• Tweet

• Tweet

Recently I received an email asking for my opinion of whom I considered to be the most over-rated of today’s golf course architects.  Upon reflecting, I thought that to be an interesting subject to say the least, and fodder for an article.

Well, if you expect me to spill my guts with details, you will be disappointed.  First, I am friends with several of the architects and acquainted with many more.  I typically don’t share my opinions on this topic with my best golfing buddies though I do have acquaintances that are very vocal on the subject.  If anything, I would be more willing to rate the course, rather than the architect, and there are good reasons beyond obvious diplomacy.

The more I learn about the field of golf course design, the more I appreciate that there are so many other factors that go into making a golf course design and the final product something I would applaud or be disappointed in; factors often beyond the control of the golf course architect or designer, and unbeknownst to us golfers.

First of all, the routing is the one area where the designer can demonstrate their architectural genius or lack thereof.  What you may not have realized is that there are often land planning or environmental factors that inhibit the architect from routing/building the best course they feel possible.  In the instance of the Poppy Hills golf course on the Monterey Peninsula, Robert Trent Jones Jr. was restricted from entering some corridors because of rare vegetation in the Monterey Forest.  The result was that he had no choice but to stay with some holes that bend in awkward spots and are less than ideal.  Many of our modern courses involve housing to make the projects economically feasible.  Sometimes the streets have been routed before the course architect can route the holes.  Or there may be general areas blocked off where the developer wants to reserve for housing.  Witness the foresight of Samuel Morse who developed the Pebble Beach area.  He insisted on reserving the ocean front property for the golf course.  Ever since, everyone has pretty much agreed that the inland holes at Pebble pale in comparison to the ocean ones.  If the entire course had been routed inland, no one today would value the golf course as they do.  Another example is a very private, prestigious course in the Palm Desert area that was built by a highly regarded design team.  Situated adjacent to the mountains, the back nine had the opportunity to delve into some magnificent mountain coves.  Unfortunately that land was reserved for some hugely lucrative home lots.  While the course is a good one, it is sadly misses the potential of the site. You can’t blame the architect for that.

Pete Dye, the Dean of the Living Golf Course Architects and the Most Influential Since 1965

The next point is that before any of us criticize them, we need to learn of what kind of budget restrictions were placed upon an architect.  Three of the most visible, famous, and most expensive of today’s architects, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, and Pete Dye are known to practically move mountains of earth to create their designs.  Particularly earlier in his career, it is joked that Nicklaus has never encountered a site he couldn’t “bulldoze into submission.”  Likewise, Fazio often will transform the landscape to fit his eye.  As for the loveable curmudgeon, Pete Dye, he admits to “exceeding unlimited budgets.”  Your average golf course project cannot afford these luxuries.  Next, the designers have to be sensitive to the post-construction maintenance budgets.  You can add many interesting or attractive features to a course if there will be an adequate budget to maintain them in the future.   Generous funding can also overcome many engineering or site obstacles such as rock, gorges, or hillsides.

Maintenance practices can also affect the way the course plays and hence the reputation of its designer.  I can vividly remember the wonderful day of playing the dramatic Prince Course in Hawaii with its designer, Robert Trent Jones, Jr.  Upon finishing the sixteenth hole, I remarked that for an uphill semi-blind approach, I thought the putting surface was a bit too small.  He thanked me for my input and immediately took me about three paces beyond the fringe where there were sprinkler heads.  Mr. Jones then explained that those heads were positioned just immediately off the putting surface, but because the maintenance crew was trying to save time and effort, they stopped cutting the green that big and thus allowed it to shrink significantly, perhaps 15% or more.  The green that Jones had designed was entirely adequate, but the one I encountered was not, and the architect was unfairly tarnished.  Much can happen once a designer leaves and maintenance takes over!

How about discussing “underrated” architects I say. Unknown course designers are much like struggling actors.  Most toil in anonymity until hopefully

At the Top of the Game - Architect Tom Doak and the Author Bob Fagan

they one day get discovered.  One example is a good friend of mine, Tom Doak.  Since the glory heaped upon his Pacific Dunes layout in southwestern Oregon, he has become an “overnight star.”  In reality at the age of forty-two, Tom had spent more than half his life active in the business.  Once an apprentice for Pete Dye, his work at Ballyneal, Stone Eagle, Rock Creek Cattle Company, Tumble Creek, Stonewall, Lost Dunes, Beechtree, the Legends, and High Pointe has been terrific to name a few.  Conversely, Tom built a few “duds” too, but he was also stuck with inadequate budgets and other issue, but few ever heard of him until he got his big break to build adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.  Now he gets exciting pieces of property with more workable budgets and has built more outstanding courses around the world.

As a group, golf course designers are a group of world-class storytellers and salesmen. The best and most famous architects are captivating.  Tom Fazio, Rees Jones, Robert Trent Jones, Jr., and Pete Dye, are all captivating personalities, great storytellers, and brilliant salesman.   Even the so called-second tier architects can weave a great tale and almost make you feel you are in the company of celebrity.  When you add the true golf celebrity attraction of Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Greg Norman, Ben  Crenshaw, Johnny Miller, Jerry Pate, Hale Irwin, Tom Weiskopf, Nick Faldo, Peter Thompson, and Tom Watson, etc. who all happen to also be wonderfully networked, you can see how those folks will usually be working with the wealthiest clients on the best pieces of property with comfortable budgets.  The results should be good.  In essence, often each is being charged with building a “Top 100” course.  And now in the United States, many of the above are competing for the same very few jobs.

Talented newer or younger course architects wait and may never get the project that lets them showcase their talents this is not exactly a growth industry.  Suffice it to say that my friends and acquaintances like Tom Doak, Jim Urbina, Mike DeVries, Steve Smyers, Don Knott, and Gary Linn as well as Bill Coore, Ken Dye, Jim Engh, Keith Foster, Dexter Spann, Kyle Phillips, Brian Curley, Lee Schmidt, John Fought, Ron Garl, Arthur Hills, John Fought, Michael Hurdzan, Dana Fry, David Kidd, John Harbottle, Bobby Weed, Gary Panks, P.B. Dye, Perry Dye, Gil Hanse, John Harbottle, and Ron Pritchard, etc. have been doing some excellent work and are still only recognized by a relative few.  There are many more in Canada, Europe, and Asia of note as well.  And now with new golf course building slowing in America to a virtual halt, there are likely many “geniuses” who will never have the chance to demonstrate their craft.

One could easily argue that anyone charging more than one million dollars to design a course is “over-rated.”  However, there are several developers who are very successful in concentrating their efforts with such architects as Nicklaus and Fazio.  Whether or not you like their courses, their name recognition helps sell real estate.  I will volunteer that with the exception of a few of the touring pros like Jerry Pate, Mark McCumber, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Weiskopf, and Jack Nicklaus, the tour players don’t have the time, knowledge base, or field experience to be any more than expensive window dressing to projects.  Quite frankly, they don’t exhibit the talent either.  A pleasant personality, nice smile, and professional golf victories don’t qualify one for golf course design.  The critical question to ask is who is the “star’s” design associate, the “ghost writer” in effect?  That’s not to say the craft cannot be learned, but when these player’s primary tasks are to practice, win, and promote, they tend not to be genuine golf course architects.

The golf course architects also have the never-ending challenge of getting their projects approved.  Any of the great pieces of land such as along the coasts or rivers where previously exciting courses were built are effectively no longer available for political and environmental reasons. In short, golf is only getting the secondary sites that no one wants for any use. Obstructionists think that only rich people play golf; we know better. Golfers play golf and most of us are not rich.  Secondly, many of these people wrongly believe that golf courses foul the environment.  That hasn’t been true for years and golf courses renew natural habitats for many species and valuable human ecology.  These architects will often spend years with their clients overcoming this misinformation.  Nowadays, political acumen can be another measure of a golf course architect.

Having played literally dozens of each of the prominent architect’s courses, I have discovered that there is sameness to many of them, especially their later efforts.  If you only play a couple of each of a designer’s courses, you won’t notice it.  Play many, and that sameness is becomes disappointingly evident.  When the larger design firms have so many projects that they are working on concurrently, I suspect that their products are often “assembly-lined” out the door, “mailed in” if you will, though they will vigorously deny that. Compare the attention to detail, the green sites and their surround together with the shaping that firms like Coore & Crenshaw’s or Doak’s produce doing only a very few courses at a time to those done by the busier firms.  Case closed; it happens.

Curiously enough, there are few women in the golf course design profession.  While I am personally acquainted with the remarkable Alice Dye (Pete’s wife) and her wonderful influence on the field, and the talented Jan Beljan who works for the Tom Fazio team, there are precious few others.  Tour players Annika Sorenstam, Jan Stephenson, Hollis Stacy and others want to be more involved in designing courses, but face the same barriers as other fledging architects and former tournament players.  And you can bet that the land and budgets offered them will not allow them to truly showcase there talents in America, if they do possess talent.

I can honestly say that I have several favorites courses that I truly enjoyed with almost every modern architect of note.  Conversely, there have been some I considered real disappointments; ones that I would be done differently.  Then again, I was not privy to what challenges they faced.  Who am I to judge?  I have long maintained that while there are bad golf holes, there are no bad golf courses.  In that same spirit, I also maintain that there are no overrated golf course architects, only those others who charge too much and some others who should get their chance to shine.

Bob Fagan has played more of the top American courses that perhaps anyone ever, and more than 2,500 in all and the Top 200 in addition to about 175 foreign layouts.  Formerly the Executive Director of the Northern California PGA and a golf professional, Bob is author of “Golf’s Higher Plane” and several other works applying psycho-spirituality to golf as well as several titles on travel, golf courses, and golf course architecture.