Many golfers/GCA fans claim to be able to recognize

[Patrick_Mucci]

a Donald Ross course, or Donald Ross features.

If that's the case, what are those recognizable features ?

And, were they imported from Dornoch ?

Or, did Ross conceptualize them while in the U.S.  ?

What GCA features, that identify Ross's work, were imported from Scotland ?

Was it crowned greens ?

His bunkering ?

Or, were his creative efforts solely the result of his observations in the U.S. ?

What features at Pinehurst # 2, Seminole, Plainfield and Charles River club have their roots in Scotland ?
 

[JC Jones]

Somebody is back and feeling a bit inspired

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

You really need to get to Dornoch to see for yourself!

I know Dornoch pretty well. I have never seen a course with so many drop-offs around the edges of the greens (several of which are noticeably raised) where the ball can roll easily roll 15'-30' further away and leave a very delicate pitch or chip back to a green that is waist high or higher.

I have never played a bonafide Ross course. I have only seen Pinehurst #2 on TV. Certainly the drop-offs around the greens are an element the two courses have in common.

P.S. I would not described any of the greens at Dornoch as being crowned.

DT

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Somebody is back and feeling a bit inspired

Probably the way I felt... until someone took forever to post the news of playing there here on GCA.

[john_stiles]

I'm not sure so I always look at the scorecard which is accurate more often than not.  It is pretty well documented that he never went crazy which may have been because he may have mixed it up pretty well as he aged.

Seems there was quite a bit of variance in bunkers and greens based on photos and sketches of courses upon completion.  Use of flashed bunkers at Seminole and Oakland Hills is quite contrary to other work for example.   If you could play Brunswick CC and say those were Ross greens,  all the best to whoever could do that for those superb greens.

Will have to review  'Golf Has Never Failed Me'  for a few suggestions he made in early notes, and photos and sketches in Brad Klein's  'Discovering Donald Ross', or Geoff Shackelford's 'Golden Age of Golf Design.'

Any use of slopes must have evolved from his experiences at Dornoch under John Sutherland and learnings from Old Tom Morris and The Old Course.  Those ideas sort of hit you up side the head when you play Dornoch or TOC.

And, as compared to today's equipment and budgets, he had to incorporate much of the lay of the land as he noticed when he played at Dornoch. Routings seem to work pretty well, using what the land gave him.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am afraid to say that Donald Ross did not shine much over here. Apart from Donorch I do not remember any club that promotes their connection with him. Having said that he did learn all about Golf from his early days in Scotland.

Clearly Ross went on to shine rather well in America, but then again so did many others from Scotland. One has to wonder what would have happened to Willie Campbell if he had not died in 1900. Now Campbell did do rather well over here before going over there.

Melvyn

[Troy Alderson]

a Donald Ross course, or Donald Ross features.

If that's the case, what are those recognizable features ?

And, were they imported from Dornoch ?

Or, did Ross conceptualize them while in the U.S.  ?

What GCA features, that identify Ross's work, were imported from Scotland ?

Was it crowned greens ?

His bunkering ?

Or, were his creative efforts solely the result of his observations in the U.S. ?

What features at Pinehurst # 2, Seminole, Plainfield and Charles River club have their roots in Scotland ?
 

Hi Patrick,

Let me say this as a GCA enthusiast.  I know a good course layout and design elements when I see them, but I do not know the first thing about gc architecture.  Though I would be willing to dabble in architecture someday when I own a course, I would still hire a consulting architect.  As for Ross, I recognize the character of Pinehurst #2, but if I was at a course with similiar features all I would ask is who was the architect and not make an assumption.  I look at the overall features and affect of the course as a whole more than the individual features of the greens and bunkers.

My favorite golf course is the one I am currently playing, I love them all.  They all have features I like and don't like and I enjoy the experience of playing any golf course.  IMHO, the rougher the maintenance program, the more natural the course looks, the better.  God Bless pasturegolf.com.   

Troy

[Steve Curry]

Hi Pat,

I have corrected people on a number of occasions refering to Taconic as Ross, but can say that the Banks work is obvious at Wyantenuck in Great Barrington.

Cheers,
Steve

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

If the greens at Dornoch are not crowned, is it fair to say that Ross was one of the first, if not the first, to craft the creation of crowned greens to work in harmony with steep drop offs ?

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

Sorry, I cannot speak with any authority on Ross' work re: crowned greens.

DT

[Cliff Hamm]

When I think of Ross courses I think of the following:  Bunkering to the sides of the greens and open in the front.  Greens sloping back to front.  Relatively wide fairways, often with one side the best angle of attack. ...

[john_stiles]

Chapter 7 in Klein's book has a fairly good discussion of Ross' courses and architecture.

Through the years,  his bunker style changed quite a bit, or at least he used many different 'styles' for lack of a better word.

The routing is one thing that still sticks in my mind. 

Oddly enough, in Geoff Shackelford's 'Golden Age of Golf Design'  routing was GS' opinion of Ross' strength.

Other than that, more on topic,  I would go with his use of slopes either natural or built, around the greens.

[TEPaul]

"What GCA features, that identify Ross's work, were imported from Scotland ?

Was it crowned greens ?"


Pat:

I don't know that Ross ever actually did crowned greens. That seems to be one of golf course architecture's biggest misconceptions or at least one of the biggest misconceptions of Ross architecture. The other might be that he had essentially one single style of bunker.

[Dan Boerger]

Interesting topic ... One thing I've notice about Ross courses in the greater Philly areas are a predominance of elevated tee and green sites. - Dan

[Roger Wolfe]

1.  Flat bottom bunkers with limited flashing.
2.  Obstruction-free approaches to the greens (favoring the "ground game" and helping you bounce short
shots onto the green)
3.  Square greens and tees
4.  Partitiioned greens.  A green might have 4-5 sections and if you hit it in section 3... a two putt to a pin in section 2
is not a given.
5.  Turtlebacks are, IMHO, PH#2 specific.
6.  Spines that flow from the surrounds and fade into the green.

These are what I find the most.

[Jason Topp]

My experience with his courses is more of a feeling.  I usually feel comfortable on his courses - no obvious dramatic difficulty.  At the same time, I find it very difficult to score on Ross courses.  Many mediocre approach shots bounce in the wrong direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"What GCA features, that identify Ross's work, were imported from Scotland ?

Was it crowned greens ?"

Pat:

I don't know that Ross ever actually did crowned greens.


TEPaul,

Have you ever played Pinehurst ?

Those are some nicely crowned greens

That seems to be one of golf course architecture's biggest misconceptions or at least one of the biggest misconceptions of Ross architecture.


I think you're putting too much credence in your friends allegations.
I won't buy that theory until I see the hard evidence

The other might be that he had essentially one single style of bunker.

I think one could say that his bunker style/s was/were recognizable

[Kye Goalby]

"What GCA features, that identify Ross's work, were imported from Scotland ?

Was it crowned greens ?"

Pat:

I don't know that Ross ever actually did crowned greens.


TEPaul,

Have you ever played Pinehurst ?

Those are some nicely crowned greens

That seems to be one of golf course architecture's biggest misconceptions or at least one of the biggest misconceptions of Ross architecture.


I think you're putting too much credence in your friends allegations.
I won't buy that theory until I see the hard evidence

Pat,

I dont know if this link below qualifies as  "hard evidence", but  it is very interesting to study.  It is a very well done and informative piece of work by Dunlop.

http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Photographic_Comparisons.html

(click on photos to zoom for a better look)

PS There is also an informative section on  the greens evolution  that I am sure you guys can find once you visit the link

[Chuck Brown]

1.  Flat bottom bunkers with limited flashing.
2.  Obstruction-free approaches to the greens (favoring the "ground game" and helping you bounce short
shots onto the green)
3.  Square greens and tees
4.  Partitiioned greens.  A green might have 4-5 sections and if you hit it in section 3... a two putt to a pin in section 2
is not a given.
5.  Turtlebacks are, IMHO, PH#2 specific.
6.  Spines that flow from the surrounds and fade into the green.

These are what I find the most.

That's a nice list.  I like it.  And yes, I agree with Geoff Shackelford's observation about Ross' skills in routing.  Seminole must be the champion in that category.  We have a slightly ridiculous number of Ross courses here in Southern Michigan.  (I count about a dozen.)  They all give the appearance of having been there since the Pleistocene era, they settle so naturally onto the property.

[Sean_A]

1.  Flat bottom bunkers with limited flashing.
2.  Obstruction-free approaches to the greens (favoring the "ground game" and helping you bounce short
shots onto the green)
3.  Square greens and tees
4.  Partitiioned greens.  A green might have 4-5 sections and if you hit it in section 3... a two putt to a pin in section 2
is not a given.
5.  Turtlebacks are, IMHO, PH#2 specific.
6.  Spines that flow from the surrounds and fade into the green.

These are what I find the most.

That's a nice list.  I like it.  And yes, I agree with Geoff Shackelford's observation about Ross' skills in routing.  Seminole must be the champion in that category.  We have a slightly ridiculous number of Ross courses here in Southern Michigan.  (I count about a dozen.)  They all give the appearance of having been there since the Pleistocene era, they settle so naturally onto the property.

Yes, this is a good list, but strangely omits back to front running greens.  Which leads me to another trait, very rare for their to be trouble to the rear of the green.  The slope of the green is all that is needed. 

Another aspect I see a lot of is a gentle routings.  Ross didn't seem to want to get too crazy in his use of hills.  He didn't seem to do a lot sideways play.  He also didn't often do specifically low ground approaching to high ground.  He tended to do a lot of high ground over a valley to high ground approaching.  Of course, these days guys hit the ball so far that they now approach from low ground, but that wasn't the intent. 

Have guys seen many Ross holes routed through ridges/hills like between sand dunes?  I have seen this a few times to brilliant effect, especially when he created the off angle for the drive.  Just curious.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I think you're putting too much credence in your friends allegations.
I won't buy that theory until I see the hard evidence"


Pat:

I don't blame you for not putting much credence in those allegations or that theory if you've never seen any of the evidence of it. But perhaps you should start with considering that evidence from those who've offered it unless you think it's appropriate for some reason to deny it without first considering it.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

My experience with Seminole's greens is modest, since it only began when I started playing there in the 50's.

Early photos seem to reinforce my views.

However, before we begin any comparitive analysis, what exactly is Pete' theory on Seminole's greens, from when Ross first crafted them to current day ?

Perhaps a chronological record of Pete's theory regarding when, how and who changed the greens would be helpful, since, to date, you haven't put forth and elucidated Pete's complete theory

Kye Goalby,

I've always enjoyed looking at comparison photos and time lapse photos in ten year increments.
The one failing they seem to have is that if they're not taken from the exact same angle at the exact same elevation, the comparison becomes tainted.


In most of the photos on Dunlops website, the elevations seem different, thereby skewing the comparison.

[Roger Wolfe]

Yes, this is a good list, but strangely omits back to front running greens.  Which leads me to another trait, very rare for their to be trouble to the rear of the green.  The slope of the green is all that is needed. 

Another aspect I see a lot of is a gentle routings.  Ross didn't seem to want to get too crazy in his use of hills.  He didn't seem to do a lot sideways play.  He also didn't often do specifically low ground approaching to high ground.  He tended to do a lot of high ground over a valley to high ground approaching.  Of course, these days guys hit the ball so far that they now approach from low ground, but that wasn't the intent. 

These are both very good descriptions and belong on the list.

Someone else emailed me about Ross using the "lay of the land" and leaving the site as undisturbed as possible.  I still believe this was more due
to the lack of earth moving technology than design.  I also think it was due to the fact he was a busy, busy man !!

PS.  Sean... you want to see high ground... over valley... to high ground... come to CGC.  You just described over half of the holes.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Roger

Interesting observation on Ross. However I do not claim to know much if anything real about his work in America, having said that we must not forget his earlier days in Dornoch and St Andrews.

As a young man super keen of golf he would have been more than open to the thoughts and practices of the day which I feel would have been deeply instilled within him. That being working with the land and creating a course out of it whist destroying as little as possible to retain the harmony of course with the surrounding land.

His work under Sutherland and with the influence of Old Tom must have armed him for his future endeavours in America.

As for lack of earth moving equipment in the 19th Century did that actually reduce the quality of any of the older courses built in that period, just look at the Redan at North Berwick. No, our problem is that we view everything through our own time frame. Today we feel we need to screw with the land, to leave alien shapes of our making in trying to enhance the land and showing its suitability for golf (which we know is not always the case). This was also well before the time of the super green manicured courses that some sectors of the golfing world seem to like and believe to be the basis of a natural golf course.

No Roger, I feel it was just a beautiful and honest philosophy that for the most part is missing in today designer’s arsenal. The modern attitude is to destroy the land then rebuild devoid of Nature’s natural beauty which is unlike the earlier guys who wanted to build upon the beauty of Nature.

Because we have the technology does not always mean that we have to rebuilt things, but we live in an age that is starting to forget the raw beauty and power of Nature.

I for one would give Ross more credit by remembering his early days in Scotland. To busy perhaps, but is that a reason to skimp on the quality of ones work, ones profession or ones prides?

Melvyn     

[Roger Wolfe]

Well said Melvyn...

We had several very steep valleys and sharp hills that were "saddled" to improve shot values and sight lines. 
It took a few bulldozers a few days to accomplish what would have taken Ross a few months.  That is the only
point I was trying to make.  They are much more enjoyable holes after these simple changes and I imagine Ross
would have done the same thing had it been an easy fix in 1928 like it was in 2008.

PS.  Of course I fully understand my personal distaste for blind tee shots followed by blind approaches is only my opinion.