[Mark_Fine]

In Brad Klein's book on Ross, he says "there is hardly anything that's the same from one to the next".  Anyone beg to differ or is there nothing that distinguishes a Ross course?  If that is the case, how would you know you are playing one if you didn't know ahead of time?  For that matter, how would you know you're playing what Ross designed anyway vs. what some future grounds committee changed and/or added.  
Mark

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mark

I'll jump into this, even though my Ross experience is relatively limited (7-8 courses), since nobody else seems to want to answer your question.

One thing that strikes me as recurring farily regularly is a routing which has a lot of holes with elevated tees which flow into a valley and then up again to an elevated green (e.g. Gulph Mills #1).  This feature, of course, is fairly non-existent on the few flatland Ross courses I have played.

I'm not sure about Brad's quote.  With 5-600 courses to your name it would be very hard NOT to have a few things which are (or at least seem) the same.  Just ask Rees.  Oops!  Wrong thread........

[A_Clay_Man]

My experiences are also limited but I would say that besides having his greens raised almost on a pedastel his grasswalled bunkers give me the feeling of his signature.

[ed_getka]

The common thread of the 3 Ross courses I have played is the internal contours of the greens (not necessarily all 18 holes) that test your short game. Whether it be trying to get up and down for par or getting down in 2 putts when on in regulation his greens always keep me interested. Plainfield in particular is a course I could play for the rest of my life and never be bored.

[TEPaul]

My feeling about how to identify a Ross course is exactly what Rich Goodale just said above!

I feel that Ross maxed out every site he had (or could) that I know of with high tees into valleys and up to elevated greens! What holes he didn't do like that were simply the routing flowing and connecting to the next one that could do it!

Obviously on less elevated sites (Florida) it's less apparent but if you look closely he tried to do holes at one end or the other that way even there!

Basically, Donald Ross was the exact opposite of a "ridge running" router or one who generally routed the mid-bodies of holes over elevations!

There's an interesting function to this style! First, many of the holes become more visible from tee to the green this way and also tee shots are often running into upslopes and approach shots are functionally longer to elevated greens. This makes Ross courses play longer than they are!

I believe this identifiable routing tendency of Ross's remained with him throughout his career and may have been the result of the fact that he worked with so many topos to do his routings (and stick routings)! I think Donald basically got in the habit of identifying all the high green sites and tee sites first and then probably just counting up and down the contour lines to see what he had, to see how many he could get on the site and then just connecting with whatever else there was!!

It's hard enough to know how to start a routing anyway and counting up and down contour lines for high tees and green sites is as easy a way as any!

Ross also said in his book (his found writings) that he didn't really believe in green surfaces that were blind to the approaching golfer but if you ask me that was one of the all-time remarks that was just blowing smoke! If he didnt believe in doing that he could hardly have failed to notice that he did one helluva lot of them!

Ross did say he thought the ideal configuration for a course was to have the clubhouse in a corner of the property and have the routing and course "fan out" from there!

Gulph Mills is just such a routing where Ross had the opportunity to site the clubhouse himself! And Gulph Mills is a typical example of a site maxed out with high tee and green sites through valleys!

[Dave_Miller]

As a member of two very different Ross courses, Aronimink and Charles River, answering this question is not as simple as it may seem on the surface.

Yes the design of the bunkers appears to be a consistent theme with the grass faces and the depths in certain areas.

However, while many of the Ross designs appear very different there is a feel to them, when played more than a couple of times, that one begins to get and the similarities begin to show them selves in very subtle ways.

An example, No. 5 at Aronimink and No. 4 at Charles River.  Both Par 3's of similar length.  

On first glance one might say, that other than length, they are not alike at all.

 However when one considers the hazards and the placement of such, the green complexes, the tees and the elevation of the tees and the downhill tee shot to a green that appears elevated but is below the level of the tee one can ascertain the many similarities.

CRCC No.4 has a water hazard to clear. Aronimink No. 5 has a bunker in front.

Both have bunkers left.  Each has either a hazard or OB on one side or the other.

The feel of Donald Ross is in both.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

[Mark_Fine]

Dave,
Sorry I missed you at Charles River.  I really enjoyed the golf course.  Regarding the grass faced bunkers, some would say that Ross flashed more sand then you'd think.  Remember Prichard did both those restorations and I think he feels most all bunkers of Ross were grass faced.  I'm not sure what orginally existed at Charles River, but it seemed to me that some of those bunkers were ideal candidates to show some sand?  What are your thoughts?
Mark

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Awright, all you GCA afficionados out there.......

If we can only get 6 posts--one of which was by a complete naif (myself) who probably stole his idea from Tom Paul anyway--on such a central topic, what are we here for anyway?

Imagine a website on "Impressionists" where somebody posed the question:  How do you distinguish a Monet from a Manet?  Do you think the responses would be as weak or as non-existent?

Just wondering.....

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:

Our research on the restoration at The River showed that the bunkers were grass faced and we believe it was from inception.

The aerial photos from 1930, old Green Committee minutes, and interviews with the few members that were there in the 30's indicated the bunkers were grass faced.

Our decision to go ahead in this manner was not only due to Ron's advice but what we learned from the research.

Even though the course was built in 1921 it was believed to be unlikely that grass would have been added to the faces later.  Particularly as the depression approached and there were probably no funds available for that type of change.

Also it was considered unlikely that Bunkers would have been changed in just 8 or 9 years.

Glad you enjoyed the course.  Sorry I was out of town and couldn't join you.  Hopefully we can do it again.

Best,
Dave

[Dan Kelly]

If we can only get 6 posts--one of which was by a complete naif (myself) who probably stole his idea from Tom Paul anyway--on such a central topic, what are we here for anyway? ...

Just wondering.....

Rich -- "We" are here to savage Rees Jones, and to throw Old Tom Morris off the island!

Isn't that obvious?

Of course, I could be WRONG.  

[Ric]

"And I said, 'Hey Lama, how 'bout a little something, you know, for the effort?' And he says, 'There won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed you will receive total consciousness.' So I got that going for me ... which is nice."

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I can guarantee you that Ron Prichard does not feel that almost all Ross bunkers were grassed faced! What Ron does believe is that Ross did many types and styles of bunkers! And when Ron does a restoration at a Ross course he goes to maximum lengths to do really good research as to exactly what Ross called for on that particular course in the way of bunker shapes and styles!

Matter of fact, Ron is the one who most vocally stated that it's amusing to him that almost all golfers seem to think that Ross did grassed faced bunkers everywhere! So much so, in fact, that he recoginzes that grassed faced bunkers are almost always called "Ross bunkers". That's just not true if you've done as much research on Ross as he has!

It's the same thing with the univeral misperception that all Ross greens are "crowned"! Originally even Pinehurst #2's greens weren't even "crowned", at least nowhere near what they now are (and early on ground photos can prove that)!

Dave Miller:

Charles River's #4 has a water hazard to clear???

You have GOT TO BE JOKING! I have no recollection AT ALL of a water hazard to clear on that hole!

That is the best example yet that I should NEVER try to play golf and look at golf architecture closely!!

That's unbelievable!

I must be getting as bad in observation skills as my wife. I swear to God I could paint this grey house of ours bright red and when she came home she wouldn't even notice!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You don't even need to mention it on here! All your good ideas you got from me!

And, how do I distinguish between Monet and Manet? It's simple as pie--one spells his last name with an "o" the other with an "a"!

[Ryan Seacrest]

"They can do whatever they want. I'll still be eating steak every night."

[Doug Wright]

Rihc,

When you hit the nail on the head with the first reply and it's endorsed by TE Paul what more is there to say??

That certainly was my initial reaction to Mark's question--that Ross did the high to low to high layouts all the time. I've seen it at Oak Hill, Minikahda, Wilmington (where there's not much elevation change but he still did it), and out here in Colorado at The Broadmoor, Wellshire and Lakewood. Tom's right--he did it with topo map in hand, since he didn't even visit sites like Wellshire.

A couple of other thoughts:

--He liked to build smallish, sloping greens

--He built bunkers into the faces of uphill slopes, both in fairways and green approaches. And he would push the greens up on the edges where the bunkers were located and from the drawings I've seen on other sides of the greens too, which makes recoveries more difficult if you're short-sided.

--He liked to build one very long 220-230ish par 3 per course.

These may be more "preferences" than "distinguishing features," but they're things I've seen from playing and studying Ross some.

Rich, I'm wondering how much of Ross's designs emanate from his Dornoch roots. I suspect there are similarities with high to low to high holes there? I've not played it Dornoch so don't know, but I'd be interested in your views...

All the Best,

[Michael Moore]

Michael from Maine here - back after a very long absence. My how things have changed! Hope to have some photos of Cape Arundel and some other local courses up very soon.

I have played a dozen or so Ross courses around New England. I still say that George Wright muni in Boston stands up to Charles River and Essex County and deserves a write up here.  I offer the following generalizations.


1. Grave danger over the back of the green

To me this is the key strategic element of his courses. There is usually a severely back-to-front green or a deep bunker or (most often) a forest back there to add a couple of strokes to your score. Many times this knowledge has caused me to flinch or decelerate on a 40-yarder and skull it.


2. Par threes with the green on top of a hill

A blind shot, no real place to run the ball up, and danger everywhere. I absolutely love to play these holes. The timeless example is 11 at Essex County. Another fine example is 8 at Poland Springs.


3. Few fairway bunkers

The old cliche is that Ross protects par at the green. I have found fairway bunkers to be few and far between on his courses.

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore;

Maybe your computer is a bit different from mine but if that's a photo of you in your posts I would suggest that you start using more sun block!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

A couple of the difficulties in identifying distinguishing characteristics of Ross courses is the length of his career and the number associates who assisted him. No doubt his style evolved over the years - I believe Tom Paul quoted Ron Forse as saying Ross went through three stylistic eras. And I would think there were stylistic differences between courses involving McGovern and Hatch. A number of courses in Ohio have routings that are signed by Hatch, I wonder if he might have had design input.

No doubt he did utilize the high points of the site, but wasn't that a common theme with most golf architects for practical reasons? I've noticed that many of his landing areas are sloped toward the tee, increasing the effective length of the holes. A few times I've noticed the landing area sloped to one side or another, sometimes it isn't apparent until you see your ball scooting from the fairway to rough. But most of the time he seemed to attack pronounced slopes or valleys perpendicularly.

He style has often been inigma to me. His designs have a unique look and feel - but I could never put my finger on what it was exactly that gave them their uniqueness. I think one of his secrets was ability to identify the interesting natural unduations of the site - dips and ridges - and then to enhance them. Increasing the depths of the dips and/or building up the ridges to give them a very bold distinctive appearance. He often places his hazards near or into these enhanced natural features, adding to the Ross look - I wonder if this was not the influence of Colt.

The other mystery has been his routings - Jeff Brauer mentioned something about a traingulation method. And no doubt he reconginzed the high points for tees and greens. I also supsect that he identified his par-3s early on - they all seem to take advantage of intersting ground. Ron Whitten claimed that he had identified a par-3 design that he utilized on many his courses. I'm not sure exactly the nature of that hole, but I have identified a par-3 that I've seen on a few of his courses. Canton Brookside, Salem and I think Shaker Hts. have par-3 from elevated tee to elevated green, where the green his is relatively shallow and quite wide, with a ridge running across the green perpendicular to the tee, with green sloping aprubtly up to the rear. A series of bunkers across the front of the green. It also appears that his long par-3 (he almost always had one of over 200) occupied relatively flat land.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Doug

Within my very limited knowledge on this subject, I would say that the most significant design aspect that Ross took from Dornoch was the "fall-offs" from the sides of the greens--the shaved slopes that make you want to say UFF-DA!!!!, even if you have never been to Minnesota.  Not "crown" greens a la Pinehurst #2, as is the conventional wisdom, since there are not any of those at Dornoch, and in any case, others on this suite seem to have dsicovered that that particular feature in North Carolina seems to have resulted from years of top-dressing rather than architectural intent.

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:

Maybe you didn't notice the water because that was the only hole you hit it left and long.  

Trust me there is water in front of that green and has been there since 1921.  

Considering that you went around in a very quiet and unassuming even par I should have known you were unconscious that day.

Best,
Dave

[Jeff_McDowell]

Fall offs = Uff-Da!!! As in:
That won't hold - Uff-Da, or
There goes another one - Uff-Da, or
Not again - Uff-Da, or
Sit, sit, sit - Uff-Da.

You get the picture.

P.S. Rich, I hear a local newspaper columnist received and published a story about an Uff-Da spouting golfer in the motherland.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jeff

I hope Dan showed you my interpretation of your "UFF-DA" at Brora, and I hope you do not disapprove.

PS--I do hear from Dan and Rick that you are still using that "bad back, need to hit the 3-iron, bunt, bunt chip and putt, oh, gosh that was a 4, wasn't it?! routine",  That may work above the arctic circle, but if we ever get to play at Myrtle Beach, bring along your personal trainer, or else.......

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Come on--Raynor's a paradox and now Ross is an enigma?
I guess MacKenzie is a riddle and Tillinghast is a conundrum, Huh? I do agree with the King of Siam though that C.B. MacDonald is definitely a puzzlement!

Dare I ask you how you'd describe Rees?

Dave Miller;

Even par!? At best that would have been if I counted 17 holes!

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:

Oh right. I forgot you shot 72 but we were playing from the back tees which is the Par 70 course.  But if you didn't see the water on #4 then you were still unconscious.

Best,
Dave

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree with the description of his greens all being at least slightly elevated, not necessarily like Pinehurst, but at least a few feet above the natural grade. That elevation combined with Ed Getka's internal contours turns ordinary chip shots into some very interesting (and difficult) short game challenges. And especially in this neck of the woods, the rough around those greens can get pretty nasty, I wonder if that has anything to do with water running off into these areas.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()