Donald Ross

[Ian Andrew]

What’s the definition of mailing it in? 

Mailing it in is more about personal choices.

Not getting to a site as much as you normally would might not be mailing it in - it might be circumstantial and beyond your control that year. But charging full rate for your services and making a minimal impact on the product because you can't be bothered to make the necessary visits it would take certainly meets that definition as far as I'm concerned - but again - that's from my own personal point of view.

I don't accuse others - past or current - of mailing things in. Because I don't actually know the circumstance. I can only judge myself, because I am privy to every single motivation and decision.

[Kyle Harris]

Sven,

So Ross visited Lewistown and Schuylkill? Or are you attempting to remove credit from Ross for these courses?

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Point taken about being consistent.  I definitely think sites he never saw and mailed in a routing plan is “mailing it in”. But in addition, I think “mailing it in” is also where he was only on site for a day or two.  I used my PARs as an example.  Those are “mailed in” even though they ALL always include at least one site visit by myself.  As Ian and others have said or at least implied, there is only so much you can do on a one or two day visit.  This is not rocket science and shouldn’t need much debate. 


I emphasized the OR below:

“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,…”

[Sven Nilsen]

But in addition, I think “mailing it in” is also where he was only on site for a day or two. 

Let's be clear on what "mailing it in" means and what using the phrase implies.  It means doing something without much effort or enthusiasm, or doing a task to the minimum standard required. 

If you want to be clear on what you're describing, you mean precisely what you said, in that some of his work involved a one or two day site visit.  I don't believe you are suggesting that he didn't apply effort or enthusiasm or half-assed the work.  As such, I don't think using the term "mailing it in" adds anything to this conversation.

Yes, Ross was sometimes hired to deliver plans based on one site visit.  Sometimes those visits were short, sometimes they lasted longer.  Each project needs to be looked at in terms of the scope of the work he was hired to take on.

[Bret Lawrence]

Ian mentioned earlier in the thread that Ross did visit Banff to make his plan for the golf course. 
Canadian Golfer., April., 1920:









I’m happy to hear every one’s perspective on mailing it in, because I think it does mean different things to different people.  Ross was prolific, so a lot of clubs wanted his designs and were willing to move mountains to get one.  Sometimes these clubs overreached their budget in an effort to secure Ross and this was likely the reason for poorer designs or implementation of his designs.  I think many of the examples given thus far in the thread also exemplify that.


As a researcher, I believe “mailing it in” is never visiting a site and designing a course from a topographic map.  I don’t consider Old Elm mailed in, because Colt visited the site, made a very detailed plan and had Ross and Carters Seeds to implement it. I think Ross learned from that experience how to be more prolific and get the job done by visiting sites less using more detailed plans and a team of professionals.  I categorize any job like Old Elm the same way.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Now I know what you mean by “mailing it in” - lack of effort.  I don’t mean that at all.  I am sure Ross did his absolute best on every design that had his name on it.  I never meant to infer otherwise.  But he could only do so much no matter how hard he tried if he never visited or was only on site for a day or two.  These are the courses I define as “mailed in” because there was no other way he could get his plans to those courses.  On the courses where he spent considerable time, there was no need to mail or send  anything in as he was on site and could hand deliver any plans and was there to oversee that they were carried out to his satisfaction.  Is this more clear?


Would this be closer to the truth since you don’t agree with Brad Klein:


“Ross likely never approved or saw the construction of about 1/3 of his designs”.


If that is wrong I will delete it.   

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:


I am on the course now and will respond more later.


In short, I believe Ross saw the site of well more than 2/3rds of his projects.


Sven

[Carl Johnson]

A lot to digest here -- I need to go back to the beginning and review all.  But Ross is a difficult subject on account of the loss/destruction of his own records.  In his heyday Ross had a solid team.  I don't think you can ever discount the leader of a team.  Some courses/clubs may have had only so much money, and you are going to get what you pay for.  I'm only familiar with what little history is available on one golden era Ross.  His architectural fee was $3,200 -- bank records show that.  His original large scale plan disappeared in the late 1950s.  There is no evidence anyone was paid for construction, so it is assumed that the course owner's own construction company did the work.  There is no evidence that Ross ever visited the finished project, though there is good reason to think he did.  Lists, such as Brad's, include the course as a Ross course.  The course self-identifies as Ross.  In the mid-aughts it was restored, renovated or whatever you want to call it by a golf course architect with expertise in Ross's work, with the goal of bringing back or replicating as much "Ross" work as he could keeping Ross design principles in mind. I think it's fair to market the course as it stands today as a Ross course.  Others may disagree. All I can say in the end is that "it is what it is" and it is an enjoyable course.

[V_Halyard]

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”

I have not gone into the stacks as deeply as Brad nor spent hours with the esteemed Audrey, but I have seen quite a few updated histories as supplied by the likes of Newspapers.com as well as phenomenal CSI level texts I am pleased to receive from Dr. Bausch.
The more that archives of smaller publications get ingested, we find word of previously unknown visits by classic GCA's.
But to answer the question, I would defer to BK on this estimate.
I will pose that he did visit at least 2/3.
Level of onsite and oversight is where variability swells. 

[Sean_A]

Mark:


I am on the course now and will respond more later.


In short, I believe Ross saw the site of well more than 2/3rds of his projects.


Sven

I am in your camp. But the real questions are

when did Ross visit

how many times did Ross visit

what is the value of each visit

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

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.

Mark,


Ross routed 300+ courses that were built. How many have you routed that were built?


What are the Ross courses that you helped restore/renovate?


What are the courses that hired you to implement your PAR plan?


What courses that you have worked on as the lead restoration/renovation architect that you want those of us who to travel to play?


Thanks.


Ira

[Sven Nilsen]

Since the gauntlet has been laid down, I intend to debunk the 1/3 site visit myth as best I can.  I'll have more concrete information going forward, but here's a teaser. 


Brad's book lists 39 Ross courses in Florida.  Of those 39, he notes 21 where Ross been On Site is not confirmed.  Based on a precursory review, the following notations should be added:


Belleair East - Brad's list has the wrong date (1923).  The DRS currently notes he was here for this course in 1915, at the same time hew was working on the West course, for which Brad confirms he was on site.  Goes without saying the East course should be confirmed as well.


CC of Orlando - On ongoing issue with the DRS Listing and with Brad's List.  This was a Bendelow design in 1918, it would be impossible for Ross to be onsite for work he didn't do.


Palatka - Credited today as a Clark design. 


Palma Sola (aka Bradenton) - Articles confirm Ross on site.


Panama - An Alison design.


Ponce de Leon - Articles confirm Ross on site.


Riviera (Miami Biltmore) - Articles confirm Ross on site.


Sara Bay (Whitfield) - Articles confirm Ross on site.


I'm sure I'll find more instances of these Florida courses where a visit or more by Ross can be confirmed when I dive in a bit deeper.  As the article below notes, he took steps to ensure that he was in position to visit the locations where he had work going on.


Jan. 5, 1925 Orlando Evening Star -

[Kyle Harris]

You can’t disqualify courses Ross never designed from Brad’s statement if they were at one point attributed to Ross. Brad’s 1/3 states covers those too. And it should.


CCO, Lake Wales, PineCrest, Bartow, and Palatka weren’t Ross. And Brad’s statement about Ross never seeing 1/3 of the courses attributed to him covers those as they were attributed to him at the time.


Brad is debunking a myth, too. Just in different words.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
As you know over 400 courses have been attributed to Ross. If you could determine which ones he visited of those 400 that would be amazing.  Many have tried to figure that out for not only Ross but for other architects and it is a near impossible task.  It would also be very interesting to understand how many he saw completed and/or was involved in approvals as they were constructed. That would also be amazing information to have though not sure what we would do with it.


My guess is you are going to find that maybe he did visit more than two thirds of his courses but “for most” of his designs he was only on site once or twice which is very little when it comes to designing a golf course from scratch. 


Ira,
This thread is about Ross. Your questions don’t have much to do with what Ross did or didn’t do.  If you are really interested you can email me and I would be happy to send you an example of a PAR for one or two Ross courses but would ask you keep anything I send confidential as I don’t have approvals from the clubs to make them public and don’t like to discuss most projects in a public forum anyway.  Few would appreciate that. 


Kyle,
All good points.

[Sven Nilsen]

Kyle:

I came back to edit this post as I've thought a bit more about your last post.

We disagree on whether or not courses mistakenly attributed to Ross should affect the calculations we are discussing.  Brad's theory is based on those being Ross courses.  He is as responsible for the evidence he based his theory on as he is for the theory itself, especially since he recently restated the theory to Mark, assumedly knowing (according to Mark) that many of the attributions have changed in the last 20 plus years.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

My guess is you are going to find that maybe he did visit more than two thirds of his courses but “for most” of his designs he was only on site once or twice which is very little when it comes to designing a golf course from scratch. 

Are you hedging your earlier statements now?  I'm still waiting for you to provide a few examples, let alone "many" examples, of projects that Ross designed without visiting the site.  Until you can do so, you can understand how one might think you're just talking out of your ass.

It is very interesting to me that everyone wants to knock his practices, instead of perhaps recognizing the man for what he was - an absolute genius at his craft with an indefatigable work ethic. 

They don't make them like they used to.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
With all due respect I am not just saying something to say it.  I have done a lot of research in GCA, even wrote a book.  Brad Klein and I have worked together on multiple projects over the years and I respect his opinions. I also very much recognize that new information comes out and things we thought were one thing turn out to be another.  But so far you are the one who hasn’t proved anything.  You are taking this as a challenge to do so which means you have work to do and it is not obvious.  Even Vaughn who is the head of the Ross society isn’t debating what Brad Klein said because he knows Brad is a known Ross expert and wrote a very popular book about his work. 


Just to summarize my current position on Ross based on what I know and what I have learned over the many years working with guys like Brad:


About 1/3 of Ross courses he never saw or only made a short visit,


About 1/3 of Ross courses he visited and spent maybe a few days on overall.


About 1/3 of Ross courses he spent a significant amount of time on (significant varies but more than one or two visits).


Overall the quality of his designs varied and to some extent was proportional to the amount of time he spent on each project. Of course there are exceptions.


That is my current belief about Ross.

[Tags:]

Tags: