Most influential architecht

[Phil Lipper]

I was reading the thread that someone started on the most successful architect and a rephrase of the question came to mind.   Who is the most influential golf course architect?   Who is the person people study with fascination, learn from and emulate? My initial thought was CB McDonald but the more I though about much of what he did was to bring great Scottish concepts to the US.

[JESII]

Phil,


Not sure I have an opinion, but your explanation of what CBM did seems pretty good supporting evidence to support him in your question...but, you qualified him with a BUT...


Do you not think identifying, explaining, highlighting and reproducing the hole concepts he did has had a lasting impact on GCA for the better?

[Angela Moser]

Phil, I would have a go with Pete and Alice Dye. Not just because they revolutionized the industry, but furthermore educated more than half of the guys who are successful now. The insights you again while working with them... they nfluenced everybody who is "big" now.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil -
Something happened, I think, that inaugurated the golden age in GB&I -- a shift/evolution in thought whereby golf course architecture became a 'self-conscious' art-craft, a legitimate profession based on articulated principles and philosophies and ideals. Bob C will know far better that I, but I think the writings of John Low drove (or at least captured and formalized) this evolution. And I think the architect who was just young enough to be among the first to embrace/participate in this shift would have to considered the most influential -- since, while styles come and go and needs evolve and equipment changes, the constant over the last 100 years has been this self-understanding on the part of golf architects about the nature of their work/art-craft. Which is to say, I'd venture it was Colt who was perfectly situated in time and place to 'leverage' and actualize this evolution.
Peter

[Phil Lipper]

The comments so far are what causes me to wonder about this. CB helped spawn a golden age of architecture, and is the father of American architecture, but was he really an innovator (other than the fact he did it in the US).
When I think about great sports coaches I always think about their coaching tree which is what creates the lasting influence. That gets me thinking about Pete Dye.  But I guess the more I think about it I guess you really have to go to the beginning and say its Old Tom Morris.
 

[Thomas Dai]

Those who have just unwrapped the Sept edition of 'Through the Green', the BGCS magazine, will find on p22 an article about a chap called Alexander (Alister) McHardy.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Depends where you are. Where I grew up probably the good doctor but where I am now it has to be Braid. However, I would suggest Colt overall.


Jon

[Tim Gallant]

The comments so far are what causes me to wonder about this. CB helped spawn a golden age of architecture, and is the father of American architecture, but was he really an innovator (other than the fact he did it in the US).
When I think about great sports coaches I always think about their coaching tree which is what creates the lasting influence. That gets me thinking about Pete Dye.  But I guess the more I think about it I guess you really have to go to the beginning and say its Old Tom Morris.

Phil,


I don't think CB's influence, whether direct or indirect can be overstated. He didn't just copy a bunch of holes and bring them to a new land.


From an architectural standpoint he was arguably one of the first to qualify the merit of a particular hole from a strategic point of view. He didn't just identify the best holes in the UK, he actually found ways in which they could be improved. Despite what many thought was a silly idea, his vision of what a golf course could be outside the UK set the standard that still shines today.


Reading further into your question, it's 'who is the most influential golf course architect', CB's contribution to the game of golf, again, has few peers. At a time when the game could have fractured into different styles with numerous sets of rules and guidelines, he ensured that the game in the States followed that of St Andrews. If it wasn't for CB, the game in the States would look very different; likely with different equipment, and rules, not to mention sub-par golf courses.


Some could make an argument for Old Tom, but if courses were kept in their original Old Tom state, I don't think they would stand the test of time quite like those of CB. Further, Old Tom certainly didn't have the influence on the game from a political standpoint. Sure, he and Young Tom inspired the next generation of golfers (and influenced CB himself!), but I would still argue that without CB, the game around the world would not be as it is today, and further, that the quality of golf courses would not be the same outside the UK.

[Garland Bayley]

John Laing Low. He was the firstest with the mostest. As Harry Colt once said, the only opinion about my golf courses that matters is John Low's.


Bob

[Sean_A]

I don't even think its close...Colt in a landslide.  The style of course he built became the overwhelming blueprint for golf design to this day.  The bottom line is most of the good to great courses after Colt became prominent essentially look like Colt courses.  This doesn't even touch on how he ran a business and his work with grassing/seeds.

Ciao 

[Adam Lawrence]

I agree with Sean, which won't come as a surprise. For me, Colt basically created the profession of golf course architecture. He was the first man to make his living solely from designing courses, and his design principles largely still endure today.


Bob -- Low was highly influential, but it's a tough call to identify him as a golf course architect. 'Design theorist' and I'm with you.

[BCrosby]

Another vote for Harry Colt.

Colt was not just among the first to implement the rethinking of golf architecture that took place about 1900, he implemented those new ideas so well that his courses are still models for good design.

The more I learn about Colt the more impressed I am. Particularly when you see old photos of his courses. He took all sorts of design risks not normally associated with him, many of which have been lost to bad maintenance or bad green chairs or both. Colt's original 8th hole at St. George's Hill vs. the hole today is a good example.

Adam - Agreed. Low is better thought of as a golf architecture commentator/critic. I learned recently, however, that he had a hand in designing a couple of courses, but he never considered himself an architect.

Bob

[jeffwarne]

For better or for worse,
Robert Trent Jones
marketing heavy-made it a mass production business heavily emulated by nearly every architect of his long era


had huge influence on the style of Pete Dye (going the opposite) who influenced nearly ever great architect today

[Niall C]

Those who have just unwrapped the Sept edition of 'Through the Green', the BGCS magazine, will find on p22 an article about a chap called Alexander (Alister) McHardy.
Atb

Dai


I don't subscribe to that publication but I'm aware of McHardy. He might have been a busy boy in the north of Scotland but I can't see how he'd have had much of a sphere of influence on the art of golf course design as far as I'm aware none of his courses were of particular note and he didn't write about the subject. Maybe the article says something different.


Niall

[Niall C]

If the question was who was the best, then Colt, MacKenzie etc would undoubtedly be in the mix but the question of who was the most influential is different. Colt, MacKenzie would still be in the mix not only because of the quality of their work but also because of their writing. Simpson comes into that category too.


I tend to think however that Willie Park was more influential in so much as he lead the way from a more simpler time of laying out courses to a time of wholesale building of a course.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall


I used to think that too, but it gets harder to hold to that view the more Colt research I do. I mean, Park's claim to be the most influential basically rests entirely on Sunningdale. Yes, Huntercombe was contemporaneous, but that course hasn't exactly had much influence, much though I love it. And the more Colt research I do, the more I realise just how much Sunningdale's influence depended on Colt's reputation and the work he did to tweak Park's design.


I found a letter in a newspaper from Colt recently. Some writer had obviously said that he deserved the design credit for Sunningdale Old; HSC himself didn't agree, at least in public, and wrote to WP Jr, copy to the newspaper, to dissociate himself from that line of thinking. But still, the fact that someone could even hold that view is testimony to how important his work was.

[Thomas Dai]

Those who have just unwrapped the Sept edition of 'Through the Green', the BGCS magazine, will find on p22 an article about a chap called Alexander (Alister) McHardy.
Atb

Dai
I don't subscribe to that publication but I'm aware of McHardy. He might have been a busy boy in the north of Scotland but I can't see how he'd have had much of a sphere of influence on the art of golf course design as far as I'm aware none of his courses were of particular note and he didn't write about the subject. Maybe the article says something different.
Niall

Merely highlighting his profile herein Niall, not suggesting he was the Godfather!
atb

[Niall C]

Adam
 
I think you touch on an interesting point, that being the power of the press.
 
I know the letter you mean and from memory I think his letter to Park and the magazine crossed with one from Park to the magazine on the same subject. Many years after the event and knowing of the reputation of Sunny Old and Colt’s work there I was actually surprised at what Colt said in his letter. I basically had the same misunderstanding as the original letter writer which I think speaks of the power of having a good press.
 
The amount of golf architecture literature when Colt was in his prime was far superior to when Park was doing his stuff and arguably that has had a greater lasting influence.
 
Niall

[Sean_A]

As much as I love Park Jr, courses today don't look like Park Jr designs.  Courses today and for the past 100 years look like Colt courses.  You can quibble about this and that, but just look and compare what Colt built 90-100 years to each following period. A huge percentage of what are considered the best courses of all time don't look terribly different to Colt courses.  I would argue that the work of perhaps the most successful archie to practice in the US (ahhh Ross) looks and feels like Colt designs.  It seems very obvious to me that consciously or not, Colt seeped into the pores of practically every archie that followed him. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean's is a good post to keep in mind next time there's a thread about gca's underlying fundamentals and essential principles. And in turn, that thread should itself be kept in mind for the next time we discuss whether judging and rating courses can be done objectively, or whether all of it is subjective/ a matter of opinion,
Peter

[Niall C]

Sean
 
With regards to your comment about courses today not looking like Park designs, presumably that’s because of shaping, if so how ? Or is it the fact that for much of the 20th century four par 3’s, par 5’s and 10 par 4’s was considered the standard which was contrary to Park’s preference for only three par 3’s (can’t recall off hand what his preference was for the number of par 4’s and par 5’s) ?
 
Perhaps there is an element of truth in that second point about Park however you also need to take into account that Colt advocated doing away or reducing the number of par 5’s. The fact that four par 5’s is still considered the standard (ignoring the expediency of courses turning par 4’s into par 5’s every blue moon when the pro’s come to play some championship) and that Colt argued against it suggests he lost the argument and was a (reluctant) follower and not a leader in that regard.
 
However ignoring the standard make up of par, Park had a more lasting influence in that he was in that wave of architects who took the game from being one where there were cross over holes and the total of holes was 6, or 9, or 10 , or 12 or whatever, to a game where there was a standard 18 holes and each hole had its own playing corridor. Now you could perhaps argue that that was happening irrespective of Park and I’d probably agree with you, but it certainly happened well before Colt.
 
Niall

[Niall C]

Sean's is a good post to keep in mind next time there's a thread about gca's underlying fundamentals and essential principles. And in turn, that thread should itself be kept in mind for the next time we discuss whether judging and rating courses can be done objectively, or whether all of it is subjective/ a matter of opinion,
Peter

Peter


What on earth are you talking about ?


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - I thought it would've been clear.
Sean's rationale for choosing Colt suggests that the basic art-craft of golf course architect hasn't changed in 100 years.
That in turn suggests that architects past and present, both here in America and there in GB&I, have in essence agreed on the principles that make for exemplary design. 
We don't often discuss it anymore, but a few years ago that question -- i.e. are there essential/unchanging principles and fundamentals that underpin and characterize quality golf course architecture? -- was a frequent topic.
We never came to any definitive conclusion/answer, but I was often surprised how many posters answered that question with a "no".
As so, Sean's assessment struck me as a strong argument for a different answer, i.e. the answer being that indeed, for all practical purposes and as the art-craft actually manifests itself on the ground (as opposed to being talk about in discussion boards), good gca is, and top 100 golf courses are, based on fundamental/essential/unchanging principles.
And, as Sean suggests, said principles are to be found most clearly demonstrated in the work of Mr Colt.
Peter 

 

[Niall C]

Peter
 
Let me comment as follows;
 
Sean's rationale for choosing Colt suggests that the basic art-craft of golf course architect hasn't changed in 100 years.  – A hundred years takes us back to just after WWI. In the UK at least they were still building courses by hand and by horse drawn scoop, and in some instances with nothing more than a basic routing plan and an onsite architect/trusty lieutenant to tell the guys what features to build in the dirt. Move forward a hundred years and courses are built and probably in most instances with machines to detailed plans prepared by the gca on a computer.
 
That in turn suggests that architects past and present, both here in America and there in GB&I, have in essence agreed on the principles that make for exemplary design. 
 We don't often discuss it anymore, but a few years ago that question -- i.e. are there essential/unchanging principles and fundamentals that underpin and characterize quality golf course architecture? -- was a frequent topic.
 We never came to any definitive conclusion/answer, but I was often surprised how many posters answered that question with a "no".  – I don’t recall any specific discussion, probably before my time but if I was asked now I’d answer no as well.
 
As so, Sean's assessment struck me as a strong argument for a different answer, i.e. the answer being that indeed, for all practical purposes and as the art-craft actually manifests itself on the ground (as opposed to being talk about in discussion boards), good gca is, and top 100 golf courses are, based on fundamental/essential/unchanging principles. – well, I suppose Cypress Point and Carnoustie both have 18 holes. Mind you Carnoustie did have only ten at one point and also had cross over holes pre Park.
 
And, as Sean suggests, said principles are to be found most clearly demonstrated in the work of Mr Colt. – and those principles are ?
 
Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Would this question perhaps be best discussed in blocks of say 20 years - and on a geographical basis as well?
Pre-1880
1880-1900
1900-1920
1920-1940
1940-1960
1960-1980
1980-2000
2000-present
Atb