Golf Magazine Top 100 Question, Vol. 2
Looking at the architect credits next to the current Golf Magazine Top
100 lists, it's surprising how many of the listings are inaccurate or missing key original design contributions.
It'd be nice if, say, William Flynn got some credit for his extensive to shape Merion into the course we know today.
Same for Press Maxwell, who did 9 holes at Prairie Dunes. How about a little something, you know, for the effort? The Prairie Dunes listing
simply says "Maxwell, 1935-56" (meaning dad, Perry, who did the first
nine holes that opened in 1937).
Perry died in 1952, five years before the second nine opened in 1957.
Mike Clayton is not included in the credits for
the newly opened Barnbougle Dunes. (Actually, it's listed as
Barnbougle, which definitely is not its full name.) That's like listing Sand for Sand Hills.
Then there are the incorrect years. (Torrey Pines, Bell, 1926? Try William F. Bell, 1957). Hey, they were related.
And one of these days, some magazine will get the Riviera opening
year right (1927) or that L.A. Country Club-North was Fowler in 1921,
Thomas/Bell 1928.
Why isn't Fazio listed at Augusta National (along with about 40
other people)? Or what about the parade of stars that have been through
Bel-Air and Quaker Ridge? Only Trent Jones is listed next to Tillinghast for Quaker Ridge.
Again, no big deal
except to the courses themselves or whoever it is that put the listing together (the magazine doesn't say).
Yet if either Rees Jones or Robert Trent Jones did restorative or
non-restorative work at your course,
they are likely listed. (Well, except Baltusrol Lower, where Rees is
mysteriously left off, but he is included on the Upper listing!)
If an architect mangled a classic badly enough, he
gets credit. Ex: Fazio at Oak Hill and Inverness even though no one likes his additions.
But then folks who do restoration work are only mentioned a handful
of times for
no apparent reason other than someone thought to include them (Doak at Yeaman's Hall, Silva
at Baltimore CC). Why not Doak at Valley Club or San Francisco, or
Silva at Seminole, or Hanse at Plainfield, or Coore/Crenshaw at
Riviera, etc...
Meanwhile Rees Jones is listed at Bethpage and The Country Club, which
were sold to us as
restorations (or were they?). Robert Trent Jones is listed at say,
Olympic Club, while original contributors Willie
Watson and Max Behr are not included. And Trent pops up at Baltusrol,
Congressional, Interlachen, Oak Hill and Oakland Hills, but not Augusta
National where he added a pivotal hole?
Not only is the listing inconsistent and confusing, there is a
troublesome aspect to it as well. It could (or maybe already has) sent
the message to architects that the only way to get your name on a
ranking list is to make
changes.
Just restoration? That won't get you listed. Changes? There's always hope.
Most of the courses on this list do not need to be changed.
Restoring a few features? Sure. Major changes, no way.
After all, they're the best courses in the world. Right?
Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 07:54 AM
Reader Comments (3)
I believe the listing of who designed the course is relevant because it has an effect on the ranking. A course will be considered for the Top 100 or a higher placement in the list if the architect is someone current and popular. The people who rank the courses, unknown who they are, are influenced by the name of the architect. If the name is someone famous or recogniazble, then the course gets a higher rating from the unknown panelists. I think Geoff would agree to this argument from this sentence, "Yet if either Rees Jones or Robert Trent Jones did restorative or non-restorative work at your course, they are likely listed."
I like lists which seperate courses into pre-1960 and post 1960 such as the one from GolfWeek. http://www.golfweek.com/americasbest/top100classic.php
And by the way, no composite course should be on the list because it devalues the architect. Why hasn't Bandon combined six holes from Pacific Dunes and 12 holes from Bandon Dunes to make a number one course in America. A course has to stand on its own.
FYI- Gil Hanse is credited with his restoration on the scorecard at Fenway GC in Scarsdale NY.
I'm not too sure Gil is really happy with that as he left no fingerprints on the course. It's as pure a Tillinghast restoration as I've seen.
Kudos to Gil!
Fenway
I agree and I think most would join in...composites just shouldn't be considered. Royal Melbourne East and West would still make the list easily, as would The Country Club.
The question of name value and architects is a big one. It seems with the listing that Golf Magazine's organizers picked certain big names and listed them, but left off others that weren't so famous or who they didn't even know did work at the courses. Naturally, I have a lot more respect for those whose presence was so quietly felt that you don't know they were there doing work.