[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Then why go to the effort of having the drawings formalized and provided to the club ? 

As a board member wouldn't you ask, WTF, when Ross presented drawings that bore no resemblance to the greens as built ?

Common sense dictates that the drawings were a reasonable likeness of what went in the ground, with maybe Aronomink being a possible exception.

Perhaps these drawings were nothing more than a marketing brochure?

Absolutely not.

They were schematics that represented the greens to be constructed on a particular course.

One only has to look at the Seminole, Plainfield and Mountain Ridge schematics to see how closely they parallel the finished product.
They were a representation of intent.

Imagine if you will, having those schematics presented to the club that's retained Ross and paid him for his services, only to have 18 greens constructed that bore no resemblance to those schematics.   Misrepresentation ?  Malpractice ?

No, those schematics closely resemble the finished product at the courses I cited.
They were meant to reflect intent/as built.

Patrick, do you really believe Ross ever intended to build the green depicted in David's post? 

Yes,

Especially when it comes to the element of drainage.

While he utilized sharper edges far more than the current versions of his greens suggest, I still suspect that is a caricature, not a blueprint.


I completely disagree.

The greens at Mountain Ridge, virtually untouched in 84 years, bear an uncanny resemblance to his schematics.


Otherwise, he makes Banks, Raynor, Stranz and Muirhead look like minimalists!

YIKES, "Steamshovel" Banks a minimalist.

I was reflecting on Pinehurst # 2, Plainfield, Seminole and Mountain Ridge and those greens are pretty much all "constructed/manufactured"
So, I don't know why you think Ross wouldn't create greens to his specifications as manifested in his field schematics.
Field schematics placed upon graph paper for precision.

Someone must have slipped you some Kentucky moonshine.

Mike

[Mike_Young]

IMHO drawings whether they be from Ross or any other architect were to be used as one of many tools in getting the results the architect wanted.  Of course some greens resembled what was drawn but the drawings were meant to be conceptual in nature.  Pat ask why would you go to the trouble to do so and present something to a committee when it was not what you intended.  Well, not everyone does that.  I also don't do greens plans and sketch whatever I need for the shaper on site and keep working it until I get what I want.  IMHO the main reason we see so many greens drawings as well as pages of plans is that it helps justify fees.  Over the last 70 years there was definitely an effort made by many to justify existence thru pages and pages of drawings when in truth the builders rarely looked at them.
I also find it interesting how many on this site are so hung up on these old guys drawings.  Again..just one of many tools....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Every architect has their own M.O.

Ross's M.O. included providing schematics of his greens to his clients.

Maybe that was part of his shtick 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Every architect has their own M.O.

Ross's M.O. included providing schematics of his greens to his clients.

Maybe that was part of his shtick 

Pat,
Agree...
But if anyone thinks those schematics were anything more than a sketch....I would bet that if 10 people built a green from one of his drawings, you would have 10 different interpretations...JMO

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Every architect has their own M.O.

Ross's M.O. included providing schematics of his greens to his clients.

Maybe that was part of his shtick 

Pat,
Agree...
But if anyone thinks those schematics were anything more than a sketch....I would bet that if 10 people built a green from one of his drawings, you would have 10 different interpretations...JMO

But Mike, Ross had Hatch and Johnson, two trusted managers who were intimately familiar with his schematics.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Every architect has their own M.O.

Ross's M.O. included providing schematics of his greens to his clients.

Maybe that was part of his shtick 

Pat,
Agree...
But if anyone thinks those schematics were anything more than a sketch....I would bet that if 10 people built a green from one of his drawings, you would have 10 different interpretations...JMO

But Mike, Ross had Hatch and Johnson, two trusted managers who were intimately familiar with his schematics.

He did...but not on 400 courses...

[David Harshbarger]

Patrick, do you really believe Ross ever intended to build the green depicted in David's post? 

Yes,

Especially when it comes to the element of drainage.

The notes on fairway features feature drainage questions predominantly.  (They also include notes on bunkers (4' deep). )

Many of the green side bunkers are speced out to 4' deep, but now looking at the sketches, if to scale many of the front bunkers are 5-10' off the green accounting for the slope marks.

Other green side bunkers are speced as "stiffened" to 2' then finished at 4'.  Those appear to be the greens that are flush to the green.

Mike, I discount Ross' drawings as marketing, in that he did have a well established relationship with Hatch and Johnson and did need to provide guidance to them.  In fact, other than the drawings, the text on the field plans is concise and free of elaboration.  Ross' green drawings do seem involved, and given his reputation for interesting greens even on courses he never set foot on, it seems reasonable to expect that his creativity appears in some form, like these field plans.

I'll be looking on the ground at The Sagamore and will fill in any details worth reporting.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick, do you really believe Ross ever intended to build the green depicted in David's post? 

Yes,

Especially when it comes to the element of drainage.

The notes on fairway features feature drainage questions predominantly.  (They also include notes on bunkers (4' deep). )

Many of the green side bunkers are speced out to 4' deep, but now looking at the sketches, if to scale many of the front bunkers are 5-10' off the green accounting for the slope marks.

Other green side bunkers are speced as "stiffened" to 2' then finished at 4'.  Those appear to be the greens that are flush to the green.

Mike, I discount Ross' drawings as marketing, in that he did have a well established relationship with Hatch and Johnson and did need to provide guidance to them.  In fact, other than the drawings, the text on the field plans is concise and free of elaboration.  Ross' green drawings do seem involved, and given his reputation for interesting greens even on courses he never set foot on, it seems reasonable to expect that his creativity appears in some form, like these field plans.

David:

I don't think either Mike or I are questioning whether Ross intended for his field notes to form the basis of the course's design.  He certainly did.

But those field notes aren't all as accurate as you make them out to be, and the numbers seem exaggerated.  The slopes on the greens come in six-inch and one-foot increments, when anything more than two or three feet of change on a green is a LOT.  I think they are just a method of saying C should be higher than B should be higher than A, but in round numbers, not to be exactly followed by a surveyor. 

The only architect I know of who set out dimensions to be marked by a surveyor in the field was Seth Raynor ... his plans for Yeamans Hall [at the end of his career] lay out dimensions off the centerline for every feature [but they do not detail the height of green contours, unless there were separate plans for that that the club hasn't found].

Dr. MacKenzie used to draw his plans in a couple of days.  Do you really think he believed he was going to nail every detail in a couple of days?

[David Harshbarger]

Patrick, do you really believe Ross ever intended to build the green depicted in David's post? 

Yes,

Especially when it comes to the element of drainage.

The notes on fairway features feature drainage questions predominantly.  (They also include notes on bunkers (4' deep). )

Many of the green side bunkers are speced out to 4' deep, but now looking at the sketches, if to scale many of the front bunkers are 5-10' off the green accounting for the slope marks.

Other green side bunkers are speced as "stiffened" to 2' then finished at 4'.  Those appear to be the greens that are flush to the green.

Mike, I discount Ross' drawings as marketing, in that he did have a well established relationship with Hatch and Johnson and did need to provide guidance to them.  In fact, other than the drawings, the text on the field plans is concise and free of elaboration.  Ross' green drawings do seem involved, and given his reputation for interesting greens even on courses he never set foot on, it seems reasonable to expect that his creativity appears in some form, like these field plans.

David:

I don't think either Mike or I are questioning whether Ross intended for his field notes to form the basis of the course's design.  He certainly did.

But those field notes aren't all as accurate as you make them out to be, and the numbers seem exaggerated.  The slopes on the greens come in six-inch and one-foot increments, when anything more than two or three feet of change on a green is a LOT.  I think they are just a method of saying C should be higher than B should be higher than A, but in round numbers, not to be exactly followed by a surveyor. 

The only architect I know of who set out dimensions to be marked by a surveyor in the field was Seth Raynor ... his plans for Yeamans Hall [at the end of his career] lay out dimensions off the centerline for every feature [but they do not detail the height of green contours, unless there were separate plans for that that the club hasn't found].

Dr. MacKenzie used to draw his plans in a couple of days.  Do you really think he believed he was going to nail every detail in a couple of days?

Tom, I don't think I'm suggesting a level of precision in these diagrams comparable to what you are describing.  In fact I think I'm agreeing with you that these numbers are relative and describe intent, not spec.  The diagrams are on graph paper layed out in 10' increments.  If his pencil got dull the green surrounds swell to 2'! 

That said, if the heights are relative to the ground, going from 1' 6" to 4' 6" isn't that crazy is it?  Even my little 1925 course has a green with 4' of pushup in the back. It's pronounced, but it works, as the front is false and unpinnable.

What I am saying is that the drawings are expressive, even as they are also relatively crude.  The drawings look like something someone (with a rich mental model of greens) would dash out on a cocktail napkin at the 19th hole.  They describe essential characteristics  with little wasted ornament or effort.  You see lobes, tongues, sections, plateaus (in others) that if built would surely give character, and strategic interest based on topography and routing.

Given Ross' prolific output, I assume he could go from topo to routing to greens in realtive short order, bolstered by his confidence in his mastery of the craft that the resulting course would at worst be pretty damn good.  I wouldn't be surprised if many of the green drawings were done in one take.

[David Harshbarger]

Here's a good example of Ross greens built close to diagram:

Athens CC 2, 5, 7 (top to bottom) courtesy of Joe Bausch on another thread....



And the Ross diagram for 2 courtesy the Tufts archives:

[BCrosby]

David -

The 2nd at Athens as built was only an approximation of the Ross drawing. Too many details to go into but note that Ross called for the front of the green to built "at grade". Its front was built with a two foot lip. Also note that the green pictured is the one rebuilt by Ron Forse a couple of years ago. I like what Forse did with the green, btw, especially his recovery of the back right bunker that also serves as a back right bunker for the 5th green.

Tom/Mike -

Does an architect do his drawings differently if he is supervising construction? If drawings overstate contouring and asymmetries to counterbalance dumbing-down by building contractors, are those drawings different if you are going to be on site overseeing construction on a regular basis?

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Here's a good example of Ross greens built close to diagram:

Athens CC 2, 5, 7 (top to bottom) courtesy of Joe Bausch on another thread....



And the Ross diagram for 2 courtesy the Tufts archives:

David,
IN MY OPINION...the example you use may be close to diagram in two dimensions but it is not what DR would have done there....have you seen it?

[David Harshbarger]

Mike, I have not seen Athens CC, though it looks like a neat course.  So as not to focus too much on a single green here are the field plans for the other 2:

ACC 5th: check out the trough at back left of the green as drawn in cross-section:



ACC 7th: calls for a pronounced plateau left.  From 2D what catches my eye is the irregular corner left front which seems roughly in line with drawing. 



How do they compare to what's in the ground?  Was much done to the green contours when redone, or was it more of a restoration?

[Mike_Young]

David,
I have all of the original drawings for the greens at ACC if you would like to see them...
Again  IMHO the committee was too involved and were under the impression that the drawings were what Ross wanted and thus they basically transferred the perimeter of the greens to the ground via a modern contractor that built modern courses.  The third dimension was then created or interpreted or what ever you wish to call it.  I'm not saying it's wrong to do such.  I just don't believe Ross would have wanted so much movement in the perimeter  but there was no way that could have been told to committee.  The trough you mention on 5 is basically a drop off but it serves the same purpose and the internal contours of 7 are not as the drawing suggest...not saying they don't work but if you go by the "exact drawing" they are not what you show.
Again, this is IMHO and not saying it doesn't work.  I feel it would have been closer if the committee  was not involved.  They are most proud of their cart paths...   most could not tell you Donald Ross from Donald Duck....

[David Harshbarger]

Mike,

It sounds like ACC is a poor example.  When was the course redone to the Ross drawings?  If it wasn't contemporaneous then it's not a good example for my question.  And as you describe the construction, it's like the antithesis of period construction to slavishly recreate the drawings, at least as I think of them as expressive of the goals.

BTW, the more of these Ross drawings I see the more I think Wow!   Obviously I need to get Brad's book, too.

[Mike_Young]

David,
I am a member at ACC and live just a few blocks away and have studied every crevice of that place for years.  The work was done about three years ago.
I am not comfortable getting into all of the details of the place because I don't think it is fair to the people that did the work.  I have seen their work in other places and know it to be different than at ACC.  I could care less what members of the committee think because I can guarantee they were in the middle of everything then and now...we are a frat boy club that considers UGA the center of the universe.  I enjoy practicing there and playing and it is convenient....but I was always of the school that favored minimal invasion.  The mentality is shown in the lack of tree removal that the committee thinks make the course....    overall it is a good southern club...

[David Harshbarger]

Mike, what were the greens like pre-restoration?  The Tufts archives says there was a renovation by Hugh Moore along the way. Did that have an impact?

[Mike_Young]

Mike, what were the greens like pre-restoration?  The Tufts archives says there was a renovation by Hugh Moore along the way. Did that have an impact?

Hugh Moore supposedly came out via Peter Tufts.   Peter Tufts came and spent time there.  The owner of the local mill there in the 30's kept the club alive for a while and later his son Jimmy Dudley went to Pinehurst and studied for a while.  Peter Tufts came back and helped him some.  Hugh Moore was a regional golf professional and supt.  He was at Radium Springs club in albany , Ga and was the pro for almost a decade at Sea Island, Ga.  His son, also named Hugh Moore played pro baseball for awhile and then became the pro at Brunswick CC and ended up working at Sea Island.  His grandson was the pro at Green Hills in Tifton, Ga until his recent death.  I have spent a few hours with Mr. Moore Jr as he got older and was around his son. It was his Dad who did some construction work on courses around the SE in the 20's and 30's. 

[David Harshbarger]

Played Sagamore today. Mowing lines be damned, the greens were right off the plans, and they were excellent.

Just like the drawings, there are mounds and splines knifing into many many greens, and from my notes, just as drawn.  I brought out neither tape measure, nor gps, nor sextant, but the mounds are prominent, large, and impactful.

My playing partner said that according to the old pro, Ross' daughter spent many a time at Sagamore with her father. A fine place to spend a day or days, on the slopes of the Adirondack's.



 

[Mike_Trenham]

SDGC just found the original green sketches by Ross in the Tufts archives and I would charactorize them as thematically in line with what was built but more subdued.  This thread is very helpful in understanding how they turned out.

[David Harshbarger]

Pat,

I'll have a look on Thursday in person.

After the renovations at Mountain Ridge did your greens come back with more irregular shapes?  At my course the super has accelerated the process of ovalization on the pretense of ease of maneuvering mowers...and we have hand mowers! 

Here's another irregular green from Sagamore's design which now fewer bunkers now disconnected from an oval green.,,,

This turned out to be the "Short", and as such the bunkering scheme makes a ton of sense.



You can see the prominent mound labeled "C" in the diagram coming into the green.  Bunker 3 and 4 aren't as drawn: they may be tied in together on the right.  While I failed to capture it in a photo, the green pad right extends back on a line, it's just the mowing patterns that are leaving an oval instead of the more rectangular shape as built.

I've been looking at Ross plans from the Tufts archive and comparing the sketches of the greens to what is visible on aerials, in this case for the Sagamore in Bolton Landing NY. 

The greens on the plans have all manner of convex and concave borders.  Bunkers are drawn flush to the green boundaries.  Explicit instructions are given for mounds, elevations at edges, and in a few cases plateaus that extend well into the greens.

Interestingly, the fairway plans are generally vague.  Bunkers are referenced but not placed on the plans.

Here are the plans for 5th green, from the Tufts archive:



On the aerials the greens are ovals.  The bunkers are now separated from the green edges, and in some cases fewer in number. 

Here's the 5th green from Google:



Without the benefit of referencing historical aerials, would one expect the course to have been built close to plan, including the green shapes and proximity of bunkers to the green?

For this course, based on correspondence, Walter Hatch was involved on the ground.

Here's the 5th. 





This green is on a short par 4 and though the diagram has the bunkers at 5 and 7, in reality, the player comes in over the remaining bunker (4 in the drawing).  On the green it's clear that the two large mounds in the diagram were built more or less as drawn.  They define the putting challenge, while the bunker defines the challenge on the approach.

[BCrosby]

As with most things, I think that the architect's first guess of the design of a green is usually his best guess. I still think pre-negotiating with the contractor by way of his drawings to be odd.

Would an architect's drawings be different if he knew he was to oversee construction?

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Played Sagamore today. Mowing lines be damned, the greens were right off the plans, and they were excellent.

Just like the drawings, there are mounds and splines knifing into many many greens, and from my notes, just as drawn.  I brought out neither tape measure, nor gps, nor sextant, but the mounds are prominent, large, and impactful.

My playing partner said that according to the old pro, Ross' daughter spent many a time at Sagamore with her father. A fine place to spend a day or days, on the slopes of the Adirondack's.

David:

According to The Sagamore's web site, the course was "fully restored to Donald Ross's blueprints" in 1985.

I have not been there, so I don't know what the restoration entailed.  But, it's possible that the course was built different than the plans, and then "restored" to the plans in 1985.  It would not be the first Ross course where this was the case.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I would take exception to the contention that the contractor is going to build the greens contrary to the physical plans.

Think about it.

You retain a contractor based on his bidding on work outlined for him in detail.

Then, some are contending that the contractor is going to build the greens other than to the specifications.

Pretend for a second, that you and/or I represent the club as the project chairman.

I don't know about you, but once I see a green not built to specifications, I'm going to ask the GC, "What's this ?  Why hasn't this green been built to specifications ?"   Irrespective of his answer, my next statement would be as follows:  Rip it up and build it according to the specifications.  And, don't deviate from the architects specifications again."  Is there anyone who represents the club that wouldn't act in similar fashion ?

So, I have my doubts about rogue GC's deviating from spec's

Then, you have to ask, where is the architect's/club's project Forman or Clerk of the Works ?
And how did they allow for a deviation from the spec's ?

[David Harshbarger]

Played Sagamore today. Mowing lines be damned, the greens were right off the plans, and they were excellent.

Just like the drawings, there are mounds and splines knifing into many many greens, and from my notes, just as drawn.  I brought out neither tape measure, nor gps, nor sextant, but the mounds are prominent, large, and impactful.

My playing partner said that according to the old pro, Ross' daughter spent many a time at Sagamore with her father. A fine place to spend a day or days, on the slopes of the Adirondack's.

David:

According to The Sagamore's web site, the course was "fully restored to Donald Ross's blueprints" in 1985.

I have not been there, so I don't know what the restoration entailed.  But, it's possible that the course was built different than the plans, and then "restored" to the plans in 1985.  It would not be the first Ross course where this was the case.

Mike Young made the point that Athens CC was "restored" to the original plans, and in his opinion, maybe a little too slavishly.

The way it was told to me, when new ownership came to the Sagamore, the initial idea was to bulldoze and start from scratch.  Some of the principals involved made the winning argument that instead, they should restore what they had, an authentic Donald Ross course.  As others on this thread have noted, the mountains were in the process of reclaiming the course, so just bringing back the playing corridors may have constituted a restoration. 

THe records at the Tufts archives for other Ross courses note the years and involvement of other architects.  None are listed for The Sagamore, even for the 1985 period.

Finally, echoing another recent thread, the course seems like an old course.  The relative lack of bunkers in the fairways; the use of natural features that create blindness; the use of mounds as a means to introduce features into the green, as opposed to providing framing, containment, or a bowl; the sometimes significant green footpads maintained as rough; all seem of a part.

Tom, as a question of restoration history, in 1985, would a Ross course have received a sympathetic and authentic restoration in the vein that we are seeing at many other classic courses today?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()