Credit [again]

[Matt Kardash]

I have nothing new to add here. I just wanted to say I had the exact same reaction to the list as Tom and I agree with him 100%.

[Ian Mackenzie]

It's kinda like music.
You have the lyricist and the composer a la Bernie Taupin/Elton John or Robert Hunter and the Grateful Dead. Most of the time it's really the last SINGER who gets the credit when he/she does the latest contemporary version. Unless, of course, it's a "hit" - or a "Top 100" song...;-)

Heck, Sheryl Crow did a version of the "First Cut is the Deepest" and put it on an album. Lots of people think she wrote it.
Yet everyone knows it's a Rod Stewart song, right...?...

Except it's not. Cat Stevens wrote it, but no one cares about that anymore...;-)

Or, how many Stones and Zeppelin (especially) songs were written by Delta bluesmen in the 20's - the "Golden Age"...p-)..?

[Brett Hochstein]

As someone who is trying hard to get their name out there in the design world, I'm still in general agreement with Tom's overall post, especially when it comes to faithful restorations.  I get wanting to recognize change to a course as well as people responsible, but there has to be some sort of minimum threshold of change or impact to do so.  This can be defined in different ways but at a minimum there needs to be some routing changes or significant strategic changes to a good number of individual holes.


Really all I am after is accuracy and consistency.  Currently it seems the attributions are divergent on design impact, and renovations and restorations are all listed the same.  Maybe it's adding extra clunk to current clunkiness, but noting whether it was redesign or restoration would at least improve accuracy.  And I know Tom is in a good enough position to say to leave out his and all prior names after he restores a course like Bel-Air or Hollywood, but I don't think I would mind having my name on something similar, though perhaps that just goes back to my opening sentence of being young(ish) and unknown.  What I would mind is redoing bunkers in place on 3 holes at a top course and then getting some sort of design credit*.  That is misleading, inaccurate, and devalues the impact of other major redesigns on the list.



*this is not a specific example

[Brett Hochstein]

As far as GD's method to their madness, what I think they are doing is listing the original architect(s) and then whomever completed the most recent renovation or restoration work.  As it has been pointed out before, the impact made by each of those reno/restos is widely variable.   


Separately, I've been trying to come up with a decent analogy to the golf course design hierarchy, and my first thought was that of a football team, where a head coach is the architect, coordinators and assistants are the various field supervisors and associates, the skill players are the shapers, and other players are the additional important component labor pieces implementing the thing.  Shapers and laborers will never be as popularly regarded as players though, and while football coaches can't get in on the "action," golf architects can and do, jumping on bulldozers to shape greens.  Their "coordinators" especially jump in on the action with associates running jobs while also building a majority of greens, bunkers, and other important pieces. 


All teams (football or golf design) are different with different philosophies, both in style and approach.  Some adhere more strictly to the hierarchical chain while others blur the lines a bit more.  It all starts though with the head coach (architect) and their system.  You can have all the talent in the world at your disposal, but it tends not to matter too much if the head coach can't direct and corral it all.  Conversely, a great coach/architect may not be able to get the results they want if they don't have the requisite talent in place.  Successful golf design is very much the result of the work of many important people, but it all eventually falls back to the person on top.

[Kalen Braley]

Brett,

But the problem is, as a going concern, its easy to say who is the current coach of a team or who the players are for that year.

There is no equivalent to "I updated 3 bunkers" in your example or the fact that almost any team bears little to no resemblance to what they were just 10 years ago, much less several decades like a golf course.

P.S.  I think its far more equivalent to a house.  Sure it has several upgrades over the years, but the structure for most homes stays intact...

[Ally Mcintosh]

For what it’s worth, EIGCA show credit under the below categories:


- New 18 hole course
- New 9 hole course
- Additional 9 holes to existing course
- Major work; minimum 3 new holes
- Major work; rebuilding of minimum 9 greens
- Major work; other redevelopment of minimum 9 holes


Any less than that and there ain’t no credit.


Ally

[Ian Mackenzie]

Brett,

But the problem is, as a going concern, its easy to say who is the current coach of a team or who the players are for that year.

There is no equivalent to "I updated 3 bunkers" in your example or the fact that almost any team bears little to no resemblance to what they were just 10 years ago, much less several decades like a golf course.

P.S.  I think its far more equivalent to a house.  Sure it has several upgrades over the years, but the structure for most homes stays intact...

And almost NO home owner knows the name of the original architect of their house. We dont and ours was built in 1908.
However, they do know the name of the contractor who did the "gut rehab" job on it 7 years ago...


Someone said this above and it's a sad truth: Most golfers (private and retail) do not know who designed or built the course they are playing or even belong to.

[David_Elvins]

Rankings are a very inexact science but there is a logic to tying design credit for re-design/restoration work to how much the course improves or slips in the rankings. 


If you can get a course from outside the top 100 to into the top 50 by rebuilding greens and bunkers, for example, that is probably worthy of credit.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

For what it’s worth, EIGCA show credit under the below categories:


- New 18 hole course
- New 9 hole course
- Additional 9 holes to existing course
- Major work; minimum 3 new holes
- Major work; rebuilding of minimum 9 greens
- Major work; other redevelopment of minimum 9 holes


Any less than that and there ain’t no credit.


Ally

For what it’s worth 2:


I think the above categories are actually quite good but referencing the ongoing Machrihanish and Alwoodley threads, I do wonder if this sort of categorisation encourages architects to suggest more work on classic courses in order to receive credit.

[Kalen Braley]

Brett,

But the problem is, as a going concern, its easy to say who is the current coach of a team or who the players are for that year.

There is no equivalent to "I updated 3 bunkers" in your example or the fact that almost any team bears little to no resemblance to what they were just 10 years ago, much less several decades like a golf course.

P.S.  I think its far more equivalent to a house.  Sure it has several upgrades over the years, but the structure for most homes stays intact...

And almost NO home owner knows the name of the original architect of their house. We dont and ours was built in 1908.
However, they do know the name of the contractor who did the "gut rehab" job on it 7 years ago...


Someone said this above and it's a sad truth: Most golfers (private and retail) do not know who designed or built the course they are playing or even belong to.

Ian,

Very true, but it doesn't mean that information isn't out there...and there is probably an equivalent to GCA.com for old homes that haggles over the top 100 structures built list when it comes out every year as well! 

P.S.  I live in the old historic part of Salt Lake City called the avenues.  Several of the homes are registered and a lot is known about them, mostly in terms of who occupied them and such.  But then again, how many homes are in America vs golf courses?

[Brett Hochstein]

For what it’s worth, EIGCA show credit under the below categories:


- New 18 hole course
- New 9 hole course
- Additional 9 holes to existing course
- Major work; minimum 3 new holes
- Major work; rebuilding of minimum 9 greens
- Major work; other redevelopment of minimum 9 holes


Any less than that and there ain’t no credit.


Ally

For what it’s worth 2:


I think the above categories are actually quite good but referencing the ongoing Machrihanish and Alwoodley threads, I do wonder if this sort of categorisation encourages architects to suggest more work on classic courses in order to receive credit.

That's something I thought of and wanted to note in my first post.  Even though I mentioned a having a set list of criteria, it does possibly incentivize architects to put more of a personal stamp on a course than what they ought to.  There is nothing good about that.


FWIW, the EIGCA list sounds like a fairly good baseline.  Makes me wonder now though how many courses have been "over-worked" as described above.

[Ian Andrew]

My take on Magazine Lists

Since I qualify for every single example, where I say credit should not be given, I think it's fair that I offer my opinion.


List the Name

1. The routing deserves the credit - even if there was a rebuild- as long as the same corridors remain.
Changing one or two holes is still not enough. It's still the largely the original course

2. If there's a complete rebuild, then there should be a second name.
Bunkers, a couple of greens, a new hole or two don't get your name added


Don't List the Name

1. The associate should not be named regardless of what they did - if the original architect did not name them
I can say this because I'm definitely in this category - but when you work for someone - it's their business and their call

2. A renovation that uses the original greens and routing, does not qualify

3. A restoration - no matter how extensive - does not qualify

4. If the original course is gone and a new one is built over the top, the original architect no longer gets listed.
That gets challenging to determine when some but not all corridors are re-used

[Ian Andrew]

A really messy example - that I know extremely well - and my thoughts
Knollwood CC in Westchester, New York

Van Eaton did the initial layout, but while there is a green still in use and part of a couple of holes, no single hole remains. Therefore he's not listed.

Tillinghast did the initial plan that changed the routing. Five holes were built and remain in use, but he was fired during construction. Only one green remains, but the rest of the holes remained in play and were re-bunkered and new greens were built for four holes. For me the routing on the upper land qualifies him as part of the routing that remains in play. 

Seth Raynor took over the project and changes a dozen holes, made plans to rebuild 16 of the 18 greens and presented a completely new arrangement for bunkering. 14 holes were rebuilt and re-grassed. 16 greens rebuilt and re-grassed. He's the most obvious for the list.

Seth Raynor dies in the middle of construction and Charles Banks finishes the golf course. It's important to note he was on site for the entire project and by all accounts seems to be responsible for the project even before Raynor's death. There's a construction summary before Raynor's death that is by Charles Banks. The last detail is he did change a few of the holes including converting the 2nd from a Lions Mouth to a punchbowl green after it was initially built that way. I choose to add Banks, because he was responsible for at least six holes after Raynor's death and likely more of the results during the build. As I said, this is messy.

There are three new greens by different architects and the course changes quite a bit. We restored the course back to what Banks left behind in 2016. You don't deserve credit in a magazine for piecing things back together.

My opinion, the listing is Tillinghast, Raynor and Banks. Even just Raynor would work if we were trying to keep the listing a simple as we could.

Thought you might enjoy an example.

[Jeff Schley]

Ian..... good description.. let's further define what we are talking about so we can put a fence around certain terms to have a common language.

• original design - one (or more) architect (s) who did the routing with hazards and green complexes with approval authority, if multiple they must have contributed "substantially". (always cited)  I personally like the criteria for publishing credit in research journals for science/engineering. 
  

• redesign - substantial changes to routing and greens (should be cited)

• renovation - this is tricky... but let me try..... slight changes to routing and greens, but primarily meant to modernize the course without the goal of bringing it back to the original architect's plan. (never cited)

• restoration - no routing changes, features added, or greens substantially changed.  Meant to bring the course back to the original architects plan. (never cited)

Are there more terms? Changes to the definitions above?  Less is more IMO.
PS this software is the worst I have experienced and gladly fund some of the upgrades that are needed.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's not uncommon for medical personal to play a huge role in our life and health but we rarely cite them as parents.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ian..... good description.. let's further define what we are talking about so we can put a fence around certain terms to have a common language.

• original design - one (or more) architect (s) who did the routing with hazards and green complexes with approval authority, if multiple they must have contributed "substantially". (always cited)  I personally like the criteria for publishing credit in research journals for science/engineering. 
  

• redesign - substantial changes to routing and greens (should be cited)

• renovation - this is tricky... but let me try..... slight changes to routing and greens, but primarily meant to modernize the course without the goal of bringing it back to the original architect's plan. (never cited)

• restoration - no routing changes, features added, or greens substantially changed.  Meant to bring the course back to the original architects plan. (never cited)

Are there more terms? Changes to the definitions above?  Less is more IMO.
PS this software is the worst I have experienced and gladly fund some of the upgrades that are needed.

Jeff, you have the four main terms but what you are describing as each I would disagree with.


It is also possible to have redesign and renovation within one project.


And I don’t believe the terms correlate directly with credit.


As Ian says, it is complicated and very difficult to assign firm rules against.


But generally, there needs to be a major element of redesign to receive design credit. Obvious really.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Ian laid out the definitions just about perfectly in #36...

I would only posit that if a course is completely bull-dozed and something else built in its place, I would no longer list the original architects name. A bit harsh perhaps, but certainly a lot more accurate...

(Its does get tricky thou for a course like CommonGround where many of the same corridors were used, IIRC, but the experience seems to be almost entirely different)

[Ian Andrew]

I would only posit that if a course is completely bull-dozed and something else built in its place, I would no longer list the original architects name. A bit harsh perhaps, but certainly a lot more accurate...

No ... that's what I meant to write ... I'll go back and add that

[John Kavanaugh]

Frankenstein did take the name of his Doctor.

[Tom_Doak]

(Its does get tricky thou for a course like CommonGround where many of the same corridors were used, IIRC, but the experience seems to be almost entirely different)

Kalen:


CommonGround is a good case study.


I personally wouldn’t credit the original designer there.  The course is substantially rerouted (you are nearly always going to use a few of the same corridors), and we did not try to preserve any features intact, unlike say Atlantic City which was also a substantial renovation, but not total.


The full truth is, the only time I even saw the previous course, it was under six inches of snow, so it didn’t have much effect in my plan!


The back end of the story is more complicated.  I allowed each of my three associates with Denver connections (two lived there and a third grew up there) to take the first crack at designing three of the holes each:  Eric Iverson, Don Placek, and Jim Urbina.  Eric ran the construction job and Don contributed a lot to the routing, and already from above you see people favoring one role more than the other.  Yet you see Jim’s name associated with CommonGround more often, because he’s working on his own now so people think of him as an architect and not the other two ... even though that has nothing to do with who did what at CommonGround!


I don’t really care whether it’s the four of us listed, or just me, but anything in between is a biased judgment.  I guess that’s why the client just lists me even though they were thankful for the work of the other three.


PS. Years ago there was a campaign by someone to give Dick Wilson (who worked for William Flynn) co credit for Shinnecock Hills.  I think it was later established he had not much to do with it other than being a foreman.  But that illustrates that the default setting on credits is usually “best known architect” which can change long after the facts of the case.

[Niall C]

I thought the way it worked in the UK was if James Braid was on a train journey and looked out the window and saw a golf course, he got the credit 

Seriously, nothing much to add to what has already been said other than for me part of the interest in seeing who worked where is not just how much input they had on a build but also what influence that particular experience might have had on them, particularly the young guys. 

Niall

[Tim Martin]

I would be interested to know how many current club scorecards match up with what Golf Digest has in the most recent list for architectural credit. I’m not saying that clubs don’t occasionally reference design credit incorrectly but GD is really taking some liberties with the current list.
 

[Matthew Petersen]

(Its does get tricky thou for a course like CommonGround where many of the same corridors were used, IIRC, but the experience seems to be almost entirely different)

Kalen:


CommonGround is a good case study.


I personally wouldn’t credit the original designer there.  The course is substantially rerouted (you are nearly always going to use a few of the same corridors), and we did not try to preserve any features intact, unlike say Atlantic City which was also a substantial renovation, but not total.


The full truth is, the only time I even saw the previous course, it was under six inches of snow, so it didn’t have much effect in my plan!


The back end of the story is more complicated.  I allowed each of my three associates with Denver connections (two lived there and a third grew up there) to take the first crack at designing three of the holes each:  Eric Iverson, Don Placek, and Jim Urbina.  Eric ran the construction job and Don contributed a lot to the routing, and already from above you see people favoring one role more than the other.  Yet you see Jim’s name associated with CommonGround more often, because he’s working on his own now so people think of him as an architect and not the other two ... even though that has nothing to do with who did what at CommonGround!


I don’t really care whether it’s the four of us listed, or just me, but anything in between is a biased judgment.  I guess that’s why the client just lists me even though they were thankful for the work of the other three.


PS. Years ago there was a campaign by someone to give Dick Wilson (who worked for William Flynn) co credit for Shinnecock Hills.  I think it was later established he had not much to do with it other than being a foreman.  But that illustrates that the default setting on credits is usually “best known architect” which can change long after the facts of the case.

I played the Lowry / Mira Vista course a decent bit as a teenager and would certainly agree with this. The clubhouse remained in the same place in a corner of the property so with returning nines you were always going to have 4 holes in more or less similar spots at least in the they have to all approach the clubhouse in that narrow zone between the driving range to the east and the property line to the west.


But the property was never heavily treed (the course planted some trees along holes as was the style then) and much of that was taken out, so to speak of "corridors" for holes is really not right. Other than those four going from/returning to the clubhouse, the only hole there now that's in a similar spot to one from the old course is the hole (current #4) that bends around the wetland which is a natural feature that even the basic design (army corps? I don't know who did the original Lowry design) couldn't miss (though they did plant trees between the fairway and hazard, a la 13 at Riviera, ugh).

[Tom_Doak]

Frankenstein did take the name of his Doctor.

BTW, this was the most under-appreciated post on the topic.

[Mike_Young]

Frankenstein did take the name of his Doctor.

BTW, this was the most under-appreciated post on the topic.

I appreciated it....