[Ed Oden]

I have touched on this a few times before, but decided to start a separate thread more on point.  Ross is often criticized for "mailing it in" on projects that he designed primarily from topos with no or minimal site visits.  The insinuation is that he produced inferior results using this method.  However, I see this issue entirely differently and feel such criticism is largely misplaced.  While I would never argue (nor would I expect Ross to) that designing from survey maps is preferable to designing on site, I am routinely amazed at the consistently solid quality Ross produced without ever seeing the actual land upon which his handiwork would sit.  Are these courses perfect?  No.  But I have yet to see a stinker among them.  Far from reflecting negatively on his legacy, in my opinion this is one of the greatest testaments to his skills as an architect.  More importantly, those that hold Ross's mail in architecture against him are missing the point.  Most of the clubs that employed Ross to design via topo couldn't afford to pay for anything more.  For the most part, we're talking about small towns and out of the way places with limited budgets.  So, rather than treating Ross's mail in jobs as subprime architecture, shouldn't we be praising it for bringing sound, strategic and interesting designs at an affordable price to places that might not have ever achieved a similar level of sophistication otherwise?  When I look at small town golf around the State of NC, I see a huge difference in quality between those places that were fortunate enough to get a Ross topo design and those that didn't.  75 years or more later, golf generally survives and often thrives in the former and struggles with the latter.  So, please tell me, where is the negative when Ross mailed it in?

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Ed.  I'd suggest this: that indeed his designs from topos reflect not only the key/primary importance of routings in the pre earth- moving days, but also Ross' top-flight talent and experience in this regard.  On the other hand, they may also reflect a different and earlier set of expectations than the ones we now have, and this on two fronts: 1) perhaps less emphasis on/interest in the quality of the turf/greens and maintenance issues, and even in drainage issues (I don't know how many of Ross' 'mail-ins' have been/had to be renovated over the years in this regard), and 2) not as great/wide-spread a notion of the architect as genius, the singular and hands on creator of the work/golf course from start to finish (and thus much more acceptance of and reliance on the 'constructions crews' to get things right in the field, including those things that weren't right in the routing).

Peter 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think Ross had one other thing going for him, good construction crews that knew what he wanted.

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:

The response to this question depends entirely on your view of what the alternative was for these clubs.

If your view is that there were lots of other talented architects out there who would have loved to have the job, and put their heart and soul into it, then it's hard to justify having one architect do a bunch of designs by mail.  That's why the phrase "mailing it in" is used more commonly in recent times, I think.

If you view is that nobody was as good as Ross, and that most of these clubs could not afford anything else than a routing plan [as you say], then it's easy to justify Ross's method.


Peter:

I think if you are relying on an architect to produce a good plan without ever getting to the site, you're relying on his genius more, not less, aren't you?

[Rick Shefchik]

Midland Hills in St. Paul is a good example of the dilemma clubs faced over this issue. In 1920 the new club wanted to hire Ross to design its course, but Ross told the committee he would not be able to visit the site. They then initiated discussions with Seth Raynor, who was in town designing Somerset Country Club. Raynor asked for a few hundred dollars more than the club wanted to spend, so some of the committee members contacted Ross again to see what he would offer them. Ross said he would send one of his top assistants to the do the job, but they would not got a site appearance from him. Reluctantly the club returned to Raynor, negotiated a slightly lower price and hired him. They simply weren't willing to hire an architect who wouldn't come to the site -- and they ended up with a pretty good architect, anyway.

[Ed Oden]

Peter, I'm with Tom here, I think most of the clubs that hired Ross to do just a plan based on topos were relying more on his genius than otherwise.  And, if anything, I think he probably erred too much on the side of making sure that maintenance/drainage weren't a problem.  I suspect that is why he focused so much on using high ground for tees and greens.  I would argue that this is one reason why his designs are typically so solid, but sometimes don't take big risks.  I would assume it is easier for bold strokes to emerge with face time. 

I think Ross had one other thing going for him, good construction crews that knew what he wanted.

Jim, that is certainly true.  But so did MacKenzie and I don't hear the same level of criticism of his work.

Ed:

The response to this question depends entirely on your view of what the alternative was for these clubs.

If your view is that there were lots of other talented architects out there who would have loved to have the job, and put their heart and soul into it, then it's hard to justify having one architect do a bunch of designs by mail.  That's why the phrase "mailing it in" is used more commonly in recent times, I think.

If you view is that nobody was as good as Ross, and that most of these clubs could not afford anything else than a routing plan [as you say], then it's easy to justify Ross's method.

Tom, my personal view is a bit of a hybrid of the two.  I don't necessarily think Ross was better than his noted contemporaries.  But I also don't think he was materially worse or that his mail in architecture should be viewed as a strike against him.  And I don't believe those same contemporaries were scrambling for the most of the jobs he did strictly using maps.

Rick, interesting tale about Midland Hills.  I would expect most clubs to make the same choice.  I suspect that most of the places I am talking about didn't have similar options.

[Carl Rogers]

I have run across a Ross (most probably) "mail-in" close to where I work, Sewell's Point at the Norfolk VA Naval Station ... not bad for $30 plus or minus but very uninteresting flat ground, counterclockwise front nine outer loop and clockwise inner loop on the back nine.

We are taking a trip this week to the Asheville NC area and have found 2 Ross's to play, Asheville Muni and one in Waynesboro ... will drive by Grove Park Resort.  There are several more Ross's close by but have only so much time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ed,
I don't think anyone as yet has an accurate total of MacKenzie's work. I could very well be wrong but I don't think AM had anything like the output of Ross??

Ross will always take it on the chin from some quarters -  I believe unfairly -  for the way he approached his trade. No one could do it today because of the sheer number of others in the field and the complexity of modern projects.

 

[Sean_A]

Peter, I'm with Tom here, I think most of the clubs that hired Ross to do just a plan based on topos were relying more on his genius than otherwise.  And, if anything, I think he probably erred too much on the side of making sure that maintenance/drainage weren't a problem.  I suspect that is why he focused so much on using high ground for tees and greens.  I would argue that this is one reason why his designs are typically so solid, but sometimes don't take big risks.  I would assume it is easier for bold strokes to emerge with face time. 

I think Ross had one other thing going for him, good construction crews that knew what he wanted.

Jim, that is certainly true.  But so did MacKenzie and I don't hear the same level of criticism of his work.

Ed:

The response to this question depends entirely on your view of what the alternative was for these clubs.

If your view is that there were lots of other talented architects out there who would have loved to have the job, and put their heart and soul into it, then it's hard to justify having one architect do a bunch of designs by mail.  That's why the phrase "mailing it in" is used more commonly in recent times, I think.

If you view is that nobody was as good as Ross, and that most of these clubs could not afford anything else than a routing plan [as you say], then it's easy to justify Ross's method.

Tom, my personal view is a bit of a hybrid of the two.  I don't necessarily think Ross was better than his noted contemporaries.  But I also don't think he was materially worse or that his mail in architecture should be viewed as a strike against him.  And I don't believe those same contemporaries were scrambling for the most of the jobs he did strictly using maps.

Rick, interesting tale about Midland Hills.  I would expect most clubs to make the same choice.  I suspect that most of the places I am talking about didn't have similar options.

Ed

I think Dr Mac tended to see the sights his name is associated with.  We just don't know how many sites Ross didn't see that he provided routings for.  I personally don't see the big issue with tiered service charging.  Its probably more of a big deal today because folks are interested in who did what while Ross was more interested in getting work.  It likely didn't much matter to Ross as he likely had his more personal projects which he could call his babies.  I always see Colt and Ross in the same light.  They both did a lot of work, much of which was not terribly different from other projects, but each had enough very fine designs to set them apart from the crowd.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

There are lots of people in my profession that can "put their heart and soul into it" and produce crap. I think this phenomenon exists in all professions. Therefore, I would probably choose a mail in from someone as talented as Donald Ross, over the heart and soul work of the local guy who has hung up his shingle. I have had the opportunity to read the master plan for my home course produced by a local guy that at some point hung up a shingle, and got golf architecture work some years ago. His biggest and most common recommendation, plant trees to provide "definition". I.e., crap.

[Jim Nugent]

Rick, how did Midland Hills turn out?  Did it have the usual diet of Raynor templates?  

Does anyone know if Raynor designed any courses withOUT templates?  


ETA:  I can answer my second question above.  From Midland Hill's website:

"Seth Raynor's strategic and classic design principles are found throughout Midland Hills:  flat bunkers, rolling fairways, large greens and specific architectural designs of holes.  Holes such as:  The Biarritz, The Eden, The Redan, The Short, The Alps, The Punchbowl, The Knoll, and The Cape are all present here at Midland Hills.  Over the years, the Club has allowed trees and shrubs to mature and screen the course from surrounding areas to give the golfer a feel of serenity."

So I guess the question now is, does the course need a chainsaw? 

[Brad Tufts]

I think there is a bit of a difference as well with those that bought plans based on a topo, and those that did eventually receive some guidance and supervision from a Ross associate (McGovern, Hatch, etc.) during construction.  Even if Ross never made a site visit, the consistent quality of his courses indicates that the majority had some input from someone that knew what they were doing on site.

Now, if only the "mail-ins" maintained their layouts over the years with a stewardship that his fully on-site courses generally adhere to, he would be an even bigger GCA god.  In New England there are so many Ross courses that they run the gamut from Salem CC with great Ross stewardship down to the public layouts that never had 75 years of member interest in Donald Ross.  Many of these courses are so far from the original plans that Ross isn't even relevant other than a marketing angle.

I see the "mail-in" procedure in the teens, 20s, and 30s as a normal procedure then that is tough to reconcile now.  We see it as a lack of effort today when it was just "the way" for many clubs back then, and often included support from one of Ross's underlings.

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick, how did Midland Hills turn out?  Did it have the usual diet of Raynor templates?  

Does anyone know if Raynor designed any courses withOUT templates?  


ETA:  I can answer my second question above.  From Midland Hill's website:

"Seth Raynor's strategic and classic design principles are found throughout Midland Hills:  flat bunkers, rolling fairways, large greens and specific architectural designs of holes.  Holes such as:  The Biarritz, The Eden, The Redan, The Short, The Alps, The Punchbowl, The Knoll, and The Cape are all present here at Midland Hills.  Over the years, the Club has allowed trees and shrubs to mature and screen the course from surrounding areas to give the golfer a feel of serenity."

So I guess the question now is, does the course need a chainsaw? 

Jim,

Midland is a neat course, with several surviving Raynor templates, including a Redan and a Biarritz. Unfortunately, they moved the clubhouse in 1960 and took out three original Raynor holes in the process, including what I'm told was a very cool Short. The current membership has far more respect for the club's pedigree than the members had a couple generations back.

[Mike Tanner]

I have run across a Ross (most probably) "mail-in" close to where I work, Sewell's Point at the Norfolk VA Naval Station ... not bad for $30 plus or minus but very uninteresting flat ground, counterclockwise front nine outer loop and clockwise inner loop on the back nine.

Ed and Carl,
This isn't meant as a thread highjack, just an aside. Sewells Point's management purports the course to be a Ross design, but I've seen it attributed to William Flynn by Wayne Morrison. It was designed in 1924 for the Norfolk Country Club.

[David Stewart]

Can someone who is familiar with these give a list of the courses that Ross designed only from topos and never visited?

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,

Brad Klein is perhaps the most familiar.

If he doesn't chime in contact Michael J. Fay at  fay.m@comcast.net or Michael A. Miller at  M2@demaximis.com

[Carl Johnson]

I think there is a bit of a difference as well with those that bought plans based on a topo, and those that did eventually receive some guidance and supervision from a Ross associate (McGovern, Hatch, etc.) during construction.  Even if Ross never made a site visit, the consistent quality of his courses indicates that the majority had some input from someone that knew what they were doing on site.

Now, if only the "mail-ins" maintained their layouts over the years with a stewardship that his fully on-site courses generally adhere to, he would be an even bigger GCA god.  In New England there are so many Ross courses that they run the gamut from Salem CC with great Ross stewardship down to the public layouts that never had 75 years of member interest in Donald Ross.  Many of these courses are so far from the original plans that Ross isn't even relevant other than a marketing angle.

I see the "mail-in" procedure in the teens, 20s, and 30s as a normal procedure then that is tough to reconcile now.  We see it as a lack of effort today when it was just "the way" for many clubs back then, and often included support from one of Ross's underlings.

With these comments I believe I am on the side of Mr. Brad Tufts and Mr. Ed Oden.

To "mail it in" does not mean simply to put something in the mail, but rather to give only a half-hearted effort.  I'll admit that to associate this expression with Ross's business practice of, in a number of cases, mailing out plans, is clever, but not particularly helpful.

During Ross's heyday (1919 – 1931) he operated as Donald Ross & Associates, including J.B. McGovern, Walter Hatch, and Walter Irving Johnson, Jr., with the latter two making substantial contributions to the finished design of "Ross courses."  [By the way, as most of you know, most of Ross's own business records were destroyed shortly after his death, so we don't have a lot to go on.  My information comes courtesy of Brad Klein's Discovering Donald Ross, which owes a substantial debt, as do all Ross aficionados, to the late W. Pete Jones of Raleigh, N.C.]  My understanding is that Hatch built lots of Ross's company's greens – what today we call "Ross greens."  Maybe we should call them "Hatch greens"?

My point is that Ross had a business model that for his day was quite successful, to say the least, and has proven itself through lasting results.  When I think of "Ross courses" it is with the understanding that a substantial number of them are what I would rather call "Ross & Associates courses," or "Ross golf architect company courses."  Clearly, Ross did not personally visit all sites, but that in no way diminishes Ross's contributions to golf architecture or his status as a "golf course architect."  In terms of the dedication of Ross to his customers, giving them good value for the money, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that he ever "mailed it in."

[Carl Rogers]

...
Ed and Carl,
This isn't meant as a thread highjack, just an aside. Sewells Point's management purports the course to be a Ross design, but I've seen it attributed to William Flynn by Wayne Morrison. It was designed in 1924 for the Norfolk Country Club.

I can only state what is on the entrance drive placque and the Ross Web site.  You may be right .... ?

[Mike Tanner]

Carl,
If you send me a PM with your email contact, I'll forward pdfs of Flynn's plan and an aerial of the course from 1947 that Wayne Morrison sent me. Pretty compelling stuff.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()