How Much of Ross' 407 Can We Trust?

[Ken Fry]

Happy New Year all.

It's 0 degrees and I'm lamenting a long, tough winter ahead with no hope of sun and golf until spring.  How I wish a trip to Mountain Lake was back on my calendar!

This morning I was looking through the Donald Ross Society course listing and came across Lake Wales Country Club.  I enjoy Mountain Lake so much I was surprised to find a course with a Ross pedigree was right around the corner.  As I did more digging, the information I found was Seth Raynor did a preliminary layout after finishing Mountain Lake, but apparently on the course website, Ross is credited with designing the course.  Jonathan Webb posted in January 2012, "The front 9 at Lake Wales CC was designed by Donald Ross and the back 9 was added in the late 50s by a local, Bill Cambell."  George Bahto posted the following earlier in the same thread:


January, 14, 1925
TOWN WILL HAVE  SPORTY COURSE  FOR GOLF FANS

Laid Out by Expert Engineer, It Is Said to Be One of State’s Best
          
     What experts say will be one of the best golf courses in the state will be open to the public at Lake Wales about Jan. 17. The course is on a beautiful 200-acre rolling tract of  land just one mile from the city limits, north of and on the Hesperides  Road, and was laid out by Seth Raynor, of New York, the golf engineer who laid out the Mountain Lake, course at Lake Wales, the Piping Rock Club, the Engineer’s Club, the new Yale Club, and other big courses around New York and in Florida. The city has been fortunate in having the services of R. H. Lindeman, Mountain Lake, who built the Mountain Lake course, at its command, and the result is that the municipal course will rank with the very best in the state, and it is said to be one of the sportiest courses around.
     Excellent work has been accomplished in the last few months in getting the ground cleared, the fairway and greens established and sodded and  everything in good condition the opening day. None of the holes are  alike and none flat, so the course is a sporty one and calls for every shot in  the bag. The sixth hole is one of the best, in the course, especially its water  hazard, with 180 yards carry, making a real hole. It lies at the top of a hill, and the fairway turns on approaching hole so that there is not only a water hazard, but a change in direction to be accounted for. The fairways are in good shape and one must hit them down the middle or he will surely get into trouble.
     It is a municipal course and is open to all lovers of the sport.        
     Twelve miles of water pipe have been laid and a splendid water system installed. An attractive little clubhouse stands on a wooded knoll at the entrance of the course from Hesperides Road. All the natural beauties of the course have been preserved as far as possible and there are many fine oaks and pines on the tract, making a beautiful frame for the course and club house.
     Dave Towns, from the Paris Country Club Paris, Ill. has been head professional.


I looked further down the course list on the Donald Ross Society website and find in my hometown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts Ross is credited with the Country Club of Pittsfield.  I know Ross did the original 18 but the membership later brought in Stiles and Van Kleek who redid the course and left almost nothing of the original routing.

Ross' impact on course architecture is well documented and universally accepted.  Ross is credited with being such a prolific designer with 407 courses listed on the DR Society website.  How can we trust design credit for 407 courses when information can be found to discredit that number?  Should any architect get full design credit for any level of work/remodeling/tweaks, etc?

Ken

[Frank Giordano]

In a nation in which virtually every area of activity is increasingly, if not totally, dominated by advertising, the power of a "brand" has come to transcend many of our traditional powers and values and authorities.  Golf, with its honorable legacy of honesty in scoring and fair play through the green, has not been immune to the distorting power of the spinmeisters, whether on Madison Ave. or Main Street or the committee rooms and executive offices of golf course and resort owners.  The Donald Ross "brand" has been elevated to a level so high that even golf's lofty ethos is sometimes lost in the miasma of advertising and salesmanship.  Undoubtedly, there are several more courses among the 407 -- wasn't the number nearly 600 before the Ross Society began looking more closely? -- where Ross  receives exclusive design credit, where the the course's actual design and construction were chiefly the work of the talented construction supervisors Ross sent to far-flung locations to actually bring the course on-line.  In some places, as you demonstrate, Ross's name is appropriated as the exclusive "brand" at courses where he did only part of the design.  

Donald Ross's contributions are so great and enduring that it is understandable that club's with  members/patrons to attract and bills to pay  would desire to slap his "brand" on their marketing materials.  Advertising, with many in our honorable game, even transcends integrity.

[Ran Morrissett]

Breaking down Ross's involvement in all those courses is a fascinating question. Ross’s reach in America is enormous. As you say Ken, that’s a given. Even if the number should be 389, enormous is still enormous.

In thinking about it, it seems to me that there are five primary types of courses found within that magical 400 course mark that everyone (including me) always throws about.

1) Courses that Ross routed and oversaw construction. Those mostly center around his northeast ‘summer’ and southeast ‘winter’ offices. He likely made return visits as well and consulted there over a period of time.

2) Courses that Ross visited, routed and turned over to one of his guys to build. He may have made return visits and consulted.

3) Courses that Ross just routed from a topo map and never visited. From a design perspective, I place the most importance on a course’s routing (i.e. how well the holes incorporate natural features – if the land is mundane and the architect had little with which to work, then I am not holding my breath for a special design anyway). Just a Ross routing is still worth a ton in my book, even if he didn’t visit the site.

4) Others, including when he inherited a routing, only did 9 of the holes, etc. His impact on such courses is in general far less than the ones above.
 
5) And yes, I suppose, courses were his name is a lot bigger than his work. Name grabbing clubs who just want the connection, no matter how tenuous, obviously fit in this category.

A whole separate matter is how well have clubs preserved his work. Sounds like not so much at Pittsfield but just because a club went a different direction at some point, that doesn't diminish that Ross did what he did there and should be credited for such work.

I wonder what the split is within the five categories above?? Brad Klein would know best. In the back of his original Ross tome, he tied 398 courses to Ross (I exclude Dornoch) and over 100 of those are remodels of one form or another.

Does anyone know if Brad threw out a course or two in his updated version because additional research found examples along the lines of Ken's question?

Best,

[Ken Fry]

Ran,

Thanks for the response.

My questions regarding Ross' legacy are not meant to diminish in any way the work he accomplished.  I played Beverly this past summer and was so struck by the routing Ross did on a relatively small tract of land.  Because Ross' name is so recognizable, are courses and historians giving him a "free pass" regardless of his level of involvement in a project or what may be left of his work?

CC of Pittsfield is an example I'm quite familiar with.  Ross was commissioned in 1917 to design and build the course which took several years to complete.  The membership was apparently never very happy with the course and in 1928 contacted Ross to recommend changes.  He returned plans that were completely cost prohibitive.  The club then contacted Wayne Stiles.  According to Bob Labbance and Kevin Mendik's wonderful book, The Life and Works of Wayne Stiles, "By the time Stiles was done, few of the holes remained as Ross had planned them......Stiles not only took care of the severity the members disliked, he also made the course his own."

The Donald Ross Society website lists CC of Pittsfield as a Ross design opened in 1918.  There is no mention of the course as "NLE."  Labbance and Mendik list CC of Pittsfield as 18 new holes by Stiles, opened in 1932.  Ironically, CC of Pittsfield's own website states, "The first golf course was nine holes and measured 3,240 yards. Two tennis courts were situated just north of the clubhouse where the first tee and putting green are located today. A new course of eighteen holes was designed in 1917 by the justly famous golf course architect, Donald J. Ross and this is more or less the course we play today."  In the course description section, the club states, "Influenced in design by Donald Ross, and now officially a Wayne Stiles course..."

Looking at Beverly, the original course at it's current location was credited as a George O'Neil design with later changes made by Tom Bendelow.  Ross came to the club in 1918 and developed a plan that re-routed the golf course and wiped out any design of the previous course.

Why would the two situations be handled so differently in our view of the courses' histories?

Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know of a few courses, via information from Brad, that claim Ross with no possible chance.

One is (from memory) is in Kansas (Topeka CC?) listed for years as Ross, but Brad did the train schedules to prove he didn't do it.  In MN, Cloquet CC claims Ross, but there is no evidence, other than some features could be Ross.  Best guess is a Ross field guy or shaper went over on the side (if any connection) since it was built near time of Northland.  Whether he did, what he did (one day visit, routing, any construction) or whether it was some temp guy building Northland who claimed he was with Ross, etc.  Who knows.

Even at Northland, we can see attribution troubles.  Original course by someone else, Ross adds nine, but probably didn't use much of the front nine which is now under a school. So, maybe we do consider that a full Ross, but even so, the club history for its formation is briefer than the architecture history nerds would like it to be!

There really are no set rules of attribution, and it is very inconsistent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I think you have to add another category.

I believe that Ross was the first architect to create courses as an "entity" or "organization", in that he crafted and/or delegated responsibilites to his trusted associates, Hatch and McGovern.
That delegation was weighted.
In some cases it was limited to construction.
In others, it would appear that they were given free hand to make field modifications, including extensive modifications.
I suspect that Aronomink might be a perfect example of the latter.

Having trusted associates would seem to eliminate the need for numerous field visits.
Thus, just because Ross only visited a course a few times, doesn't mean that it isn't pure Ross

Mountain Ridge has a number of photos of Ross on site.
I'll have to review their Centennial Book to pinpoint the number of visits.
If anyone can pinpoint visits, it's Brad Klein, who constructed a log of Ross's travels.

It seems to me that Ross's name is more valued today, than it was in the 1950's and 1960's
Courses designed by Ross have a distinct pedigree that they seem to want to preserve and promote.

As to the claims that he only visited once, or not at all, doesn't that speakk to his talent.

I think one of the more interesting studies is the CC of York, where both Ross and Flynn were given the exact same property and told to present a site plan.

Ross's plan was the one chosen, but, the overlay is interesting.

[Sven Nilsen]

Ken:

Interesting topic, and one that could linger for a while if folks really want to delve into this on a course by course basis.

My guess is there are many layers to the story, even beyond the broad expanse of categories already defined by Ran.  For example, even at Beverly there are holes that remain in the same corridors originally routed by O'Neil and whoever helped him (at least according to the information in Phil McDade's photo tour of the course).

There are also probably a few discovered Ross courses that should (or could) be added to both the DRS list and the list contained in Brad's book.  Last year Jim Kennedy posted (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54344.0.html) about an article he found noting Ross' involvement with Greensburg CC in Pennsylvania (most likely fitting into Ran's category #4).  I don't believe the course is noted in either source.

I find the theme of Ross coming in to update a lot of Bendelow's early work to be fascinating as it coincides with a shift in both (a) general design ideals and (b) the market perception of who the big name architect was at the time.

Sven

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sven,
Also this little Ross-attributed course, in upstate NY:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50347.0.html

And one that is a takeaway, the Tupper Lake GC, attributed to Wilkinson, not Ross.

It would be interesting to know how many of DR's courses fall into each of Ran's categories, and I would think that placing many of them would be a snap as so much effort has already been expended in documenting his legacy.

Then there are the others...

[Tom_Doak]

The answer to the original post's question is, who knows?

My question is, why do we care so much about accreditation?  Isn't the real question whether the course turned out well, or not?  There is some b.s. assumption that if Ross made one visit, then it must be good ... and if he didn't, it must not be.  That's what all the signature designers want you to believe.  

What would we say about a project if Jack Nicklaus only visited the site one time?

But again, what difference would it really make?  Either the course is great, or good, or it isn't.  The result doesn't always coincide with the number of visits by the principal.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with you. Tom… but, curious: Might you have answered differently back in the 'High Pointe days'?

[Joe Bausch]

My guess is his number of courses is likely to go up over time as more and more old newspapers and other publications are (re)found and digitized.  Years ago I discovered the original 9 holes at Roxborough CC (NLE) was designed by Ross.

[Mike_Young]

My thoughts align with Tom on this one.  And the number of Ross courses can almost be whatever the one writing wants it to be.  The myth has become so large that anything can be said to make a course a Ross course.  I actually know of courses where Ross came by for lunch one day while in a specific town and told one guy to move a bunker or a tee and today it is a Ross course because of such.  It is much cheaper for a club to claim Ross than to pay a signature for a remodel.  But the most impressive part of the Ross deal for me is how he speaks to so many of the psychics and tells them what he was thinking....

[Mark McKeever]

My guess is his number of courses is likely to go up over time as more and more old newspapers and other publications are (re)found and digitized.  Years ago I discovered the original 9 holes at Roxborough CC (NLE) was designed by Ross.

Joe, any pics or routings of Roxborough CC?!?  Thats pretty neat.

Mark

[Joe Bausch]

My guess is his number of courses is likely to go up over time as more and more old newspapers and other publications are (re)found and digitized.  Years ago I discovered the original 9 holes at Roxborough CC (NLE) was designed by Ross.

Joe, any pics or routings of Roxborough CC?!?  Thats pretty neat.

Mark

No, nothing more than a mention in 1920 from the golf writer at the time for the Public Ledger, a fellow by the name of Frank McCracken.

But maybe we should investigate some historical societies to see if somehow there is more info out there!

[Phil Lipper]

I have often wondered this myself. Given the travel limitations of the day its seems almost impossible that he actually designed all of the these courses. I would think that many of the "Ross courses" are courses that he influenced or reviewed a plan but I can't imagine that he actually walked half the sites.

[Sven Nilsen]

The answer to the original post's question is, who knows?

My question is, why do we care so much about accreditation?  Isn't the real question whether the course turned out well, or not?  There is some b.s. assumption that if Ross made one visit, then it must be good ... and if he didn't, it must not be.  That's what all the signature designers want you to believe.  

What would we say about a project if Jack Nicklaus only visited the site one time?

But again, what difference would it really make?  Either the course is great, or good, or it isn't.  The result doesn't always coincide with the number of visits by the principal.

Seems like we're talking about two different kinds of accreditation in this thread.  The first, addressed by Tom, is figuring out the extent of the involvement of the architect.  The second is actually getting the right architect's name associated with certain work.

I can appreciate the thought that we shouldn't care that much about how much time was spent on a project, if the work turned out well.  But I do think that figuring out who exactly is responsible for that work is important.  

Sven

[Rick Shefchik]

Maybe the number is closer to 407 than we realize. Aside from Jeff Brauer's two examples above, there are two other cases in Minnesota that would seem to at least cancel each other out. If White Bear Yacht Club is closer to a Number 5 on Ran's level-of-Ross-involvement list, Minneapolis Golf Club is a Number 4 with elements of Number 2 (a major redesign of an existing course that he did visit), but is not included in the official 407.

My guess is there are courses out there with quite a bit of Ross in them that are no longer -- or never were -- thought of as Ross courses, either through bureaucratic oversight, or because nobody cared that much at the time.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think the real question Ken is asking is how accurate is the Ross Society listing in telling us what remains of the work Ross did on those courses.

[Frank Giordano]

   
Re: How Much of Ross' 407 Can We Trust?
« Reply #15 on: Today at 12:29:11 PM »
   Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Tom_Doak on Today at 09:30:13 AM
The answer to the original post's question is, who knows?

My question is, why do we care so much about accreditation?  Isn't the real question whether the course turned out well, or not?  There is some b.s. assumption that if Ross made one visit, then it must be good ... and if he didn't, it must not be.  That's what all the signature designers want you to believe.  

What would we say about a project if Jack Nicklaus only visited the site one time?

But again, what difference would it really make?  Either the course is great, or good, or it isn't.  The result doesn't always coincide with the number of visits by the principal.

Seems like we're talking about two different kinds of accreditation in this thread.  The first, addressed by Tom, is figuring out the extent of the involvement of the architect.  The second is actually getting the right architect's name associated with certain work.

I can appreciate the thought that we shouldn't care that much about how much time was spent on a project, if the work turned out well.  But I do think that figuring out who exactly is responsible for that work is important.  

Sven

Tom and Sven,

There are indeed two issues being discussed in this thread: attribution (who made it?) and aesthetics (how good is it?).

The attribution issue we're looking at in this thread is not unlike the one Renaissance literary scholars have been pursuing for centuries: who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare?  How many did he write?  Did he write the whole work himself or with collaborators?  Or did he merely aid some other author or director, unknown or unknown, to get his play onto the stage.  Because of the greatness of both artists, these questions are very important; and accurate attribution has real significance for the artists' legacies as well as for aesthetic appreciation.

A related matter that we give far less attention to, even as we acknowledge the value of their work, is how much Hatch or McGovern or Maples (or anyone else) is there in a Ross course?  We all know that Ross often made his architectural drawings from topographical maps, then essentially turned the construction of the course over to one of his people or the crews employed by his clients.  In such instances, the number of visits he made to the site is of little consequence.  What the builders made of the site once they got their feet and equipment on the ground basically determined what the course would become and how fine it would be to play.

To go back to the Shakespeare analogy, the author prepared a text, but after he died, every Shakespeare play presented in theaters and on film, became the creation of the directors or actors who realized, in action, on the stage, the artist's text, the theatrical counterpart of the architect's drawings, if you will.  We hear of Joseph Papp's Tempest or Olivier's Hamlet, but never of McGovern's Aronimink or Maples' Raleigh Country Club, for example.

A satisfactory resolution of the attribution issue raised in this thread must encompass, I feel, a list of the architects who both supported Ross in building his original design, and those whose significant modifications enabled the course's evolution into its contemporary form.  By "significant modifications," I do not mean course maintenance matters such as installing irrigation, rebuilding bunkers and resurfacing greens with newer clones of traditional grasses.  After considering these matters, it will be possible to answer, for each design, how much Ross there remains in the individual golf courses.  Then, and only then, will we be able to write down, as on any golf scorecard, the true number Ross accomplished in his life's work.

The aesthetic issue then will become whether or not the evolved or redesigned course maintained or enhanced or eviscerated the original Ross design.

[DMoriarty]

Seems like we're talking about two different kinds of accreditation in this thread.  The first, addressed by Tom, is figuring out the extent of the involvement of the architect.  The second is actually getting the right architect's name associated with certain work.

I can appreciate the thought that we shouldn't care that much about how much time was spent on a project, if the work turned out well.  But I do think that figuring out who exactly is responsible for that work is important.  

Sven

I agree with Sven.  The issue raised by Tom Doak is an entirely different one than the issue posed in in the original question. To put it in perspective, I suspect that Tom D. (and Jeff Mingay and Mike Young) would very much care if in 20 years their best work was suddenly being credited to the next hot architect who might or might not have made a few tweaks here and there.

Likewise regarding the speculation and guesses about how there may be a bunch more Ross courses out there that have yet to be rediscovered --interesting speculation but it is really beside the point of the original post. Or do we think these things just balance out? Is it okay to ignore the contributions of little known or understood designers like William Watson, Bendelow, and Herbert Barker just because maybe Ross might have been involved in a few more courses yet to be celebrated as Ross courses?  

In my opinion, if we really are trying to understand the history of golf course architecture in America then we we ought to honestly evaluate the contributions of designers like William Watson (the actual designer of White Bear Yacht Club, misattributed to Ross) and Herbert Barker (the actual designer of the Grove Inn course, misattributed to Ross.)   Unfortunately that is a very difficult thing to do, because the clubs and societies themselves seem to develop strong institutional interests in protecting their legends about their guy and the golf courses.  And where golf clubs and gca societies have strong opinions, then the golf writers and self-proclaimed golf historians will almost always bend to their will.  This is especially so regarding the reputable and desirable clubs and gca societies.   Golf is, after all, a gentleman's game, and we wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers.

Rick mentions White Bear Yacht Club and it is perhaps a perfect poster child for this issue. The evidence uncovered by Tom MacWood regarding William Watson's role at WBYC is overwhelming.  It is undeniable that Watson planned the course, and a detailed surveyor's map memorialized the early course as built. Then, later, Ross was to visit the course with an eye toward rearranging it (according to a single newspaper account.)  Yet after the Ross visit (if he ever did visit) the course was (and reportedly is) still a close match to the surveyor's map done before the Ross visit.  And a few years later, the club itself acknowledged that, while Ross and Vardon had advised on the development of the course, it was Watson who originally planned the course, and his original plan had been tested by play and required "very little change or modification."  

The club is aware of these facts and so is the Donald Ross Society. Yet they still both consider WBYC a Ross course.  Ross is one of the big names and WBYC is considered an excellent course, so it seems quite obvious why both want to associate themselves with each other and why no one at all interested in setting the facts straight!  Even Rick Shefchick (who is aware of all these facts and acknowledges above that maybe Ross is over-credited there), still insists on calling WBYC a Ross course!  No one can point to a single thing Ross contributed, yet every still considers Ross the architect!

Rick, I was somewhat surprised by your comments.  Have you had a very recent change of heart about WBYC?  Because I've noticed that when you mention the course you still refer to it as a Ross.  Why not call it what it really is?  

[Rick Shefchik]

No change of heart, David. I'm not sure where I referred to WBYC as a simply a Ross course; I think I've always acknowledge Watson's role there. There's enough smoke to suggest Ross did something, but I have no idea whether it was any more than an advisory role. I hope to find out one day, but I'm comfortable calling WBYC a Watson course.

[DMoriarty]

Probably my mistake Rick, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized your posts.  I must be misremembering your contributions to the Lesser Known Ross Gems thread and some of the other past conversations with me and/or Tom M.

I am glad you are comfortable calling WBYC a Watson course.  Unfortunately I doubt WBYC, the Ross Society, or any golf writer profiling the club will ever see it the same way.  So long as there is the least bit of "smoke to suggest Ross did something"  they'll likely go on treating it as if Ross did everything.  Same goes for most other institutional favorites.
__________________________________________________________________________

I should mention that, occasionally, a club steps up and does the right thing regarding its history despite long held institutional belief.  San Diego Golf Club was long thought to be a William P. Bell course.  A number of us had researched the course and discovered information indicating William Watson's role there was much greater than had ever been acknowledged, and Patrick Kiser communicated that information to the club and the club has since embraced the information and integrated the information into its institutional history.  Some of the research and results are discussed in this thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50684.msg1311215.html#msg1311215

Congratulations to San Diego Country Club for doing the right thing!

So far as I know the membership has not revolted since the club has chosen to acknowledge the role of lesser known Watson.  But then again while William P. Bell was very good, he doesn't quite have the same cache as a Donald Ross.  

[Tom_Doak]

Seems like we're talking about two different kinds of accreditation in this thread.  The first, addressed by Tom, is figuring out the extent of the involvement of the architect.  The second is actually getting the right architect's name associated with certain work.

I can appreciate the thought that we shouldn't care that much about how much time was spent on a project, if the work turned out well.  But I do think that figuring out who exactly is responsible for that work is important.  

Sven

I agree with Sven.  The issue raised by Tom Doak is an entirely different one than the issue posed in in the original question. To put it in perspective, I suspect that Tom D. (and Jeff Mingay and Mike Young) would very much care if in 20 years their best work was suddenly being credited to the next hot architect who might or might not have made a few tweaks here and there.

I think the issues are more intertwined than that.  And, people are already trying to sort out what parts of my work Jim Urbina or Bruce Hepner or Mike Clayton did, though for some reason they have yet to start wondering what parts Brian Schneider or Brian Slawnik or Eric Iverson did.

The truth is that every course since the beginning of time has been the product of many people's work.  The best ones require a good routing, good greens design, good construction / shaping, good finish work, and a good superintendent.  Donald Ross didn't do all of that for any of the courses that bear his name; nor did Willie Watson or George Crump or Hugh Wilson or Jack Nicklaus or Bill Coore or Tom Doak.

I was lamenting the fact that so much of opinion on golf architecture is based on whose name is attached to the course, which is why so many clubs fudge the details ... but when you guys do all this research to correct things, someone ELSE invariably starts to get more credit than THEY deserve.  Walter Hatch and J.B. McGovern certainly contributed to particular Ross courses, but nobody knows just what or how much; and they were probably capable of contributing so well because they learned about golf from Donald Ross.

A lot more space on this site has been spent arguing about who really designed White Bear Yacht Club, than actually discussing the great golf holes at White Bear Yacht Club -- which is sad.  And whether it was Ross or Willie Watson who did the routing [probably Watson], there was some extraordinary greens shaper involved who made that course different than the general run of either man's work.  There are several holes there I've never seen anywhere else.

[PCCraig]

A lot more space on this site has been spent arguing about who really designed White Bear Yacht Club, than actually discussing the great golf holes at White Bear Yacht Club -- which is sad.  

Well said! I think one major problem is that few participants here (in particular those that live outside of Minnesota) have seen the course. It's really quirky, fun, and unique. I will try to do some sort of photo tour this summer if there is enough interest.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:

I fully appreciate and understand your point.  Perhaps this belongs on the state of the website thread that Ran put up yesterday, but I'd agree that we (the collective "we") often stray afar from the theme of this forum, which is to actually discuss the architecture.

With all that you've said, part of that exercise is identifying and studying the work of individual architects.  And if we can't accurately attribute a particular course (or hole or green) to a Watson or a Ross, how can we begin to discuss how that course (or hole or green) fits in to that architect's overall body of work.

I see the attribution game as a tool to understanding the larger picture.  If there's a mistake made hereabouts, its that we are rarely satisfied with saying we just don't know.  But in those cases that we do know, the truth is important.

Sven