Design Credit

[Rich_M]

How much involvement must a person have in the creation of a new course to receive credit as the course designer?  Should there be standards, or do standards exist that speak to this question?

Has the criteria changed over time?

When it is said that a course is designed by a particular person or persons, what should the public expect as to the involvement of that person in the project?

Does any of this matter to any of you?

[Forrest Richardson]

I think it matters mostly to the designer(s). In my view the person who plans, routes, presents the ideas, creates plans and oversees shaping in the field should get the credit. If two people collaborate on this, then they both deserve credit. If someone is not involved in any one of these they should probably not get full credit.

It matters for membership to most, in not all, of the world's organizations of golf architects. For admission it seems universal that the applicant have been involved in all phases of the course for it to be considered "their" project.

Has it changed over time? In some respects, yes. Pros take a lot of credit they do not deserve. And collaboration has been missing in recent years. But, in the end, it is always gratifying to receive credit — when due.

[TEPaul]

Design credit should go to whomever was responsible, whether one person or a number of them. When people become interested in quality architecture and the details of it it's only logical to want to know who was responsible for designing and/or creating it.

It would seem to me, from what I've heard it would be somewhat illogical to give someone like Arnold Palmer design credit for some of the courses he's given design credit for particularly if and when he shows up and has to be quietly told where the first hole is.

[Jim Thompson]

TEPaul,

Your response begs the question....

How much better would an architect like, say, Ray Wiltse be if he weren't trapped in the "Palmer" formula?

The sad truth is that in the best case the credit goes to the guy whose name comes after "Pay to the order of" on the check.  There is a well-known Midwest (corrected at the behest of the GCA Grammarian, originally, and errantly spelled: mid-west.  Whoa is me! (Its a joke, given the first error was a spelling error, a self haze of this type seemed appropriate.  Geesh!)) architect, who shall remain nameless, who hasn't received any credit for probably 50% of his work.  But, he's a class act and wouldn't think of bringing it up.  He just keeps making golf better for all of us every chance he gets.  I, for one, am grateful.

Cheers!

JT

[Forrest Richardson]

Jim -- Is the Midwest still part of the U.S.? Can't recall. Also, have you seen the Mideast lately? I've been missing it.

[Jim Thompson]

Forrest,

Please accept my nomination for GCA grammarian.  I'll be happy to send you my copy of the "Beacon - Handbook of Punctuation and Composition".  I, obviously, haven't used it in years.  However, you should see me on feasibility and business plan analysis.  I’m just a poor victim, having been matriculated in accounting and finance; ensnared in the development world with well-read men of letters like your self.  I lie prostrate to your syntactical proclivity, regretting, all the while, that the majority of my verbal predilections have been fashioned viva voce.

Cheers!  

JT

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Design credit is a complicated issue. I suspect many big names - past and present - get credit for designs that should be at least considered colaborations. Some courses have checkered histories and several architects deserve design credit for contributions. GD's Top 100 attributions are always interesting and seem to change every couple years. For example they now give total credit to Devereux Emmet for Garden City, I would give Travis the majority of the credit with Emmet, Tillinghast, Jones and others contributing.

[Joe Hancock]

Jim,

I think it was Mr. Ed who first coined the phrase "whoa is me!" Or was it Silver? Either way, this is my woeful contribution for this evening, once again having nothing to do with architecture!

Sorry, just horsing around,

Joe

[ian]

Tom,

The Travis Society recognizes Garden City as a renovation, and so is Hollywood too. I think you must credit the first architect for the routing and the second for the renovation if it changes the course. Don't ask me to define the line because I haven't a clue.

On a personal note, often due to marketing, the name designer in the office will get the credit for the work that an associate did. As Tom or Pat pointed out to me before that's just the way it is in any business. I think many architects are excellent at giving credit where it is due, but magazines and the individual clubs perfer the bigger name from the office.

Kinda like choosing Ross over Flynn (in an example Tom P talked about in another thread) because a club may think his name has more status for them.

The one I have uncovered numerous times here is everybody wants to be a Stanlety Thompson course even when Nicol (brothr) or George Cumming (partner) actually did the work. Or the funnier ones are where Thompson Cumming and Thompson built the course for another architect but seem to get credit (York Downs by C. Alison) is a great example.

Can you tell I'm iced in waiting for a plane that may never fly today?

[T_MacWood]

Ian
I agree to a certain extent. Emmet should be given crerdit for the routing at GCGC, but the architecture of individual holes goes mostly to Travis. As I said a number of individuals deserve credit including Emmet, Tillinghast and RTJ. Travis did redesign Hollywood, but from what I understand he also changed the routing. Columbia is also a redesign.

I don't know that much about the Travis society, is their information fairly accurate in your opinion, for example I'm not sure they have the date right on Westchester.

IMO every course should be judged individually - as example RTJ redsigned Egan's Eugene by reversing the routing, should Egan get credit - I don't think so. Attribution is often a judgement call.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Why do we have to make an "attribution?"  Why can't we just say (for Eugene, e.g.) Egan and Jones?

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

Why do we have to make an "attribution?"  Why can't we just say (for Eugene, e.g.) Egan and Jones?