[T_MacWood]

While following the York exchange, one of the things that came up was Ross's tendency to find the high points of a property for greens and tees when laying out a golf course. First of all, is that true...I recall reading a quote from the late Bill Jones, about the danger of generalizing about Ross...I think Jones said for every supposed Ross habit, he could point out multiple exceptions?

Was Ross unique in this habit (looking for elevated locations for greens, which naturally makes for adjoining elevated tees) or was it fairly common practice in those days...on a typical inland property?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood;

From my experience with Ross courses, I'd say that the stereotype is generally true in this case.  On the other hand, it's also true of Alex Findlay, as well, so I think it was probably a fairly common design technique.

But, I agree about the tendency to over-stereotype Ross on other matters, such as his grass-faced, flat bottomed bunkering, which your recent thread completely dispelled.

For instance, Ross himself didn't like uphill par threes, yet his Mark Twain course in New York State has four of them!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Macwood,

In the context of drainage and maintainance in the early 20th century, wouldn't that make sense to all architects ?

Ross was keenly aware of the benefits of Drainage, Drainage, Drainage, so it would seem to be a natural extension of his views on drainage to site his greens and tees where they would be least affected.

[TEPaul]

There's no question in my mind that Ross was a high tee/valley/high green site router. God knows how many courses I've seen of his on topographical land where one really can't miss that tendency. Does that mean all his holes are that way? Of course not---in a routing sense that would be a virtual impossiblity for any architect. But if an architect happened to begin routing a golf course by maximizing that type of hole first obviously once he'd maxed out the site that way he'd have to connect those holes with holes that were some other form. It looks like Ross may've done that. One of the most interesting things and probably everlastingly unanswerable questions about routing is how and where does any architect begin to create a routing? Ross's way of beginning may've been contour line analysis first to pick out as many high green sites, valleys and high tee sites as any site could offer. After that he may've just connected them with other type holes and analyzed what that was giving him in a whole course sense. Certainly even Ross, though, could not overcome the physical dictum that what goes up must come down and vice versa!

[T_MacWood]

"In the context of drainage and maintainance in the early 20th century, wouldn't that make sense to all architects ?"

I would agree, as MikeC points out, it seems to be a pretty common characteristic among many architects of that time.

One aspect of Raynor's architecture I've come to appreciate, is his ability to take full advantage of a sites interesting natural features. He also never hesitated to created his own man-made "elevated" greens...did his style give him an advantage when routing a golf course?

[Forrest Richardson]

I have never heard this about Ross, but it adds up. It must also be considered that Ross was known for pushing considerable material to form greens, especially in relative flat areas. So...it may be that some "elevated" green sites were created, and perhaps now are interpreted as "high [higher] points" on the property.

Certainly all architects begin their routing by a careful study of the topography. From that point the 1000s of other considerations come into play...some overruling the first impressions, and others having no chance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I believe it did.

The first green at Westhampton is a perfect example.

It sits mildly elevated above a fronting canal.
To the rear it is elevated higher, above a swamp.

While he might have drained the swamp, or abandoned the site, the elevated green makes a perfect fit in what could be described as unsuitable surroundings.

Perhaps this was the begining of altering the golf course rather then altering the surrounding site.  Construction above the problems, not within them.

Just a thought.

[Mark Brown]

Tom,

Perhaps it's a related concept to high fairway landing areas and greens -- resulting from making cuts between the landing area and green and forming a little valley which makes approach shots more interesting and elevates the greens.

[T_MacWood]

Mark
At Ohio State, MacKenzie's plan called for that method.

Pat
Alison was another one who wasn't opposed to placing (or building up) greens in impractical places. In fact placing entire golf courses in impractcal locations. Colony outside Detroit was built within St.John's Marsh. The course is long gone (a victim of the Depression), I visited the site this summer...no sign of a golf course today....just a wild marsh....it blows my mind that they would even contemplate a golf course in such location.

[Sean_A]

Around the Detroit area, many Ross designs have several holes with high tee & green and valley fairway.  However, in many cases the fairways get very wet in rainy conditions (or even in high summer with over-watering!).

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"I have never heard this about Ross, but it adds up. It must also be considered that Ross was known for pushing considerable material to form greens, especially in relative flat areas. So...it may be that some "elevated" green sites were created, and perhaps now are interpreted as "high [higher] points" on the property."

Forrest:

It's not a matter of Ross building up a green and creating elevation from the approach with fill. On my course a full 12 greens are elevated above the LZ on the previous shot which would be the approach area to the green. That's on the original topo contour lines of the site, not what Ross constructed. 12 greens on elevated spots from the approaches is a lot, matter of fact I doubt he could possibly do more on any site given he had to connect the rest of the  holes.

It just goes on and on like that on all the Ross courses I know that have natural elevation chances to them. There's so much of that on his courses I can't see how it could be a coincidence. It had to be his basic routing modus operandi. My sense is that he simply began to route by choosing all the green sites he could get on any property that had elevation up to the green sites from the approach areas and then just connecting the rest with whatever elevation situations that were left. Obviously, not all his green sites sit on top of hills and such--many of them are just placed on a higher elevation than the approach and that would make sense since he had to correlate that to the tee position and length of the holes as they fit together in the progression of the routing scheme.

From my experience on Ross courses the fill for the greens was used more for leveling the putting surfaces rather than just creating elevation. On any side slope he placed a green you generally see a big bunker on the low side. That had to be his technique for simply creating enough leveling on the green to make it playable---either side to side or back to front. On many of his green sites that had too much natural back to front tilt you often see big catch bunkers in the rear and half way around the green. That's obviously what he used for fill to bring the front of the green up to level it enough. On green sites that had natural hillside drainage coming at the green position he cut drainage swales partially around the green such as GMGC's #2, #3, #5, #7,

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble said;

"However, in many cases the fairways get very wet in rainy conditions (or even in high summer with over-watering!)."

That's very true of Ross. Matter of fact a number of his LZ's seemed to be planned right in the base of valleys that basically serve as part of the natural drainage or "water course" area on those parts of the course. It seems to be sort of poetic justice actually for any distance problem or expected distance problem. The old shorter LZ's seemed to be right in the base of valleys on a large amount of fairways and today, now that the ball goes farther off the tee, the LZ's are farther along on the upslopes that kill distance.

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that most all Ross courses for all these reasons often play 200 or more yards longer than they really are in raw distance.

To me, it can't be just coincidence that Ross seemed to find all these interesting factors so often on sites that had elevation changes. He may not have written about it or advertized it but he did it so often I can't imagine it could've been a coincidence. It wouldn't even surprise me if he did a lot of this by simply measuring topo maps from tee placements to LZs and LZs to green sites before he even analyzed properties on site----many of which he probably never even did on site---since a number of sites he apparently never even personally saw!

To me a lot of this was probably just a topo routing and designing modus he got into---a most interesting thing actually for that early day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()