn the best sites the world can offer, as a swing and a miss.

[Andy Troeger]

Personally, Fazio being 0 for 199 just makes me further think that Golf Magazine's list misses many modern courses not designed by a few select designers. Even if Fazio designs a lot of "good but not great" courses, I think he has a few that should make that list, although Victoria National seems to only be liked by Golf Digest. Gozzer Ranch and Wade Hampton are good enough as well.

Pete Dye's stuff strikes me as equally (or even more) undervalued. Pete Dye GC isn't even in the top 100 in the USA.

[Ted Sturges]

According to The Architects of Golf (1981 edition) Dr. MacKenzie is credited with 49 original designs (not including par 3 courses or 9 hole courses).  I know there are mistakes in this book, but that has to be close to a correct number of original courses.  He is currently credited with 8 courses in the World Top 100, which is currently the most of any architect.  8 for 49 gives him a "winning" percentage of 16.3%.  Pretty amazing.

According to Wikipedia, Pete Dye is credited with 107 original designs.  He is currently credited with 5 courses in the World Top 100.  5 for 107 gives him a "winning" percentage of 4.7%.

According to the Tillinghast Association website, A.W. Tillinghast is credited with 99 original designs (not including 9 hole courses).  He is currently credited with 6 courses in the World Top 100.  6 for 99 gives him a "winning" percentage of 6.1%.

According to the Donald Ross Society website, Mr. Ross is credited with 394 original designs (not including his 9 hole and par 3 courses).  He is currently credited with 5 courses in the World Top 100.  5 for 394 gives him a "winning" percentage of 1.3%.  This provides hope that Tom Fazio might have a chance if he designs another couple of hundred courses.

According to Wikipedia, Harry Colt is credited with 115 original designs.  He is currently credited with 4 courses in the World Top 100.  4 for 115 gives him a "winning" percentage of 3.5%.

According to WORLDGOLF.com, Old Tom Morris is credited with 56 original designs.  He is currently credited with 4 courses in the World Top 100.  4 for 56 gives him a "winning" percentage of 7.1%.

One can argue that it is a silly statistic, but it is kind of interesting to ponder.  Mr. Ross has a low "success quotient" for building courses in the World Top 100, but he had a gigantic resume of course constructing.  Dr. MacKenzie's career, at the end of the day, may well stand alone in what he accomplished in his original design career.  The bottom line is it is a huge accomplishment for a golf course architect to have ONE course listed as among the 100 best in the world.  Anyone with more than one is a rock star.  Those with more than two get into rarified air indeed.  

TS

[Mac Plumart]

According to Wikipedia, Pete Dye is credited with 107 original designs.  He is currently credited with 5 courses in the World Top 100.  5 for 107 gives him a "winning" percentage of 4.7%.

Isn't it 6?

-The Golf Club
-Kiawah Ocean
-Harbour Town
-Casa de Campo (Teeth of the Dog)
-Whistling Straits
-TPC Sawgrass

[Mac Plumart]

If anyone is interested, I put together a list of the architects who have the most "unanimous gems".  That is courses that are rated by all major rating entities as Top 100 (Us And World lists)

http://mrpgolf.com/archies-by-gems

[Howard Riefs]

According to Wikipedia, Pete Dye is credited with 107 original designs.  He is currently credited with 5 courses in the World Top 100.  5 for 107 gives him a "winning" percentage of 4.7%.

Isn't it 6?

-The Golf Club
-Kiawah Ocean
-Harbour Town
-Casa de Campo (Teeth of the Dog)
-Whistling Straits
-TPC Sawgrass

Perhaps Pete doesn't get a full credit for Harbour Town as he shared the design credit with Nicklaus.

[Matt Kardash]

It's not really a fair playing field since the guys who are fairly early in their careers and have designed less courses have an easier chance in having a high percentage. Doak's 17% is only going to go down as he designs more and more courses. So to compare, for example, Doak at 29 courses, with Dye at 107 is kind of a stupid argument.
Also, the current top designers are obviously "trendy", just as Dye and Fazio were trendy in the 70s and 80s and had inflated stats.
You need to be decades removed to have better perspective of things.

[Mark Chaplin]

Matt I think you are spot on with trends. Also modern architects have higher levels of failed projects but then that's a reflection on he economy and not their work!

[Steve Kline]

Using the the Top 100 from any rating group is the wrong starting point because there can only be 100 courses eligible to earn the architect anything. But there are far more than 100 courses I would be willing to play. A much better way to look at an architect's success would be to rate all of his courses on the Doak scale (or some equivalent) and calculate the percent of courses that are 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 or below. Obviousy a guy like Ross is going to have a much smaller percent using the top 100 than a guy like Mackenzie - the math destines it to be so because Ross designed so many courses. But, Ross could have a plethora of courses rated 7 or 6, which also says something very important.

[Ted Sturges]

Using the the Top 100 from any rating group is the wrong starting point because there can only be 100 courses eligible to earn the architect anything. But there are far more than 100 courses I would be willing to play. A much better way to look at an architect's success would be to rate all of his courses on the Doak scale (or some equivalent) and calculate the percent of courses that are 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 or below. Obviousy a guy like Ross is going to have a much smaller percent using the top 100 than a guy like Mackenzie - the math destines it to be so because Ross designed so many courses. But, Ross could have a plethora of courses rated 7 or 6, which also says something very important.

Steve,  I agree with you on this.  I would love to know how many 6's, 7's, 8's etc. all of the top guys have produced.  Ran and I were toying with putting out a greatest architects of all time ranking earlier this year.  Our starting point was going to be how many courses each has placed in the current World Top 100 (you've got to start somewhere).  This would be a measure of what they did with their great sites.  My idea from there was to then make a list of how many "Doak 7's or higher" they built in their career, which would speak to the depth of their work, as well as what they were able to build on some of their less than stellar sites.  In the end, we kind of gave up because we felt we were not going to be able to get an accurate statistic on the # of Doak 7's or higher, because...for example, there is no way we are going to be able to see ALL of Ross's courses.  I would predict that he leads everyone in the depth category, but we didn't want to just assume that...we wanted to be more precise.  If we had that data, we were going to then try to produce a list of the all time greatest architects (which I think would be fun to do) based on the quality of their "best" work, and some sort of measure of the depth of their work.

TS

[Tags:]

Tags: