Donald Ross and his bunkers

[Mike_Cirba]

Yesterday, a discussion ensued about the types of bunkering that architects like Tillinghast and Ross created or favored.  I contended that each created a variety of styles, and see it as overly-simplistic that we should think of Ross with all grass-faced bunkers, or Tillinghast only with all flashed sand to the lips like San Francisco Golf Club, for instance.  I also believe that all restoration work should seek to determine what the bunkers looked like originally, instead of presuming that any of these architect's had a certain "style" that they just repeated ad nauseum across the country.  Not only were they much more flexible and creative than that, but they sometimes utilized different looks on the same course or even same hole, depending on a number of factors.    

I also contended that each was very site-specific in the types of bunkers they created, for aesthetic, practical, and functional reasons.  

With that in mind, I'd like to offer the following from Donald Ross's book, "Golf Has Never Failed Me", on what we today call, "flashed up bunkers".

"Scooped-out Pits"

To provide this type of bunker, you must have undulating ground, as they can only be constructed on the faces of slopes or knolls.  

I like them very much, as they usually have a natural appearance and are nearly always open to view, a desirable thing in all bunkers.  

To keep them in condition, sand must be used plentifully.  The whole scooped-out surface should be completely covered with it.

The designs for such bunkers are rather flexible, allowing you tomake some wide and shallow, and others narrow and deep."

Notice how he builds the bunker types based on the land he is given, along with aesthetic considerations.

He continues...

"Sunken Pits with Raised Faces"

A hazard of this kind is usually built on flat ground and is particularly serviceable on clay land, where digging is so expensive and drainage so uncertain.

By cutting a sunken pit out one-and-a half-feet deep, the face can be raised a like amount using the fill, giving a finished face of three feet. (This depth is arbitrary, and I simply use it by way of example.)

If the raised part is carefully designed and built, it can be made to appear quite natural.  If you use a line and square in the building of this variety of bunker, the result is sure to have an artificialness akin to hideous.  It's just as easy to break up all the lines and avoid such a regrettable result."

Once again, we see a blend of pragmatic considerations, mixed with a concern for artistry.

"Pot Bunkers"

Such bunkers are totally below the surface.  They are most generally placed in the neighborhood of the green.  Particular attention should be paid when locating them to secure good drainage."

Ross often located these on existing hillsides fronting greens, or on natural areas sloping away from greensites.

"Mound and Pot Combinations"

Where it is desirable to cover a large area of ground, hazards of this kind can be used advantageously.  A mound and pot bunker combination is particularly helpful in dividing the line of play on parallel holes, it being equally hazardous for both holes.  

The pits in such a combination may be shallow and the mounds should be covered with course grass.  But it is not necessary to fill these shallow pits with any sand.  Both high parts and hollows may be covered with coarse grass if desired."

[BCrosby]

There's been a lot of discussion on GCA about Ross's bunker style.  Certainly it's varied.  There are his grass-faced bunkers at Pinehurst and Holston Hills.  Geoff Shack. uncovered old photos of Seminole that show sand flashed in the face of Ross bunkers there.

Nonetheless, I think there is a regional consistency to Ross bunker styles.  Your quotations from Golf Never Fails Me show how much he was concerned to fit bunker types with local soil conditions and terrain.  Thus, in the clay soil of the southeastern piedmont, virtually all Ross bunkers I've ever seen have been grass-faced.

In sandier soils, like those at Seminole, he seemed to flash faces more often.  (Anyone know waht they are doing with the bunkers at Timmaquana in JAX?)

The other problem with nailing down his style is that so many of his bunkers were built without his oversight.  Local crews, many of whom had never even seen a golf course before, built Ross bunkers the way they thought they ought to look.  So there were (and still are) a lot of home brewed Ross bunkers that the old man would not have approved.  

I suspect that is less true for Tillie.

Bob  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob,

Good examples and there is certainly something to be said for the regionalism you mentioned.  Other classic examples of his versatility however, don't quite meet those assumptions.  For example, what do you make of Ross flashing sand all the way up the face of his bunkers at Wannamoisett and Oakland Hills?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

For me Ross is even more mysterious than Tillinghast. I think it would be interesting to study the courses in which McGovern and Hatch were involved and Ross's solo efforts to see the similarities and possible differences.

[TEPaul]

There's no question that Ross designed all kinds of bunkering looks and styles or at least his courses turned out that way and for anyone to assume that there's a single "Ross bunker" style that requires grass drapped down to the floor (or half way down) would really be missing the point and the facts of Ross's bunkering.

It's also pretty illogical to assume that Ross could ever have monitored the creation and look of every bunker he built to the extent that architects like Coore or Hanse (or their crews) do today. Ross was way too high production for that and just simply could not have been on site enough for that kind of "hands on" design.

I think a lot can be learned too from simply looking very closely at some of Ross's field drawings and notes (regarding bunker construction) and how that got translated later to drawings by Walter Erving Johnson. How Johnson's drawings got translated in the field is something else too that you can learn a lot about from Klein's book which oftern devolved to the likes of Hatch and McGovern.

It seems you might be able to get some idea of what Ross wanted with grassing down on bunker faces with the straight lines (grass lines) he occasionally drew either outside or inside the bunker parameter lines (the basically circular bunker lines drawn on the hole drawings and field note drawings).

These kinds of things though were probably reserved for the courses Ross spent a bit more time with.

But as for the vastly different look of Ross bunkers all you have to do is look at photos of his courses when they were built or not long after creation. There's a vastly different look to many of them.

I didn't think Ross did that much of the traditional capes and bays and a look other than basically roundish sides but clearly the early photos of Pinehurst #2 say otherwise. Some of the different looks on couses like Wanamoisset, Wampanoag, Seminole show some interesting grass/sand lines too.

We were discussing the look of the grass lines for our restoration at GMGC with Gil Hanse the other day too and it's going to be partially grassed down but a lot depends on the depths and sizes of the bunkering. Frankly, there's quite a bit of latitude! But we can see what was done originally from our aerials. They certainly weren't the most sophisticated he did by a long shot so again there's latitude!

Ross seemed far more interested in bunker placement and particularly bunker dimensions and depths anyway--faces to floors etc!

Gil was sort of laughing that when Ross made field notes and drawings his bunker depths seems to almost always turn out to ask for 4' 6'' anyway. And if you read enough of his hole drawings and notes that seems to be fairly true!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Probably far more interesting with Ross bunkering than the grass to sand line question is the very different shapes and dimensions of various bunkering between courses.

The idea of "scale" to varying sites was apparently not lost on Ross at all. The RI and some of the New England bunkering designs he did would definitely appear to fit better on the more choppy topography of those sites than the bunkering he did at something like Oakland Hills which is a much broader, open and flowing large scale site.

In other words Wannamoisett bunkers would look strange at Oakland Hills and vice versa!

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:
Do you think Bunker styles with Ross changed with the era in which he built them?  For example in 1921 he designed and built Charles River.  During our restoration we were able to ascertain  the bunkers (from original field drawings and from early photos) had grass facings down them.
We also know that Donald Ross was on site during the construction.  He was also a dues paying member of Charles River.  His certificate is hanging in our front lobby.  
Could this have been a change from courses he built earlier or later?  Could there have been a flavor of the day so to speak depending on when certain courses were built?

Fairways and Greens
Dave

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Yes, I do think Ross's bunker style did evolve with his career to some extent. I don't see him doing some of the bunkering he did at Pinehurst #2 (after the greens were grassed) in his very early career.

But more so, I see more sophistication to the bunkering (and the entire designs) of some of the courses he clearly spend more time around! The New England and RI courses seem to be examples of more sophistication on his part which is probably only more time involved with those courses on his part!

I've seen some Ross courses that are pretty darn simplistic and not of sophisticated design but that only means to me he didn't do much with them in either design or on-site time!

I don't hold this fact against Ross or his ability at all--it's just a simple fact of high production--there's no mystery to it at all!

And I can't agree with those who seem to think everything Ross did was great or even good--that's just not true--and there's no mystery in that either. I don't know of anything that Ross did that was really bad either but he did do plenty of courses that were just quite simple!

Out of almost 400 career courses he does have plenty of very good ones and that's impressive given all the work he did. I'd have to ask anyone to explain to me how he could have done 30 good courses in 1923 alone even with good foremen and crews that he may have tried to organize somehow?

Ross was probably at the very least "The Great American Democratic Architect" in that he did so many courses that are able to accomodate many levels of golfers extremely well! There's one helluva lot to be said for that, in my opinion!

But of all those courses he did he was so much more a general membership designer than the others who did less courses but ones for a higher level of player! Ross did some of those of course but not like some of the other designers who were better known for the so-called "Championship course".

I can't say off the top of my head but it feels like Ross may have done about a dozen real "championship courses" out of 400 where Flynn may have done more than that out of a career inventory of only about 40!

No reflection on Ross's courses or his abilities, only basically a different career style and direction, in my opinon!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I tend to agree with your "site specific" statement.

Bob Crosby,

You make a valid point on the bunker configuration, that I think blends perfectly with the "site specific" idea.

I don't know that Wannamoisett has consistently flashed bunkers, or rather a combination of grass banked and flashed,
perhaps "site specific" can be fine tuned down to "hole specific", or even "shot specific"

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I certainly don't disagree that architects like Ross had different design styles, they did.  But at the same time why is it that without being told, I'd bet you that give me no more than two guesses and I could tell you who designed a particular course after seeing/playing it (assuming it was designed by say one of the top 30 or 40 architects not Ed Carman or someone like that    I would assume a number of us on this site could do the same!  Why is that?
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

Good question!

I have three possible answers in response, and I think they probably are at least partially responsible in some percentage each for that phenomenon, depending on the course.

1) Let's face it...we eat and breathe this stuff.  We notice the fine details that most would not notice.  The greater the experience and education and interest, the better the chance that we can pick out the tell-tale signs of any architect's work.  Would you think the average golfer would be able to see all of the similarities that we do?

2) Somewhat the point of my thread here...I think too many restoration architects come at it from too narrow a perspective of what they think were the stereotypical trademarks of the architect they are restoring.  Most times, that perspective is largely influenced by pragmatic concerns of what they think they can get away with in modern times governed by ideas of "fairness" with the club they are working for, tempered even further with maintenance considerations.  The net result is too often bunkers that are effectively neutered.  For instance, there is an architect who has "restored" many Tillinghast designs and his restoration style is really a mixture of the original and his own very distinctive style.  So, what most everyone now thinks is Tillinghast's original style is really some modernized hybrid.

I seriously question if we would have so easily been able to determine who the original architect was had we played those Ross or Tillie courses shortly after opening.  Take a peruse through "Golf has never failed me", and tell me that you would have been able to walk onto many of those courses and instantly recognized them as the work of Ross.

3) Despite their versatility and site-specific work, even the classicists had styles and preferences that become clear to the trained eye.  I mean...some of the earliest like Macdonald and Raynor are fairly obvious, but even on the best work of Ross, Tillie, Flynn, and others, there are subtle similarities that one can pick up on.  Sometimes, it's more in noticing the things that you know they would never do, and thus rule them out, as opposed to anything that stands out as a stereotypical, easily recognized trademark.

The best at this had to be William Flynn.  Do you really think that you could walk onto any of his courses  sight unseen and know within two guesses that he built it?  I wouldn't claim that ability.  I also wonder if it's because there hasn't been a modern-day Flynn "restoration" movement to date?