Most overrated big name architect is ???

[WiscoGolfAddict]

he puts bunkers in the middle of greens, seriously?

 

 

At Dismal River - blind tee shot with a pot bunker in the middle of the green, like a donut. Loved the golfing experience here, but yeah that's a little outside the norm!

 

[vallygolf]

When I read the title to this thread my first thought was...whoever designed Trump National LA. That course is wonky. I dont know who to blame more, Pete Dye or Donald Trump (responsible for the overhaul). Personally I am split on Dye. Ocean course is fantastic (but has been reworked since opening), Whistling straits is a little to unnatural for my eye, which seems to be the knock on Dye. I think he is overrated and underrated depending on a course. If I had 100 milion to build a course on pristine land I wouldnt call Pete. Give me a Coore, Crenshaw or Hanse.

[mwmgolfx]

Have to agree about Nicklaus, although I find the bold green contours the more fun elements of his designs, the approach shots can be truly ball-busters. I read an interview with him where he claimed that only expert golfers such as himself are qualified to design golf courses. I found that to be incredibly arrogant and it solidified my dislike. For me, his courses are not fun to play for me, a golfer with average skills.

 

I am most happy to see a slow shift away from the excesses of the 80's and 90's and toward more natural, "minimalist" if you will, designs. Instead of building courses that focus on providing striking visual aesthetics that are mostly about selling real estate or resort rooms and being able to advertise the highest slope rating in town, I am encouraged to see more designers building courses that are all about the golf and creating interesting designs that invoke thought and strategy and are fun to play for both good and not so good golfers.

 

I hope the trend continues and it should as long as golfers begin to rethink the popular value system that holds in high regard the course that "beats the snot out of them."

 

Amen, brother. My problem with many Nicklaus courses is that they are great tracks if you can hit the high fade or are a very low digit golfer. But many of them are almost unplayable for the average golfer. Like one I played (typical) par 3 was 210 yards from the white tees. And all carry with water on the right and between the tee and the golfer. Wonderful, average golfer carries his tee shot 200 and rolls it 25. So he has to hit it above average just to play this hole. Where's the fun in this or even equity. Norman has a tendency to do this sometimes as well.

 

Why not make it fair for the average golfer but challenging. The minimalist designers, Doak, Coore/Crenshaw designs are much more playable for the average golfer and the advanced. And personally I like some Dye courses because though they are challenging from the white tees, they are at least playable for the average golfer. They can be tricky and downright subtle but at least usually good shots are rewarded and bad shots penalized. Don't require perfection.

[SilverBullets]

Have to agree about Nicklaus, although I find the bold green contours the more fun elements of his designs, the approach shots can be truly ball-busters. I read an interview with him where he claimed that only expert golfers such as himself are qualified to design golf courses. I found that to be incredibly arrogant and it solidified my dislike. For me, his courses are not fun to play for me, a golfer with average skills.

 

I am most happy to see a slow shift away from the excesses of the 80's and 90's and toward more natural, "minimalist" if you will, designs. Instead of building courses that focus on providing striking visual aesthetics that are mostly about selling real estate or resort rooms and being able to advertise the highest slope rating in town, I am encouraged to see more designers building courses that are all about the golf and creating interesting designs that invoke thought and strategy and are fun to play for both good and not so good golfers.

 

I hope the trend continues and it should as long as golfers begin to rethink the popular value system that holds in high regard the course that "beats the snot out of them."

 

Amen, brother. My problem with many Nicklaus courses is that they are great tracks if you can hit the high fade or are a very low digit golfer. But many of them are almost unplayable for the average golfer. Like one I played (typical) par 3 was 210 yards from the white tees. And all carry with water on the right and between the tee and the golfer. Wonderful, average golfer carries his tee shot 200 and rolls it 25. So he has to hit it above average just to play this hole. Where's the fun in this or even equity. Norman has a tendency to do this sometimes as well.

 

Why not make it fair for the average golfer but challenging. The minimalist designers, Doak, Coore/Crenshaw designs are much more playable for the average golfer and the advanced. And personally I like some Dye courses because though they are challenging from the white tees, they are at least playable for the average golfer. They can be tricky and downright subtle but at least usually good shots are rewarded and bad shots penalized. Don't require perfection.

 

I really don't like most of Jack's designs either. The one extreme exception is Muirfield Village. The course is simply an amazing design. It's one of the best designs I have played from a pure golf perspective.

[TheDailyDuffer]

When I read the title to this thread my first thought was...whoever designed Trump National LA. That course is wonky. I dont know who to blame more, Pete Dye or Donald Trump (responsible for the overhaul). Personally I am split on Dye. Ocean course is fantastic (but has been reworked since opening), Whistling straits is a little to unnatural for my eye, which seems to be the knock on Dye. I think he is overrated and underrated depending on a course. If I had 100 milion to build a course on pristine land I wouldnt call Pete. Give me a Coore, Crenshaw or Hanse.

 

Trump LA was really designed by Perry Dye, not Pete. I also think a bunch of it got reworked without either consent as well.

[TheDailyDuffer]

he puts bunkers in the middle of greens, seriously?

 

 

At Dismal River - blind tee shot with a pot bunker in the middle of the green, like a donut. Loved the golfing experience here, but yeah that's a little outside the norm!

 

The 6th at Rivera has a bunker in the middle of the green

[TheDailyDuffer]

Tom Doak

 

150 yard wide fairways and big undulating slow a** greens are not strategy. Yawn

 

Couldn't agree more. Check out some of Doaks most boring designs. #SnoozeFest

[Arb8889]

Nicklaus and it's not close

[mkunes01]

STEPHEN KAY

[Ritzer81]

Arnold Palmer

[DoubleorQuits]

TheDailyDuffer-

 

Spectacular sites do not always equal great designs. #swingandamiss

[ChickenHead415]

Nicklaus by far... his courses are either snooze fest ... Hammock Creek in Hobe Sound, FL or mini golf tracks like his re-design of North Palm Beach Country Club. I played that course every day growing up for $5 ... Nicklaus comes in and basically buries refrigerators in the greens & fairways and now they charge $100+ during the season for a course that is no longer any fun to play, it's penal even if you hit great shots.

 

I love Pete Dye .. Dye Fore, Teeth of the Dog, Ruffled Feathers, Dye Course at PGA G.C., Dye Preserve all some of my favorite courses. I get why people hate him but I like the contrast between Dye and say MacKenzie or Ross who were more minimalists. Sawgrass & Cypress are both awesome golf courses and couldn't be more different. That's what makes them great.

[DoubleorQuits]

I like a lot of Nicklaus courses, but with such large portfolio he is bound to have a lot of good, bad and indifferent designs.

[MichiganMan]

Pete Dye might be the easy answer here, but if you've ever played a Johnny Miller design you know how awful he is. I'm convinced Johnny Miller not only hates golfers, but wants them to have zero fun while playing.

[e.king.gill]

If you are not a scratch I think Fazio courses are very frustrating when you hit a "good" shot but it fails to be on the correct quadrant of the green and you are screwed.

 

we should take a poll

[Saluki91]

Please forgive my heresy....

 

I have never played a Nicklaus course that I truly enjoyed.

 

There... I said it. Now I must go say 100 Hail Barbaras.

 

; o )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheDailyDuffer]

If you are not a scratch I think Fazio courses are very frustrating when you hit a "good" shot but it fails to be on the correct quadrant of the green and you are screwed.

 

we should take a poll

 

Not defending fazio but......

 

If you hit a "good shot" and your next shot leaves you "screwed" chances are it wasn't a good shot.

[cb24]

I have only played a couple Nicklaus courses and one I love and is one of my favorite courses I have ever played (Dove Canyon where I am a member) and then another course that was nuts (Champions club at the retreat). Champions is a fun course but it's literally built on the side of a mountain and looks like it would be a golf course in the Lord of the Rings mountains on the way to Mordor.

 

Dove on the other hand rewards good shots and penalizes bad shots and requires your short game to be on point. I do like his greens a lot (these courses) since they have a lot of false breaks and undulation that take some skill to read

[RichieHunt]

Underrated would be Ron Garl

 

Yup.

 

$ for $, he'd be my pick.

 

I would also add Arnold Palmer to the list as underrated. Because he's so popular as a golfer and a person, I feel that many hardcore golfers don't take his courses as seriously and I think he usually designs fabulous and fun golf courses. Eagle Watch in Woodstock, GA is one of my favorites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[RichieHunt]

I grew up playing a lot of RTJ and Donald Ross designs. Two very different course designers that I really respect their designs and most of today's designers really don't compare, IMO.

 

Dye is a tough one because he's often highly criticized, but he does bring forth courses that deserve criticism.

 

For example, he designed a superb course in Palm Beach Gardens called Old Marsh. But, he couldn't help himself and on the 4th hole he designed a manmade GIANT hill that is about 20-feet high and 60-feet wide that is DIRECTLY in front of the green. Forget being able to see the flag on your approach shot....you can't see the GREEN on your approach shot. What's crazier is that the 4th hole would be a perfectly fine golf hole without that stupid manmade hill.

 

However, Dye has also created some fabulous designs, like Sawgrass. My appreciation for Sawgrass is that it doesn't favor bombers and usually the player that wins in the player that played with the most overall skill and could hit the ball long enough and accurately enough. We don't see that from enough golf course designs these days and I think it takes the dynamics of the game (long but inaccurate vs. short and inaccurate) out of play. But, Dye figured it out with Sawgrass. And like I said, I really loved Old Marsh on 17 of its holes. I also really like the Dye Preserve.

 

My biggest problem with Pete Dye is that if you have never played a course of his before, you go into it with the fear that this is going to be an ultra-difficult course where there are tight, blind tee shots with trouble on both sides and you're going to lose a ton of golf balls. I also believe he was the architectural protégé to Nicklaus. I think in the end, he's inspired a lot of bad designs that make the game too hard, not fun and expensive because you're losing golf balls...as well as slowing down the pace of play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[DrSchteeve]

Dye overrated? Come on!

 

16, 17 and 18 at Sawgrass are more fun than any three consecutive holes in the world -- and each a product of imagination rather than existing geography.

 

Harbour Town's 7th, 9th, 13th and 14th are some of the greatest short holes anywhere.

 

Teeth of the Dog and Dye Fore -- stunning.

 

He basically invented the stadium course, and gave old railroad ties a reason to live

 

I love him! What more do you want from the guy?

 

No railroad ties. 13 at HT is easy for low caps, impossible for high - talk about a terrible philosophy. No silly mounding. He has designed some great holes, not so sure about great courses.

[knock it close]

Underrated would be Ron Garl

 

Yup.

 

$ for $, he'd be my pick.

 

I would also add Arnold Palmer to the list as underrated. Because he's so popular as a golfer and a person, I feel that many hardcore golfers don't take his courses as seriously and I think he usually designs fabulous and fun golf courses. Eagle Watch in Woodstock, GA is one of my favorites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

Garl did my home course. I think there are 1 or 2 holes that weren't executed all that great but other than that really good.

[EKELLY]

Does anyone here actually realize how little the designer "really" does? Yes, he plots out the holes, of course. Beyond that it's all drainage and elevations. Hey, let's put a bunker here, and take out those trees. Getting water to run from high to low..........Cutting dirt here, pasting it there.........Grassy mounds on a golf course? Don't let ANYONE tell you different than THIS: They are there because the builder didn't want to pay to haul off the extra dirt!!.....LOL.....Here's the thing , Pebble and Augusta are Icon's because they've been on TV for 50 years. Pebble has 5 good holes and a bunch of fillers. Augusta isn't a GREAT course, I've been there. Azalea's don't make a golf course, just like Monterey doesn't make Pebble...........When I played Pine Valley the first time, after growing up on the Black Course, my first thought was, "this is it?".......No big deal..........Only the #1 course in the country , forever......Opinions are like #%@#$%^&**, we all have them......

[golfdaddy01]

did any of you fazio haters not like Lake Nona, Caves Valley, Shadow creek, Karsten Creek? I agree some of his public tracks can be just ok, but when you go to private side , I think that is where his gems are. my vote for this thread would be Arthur Hills.

[RichieHunt]

Garl did my home course. I think there are 1 or 2 holes that weren't executed all that great but other than that really good.

 

I find that because Garl is not quite a big name, he ends up getting projects that are not as well funded. That's why I would love to see him get the funding and support that guys like Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio receive.

 

There's a course nearby where I work called La Cita. It's really a hidden gem. Some of the same concepts as you describe your home course. A couple of holes that weren't that well executed (#2 is a nothing, short par-3), but holes #7 thru #18 are about as solid of a design stretch of holes you will find. Unfortunately, the course is struggling for money and looking to be sold and is hanging on by a thread.

 

A course like Eaglebrooke, another Garl design, which has significantly more money going into it is an example of what Garl can do with some money. His back nine there is spectacular and topped off with fantastic holes on #17 and #18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[EKELLY]

Garl did my home course. I think there are 1 or 2 holes that weren't executed all that great but other than that really good.

 

I find that because Garl is not quite a big name, he ends up getting projects that are not as well funded. That's why I would love to see him get the funding and support that guys like Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio receive.

 

There's a course nearby where I work called La Cita. It's really a hidden gem. Some of the same concepts as you describe your home course. A couple of holes that weren't that well executed (#2 is a nothing, short par-3), but holes #7 thru #18 are about as solid of a design stretch of holes you will find. Unfortunately, the course is struggling for money and looking to be sold and is hanging on by a thread.

 

A course like Eaglebrooke, another Garl design, which has significantly more money going into it is an example of what Garl can do with some money. His back nine there is spectacular and topped off with fantastic holes on #17 and #18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

I think Garl did a Grenelefe course as well that was pretty good. I think its closed now.....

[Matt J]

I don't want to start a whole thread about it, but it's pretty interesting how many unknown GCA's or average joes have designed one great golf course. We have a local course that the owner laid out himself, it's the most popular design out of the 4 full 18 hole courses here all by bigger named architects such as RTJ II and John Fought.

 

It's pretty tough for a group of golfers to agree on what they call "great" design. Often depends on how you score.

[Roadking2003]

Most overrated: Crenshaw. He ruined Pinehurst #2. I also think the old timers (Ross, MacKenzie, Maxwell,Tillinghast, etc) as a group are way overrated. Many people who rate courses give extra credit for the old timers. A good example is Prairie Dunes. It's a really good course and generally rated in the top 50. I can list 20 Nicklaus courses I like better.

 

My favorite architect is Nicklaus. I've played 31 of his courses and love almost all of them. The "Nicklaus designs courses for a fade" statement is a myth.

[Roadking2003]

If you are not a scratch I think Fazio courses are very frustrating when you hit a "good" shot but it fails to be on the correct quadrant of the green and you are screwed.

 

we should take a poll

 

That has not been my experience. The two Fazio courses at Barton Creek are very fair and challenging.

[RichieHunt]

Most overrated: Crenshaw. He ruined Pinehurst #2. I also think the old timers (Ross, MacKenzie, Maxwell,Tillinghast, etc) as a group are way overrated. Many people who rate courses give extra credit for the old timers. A good example is Prairie Dunes. It's a really good course and generally rated in the top 50. I can list 20 Nicklaus courses I like better.

 

My favorite architect is Nicklaus. I've played 31 of his courses and love almost all of them. The "Nicklaus designs courses for a fade" statement is a myth.

 

I think there are some people that overrate the old golf course designers like you posted. However, by and large I find the old, legendary designers to be far better than the group of designers in the last 40 years. It's like comparing the craftsmanship that goes into making a persimmon wood versus the craftsmanship that goes into making a titanium driver.

 

It's a completely different ballgame these days. It's about money and trying to maximize profits and sell real estate. Making sure that your 9th and 18th holes come back to the club house to get revenues and creating these 'signature holes' to sell the course, even if they come at the expense of the ebb and flow of the design and are very costly to maintain.

 

Ross had a ton of designs, so I can see if some of them were not up to snuff. But, most of them were and they were just a better design than what we see today. Unfortunately, Ross didn't plan for the ball flying further so many of his great courses became obsolete. Still, I would stack up his finest work over anybody's in the last 40 years.

 

I liked Somerset Hills, but I thought it was very overrated to be in the top-100 and it was getting higher in its ranking over time which I thought was basically doing it because Tillinghast designed the course. But, the same could be said for the newer architects, like Jack. I never found Pawleys Plantation to be that good and some of the holes are downright hideous. Yet, it would consistently get ranked in the top-10 in Myrtle Beach when I lived there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH