For how long should we call a course a Ross course after years of tampering?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

In the 1920's, they had all the equipment needed to move dirt.

They chose not to for philosophical reasons.

To me, then, your point of view confirms that the changes would be architectural (which is my view as well), but would they fall within a generally accepted definition of "routing" changes?  Or are they something else?  That is what I am driving at.  Reason: when we talk about "routings" on this site, I'm trying to get a clearer idea of what we are talking about.  Of course, I am also assuming that there is among architects and other interested persons such a generally accepted definition.

Carl,

I disagree with your conclusion.

Think of a routing as the basic structure of a golf course, not unlike a skeleton.

If you go back to earlier times, routings were incredibly basic, as in "stick" routings within a sequential environment.

Routings became more elaborate in terms of hole detail, but the basic premise remained intact, namely to drape holes over the land in a sequential order with a starting point and an ending point

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

In the 1920's, they had all the equipment needed to move dirt.

They chose not to for philosophical reasons.

To me, then, your point of view confirms that the changes would be architectural (which is my view as well), but would they fall within a generally accepted definition of "routing" changes?  Or are they something else?  That is what I am driving at.  Reason: when we talk about "routings" on this site, I'm trying to get a clearer idea of what we are talking about.  Of course, I am also assuming that there is among architects and other interested persons such a generally accepted definition.

Carl,

I disagree with your conclusion.

Pat, not sure what conclusion you're referring to.  I did not intend to draw any conclusion - only asking a question.

Think of a routing as the basic structure of a golf course, not unlike a skeleton.

If you go back to earlier times, routings were incredibly basic, as in "stick" routings within a sequential environment.

Routings became more elaborate in terms of hole detail, but the basic premise remained intact, namely to drape holes over the land in a sequential order with a starting point and an ending point

Pat, would you please clarify this for me. I understand you to be saying that "to drape holes over the land in a sequential order with a starting point and an ending point" is the essence of what's meant by a "routing".  Do I understand you correctly?  Assuming I do, then, if I read the details correctly, "in a sequential order" refers to all 18 holes, not just a single hole, and from that am I to infer that the order of play (from "sequential order") is part and parcel of the routing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

No, the order of play is almost irrelevant and is not part and parcel of the routing.

Just look at ANGC.

Atlantic would be another example where the order of play is irrelevant in terms of discussing the routing.

Hope that helps

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

No, the order of play is almost irrelevant and is not part and parcel of the routing.

Just look at ANGC.

Atlantic would be another example where the order of play is irrelevant in terms of discussing the routing.

Hope that helps

Yes, thanks.  You and Tom Doak are in agreement on that point.  So, for me that settles that question.  Another question I had on what's included in the term routing has to do with modifications to the land.  Pat, would you say that when a subsequent architect modified the land as left by the original architect that the "routing" had been tampered with.  By way of further explanation, copying what I said above to ask the question:

When the original architect finished the course the fairways had certain ground shapes.  For example, . . . with all of the ups and downs, bumps and lumps [left by the original architect]. . . . Many years later another architect comes along and does a course restoration/renovation, and in the process uses earth moving equipment to smooth lumps and bumps in the fairways, and to do some general regrading so that the uphills and downhills are not as steep and the low points are not as deep.  Do such changes result in "routing changes"? . . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

No, the order of play is almost irrelevant and is not part and parcel of the routing.

Just look at ANGC.

Atlantic would be another example where the order of play is irrelevant in terms of discussing the routing.

Hope that helps

Yes, thanks.  You and Tom Doak are in agreement on that point.  So, for me that settles that question.  Another question I had on what's included in the term routing has to do with modifications to the land.  Pat, would you say that when a subsequent architect modified the land as left by the original architect that the "routing" had been tampered with.  By way of further explanation, copying what I said above to ask the question[/size]:

No, I wouldn't consider the modification you describe as a routing issue.

I think you might want to view architecture from a "macro" and "micro" perspective.
"Macro" being the overall plan/routing with "micro" being the individual holes and their features.


When the original architect finished the course the fairways had certain ground shapes.  For example, . . . with all of the ups and downs, bumps and lumps [left by the original architect]. . . . Many years later another architect comes along and does a course restoration/renovation, and in the process uses earth moving equipment to smooth lumps and bumps in the fairways, and to do some general regrading so that the uphills and downhills are not as steep and the low points are not as deep.  Do such changes result in "routing changes"? . . . .

No, that has nothing to do with the routing, that's an internal element of an individual hole