What makes a great routing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Does it make a difference if the architect advertised ?

These fellows were in the "Business" of golf course design and construction.

Why wouldn't they advertise ?

And, how was it detrimental to the quality of their finished products ?

[T_MacWood]

"Does it make a difference if the architect advertised ?"

No, I don't think it does make a difference, not only that, I don't think you can draw any definitive conclusions about architects who did and didn't advertise.

[wsmorrison]

"That is not advertisement, that is the cover page of promotional piece."

Tom MacWood,

What is the purpose of a promotional piece?  It is a marketing tool to attract business.  Sorry if I referred to it as advertising.


Pat,

Does it make a difference if the architect did not advertise?  Flynn didn't have to advertise to do his work the way he wanted to.  To me it is an indication of the way they chose to conduct their business and it is linked to the volume of their business.  It need not have anything at all to do with the finished output, that is unless there was so much work as a result that they decided to do that it changed the way they did it.

[wsmorrison]

"No, I don't think it does make a difference, not only that, I don't think you can draw any definitive conclusions about architects who did and didn't advertise."

Couldn't you infer that those who advertised were seeking more business outside a network of clients?

Couldn't you infer that those that did not advertise were getting enough business (by their own estimation) without it that they did not have to seek other channels of work?  If an architect was getting work through referrals and a network of contacts that met his output requirements and did not need to advertise that surely has some meaning.

Pat,

How would you evaluate a business or a service that did not  advertise?  Not necessarily in terms of the quality of work.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
You're right, a promotional pamphlet is a form of advertisement...I guess Ross advertised as well then...what about those Toomey & Flynn billboards in Time Square?

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
In some cases it might indicate that, but I've seen Raynor ads and I don't get the impression he was looking to breakaway from their network.

MacKenzie was in similar postion to Alison & Colt, Park and Fowler & Simpson, they advertised but for whatever reason he chose not to.

[cary lichtenstein]

I know this is a stupid question, but I want to ask it anyways:

Is it possible for there to be a great routing on a hilly course that is not walkable?

[Mark_Fine]

One thing I am not sure of is if architects like Flynn turned down many projects?  His peak year was 1923 and there were some great years after that for golf course architects.  Flynn never reached that level of designs in any one year again.  Did he purposely lower his work load or not?  Frankly I'm not sure and would only be speculating from what I've uncovered.  

[Mark_Fine]

Cary,
Walkable by who?
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
In some cases it might indicate that, but I've seen Raynor ads and I don't get the impression he was looking to breakaway from their network. "

Tom,
I don't mean breaking away from a network more like supplementing the work a network provided.  

There is definitely a geographical component that indicates a network influence to a number of architects, Flynn for sure.  He had pockets of courses outside his home base of Philadelphia.

[TEPaul]

By the way, did you look at Fay's comments on page 31 of his Ross book?  Fay said Ross handled changes in elevation in an unconventional manner.  While many of his peers dealt with elevation suddenly and abruptly, Ross's approach was far more subtle.  He would walk the player up the hill gradually, almost imperceptibly.  An elevation change of 300 feet could take as many as five or six holes...

What do you think?

Mark:

To be honest I don’t agree with that at all; almost the opposite in fact. I say that knowing I certainly haven’t seen anywhere near as many Ross courses as Michael Fay has but of those I do know of Ross, I don’t see that at all, and I’ll give you numerous examples of holes to prove it. As I’ve said many times on here about Ross I see a marked penchant on his part to find almost as many high tee/valley/high green site holes as any site that has significant topographical changes will offer. And, matter of fact on at least two holes on my course he took the golfer from an approach area to a green-site that was so high and so abrupt those holes basically had to be redesigned early because obviously weaker players and ladies simply could not get a ball up that high in one shot!  Our last hole goes from one of the lowest points on the property to practically the highest and has always been considered a killer climb at the end of the round.

Ross mentioned that he did not like to create green surfaces that were not visible from the approach area. If he really meant that one really does wonder why he created so many of them. Was it because in too many cases he never actually saw them? Was it because he simply counted up contour lines without the benefit of actually knowing what they specifically looked like on the ground? One the other hand, I believe that Ross courses have as many or more "false front" greens as any architect simply as a accomodation for visibility for some many of those high greens whose surfaces would otherwise be not visible to the golfer approaching the hole.

In my opinion, and the Ross courses I know that have topographical change, Ross may’ve created more uphill approaches than any architect ever did. In a way, that may’ve actually been a bit of a theme of his---and when one thinks about that today, and the result of that in play, it's most interesting. It certainly does make many of his courses actually play a lot longer than they appear to be on the scorecards.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Michael Fay told me he has reviewed the original drawings for over 150 Ross courses and has played 212 Donald Ross designed courses.  Maybe now I helped you to have a new found respect for Donald Ross and to realize some of your old ideas need to be re-thought out  

Just think if the only Ross course someone ever played was Pinehurst #2.  They would think the guy liked crowned greens  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I'm sixty years old and I've played a ton of Ross courses in topographical sites for years--my Dad belonged to something like seven Ross courses at one time or another. Maybe I haven't seen or played the 212 Michael Fay's played but I sure have played plenty and plenty enough to know that there's no reason whatsoever to change what I just said in that last post. Those are my observations for years, I sure can see and I've belonged to a Ross course for the last 30 years that's very representative of how I feel about Ross's routing modus, in my opinion. I don't mind somebody teaching me something I don't know but I do draw the line when someone tries to tell me I'm not seeing the things I've been seeing for decades. If Ross characteristically took 5-6 holes to transition sideways or whatever across an elevation change I'd sure like to see a couple of examples of that because of all the Ross courses I've ever seen I've never seen that. I don't know what Michael's talking about when he said that in his book---I've never seen anything like that as a general modus operandi from Ross. But I can show you numerous examples of Ross holes within a 25 mile radius of me where he took on some pretty good elevation changes straight on. So please don't tell me I haven't seen a lot of that or I'll take you out to some of them and we can put a level on the slope from approach to the green.

That crowned green thing that everyone seems to think is Ross's standard green concept is the biggest rumor and load of crap imaginable. I know exactly how the crowned greens of Pinehurst #2 got that way. The facts in detail on that are in the archives of this website.

[T_MacWood]

I agree and disagree with Fay. I agree that Ross dealt with significant elevation changes gradually (at least going up hill), Granville is good example here locally. I don't agree that his peers dealt with elevation suddenly and abruptly. And on normal rolling land, Ross often attacked a hill straight on.

"I'm sixty years old and I've played a ton of Ross courses in topographical sites for years--my Dad belonged to something like seven Ross courses at one time or another. Maybe I haven't seen or played the 212 Michael Fay's played but I sure have played plenty and plenty enough to know that there's no reason whatsoever to change what I just said in that last post."

TE
You should check out Ross's courses in the midwest, there are ton of good ones out here in the boondocks. Hell in Central Ohio alone we've got Scioto, Columbus, Delaware, Granville, Lancaster, Springfield and Westbrook.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
You've made my point for me, thank you.   Do you think Michael Fay developed "a bias" about Ross and his routing philosophies because he wrote a book on him.  According to you, he must have otherwise how could a guy who studied Ross that much and saw that many of his drawings and his courses (over half) not get it right?  I would hope Fay presented to us the most common Ross philosophy when he made those observations about him.  There will always variations from that especially when you design 400 courses.  

You believe the opposite of Fay, however, from a shear statistical standpoint, you have to give him a "slight" edge for Ross course experience    
Mark

[TEPaul]

Tom Paul,
You've made my point for me, thank you.  Do you think Michael Fay developed "a bias" about Ross and his routing philosophies because he wrote a book on him.  According to you, he must have otherwise how could a guy who studied Ross that much and saw that many of his drawings and his courses (over half) not get it right?  I would hope Fay presented to us the most common Ross philosophy when he made those observations about him.  There will always variations from that especially when you design 400 courses."

Mark:

What point do you think I made for you? That everyone who writes a book about someone has a bias about them? I'm not even going to respond to that.

Am I saying that Michael Fay did not get it right on page 31? Not really. I'm just saying I don't agree with that remark about Ross on all the courses I've ever seen of his and it's a lot.

"You believe the opposite of Fay, however, from a shear statistical standpoint, you have to give him a "slight" edge for Ross course experience    
Mark"

Who knows, maybe the courses that Michael has seen of Ross's that I haven't seen are all that way. But all the ones I've seen aren't that way, and I don't care who tells me they are---I know they aren't. But if you want to give Michael an edge over that opinion of mine because he's seen more Ross courses than I have then that's just fine by me.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
Please understand, I don't disagree with your comments on Ross (for the courses you've seen).  In fact I agree with you that at times Ross took that approach.

Where I disagree with you, however, is with the opinions you stated in your reply #32.  For you to say what you said there and then to still take that stance when hear from someone like Fay who has seen more than half of Ross's 400 courses and has a totally opposite opinion.  How do you explain that?  

Again, I am not saying that Ross didn't do what you say at times with his routings.  I am just presenting an opinion from "an expert, Mr. Fay" that states in general, Ross took a different approach then your impression.  

How else could he draw that generalization?  Maybe Ross was a better router than you give him credit for?
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Where I disagree with you, however, is with the opinions you stated in your reply #32.  For you to say what you said there and then to still take that stance when hear from someone like Fay who has seen more than half of Ross's 400 courses and has a totally opposite opinion.  How do you explain that?"

Mark:

How do I explain that? I explain that by telling you once again what my observations are on the courses of Ross I've seen. If Michael Fay takes a different view then maybe you should ask him how he explains that on the Ross courses he's seen.  

"Again, I am not saying that Ross didn't do what you say at times with his routings.  I am just presenting an opinion from "an expert, Mr. Fay" that states in general, Ross took a different approach then your impression."

Again, I suggest you ask Mr Fay why he thinks Ross took a different approach. I'd be happy to give anyone plenty of examples of my opinion on this. Why don't you ask Mr Fay to give you examples of where he thinks Ross took a different approach.  

"How else could he draw that generalization?'

Ask Mr Fay that, not me.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Maybe you should read his book  isn't that why he wrote it - to explain his observations of Donald Ross.  How much more do you want from him?
Mark

[guesst]

I'm not terribly picky about routing.  I just like to be able to find the next tee without asking the cart girl for directions!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Maybe you should read his book isn't that why he wrote it - to explain his observations of Donald Ross.  How much more do you want from him?
Mark"

Mark:

I read his book. I don't know why he wrote the book---if you want to know why don't you ask him if it was to explain his observations? Do you want his telephone #? How much more do I want from him? What are you talking about? Did I say somewhere I wanted something from him? Michael Fay sure didn't teach me what I know about Donald Ross courses since I've been playing them for about fifty years. If he sees something in Donald Ross courses that I don't than that's his prerogative. He's never seen my course, for instance. If you or anyone else prefer to think his observations of the Ross courses he's seen are more valid than my observations of the Ross courses I've seen then that's fine by me.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
There is no question Ross used that approach on many courses (drainage was a good reason for this) but that was not his only approach to routing.  Even on sites with a lot of topo, Ross always found a way to make the course pleasent to walk.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dale,

I don't know that there is a set answer, but like obscenity, you'll know it when you see it........ and you'll know it when you don't see it.

Sean Arble,

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the architect didn't want you to "run the ball" to the hole ?

How did Ross design # 9 at Pinehurst # 2 ?
As a run up, or aerial approach ?

And, with all of Ross's crowned or umbrella like greens, was the run up the least favorable method of getting to the hole ?

[TEPaul]

"Even on sites with a lot of topo, Ross always found a way to make the course pleasent to walk."

Mark:

I think you need to be careful when you generalize by saying things (about Ross or anyone) like "always". At my own Ross course we have memberships over the last 85 years who would NOT say that about at least three holes that Ross originally built there and those memberships really don't need you or a "Ross expert" like Michael Fay who's seen or played 212 Ross courses to tell them otherwise!    

[Forrest Richardson]

There are a lot of great comments and information here. One of the charms of a great routing is often that the golfer can't put his/her finger on what makes the course feel so right.

Often a golfer will enjoy a course to death and try to explain this afterward. The golfer mentions a host of attributes...neat holes, great scenery, decent bacon and eggs, good bar, good conditioning, etc. What they are often wanting to say, but don't know except deep down, is that the routing is near perfect...it sings.