Interlachen - Golf Digest 2019 Top #100 Design Credits

[Mike Bodo]

I was somewhat startled and surprised when reviewing GD's Top 100 Courses for 2019 that they attributed the design credits to Willie Watson (1911) and Brian Silva (2006). To the informed observer this is misleading, as Interlachen is widely recognized and accepted as being a Donald Ross course, given the renovation he did from 1919 - 1921, nearly all which still stands today. I presume Brian Silva is the most recent architect to have made changes to the course, which I'm fine with him being recognized. I guess I am puzzled at why Ross would not be given any design credit by Golf Digest for his part in making the course what it is today, as from what I've read there is very little of Watson's original design elements still present in the current layout.

[James Brown]

Interlachen would certainly agreee:


“Interlachen Country Club continues its rich tradition as one of the finest golf courses in the world. The famous Donald Ross design has proven to stand the test of time as Interlachen has continuously been rated by various golf publications among the top golf courses in the country.”

[Mike Bodo]

Interlachen would certainly agreee:


“Interlachen Country Club continues its rich tradition as one of the finest golf courses in the world. The famous Donald Ross design has proven to stand the test of time as Interlachen has continuously been rated by various golf publications among the top golf courses in the country.”

Yeah, I saw that on the clubs website as well. But there was a thread on GCA a year or so ago about a club outside of Chicago that advertised itself as being a Ross course, but a lot of contributors here argued that there was no proof he had anything to do with its design or construction. I don't believe this to be the case with Interlachen, as the Donald Ross Society has acknowledged his contributions there. I believe there are architectural plans that exist in the Ross archives showing his routing of the holes for the course, which are consistent to what's there now. What I call into question is Golf Digest's criteria for assigning architectural design credit.

[PCCraig]

I'm pretty sure that ICC has Ross hole drawings on its Men's Grill Room walls, or at least they used to.


Watson did a significant amount of work in the Twin Cities, as he was responsible for early routings at Minikahda, White Bear, and Interlachen. I don't know enough about ICC's history to know how extensive Ross' work was there to know if he rerouted the course?

[Ian Andrew]

Clubs and societies are not always correct. Clubs are often selective too.


Many years ago I got fed up with the list the Stanley Thompson Society had. They had 130 listings and I knew from personal involvement that many were incorrect. Took 10 of us three years to find a more accurate number which was somewhere around 85. The problem often stems from members "select" who they want over who actually did the work.


I've reached out and shared research a few times with clubs. In one instance the correspondence back told to "mind my own business." They wanted to be an _________ golf course. I was amused that a single day one site and report made them a ________ golf course. This is more common than you might think with some of the more famous architects.


Two weeks ago I unearthed clear evidence that Stanley' first course  - that "we" had all kind of agreed upon - was not actually the first course he routed after all. They won't like that and I've not shared it because I have a single source and I don't feel like dealing with it at this time. It doesn't remove his name because he built it, but I was surprised to find out he did not plan it after all.


History, naming architects, etc. is complicated. It's become so politicized and popularized in recent times that it would be best if we did not list the architects or those renovation/restoring the work. That's the conclusion I've recently arrived at. The list you are talking about crossed a line for me with naming the most recent people involved and completely ignoring others in history who had a bigger impact. Just sayin' ...

[Jason Topp]

Rick Shefchik's book "From Fields to Fairways" likely has an accurate history.   

[Sven Nilsen]

The only lesson here is that no one should be going to the Golf Digest listing to determine who did work on any golf course.


If you wanted to give complete credit for all of the hands involved at Interlachen, you'd need to include:


William Watson
Dow George
George Sargent
Herbert Strong
Donald Ross and Charles Harris
Willie Kidd


And that only gets you to 1930.

[Mike Bodo]

The only lesson here is that no one should be going to the Golf Digest listing to determine who did work on any golf course.


If you wanted to give complete credit for all of the hands involved at Interlachen, you'd need to include:


William Watson
Dow George
George Sargent
Herbert Strong
Donald Ross and Charles Harris
Willie Kidd


And that only gets you to 1930.

+1

[John Butler]

The Donald Ross Society course directory which is well researched lists Interlachen CC as a Ross 1919 remodel.

[Joel_Stewart]

My guess this is all the brain fart of Ron Whitten.


I'm not sure if it's from architects begging for design credit on restoration work or Whittens attempt to bring his legal background into full disclosure on golf design and architecture.


It's opening a can of worms that's endless as you can see from Interlachen.

[Rick Shefchik]

This looks like a simple editing mistake to me. There is no doubt that Interlachen is primarily a Ross course. Watson designed the original 18 holes in 1911, and after the club bought an additional 20 acres of land, Ross redesigned every hole in 1920. Ross's blueprints for each hole are displayed in the club's 100th anniversary book. The original 16th hole became the first hole, and the original first hole was reversed and became the 18th. Watson's corridors were retained, by and large, but almost everything else changed. Prior to being awarded the 1930 U.S. Open, head pro Willie Kidd eliminated the par-3 11th hole, built a new par-4 sixteenth hole and rebuilt the 17th into a monster par-3 with a 262-yard tournament tee.


The great majority of what exists at Interlachen is Ross's work.

[Jeff Schley]

It is going to take a body like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine to come up with a standard to fix this issue of design credit. Without a standard anyone can change it.  I'm not aware of a definition in the industry that is universal, but in my view only the original designer should get credit in addition to anyone who has done a "major renovation". Other than that it is like going for a haircut, you are just trimming what is there, not changing your hairstyle.

[Mike Bodo]

This looks like a simple editing mistake to me. There is no doubt that Interlachen is primarily a Ross course. Watson designed the original 18 holes in 1911, and after the club bought an additional 20 acres of land, Ross redesigned every hole in 1920. Ross's blueprints for each hole are displayed in the club's 100th anniversary book.

Interesting. In the documentary, Donald Ross: Discovering the Legend. It's mentioned by one of the contributors that Interlachen originally started as a 9 hole course and in 1920, Ross redesigned the original 9 and added a second 9 so that the club could host championships. Is the Donald Ross Society wrong in this instance?

[Tom_Doak]

It is going to take a body like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine to come up with a standard to fix this issue of design credit. Without a standard anyone can change it.  I'm not aware of a definition in the industry that is universal, but in my view only the original designer should get credit in addition to anyone who has done a "major renovation". Other than that it is like going for a haircut, you are just trimming what is there, not changing your hairstyle.

The magazines are the LAST ONES who should be setting the standard, to be honest.  They are not really experts in the subject at all.  Ron Whitten is close to an expert -- he did co-author the original book on the subject -- but he also knows every architect, many of whom lobby for credit they don't really deserve, so he's conflicted.


You'd think the ASGCA [and other large architects' societies] would be a good group to set the standard -- but again, you'd be wrong, as all of their decisions would be biased by who's a member and who isn't.


And then you've got the historians, who won't be satisfied until there are 11 names after each course, which makes credits pretty hard to list at all.


The simplest solution would be to just stop putting credits on the listings altogether.  But then Golf Digest couldn't write misleading statements like "Gil Hanse has redesigned the most courses in the top 100".

[Mike Bodo]

The simplest solution would be to just stop putting credits on the listings altogether.  But then Golf Digest couldn't write misleading statements like "Gil Hanse has redesigned the most courses in the top 100".

No, the simplest solution would be once a course is designed, built and deemed to be great, don't F#*K with it! LOL!! One of the funniest moments in the Ross documentary I referenced is where Les Alexander is extolling the virtues of Holston Hills and expounding that the reason why the course is so good after all these years since it was built is is because the club never had enough money to F@$K it up. There is more truth to that than anyone knows. Look no further than Inverness as the poster child of over-tinkering. It had been changed and modified so many times since it was originally built and had drifted so far away from the Ross ideal that the club had to hire yet another designer to help bring it back to its roots. Oakland Hills is preparing to go through the same thing. If clubs and boards would simply appreciate what they have and, as stewards, maintain the courses original ethos and purity, they'd be better off in the long-run and more healthy financially to boot!

[Jeff Schley]

The simplest solution would be to just stop putting credits on the listings altogether.  But then Golf Digest couldn't write misleading statements like "Gil Hanse has redesigned the most courses in the top 100".

As a golfer I want to know who designed a course or "significantly renovated" a course. Names carry brand recognition which have value as a intangible asset. Using an architect's name that has brand recognition will trigger a positive reaction as they are associated with brand recall, which comes from one's own memory.  Coke for soft drinks, McDonalds for fast food, iphone for mobiles, etc.
So therein lies the issue which needs to be standardized as the business itself wants to be associated with an architect which has brand recognition to increase their value to golfers and charge more (daily fee or private memberships). There is an incentive for the course owners to gain value by listing as many architects with brand recognition as possible, or perhaps only use the one who has the highest brand recognition. Why? Simple, there is no standard to regulate it and since there isn't they utilize it for marketing purposes which is aimed to increase their value.
It is like the FDA when they required food labels via a standardized set of guidelines to protect the consumer and equalize the playing field for competitors in each food category.  They had to list calories of theirs vs ours, or sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup.
In summation, the magazines which rate the courses are the ones which reach the consumers and what we read for better or worse.  Unfortunately they have an agency problem where they aren't required to create or use a standard and are incentivized by other means to list XYZ architect. 


How to address this issue? It is complex and like the idea of the ASGCA or similar organizations to voluntarily come up with a standard as they have more knowledge and credibility if done as the professional society for GCA.  If not we can just bitch and complain on here as our outlet.

[Tim Martin]

How to address this issue? It is complex and like the idea of the ASGCA or similar organizations to voluntarily come up with a standard as they have more knowledge and credibility if done as the professional society for GCA.  If not we can just bitch and complain on here as our outlet.

The “professional society for GCA”? What are you talking about?

[Jeff Schley]

How to address this issue? It is complex and like the idea of the ASGCA or similar organizations to voluntarily come up with a standard as they have more knowledge and credibility if done as the professional society for GCA.  If not we can just bitch and complain on here as our outlet.

The “professional society for GCA”? What are you talking about?

Golf course architecture
Put American Society in front of of that and you have ASGCA, which is just one to reference.

[Tim Martin]

How to address this issue? It is complex and like the idea of the ASGCA or similar organizations to voluntarily come up with a standard as they have more knowledge and credibility if done as the professional society for GCA.  If not we can just bitch and complain on here as our outlet.

The “professional society for GCA”? What are you talking about?
Golf course architecture
Put American Society in front of of that and you have ASGCA.

Again how is the ASGCA going to be a professional society for GCA?

[Jeff Schley]

How to address this issue? It is complex and like the idea of the ASGCA or similar organizations to voluntarily come up with a standard as they have more knowledge and credibility if done as the professional society for GCA.  If not we can just bitch and complain on here as our outlet.

The “professional society for GCA”? What are you talking about?
Golf course architecture
Put American Society in front of of that and you have ASGCA.

Again how is the ASGCA going to be a professional society for GCA?

They are a professional society of golf course architects, which practice golf course architecture.  I'm not sure your question.
Tom brought up ASGCA as an alternative to the ratings publications to come up with a standard for publication credit, which wasn't perfect either.
It is pretty clear there isn't a universal standard for attributable design credit. In the field of research done for journal publication there is a universal standard adhered to to list each researcher.  It is incumbent upon the submitter to the publication, to lay out who deserves to be listed as co-author for research publication in the journal.

There is an agency problem with ratings publication magazines as they have alternative motives (profitablity, relationships with XYZ club/architect, etc.) that scientific journals aren't burdened with.  They exist to further the pool of knowledge within a certain domain and it is this pure mission which gives them credibility. In addition their editors are actual researchers in the field itself which as part of their profession, strive to be the editor of XYZ journal. Thus, there is oversight built into the system with a team collectively making the decision on who is published and met the standard.
How to do it for attributable design credit for a golf course isn't universally established. Is it important enough to happen, it doesn't appear so, sans architects themselves, golf courses themselves and us enthusiasts.

[Tim Martin]

The mission statement for the ASGCA is to “Support design excellence by creating golf courses that are technically, strategically, and aesthetically excellent while meeting the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities. Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf”.


Do you really think it serves their interest to get into the architectural attribution side?

[Jeff Schley]

The mission statement for the ASGCA is to “Support design excellence by creating golf courses that are technically, strategically, and aesthetically excellent while meeting the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities. Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf”.


Do you really think it serves their interest to get into the architectural attribution side?

The solution isn't clear or we would have one, but we do have a problem to solve or many of us here at least think there is one.  We aren't suggesting they should be doing something they aren't, we are looking for possible solutions. 

In solving any problem engagement of stakeholders is the key to come up with a solution.  They are pretty clear, but the incentive for this issue to be resolved isn't shared by the stakeholders.

However, I will point out that ASGCA does have membership requirements, which prevents any Tom, Dick, and Harry from entry.  One of particular interest is highlighted below.  What is their standard for "approved equivalent renovations"? I don't have an answer but they apparently have a way to attribute it the equivalent of a new design. This could be a starting point. However, Tim no one has an answer to this other than our own subjective opinion because there is no universal standard; IMO without incentives for the stakeholders (maybe there never will be) it won't go farther than some posts on this website.
Membership Requirements

• Complete a 2-year application process, including peer-review of work
• Have a minimum eight years’ experience practicing golf course architecture
• Design a minimum of five, 18-hole new golf courses (or approved equivalent renovations)
• Be sponsored by three active members who can vouch for character, integrity and skill
• Abide by the ASGCA’s standards of professional practice and a stringent Code of Ethics

[Tim Martin]

The mission statement for the ASGCA is to “Support design excellence by creating golf courses that are technically, strategically, and aesthetically excellent while meeting the economic, environmental and other needs of golf course owners, developers and communities. Expand the opportunities of ASGCA members to better serve their clients and the game of golf”.


Do you really think it serves their interest to get into the architectural attribution side?

The solution isn't clear or we would have one, but we do have a problem to solve or many of us here at least think there is one.  We aren't suggesting they should be doing something they aren't, we are looking for possible solutions. 

In solving any problem engagement of stakeholders is the key to come up with a solution.  They are pretty clear, but the incentive for this issue to be resolved isn't shared by the stakeholders.

However, I will point out that ASGCA does have membership requirements, which prevents any Tom, Dick, and Harry from entry.  One of particular interest is highlighted below.  What is their standard for "approved equivalent renovations"? I don't have an answer but they apparently have a way to attribute it the equivalent of a new design. This could be a starting point. However, Tim no one has an answer to this other than our own subjective opinion because there is no universal standard; IMO without incentives for the stakeholders (maybe there never will be) it won't go farther than some posts on this website.
Membership Requirements

• Complete a 2-year application process, including peer-review of work
• Have a minimum eight years’ experience practicing golf course architecture
• Design a minimum of five, 18-hole new golf courses (or approved equivalent renovations)
• Be sponsored by three active members who can vouch for character, integrity and skill
• Abide by the ASGCA’s standards of professional practice and a stringent Code of Ethics

Jeff-Your posts keep longer without addressing the issue that the ASGCA is not in the business of or formed for the purpose of deciding what architect(s) should be given design credit for a specific golf course. I’ll bow out at this point as this discussion as it has progressed is becoming fruitless.

[Jeff Schley]

Jeff-Your posts keep longer without addressing the issue that the ASGCA is not in the business of or formed for the purpose of deciding what architect(s) should be given design credit for a specific golf course. I’ll bow out at this point as this discussion as it has progressed is becoming fruitless.

Tim-there is no entity that does such including ASGCA, which is why there is a thread to discuss how it could be done. If we aren't happy with the 4,5,6 names next to courses in GD rankings what is the solution?  I don't have one and haven't read one.

[Tim Martin]

Jeff-Your posts keep longer without addressing the issue that the ASGCA is not in the business of or formed for the purpose of deciding what architect(s) should be given design credit for a specific golf course. I’ll bow out at this point as this discussion as it has progressed is becoming fruitless.

Tim-there is no entity that does such including ASGCA, which is why there is a thread to discuss how it could be done. If we aren't happy with the 4,5,6 names next to courses in GD rankings what is the solution?  I don't have one and haven't read one.

Jeff- I could care less what attribution Golf Digest give’s. I don’t subscribe to the magazine.