Was Donald Ross into penal designs?

[NAF]

I picked this quote up today while reading a blurb in one of Tom Macwood's excellent  "In my opinions"  I found it fascinating to read..

"As far as his philosophies on design are concerned, he (Ross) is normally identified with the strategic school of design, but that maybe a mischaracterization. Ross loved bunkers and used them liberally. Robert Trent Jones who revised many of his layouts wrote, 'the courses Ross built during the 1920s, it wouldn't be uncommon to find 200 to 220 bunkers on a single course.' Seminole, his great design of 1929, had 189 bunkers. If anything Ross leaned more toward the penal school through most of his career, he wrote 'perhaps the best evidence of the modern development of the game are the changes which have made our course more severe and therefore better tests, for golf is not golf when poor play is not penalized.'

I've only played a few Donald Ross courses albeit great ones, Plainfield, Pinehurst #2, White Bear Yacht Club and East Lake (what's left of him there?) and would not consider them penal outside of #2 in the least.  Would others more familiar with Ross care to comment.  I must admit playing a Ross course does seem much different that say a Tillie or a Dr. Mac course to me especially when it comes to diagonal hazards and bold fairway bunkering.  But my sample size is too small to make that as a sweeping confirmation.

Any thoughts?

[A_Clay_Man]

Specifically as it relates to Ross' greenside bunkers, at a recent Beverly CC gathering, Ron Prichard told me he was of the opinion DR wanted to test distance accuracy. Thats why the fill pads come all the way to the grass/ bunker edges. To catch the slightest miss in gauging distance. I find the concept sound but not all that penal as I understand it in today's golf world. In other words, the greenside bunker isnt as penal as a cravase at the base of a 10,000 year old glacier.

[T_MacWood]

I think in general American golf leaned torward the penal in the mid to late 20's. Before WWI Harry Vardon, among others, was very critical of American golf for not being difficult enough....lacking bunkering.

 Starting in the 20's you saw the effect of Vardon's criticism with courses like Pine Valley, Brook Hollow, Hollywood, Timber Point and Oakmont (chosen as a new venue) getting a lot of press. Seminole, Aronomink, Palm Beach, and Oyster Harbors leaned torward the penal with the severity of the bunkering. In fact the criticism switched...guys like Tom Simpson and JH Taylor thought American golf was too penal.

IMO there is no such thing as entirely penal or entirely strategic...there are degress of both. Tom Simpson was of the opinion there was only one course in the world that was both equally penal and strategic--Pine Valley.

[Rick Shefchik]

One of the best par 3's I've played is Donald Ross's 150-yard 5th hole at Northland Country Club. It's penal to the extreme, yet not particularly indicative of the rest of the course. It plays more uphill than you realize, even though you can only see the top of the flagstick and no part of the putting surface. The green was once guarded by deep greenside bunkers in front -- so deep that I once had to pitch out sideways, and have seen others do the same or chop three or four consecutive shots into the face of the bunker -- but a recent renovation has lowered the faces on these bunkers. There are also long bunkers on either side of the green, though you can't tell from the tee that they're there; and the green slopes rather sharply from back to front, meaning a shot that goes long might be the worst miss of all.

There are plenty of other bunkers on the course, but no holes quite as penal as this one. Maybe Ross liked to focus his worst penalties in a few selected locations.

[A_Clay_Man]

TomMac- If your timeframe is correct I think Pebble Beach with it's 1919 date may have set the trend. I consider Pebble to have a "penal" dominance. Plus, I recall seeing some of the very old Photos and that place looked like one huge bunker back in the day.

[bg_in_rtp]

I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood that it's a mistake to categorize an architect into a penal vs. strategic category.  A better judgement is to look at the ratio of penal vs. strategic.  In the case of Donald Ross, I would tend to think that he falls more into the 70% strategic vs. 30% penal.  

Based on the few Ross courses I've played in NC and MI (those without major changes..ie. PIne Needles, Mid Pines, Raleigh CC and not places like Oakland Hills), and the reading I've done from books like "Golf has Never Failed Me", Ross' approach favored the golfer that could execute accurate shots, but also embodied the Scottish spirit that believes that golf is not about great shots, but the ability to make great recoveries from challenging locations.  I think his Par3s are often considered penal because of the depth of bunkers, but this followed his believe that they should be more difficult since the approach allowed the played to place the ball on a tee and hit the approach from the flat lie (the tee).  

If you look at his Par4s and Par5s, the bunkers usually define the paths of greater challenge vs. less risk, and the fairways bunkers have lower lips so that the player has a chance to recover.  When bunkers have since been added to both sides of the fairway at fixed distances (ie. Oakland Hills), then Ross' name is often confused with the subsequent architect and hence is considered more penal than strategic.  

So don't get caught up in counting bunkers, but rather look at their placement in relation to different playing options, and their ability to allow players to make recoveries if they failed at a previous shot.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

I think that some of Ross' tougher greens have become penal with today's high green speeds (and years of topdressing, raising the greens several feet, creating more severe dropoffs).

[bg_in_rtp]

Scott

Agreed, but that's more a function of course maintenance than architecture.  For example, our greens ar Raleigh run at about 11 and can get pretty severe in many areas.  But the greens at Mid Pines, which are very similar to Raleigh in terms of contour and slope, are kept slower and hence are not as penal.

I'd think the reverse could also be said about some courses getting easier as fairways are kept in better condition and drainage is improved.  But that's a whole different topic of conversation....

[BCrosby]

Tom and Brian nail it.

There's no question that Ross could be penal at times. When he was, it was almost always in the context of short or medium approach shots. In those situations he might surround greens with bunkers or provide severe run-offs.

But he rarely designed penal mid-bodies. And where long approaches were required, he left lots of room for recoveries.

He also rarely used water in a penal way. Carries were not usually an issue. Ross almost never put water close to greens.  

But its not the use of hazards that makes Ross special, in my book. The more I think about Ross, the more I appreciate the way he used land contours. He was remarkably sensitive to the impact a swale, a mound, a little rise or an uneven fairway lie. That is a classic "strategic" approach to design. Which is the approach that he used most often.

That is also why it is so hard to explain the genius of Ross to people that haven't played some of his better courses. It's very subtle, low key stuff that you don't pick-up on right away. His work is hard to describe to someone unless you are standing in the fairway with them.

Bob

 

 

[CHC1948]

Even with some of ross's most severe green complexes, I believe they are not form the school of penal design.  I am pretty familar with #2 and I believe the greens and approach shots are more strategic or risk/reward than penal.  If the player tries a shot that he is not capable of, then yes, he will be penalized.  There always is a less aggressive option on any Ross course I have played, have not played much in the NE so maybe it is different up there.  The thing that Ross did better and more often than any other Architect was create a golf course for the scratch and high-handicapper alike.