What distinguishes a Ross course?

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Interesting you say that about Ross greens and the 100 year flood plain reason!

I'm from Pennsylvania, sold real estate for a living, mostly things like farms and can recognize before I'm even told what land that may be in a 100 year flood plain looks like! It's really not that common other than on or near water courses in the area I live in.

And the golf courses of any architect that I've played most over the years are Ross's and I can probably count on two hands of all the hundreds of Ross holes I've played those that would be in a 100 year flood plain!

I think the truth of the construction of most Ross greens are exactly what Jeff Brauer said! Ross, like many of those good early architects was very much into economy and efficiency of construction! Their green surfaces needed to be constructed for simple rain drainage, they generally needed to place bunker features around or near those greens for strategic reasons and so they took the fill from the bunkers they made and instead of carting it away or any distance they simply used it to build up the green pads, generally in the rear for primarily obvious reasons of golf!

The most interesting common trait of Ross greens with any kind of natural slope (of which there are so many) is when the natural slope was too much for the necessary leveling of the green surface. In those cases he generally created a deep bunker on the low side--used that fill to build up that low side bunker to support and level off the green just enough for playability and the rest of the green pad fill came from the high side and the rear where he made a drainage swale to take the water running down the slope (at the green) away from the green around the back and behind the low side bunker too!

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac -

Yes, there is no question East Lake should be considered a modern course. Even if Rees hadn't remodelled EL in the early '90's, the 1962 changes for the Ryder Cup would have sufficed to put it in the "Modern" category.

TEP -

I don't know about the flood plane thing, but there is no question that Ross was deeply concerned with drainage issues. In his field sketches, unless the green is elevated, he spends a lot of time describing how he wants greens and surrounds to drain. It's clear those concerns drove many of his designs.

We've talked about it before, but lots of Ross bunkers are located as much for hydorological reasons as for aestheic or strategic reasons. Mike Young is always reminding me that Ross was equal parts engineer and artist.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

You're certainly right about Ross and drainage but all those good old architects were very aware of and concerned about drainage problems and solutions. If they weren't they certainly wouldn't have lasted or been successful.

GeoffShac reminded me of how good Thomas/Bell were with not just drainage solutions but also for blending the solutions into the aesthetics and also the playability of their courses.

All of Flynn's very comprehensive hole drawings always show the drainage flow line arrows on the separate green drawing  in the green construction section to the lower right of the hole drawings!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

Based on courses I have seen, I always considered Muirfield the first "modern" course, in that greens, tees, bunkers and routing all had sizes, locations, etc. we would consider normal today.  I also feel that by the 1920's, American designers had pretty well figured out and adapted designs to American conditions, and that we follow those principals today.  

The exceptions are the big budget courses of the last 20 years, where technology and economy have allowed designers to explore different paradigms, like moving lots of earth to create a special look (ie Whistling Straights, Shadow Creek) although, you could point to Lido to say that even that is not new.  Other than that, economy generally still rules the day, and leads architects to find convenient fill sources, like Ross.

I also feel, that as a rule in the Golden Age, the designers learned from each other, and as they went.  As has been noted, these designer seemed more likely to collaborate, and I feel it is because they were all feeling their way.  I think it led to the formation of ASGCA, and I think it is still going on today, in different forms.

So, Ross, was not, IMHO, advanced for his time.  As a group, the Golden Age designers truly advanced the profession and philosophy of golf course design.  As probably the most national of the prominent architects, he may have made some headway first in adapting designs to different climates across the US.  An example is his work in grassing the greens at Pinehurst.

Over his career, other technology, like irrigation, earthmoving and drainage all evolved signifigantly.  I have seen the Northland CC plans, and a local engineer did the rudimentary irrigation system.  I imagine Ross had to see and learn how these "new technologies" would affect his design.  Who knows, he may have felt irrigation was unnecessary in that climate,  (Having built three courses in that region, I still question that today!)

I also recall that at Seminole, he altered his traditional bunker style, which I have always felt was a REACTION to losing ANGC to MacKenzie and his more flamboyant style.  So, in these two cases, Ross was simply "middle of the pack" in style and engineering, if not in number of courses built.

As to visibility, Ross writes it was important, and we can only imagine that he was reacting to "Alps" style holes.  I think he tried for visibility, but accepted it was not always possible,  especially in the Rock of New England.  When he found silt and clay in Detroit that could be cut as far as he wanted, he went for it!  I think he would be satisfied to see the flag, and my opinion is that seeing the base of the flag was a discussion item in his career, but not mandatory until the big money tour of the 1960's evolved.

I understand some of my post is speculation, but you asked for my opinions.  I hope I don't offend any one with this post.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
Do you think Ross was aware of the optical illusion presented by the foreshortened bunkers?

Have you ever thought about optical illusion in your designs - in particular the optical illusion created on greens on courses built on sloping sites?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will repeat that in looking at hundreds of Ross plans, I never saw that mentioned either.  It was a close place to get fill.  So, I am skeptical, and believe that golfers have attributed much more devious thinking to Ross than he should be given credit for.  Of course, I could be wrong, and if he was trying to be devious about depth perception, perhaps he purposely didn't ever tell anyone what he was trying to do, or it would spoil the effect....

I have also studied 15 at Pinehurst No. 2, which most people credit as visual deception.  I don't like it, as the swale in front also precludes a good run up, and in my eye, doesn't work visually as well as some people seem to think. :-/

I have tried on a few occaisions to force perspective and provide depth deception.  I haven't quite got the hang of it, frankly.    The best I've ever seen is Fazio's 11th and particularly 12th at Shadow Creek.  The short 11th has a huge bunker and green on a short approach, giving the impression it is closer than it is.  The 12th is longer, and the bunkers get progressively smaller.  And the green is 300 sf at most.  Even looking at the yardage marker, which said 148, I took a six iron, and overclubbed by at least two.

I think it was genius   ::)to play with perception in opposite ways, on consecutive holes!  With thoughts of underclubbing in your mind at 11, you naturally want to overclub at 12 and he goads you into it.  I didn't consider the prevailing wind, but I think it is really diabolical to visully decieve you into thinking its longer than it really is INTO the wind, to get you to add yet another club, and make it look shorter DOWNWIND, making you take even a bit less club.  The only problem being, it would be embarrassing to play back from three clubs over the green!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
I have read the Ross bunkers were built twenty and thirty yards short of the green for strategic reasons, pre-irrigiation the golfer had to pitch his ball short of the green thus the bunkers. And I've read the theory he was trying to fool the golfer, but I've never heard he built them there because it was the best place to get fill.

Is that a commom ploy of Fazio? Any other good Fazio examples?

You wrote something about Muirfield being the first modern course, are you referring to Colt's redesign or Morris's design or post Simpson's work?

[TEPaul]

I'm with Jeff Brauer on this idea of Ross not using visual deception on something like what Bob Crosby calls "foreshortened bunkers". At least he didn't seem to do it on purpose--at least not where I've seen these foreshortened bunkers.

If I run through my mind all the examples of forshortened Ross bunkers in my area, and on my course, almost none of them really have that visual deception and it should be stated also that evolutionary build-up over the years would tend to make them more visually deceptive and still they don't seem to be today. So it would be logical to conclude they would have been much less so when he build them (before evolutionary build up).

Also the fact that so many of these types of Ross bunkers around here are in front of elevated green so it's virtually impossible to hide the ground behind the bunker and before the green.

Ron Prichard stated in a master plan that these types of bunkers were simply to challenge shorter players or players recovering so they would just clear the bunkers and run the ball to the green. If that's true one might conclude the ground behind these bunkers to the green was intended by Ross to be visible!

I assume that was Ross's thinking and I believe in a small way that was confirmed as he returned to my course ten years after opening and recommended such a bunker on one hole specifically for that stated (by him) purpose. That bunker  never had any visual deception to it that way.

It's interesting too what Jeff Brauer said about Fazio using visual deception of one kind or another and we certainly know that to be true as Fazio has specifically written and spoken about trying to do such things, how and where!

[Sean_A]

I thought this was a very good read.  As the thread is quite old I wondered if folks had additonal thoughts.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

I just reread this thread and I certainly did have some additional thoughts.

Bradley Anderson mentioned he thought most all Ross greens were intentionally built at least inches above something like a hundred year flood plain elevation. First of all, I'm not sure surveyors were even aware of hundred year flood plain elevations back in Ross' day. Of course they all may've been since I have no idea when the idea of the hundred year flood plain came into existence.

But because of what Bradley said about Ross raising the elevation of his greens up that way I've been going through all the Ross greens in my mind I can recall and it does seem like he did something on all of them to get their surfaces raised in various ways (or alternatively created lower areas around them) so massive sheet drainage from their surrounding area would not just wash over them.

But the interesting thing is on my own course there were 3-4 original green site locations that are no more and one can see that sheet drainage would have flowed right across them. So this brings up the question of whether those old greens were graded away when those greens were repositioned (mostly by Perry Maxwell). If they weren't graded out one can see they would've had sheet drainage from quite a large surrounding area flow across them and perhaps that was the primary reason they were changed by Maxwell.

That is something I've never thought of before but it certainly might explain the reason behind some of our redesigned holes.

[Britt Rife]

That is a fantastic thread.  The only thing I can add is that Tom Paul certainly uses far fewer exclamation points in his posts now than he used to.

[Dan Boerger]

Mark L -- Two premier Ross courses in Philadelphia -- Aronimink and Gulph Mills -- Open with very stern handshakes. I honestly think you could make the case that #1 at Aronimink is the most difficult hole on the course.

[Brad Tufts]

I think throughout the breadth of the 50ish Ross courses I've played, the most difficult aspect of finding "what distinguishes a Ross course" is that they all, especially to the untrained eye, look similar.  They are usually tree-lined, the bunkering is generally similar, and the greens are small and contoured.

I think the fact that his company is responsible for 400+ courses, many of them prominent and hosts of major championships, makes a Ross course the "quintessential American parkland layout."  Add all the influences in all the states in which he worked, and there may be 5000 courses that are the result of the influence of his work.  Out of 18-20,000 courses in the US, that is a large percentage.  RTJ-related courses may be a close number, but many of those influenced by RTJs career would no doubt be channelling Ross as well.

Other than that, not much to add to what has been said above.  Ross was the ultimate utilitarian designer, and I think he is seen at his best in New England, where some of the wild rocky glacially-carved elevation changes may have reminded him of (although covered in trees in NE) the dunes of the old country.

[Mike_Cirba]

I've come to realize that the two examples I gave of Ross's versatility and unpredictability (the 4th and 8th at LuLu) were actually done as the first nine holes for that club by J. Franklin Meehan.   

[Mike Hendren]

Can anyone offer support of my theory that Ross used the extreme corners of properties very well in his routings?  The 10th at Beverly and 15th at Belle Meade come to mind. 

Mike

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

How about the best holes at North Hills?  By Wilson/Flynn or Meehan?  Just kidding.  I am glad you are learning more about the architectural history of LuLu.  It is a very fine golf course that has benefited greatly with the restoration efforts of Forse Design.  It deserves to be better attributed.

While there aren't many Ross courses in the Philadelphia area, there are some very good ones.  My favorite of the bunch stumps Tom Paul a bit.  I hold in very high regard Gulph Mills.  Maybe Tom should post a My Home Course profile.  Though if there is a definition of low profile club, they sure are it.  Tom's architectural evolution report with some modern photos would be a nice posting on this website.  Many would come to the same conclusion as I have, it is a great golf course. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I think we're copasetic on GM being a very good course. 

I also played Riverton for the first time recently and thought it had some very fine holes.   My favorite local Ross is probably still Torresdale-Frankford, although they do need a tornado thru there and the back nine is not up to the excellence of the front.

But, speaking of research, even those two courses are "Ross" 18-holers based on nine-holers by other architects that preceeded his involvement.

[Mike_Cirba]

I've just been rightfully informed that the 8th hole at LuLu is indeed Donald Ross.

The 4th was Meehan's hole.

Both are wonderful!