[Garland Bayley]

Perhaps Darwin, maybe Behr, but none of the current magazine ratings editors.
Architecture is architecture,  conditioning is maintenance. I prefer critics that weren't polluted by modern agronomy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Related question, but when were there official golf course critics?  I don't think the economics of it would have supported too many full time architecture critics "back in the day."   


Actually, I think it would almost have to be one of the modern guys. And my personal data bank may have been compromised, but as far as I can recall, Ron Whitten sort of invented the genre in the modern day that others have followed.  That should put him at the top of the list, even if you disagree with his views on golf, or any compromises made in the name of working for a big magazine.  Much like respecting RTJ for making golf architecture the profession it is today, even if you don't like all his body of work.


Otherwise, if you rank by classiness of writing, it would probably be Herbert Warren Wind, no?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Okay, another random thought.......

Tilly wrote about the merits of golf courses and specific over a span of nearly 40 years. Who else has lasted (or is likely to last) that long in the architecture criticism business?

In addition, he critiqued what, 600-700 courses during his 2+ year course PGA consultation tour?  Not only did he critique, but made specific recommendations, of which many, if not most, were actually implemented. 

Is that the ultimate test of how effective the critique/criticism is?  Put another way, can we name any changes that have been implemented if recommended by Whitten, Klein, Passov, Wind, etc., in writing?  I know Whitten and Klein have gotten involved in consulting, and similar to Tillie, Tom Doak comes close, also being a consulting architect in addition to prolific writing.

[Anthony Gholz]

Garland:  "All time"  I vote Darwin hands down.  He was lucky to be of a time where he knew most everyone on both sides of the Atlantic and wrote like Shakespeare.  Anthony

[Ian Andrew]

I think Walter Travis and American Golfer (1908-1920) might be worthy of consideration.
He did push and prod golf design away from the penal school to something more strategic.


Food for thought.

[BCrosby]

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









 

[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

I haven't read anything by him, but from others writing and mentioning him I believe you have a strong candidate.

[Thomas Dai]

Horace Hutchinson published some books of courses back in the 1890's although I believe some of the individual chapters were actually written by others, sometimes even members or officials of the courses they were writing about.
Atb

[Greg Gilson]

Tom, these were my words that you quote in your October 7 post.


All that said, IMHO, the GM List is the "best" of the main magazine lists. Most would agree on 80% of the courses (albeit debate the order). The other 20% are interesting to discuss. Its the 5 or 6 outliers (code for stinkers) that I just roll my eyes at nowadays.
The key point is that for some reason you think I am a member of the GM (or some other) panel. I am not & have never suggested I was. I am not an "insider" trying to defend that list or its methodology. I am "in print" here and on other sites  many, many times naming who I believe are the outliers (stinkers) on the GM list...and moaning about the kink in the system that helps them get there.


That said, I am just a consumer of these lists like other non-panel members. I am entitled to my opinion & I still believe "the GM List is the "best" of the main magazine lists" . I know its not perfect but it gels 80+% with my own opinion for whatever that is worth. I just choose not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Jason Topp]

Jim Finegan probably influenced my opinions as much as anyone.  I used his books as a guide well before I had ever heard of this site or read much about golf architecture.  His love of humps and bumps and quirk was a new way of looking at the game for me.

[Greg Tallman]

Tom,


While you occupy such a large portion of the Golf Magazine list I have to question your motives for punching down at courses you don't believe belong. Or even how they got there.

Passion? Integrity?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()