Donald Ross

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
It goes without saying that Ross wasn’t able to provide the necessary time on site (if any) at many of his projects to do his best work. Not sure how you could argue with that when you yourself said how many projects he had going on.  If C&C or Tom Doak took on that much work, could they really be spending the time necessary (as they do now) to make each course with their name on it the best it could possibly be???  I can 100% guarantee you having talked with Bill Coore many times that he would laugh at that idea. Bill might spend multiple days if not weeks on one hole to get it right.  Ross on the other hand might have stopped for a 1/2 day visit and handed over a routing plan before moving on to his next project. Nothing further needs to be said in a case like that about how perfect he was trying to make that particular golf course.  The owner knew what they were getting and so did Ross and both parties were usually happy. Ross was mass producing golf courses with his name on them and he was ok with that. As such without question the quality will vary. 

Carl,
Didn’t know you were joking.

Mark:


You're ignoring the request to provide examples of courses where Ross didn't visit the site.  Until you do, please stop repeating that misguided refrain.


He travelled 25 days a month, that's 300 days a year, on an average of 30 or so projects a year.  That's around an average of 10 days per project (including travel time).  Quite a bit for someone who didn't have the benefit of hopping on a plane. 


I'll fully concede that things were different back then.  This was during the greatest period of development of golf courses this country has ever experienced and accordingly the demand for architects was much greater.  Especially so for Ross, who was considered the top of the field. 


I'm not taking any exception to the thought that on some projects he wasn't as involved as Bill Coore is today with the work he takes on.  I'm taking exception to the fact that you continually state Ross didn't spend any time on site for many of his projects (or "mailed it in") without providing any evidence of him ever doing so.


If you'd like to put in a bit of time to do the research, here's a good place to start -


 [size=78%]https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html[/size]


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
As I said earlier, I am traveling (on a golf course as I try to type this ) and not at my office. Grab a copy of Brad’s book as I believe he lists a bunch of courses Ross never visited or was there only for a quick peak.  Brad is clearly aware of “all the new evidence” and as of last night he still believes Ross spent little if any time on 1/3 of the courses accredited to him.

Note:  We often talk here about how panelists only get one look at a golf course and then try to determine how good it is.  That is really hard if not impossible to accurately do.  But can you imagine trying to “design a great or even a marginal golf course” on a 100 plus acres of undeveloped property with just one quick visit!!!  What do you expect you are going to get

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,


I have to imagine there is still a pretty high level of design input from Donald Ross on those 1/3 of Ross-accredited courses that he spent little, or no time on, supoosedly. I wonder, then, who should be accredited with those courses, or how so many could be so good without ample input from Mr. Ross…..


I’m in awe that Ross did so many projects with way above average results. His ability to communicate his visions must have been terrific.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark,


I have to imagine there is still a pretty high level of design input from Donald Ross on those 1/3 of Ross-accredited courses that he spent little, or no time on, supoosedly. I wonder, then, who should be accredited with those courses, or how so many could be so good without ample input from Mr. Ross…..


I’m in awe that Ross did so many projects with way above average results. His ability to communicate his visions must have been terrific.

If anything Donald Ross was adept at keeping "the thing" the thing. You have to build 18 greens. You have to locate them. Focusing all your attention there, on site or from afar, will yeild good results.

[Sven Nilsen]

Grab a copy of Brad’s book as I believe he lists a bunch of courses Ross never visited or was there only for a quick peak.

I'm very familiar with the course listing in Brad's book.  At this point it is very outdated.


For your clarification, Brad's list has an "On Site Confirmed" column, which is very different from confirmation of Ross never visiting a site.


There are a number of courses that aren't checked in Brad's list for which confirmation has been found since he compiled the list.  There are also a good number of courses where he hasn't confirmed Ross being on site for which, based on the location and timing, there is no reason to doubt that he was.  Traveling 300 days a year and hitting many of the same locales repeatedly (Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, etc. and everything on the train routes in between) the safer assumption is that he did visit.


Sven

[MCirba]

I would only add that the Ross drawings I've seen are almost invariably very detailed in every respect and would not have been difficult for an onsite construction crew to carry out.   This includes routing maps, hole designs, and greens and features drawings.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Ross was without question one of the greatest architects ever.  I am definitely not questioning that. His body of work is unbelievable but at the same time it varied widely in quality.  If anyone here thinks all 400 or more of his courses were 7-10s I hate to burst your bubble but they are sadly mistaken.  The variation in quality is probably proportional to his time on site/level of personal involvement. I have been privileged to play many of his courses as well as work on some of his best like Oyster Harbors in MA where the greens are as good as anything I have seen on the planet. But then I will go to another “Ross course” where you just shake your head and wonder, “did he really see/approve something like this?”Yes most of his courses are better than average, but outside of his well know ones, you never know for sure what you will find when you visit a Ross design. 

Mike,
My guess is you are looking at plans for his higher end designs. There are many of others where the detail in the plans is not there. I trust you have seen some of them for comparison purposes. Maybe someone here can post examples. 

I am a huge fan of the golden age architects and love classic designs as much as anyone but it is not like every course they did was sacred and never to be altered. Far from it even for someone like Ross.

[MCirba]

Mark,


At the risk of offending some courses/clubs, it might help to name specific cases where a Ross course is in that "3" range because I can only think of 1 I played that hasn't been significantly altered over time or otherwise poorly maintained that falls into that category.


But even with that course, as modest (and nearby to us) as it was,  a complete, detailed set of Ross green plans has been found in recent years and the most likely scenario is the owner really never had money to fully implement what Ross conceived, likely due to the depression.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Maybe look in the Confidential Guide and see if there are any Ross courses mentioned that are in that 3-5 range.  But I know Tom mostly seeks out the best designs which is understandable. 

[Bradley Anderson]

It's been awhile since I have posted in GCA, but from what I have experienced I have a sense that Holston Hills, French Lick, Franklin Hills, Rackham and Burlington CC in Vermont are still very close to what Donald Ross had originally built.

[Tim Martin]

It's been awhile since I have posted in GCA, but from what I have experienced I have a sense that Holston Hills, French Lick, Franklin Hills, Rackham and Burlington CC in Vermont are still very close to what Donald Ross had originally built.

Although the routing is still intact to the best of my knowledge Burlington CC was tampered with extensively over the years. I can’t speak to what was done by Mike Hurdzan a while back or the more recent work by Northeast Golf Company but I know that the bunkers and greens had been changed significantly from Ross’s original design. Looking to get up there later in the year to check out the 2025 version.

[Tom_Doak]

He travelled 25 days a month, that's 300 days a year, on an average of 30 or so projects a year.  That's around an average of 10 days per project (including travel time).  Quite a bit for someone who didn't have the benefit of hopping on a plane. 

Never mind Ross's designs.  He travelled 300 days a year?  I find that difficult to believe but if he managed to do that for even a few years that is more impressive than anything I know about him.  I have traveled 150-180 days per year for many years now and I can state with authority that once you get up above 150, every extra day counts double in the toll it takes on you.


P.S. to Mark:  I cannot think off the top of my head of a Donald Ross course that only received a 3 on the Doak Scale.  If it's got a good routing and a good set of greens, it's not going to be a 3.  But as you said, I don't go around looking for the 3's.

[V_Halyard]

It was the late Tom Weiskopf in the early 1980s, who, lamenting the changes to Oak Hill and Inverness, suggested there should be a "Society for the Preservation of Donald Ross Courses".

Note the word he used.

Instead, we got a Donald Ross Society that often recommends architects to consult at clubs and "restore" them.  I don't think that's what TW had in mind.

Still, it boggles my mind if there are no great Ross courses left that are good examples of preservation.  There must be some that have not gone under the knife??

The first that come to mind are in upstate NY -- Glens Falls and Teugega, and also Longmeadow in MA, but maybe someone has gotten to these now.

Tom,

I take direct issue with this as the Current President of a very active Donald Ross Society.
Your inference is inaccurate on all accounts. We are ardent defenders of the GCA of a project and recommend clubs not proceed without one. I personally contact folks on your team and the GCa with regard to Ross and any other Ross or non/Ross project with which I’m involved.
Ross Society respects and invites all architects to actively participate and present at all of our current events. We don't recommend GCA's but will give historical opinions when asked to contribute. But we will call bullshit on something that is off the rails.

Perhaps you may be referring to some incident in the past.
For all current research, events,  activities I personally extend an invitation to the architects, including those on your team and associates, to join and share accurate and current information and approaches.
Given schedules, you and members of your team have chosen to pass due to time constraints, which is understandable.
We did that for our most current outing at Skokie which was attended by Myself and Dan Moore who shared an outstanding accounting the L&M contribution and history. Kyle Franz, Jason Straka, Kris Spence, Drew Rogers, Jim Nagle, Ron Forse and Ron Prichard and others have joined us to make sure we had the accurate accounting as shared by the GCA on Ross Related Projects.

Your inference is inaccurate and again perhaps based on a past experience with which I am unfamiliar.
Going forward, if you or any your team have any issues with any representations or communications made by the Donald Ross Society, feel free to pick up the phone and return a call or text.   You have my number.

Vaughn

[Mark_Fine]

Vaughn,
What is your opinion about Brad Klein’s comment?  Also do you feel most of Ross’s courses are in the 7+ catagory? 


I know his batting average is high but he didn’t get a hit every time he was at bat. 


Best,
Mark

[Adam_Messix]

I'm curious, have any of the greens on the original nine at Rolling Rock been altered?

[Ira Fishman]

Sven,
Ross was without question one of the greatest architects ever.  I am definitely not questioning that. His body of work is unbelievable but at the same time it varied widely in quality.  If anyone here thinks all 400 or more of his courses were 7-10s I hate to burst your bubble but they are sadly mistaken.  The variation in quality is probably proportional to his time on site/level of personal involvement. I have been privileged to play many of his courses as well as work on some of his best like Oyster Harbors in MA where the greens are as good as anything I have seen on the planet. But then I will go to another “Ross course” where you just shake your head and wonder, “did he really see/approve something like this?”Yes most of his courses are better than average, but outside of his well know ones, you never know for sure what you will find when you visit a Ross design. 

Mike,
My guess is you are looking at plans for his higher end designs. There are many of others where the detail in the plans is not there. I trust you have seen some of them for comparison purposes. Maybe someone here can post examples. 

I am a huge fan of the golden age architects and love classic designs as much as anyone but it is not like every course they did was sacred and never to be altered. Far from it even for someone like Ross.

Mark,


What are the Ross courses about which “you shake your head and wonder”? That is a pretty bold and blunt assertion so I am sure that you can back it up.


Ira

[Sven Nilsen]

Never mind Ross's designs.  He travelled 300 days a year?  I find that difficult to believe but if he managed to do that for even a few years that is more impressive than anything I know about him.  I have traveled 150-180 days per year for many years now and I can state with authority that once you get up above 150, every extra day counts double in the toll it takes on you.

I guess we can understand why the man almost died of exhaustion in the 1920's. 


 

[V_Halyard]

Vaughn,
What is your opinion about Brad Klein’s comment?  Also do you feel most of Ross’s courses are in the 7+ catagory? 

I know his batting average is high but he didn’t get a hit every time he was at bat. 

Best,
Mark

I think 7 across the board might be generous given many were not fully realized to Ross’ plans. Two I am involved with were designed but never fully completed by Ross nor his team as designed, until after the drawings were dry. (Cedar Rapids CC and Tumblebrook).

CRCC was designed and locallybuilt save for bunkering yielding what was maybe a 3.5 to 5 prior to a restoration by Prichard.

All nine holes of Tumblebrook were drawn in detail but construction stopped after the trees were cut and land was scraped. Neither the greens, bunkers, nor surrounds were built. Max score was a 2.

I think a high percentage has great potential but the actual portfolio was subject to variable levels of completion. 

Others such as Kenosha went into tree-choked witness protection, finally liberated having has wrapped over 10 years of cutting, peeling, and shaping thanks to their members, and Drew Rogers.
Majority of greens are original, and restoration of lost features, bunkers, mounding, and width have delivered a fantastic and outstanding classic artifact based on Ross’ drawings and historical photos. Forensics matters.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I shared some names offline with Mike C.
Also Vaughn mentioned a few and The Confidential Guide likely has more.  As Vaughn mentioned, the Ross portfolio was subject to various levels of completion.  You are never sure what you will find when you get there especially on his lesser known designs.  Is everything you have seen of Ross a 7 or better?

Vaughn,
Thanks for the response.  So do you agree with Brad about his comment, “1/3 he probably hardly saw at all, not even once”

[Bret Lawrence]

Donald Ross was a great business man and he was good at getting paid.  He didn’t design masterpieces and wait for the check to come! Some of the designs that didn’t turn out to be stars, likely weren’t paying Ross to be on site. The higher the budget, the more days you could have Ross on site. In other words, the courses that turned out to be 2 or 3’s got what they paid for.


I think anyone that has read Sven’s Re-Understanding Ross thread realizes that Ross was on the road a good portion of each year.  He had summer houses in the northeast, so although he was traveling 300 days a year, he did make it “home” more often than his contemporaries with a similar work load. 


These architects got paid to travel, much like they do today. Just because we think it was harder to travel back then, did not prevent them from trying.  If a course only had enough money for the Ross plan, then that is all they got.  If that’s what mailing it in is, then I suppose he did that.  It’s really hard for me to believe that Ross designed 125 courses (1/3) from his office desk in Pinehurst, without ever visiting the site. Sven keeps directing people to the Ross thread because there are many instances where Ross visited courses multiple times.  These are courses who thought Ross was never there at all.


We have four Ross courses in CT.  Out of the four, I would say Country Club of Waterbury is the most authentic.  Very little changes over the years.  All 18 greens appear to be original (although a few were there before Ross) . 


Just over the border is Whitinsivlle which is perennially ranked in the upper echelon of nine-hole courses.  I only played it once and don’t know much about the history, but I’d imagine one of the reasons everyone raves about it, is its very close to its original form.

[Ian Andrew]

I'm pretty confident I can prove that Ross never spent more than a single day on site at Banff Springs. But does this matter to anyone. What came after was much better than what was built before and it erased a very mediocre course.  I have plenty of pictures of the "Ross Course" and it was really rudimentary.

But I don't know for certain.... how can I?
He could have visited and there is no record.
So its a hunch based upon the results.


I do know from compiling everything I could find on Thompson trying to find a definitive lists (fools errand), it did often lead to new conclusions through information. The big one was the number of renovations, where it clearly was not an original course. The original 140+ courses by Stan was whittled down to 80+ after that 10 year process. I had lots of help. I published the result here.


One another note: Travel ....

In 2023 I had:
1 rebuild in Alberta (all year long)
2 18-hole bunker full projects in the US (one followed the other - one was flights - the other long car trips)
1 major renovation in near Toronto (all year long- but single day by car)
2 18-hole bunker projects in Canada (one followed the other - one was car - the second required flights)

I did no planning work, no interviews, no reports, played no golf till winter that year because I was too busy.

To see each site (4) every week I had a total of 6 days off from April 15th to November 1st (including Sundays)
It was a year without rain, or we still worked through the light rain of that day.

If you want to approve all the work, you can only see so much on a regular basis.
That was me absolutely maxed out and the total is 4 sites.

[Mark_Fine]

Good post Ian.


I played an “Arnold Palmer” course (not to be named) one time on opening day with the contractor who build it.  He half joked to me, “We usually have to tell Mr. Palmer which way the 1st hole goes!”   


As Ian and others point out there is only so much you can do if you aren’t on site often.  It comes down to the quality of the project manager and the construction crews.  Any architect knows this. 

[Bret Lawrence]

What’s the definition of mailing it in? 


Visiting the site once to make a detailed plan versus never visiting a site and creating a plan from a topographic map is a world of difference to me.


Did Colt mail in Old Elm?  Did Mackenzie mail in Cypress Point?  How many days do you have to be on site for the design not to be considered mailed in?


I think if you have competent architects and engineers on site, like Albert Murray’s and Orrin Smiths and James Harrison’s you don’t really need to be there everyday.  A plan may be all they need.  Other places without professionals at the helm will likely need more support from the architect.

[Mark_Fine]

Bret,
Mailed in probably means different things to different people.  To me, being on site for a day and then “mailing in” a routing with some design notes and recommendations would be “mailing it in”. 

I have prepared something I call a PAR (Preliminary Assessment Report) for dozens of different “existing” golf courses over the years.  It can vary but for most but I visit the course and spend the day, get familiar with it, meet some or most of the decision makers etc and then take a few days afterward to write up a visit report on my initial thoughts. It is a chance for everyone to see if we are all on the same page and gives the course owners some initial ideas about what I am thinking.  This is effectively “mailing it in” but I would never expect any course to rely on this to do work.  It is simply a start to see if we should continue working together on a real detailed plan.  I always tell people if someone comes in and makes strong recommendations after just one visit, don’t walk away, RUN!  I can’t imagine making a one or two day visit to design a brand new golf course on a virgin site!  But if so, that would be “mailing it in” to me.  Obviously making no visits and sending in a routing plan is exactly that as well.   

[Sven Nilsen]

Many of them are courses that were as we like to call them,  “topo” courses that he never saw and where he just mailed in a routing or those where he might’ve been on site for a day or two at most,…

Mark:


This is the language you used earlier.  It is clear you meant "mailed in" with respect to projects you for which you think he never saw the site.


Please be consistent.


The point being made here is that there are very few projects where he did not actually see the site, so few that there has only been one viable candidate (Banff) named in this thread.

[Tags:]

Tags: