Who learned from Ross?

[Ted Sturges]

OK, "rub of the green" comes to mind.  I've had to hang out with "Golf's most loved figure" for 3 days now, and I have learned that I must endure this and "play it like it lies".  Having said that, I have been challenged by "the exhalted ruler" (nameplate on Ran's parking space at the Southern Pines Elks Club), to make a semi-interesting post.  Well, here goes....

I've been thinking about the "family trees of golf architecture" as of late.  Examples:

MacDonald- taught:  Raynor, Banks, and Barton
MacKenzie- taught:  the Maxwell and Hunter
Dye- taught:  Doak, Coore, Urbina, Whitman, and Liddy
Fazio- taught: Strantz
Cornish- taught:  Silva, and Mungen

You get the picture.

My question is:  Who was taught by Donald Ross?

The man is credited with more than 400 golf courses.  Obviously, he was not on site for more than 100 of these.  He had great design associates on site for these courses.  These designers were trained by the great man.  Who are they?  In Brad Klein's book, he makes reference to J.B. McGovern, Walter B. Hatch, Frank Maples and Walter Irving Johnson.  Who are other designers who learned from Mr. Ross and later branched out on their own?  Is this a significant piece of information to consider when evaluating the impact an architect's career had on their field?  

Who learned from Ross?

[greg]

I'm no expert, but I think Ellis Maples (Dan's father) learned from Ross.  Ellis designed some good courses in NC, including highly regarded courses at Grandfather Mtn. and CCNC - Dogwood Course, as well as Forest Oaks (current home of Greater Greensboro Open).

[Richard Mandell]

Donald Ross taught many people the business and those people have spawned descendents as well:

Of course, most people are aware of J. B McGovern, Walter Hatch, and Walter Johnson, as well as Ellis Maples being first generation Ross disciples.  There were also Orrin Smith, Skip Wogan and James Harrison.

Orrin Smith  worked a bit with James Harrison after Ross's death.  James Harrison taught an Architect named Fred Garbin who is (was?) out of the Pittsburgh area.  Harrison was his father -in-law.  I believe Garbin taught Ed Beidel, who I think I've seen float around GCA a time or two.  I believe he also taught a female Architect whose name escapes me at the time (Lorrie Viola?).

Orrin Smith taught two Architects named William Mitchell and Al Zikorus, whose son now practices golf course design today.  

Skip Wogan spawned his son Philip in the business.

Ellis Maples probably has the longest family tree, descended from Donald Ross (who was descended from Old Tom Morris and Allan Robertson).  Ellis taught Ed Seay in the early 70's.  Ed Seay then went on to be Arnold Palmer's partner from day one.  Ed Seay taught Robert Walker out of Florida for starters.  I guess technically every Palmer guy could fall under this tree branch.

Ellis also taught his son, Dan Maples.  Dan, in turn apprenticed Mike Gleason, who is now on his own, and myself, Richard Mandell.

Of course I wll take this time to point out that I am a pretty straight-branched descendent of Donald Ross, Old Tom, and Allan Robertson.  Although most people would say a Dan Maples course is nothing like Ross would do, I will point out that his methodology is just what Ross practiced and was passed along to me, although my course work does not reflect something Dan Maples would do.  

The methodology and the understanding (from the ground up) of Donald Ross is what is most valuable to my practice and something most Ross restoration Architects do not possess.  It also gives me great insight into Donald Ross restoration efforts that someone should really capitalize on!  I look forward to you all spreading that gospel!

Great segueway, huh?  I ought to be a DJ.  I hope someone else can fill out any more bottom branches of the Ross tree.

[Chris_Clouser]

Not to pick on Ted, but I'm curious why everyone assumes that MacKenzie taught Maxwell?  He had designed several courses before the two even worked together in the field at Crystal Downs and had pretty much established himself as a designer by that time on his own merits.  Before that they worked briefly together at Melrose, but that was a brief consultation at the end of the project with only minor modifications if that.  Granted his best courses came after MacKenzie, but if you look at his career his courses definately became better as his career progressed and his skills developed.  I'm not saying that Mac didn't influence Maxwell in some way, but I think the reverse is also true.  

[Brad Klein]

As I read Richard Mandell's very nicely detailed list of Ross "learners," I'm reminded of why I quit teaching university students four years ago. It's one thing to have students. Quite another for them to learn something that informs their subsequent work in a recognizable way.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Ted, great question and good answers.  Let me play the rube and ask "What should we learn from Ross?"  (...and how can we disguise it?)  What should we discard?

[Derek_Duncan]

Brad Klein,

What are you trying to say?

[Brad Klein]

They may have been students of Ross, but I'm not sure their work conveys it.

[Ted Sturges]

Thanks for your answers to this question.  I must say that Brad Klein's last post, which in effect suggests that, while there may have been designers who observed Ross in the field, the subsequent work that these designers produced  offers little evidence that they learned much from Mr. Ross (this was a point that I believed to be true before initiating this thread).  Why is that?

Pete Dye, on the other hand has spawned several accomplished architects during his time in this business.  Was Mr. Dye a better communicator in teaching the trade than Mr. Ross?  Is it possible that Mr. Dye allowed others to learn more from him because he was more dedicated to creating his courses "in the dirt" than Mr. Ross was?  We will never know how much time Mr. Ross spent in the field compared to the time Pete Dye did, but I think it is reasonable to assume that, in general,  Mr. Dye has done more of the work in the dirt on his courses  than  that of Mr. Ross.  I think it is reasonable to assume that Tom Doak, Bill Coore et al were able to learn a great deal from Mr. Dye because of this approach.  Does anyone agree?  Does anyone disagree?  Would Bill Coore or Tom Doak care to comment?  Any comments from our Ross historians?

TS

[Mike_Young]

Everyone has learned something from Ross. As well as others before us.  Art has always had a history of copying others ideas.   However one of the great marketing ploys of the day is to be able to say that you worked for a "name".  All that matters is that people like what you have on the ground.  It doesn't really matter how you went about getting it there.  There are many such as TD, BC etc that have carved their own brand and worked for PD.  I can also show you 50 other guys that use that to try and get work.   I get tired of hearing how a particular architect must be good because he worked for ....  
Your only as good as your last project...who you worked for doesn't matter.
Mike

[Richard Mandell]

Can't agree with Mike any more, or Brad either.  I must say that history has shown that if one learns from their "mentor", "boss", etc., they may not readliy accept their design philosophies or styles.  I think the big thing an apprentice may learn from one is process and methodology.  That is what Ross's people drew upon.  If one works fo a big name, it certainly does not mean they are destined for greatness.

I do not think that Donald Ross is less of a communicator than say, Pete Dye.  The reasons Ross disciples may not be as well known as Dye disciples are clear.

Ross and his "apprenti" (?)  (I like that one, send me any royalty checks) were from a different era.  An era which did not have the big money, flashy features, and eye candy.  These people were very subdued in their design work.  What is interesting, though, is how Ross and his followers exemplify the very concept Mike refers to that just because you work for a great, it doesn't automatically make you a great.

Dye and his disciples are in this era of marketing machines, good or bad.  The business today looks upon reputation and name concepts more than ability and economics.  I don't particularly agree that Dye's disciple's work reflects Dye better than Ross's disciples' work reflect Ross. They all have distinguishable features separating them from their mentor's work.  I would venture to say that the difference in appearance between a Donald Ross course and an Ellis Maples course is roughly the same as the difference between a Dye course and a Coore/Crenshaw course, without assigning any values to any of their works.  Don't construe that as saying that Ellis Maples = Coore/Crenshaw or any other combination.  I am just clearly saying that both comparisons are equal if you could break down methodology and "general" philosophy regarding strategy, aesthetics and costs.

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
How ya doin?  I did not realize you were the one that had written thr previous post before my comments...as you know I am fairly absent minded.  ...hope all is well.  Do you get to Athens much.
Mike

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread.

When discussing "family trees" it's important to remember that golf course architecture went out of business about 1930. You couldn't make a living as a golf course architect during the following two decades.  By the time the business finally reopened in the 1950's, it was under new management.  

Even when it did finally reopen, there were fewer well-financed projects to work on than the Golden Agers had in the 1920's. Not until the 1970's (?) did a lot of money start flowing back into new courses.

That accounts for a lot of the discontinuity between the Ross/MacK/Thomas/Flynn/MacD crowd and the new boys (RTJ/Dick Wilson/Cobb) that restarted the cga business in the 1950's.

The family trees that began after, say, 1970, are a function of an economy that has been growing steadily (more or less) since then. That economy has permitted younger men wanting to get into the business to develop careers without serious interruption.  Thus sustaining family trees.  

I think the lack of Ross or Mack or Raynor or Flynn progeny has more to do with The Great Depression and WWII than anything else.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Richard Mandell:

I'd sure like to know a lot more about what you're talking about when you mention "process and methodology" (what you say you learned as a disciple of disciples of Ross)?

Certainly Cornish and Whitten make a big point in their first section text in their architectural tome about the evolution of so-called "strategic design principles" with which they credit Donald Ross and Stanley Thompson above all others of the 1920s as being the primary purveyors.

The reason I mention this in the context of "Who learned from Ross" is C&W's point that RTJ worked with and was a partner of Thompson's in the beginning of RTJ's career (1920s). Seeing as Ross was clearly the most sought after architect in America at that time (1920s) it seems logical to assume that RTJ must have studied Ross closely! It would seem that C&W's point is basically it was RTJ who carried "strategic design principles" most effectively into the "Modern Age" before creating his own style and basic "signature".

So in this way it could be assumed that possibly Ross's most influential student may have been RTJ, the man credited with being the most influential and well-known architect ever (RTJ)!

If they ever worked together (or even knew each other well) I would also say that RTJ may have learned something just as valuable as design principles and such from Ross. That of course would be salesmanship!

There's no denying when you get into studying Ross that he was one helluva salesman! He may not have been flamboyant about it but it's still quite clear he was an excellent and accomplished salesman--something no one would deny that RTJ was too!

[Brad Klein]

Ross and Jones had a very fleeting acquaintanceship. Certainly no collaboration. In typical fashion, JOnes plays up his meeting with JOnes at Oak Hill. But it never amounted to anything like an apprenticeship.

As soon as RTJ "made it" in the postwar era as one of the very few survivors (as explained above by Bob Crosby), Trent Jones did his best to bury the past - and with it, Ross' greens and bunkers. That's what he did at Okaland Hills to all of those old fairway bunkers. And that's what he repeatedly did to Ross greens when he got the chance - bury them after 1960 under piles of sand in the name of new, modern greens.

[TEPaul]

Brad;

I have no doubt that RTJ may have messed up more of Ross's good courses and holes than any other architect (he may have some stiff competiton in that vein though) but in all honesty I really can't think of an architect much before about 1980 or so who didn't go into some other architect's course and do his own thing there, can you?

Or put another way was there a single bona fide architectural restoration done of a classic course much before 20 or so years ago?

[Richard Mandell]

TEPaul,

Process and Methodology:

I define learning process and methodology by Ross's disciples as translating from your head onto paper into the ground as they did it and also the way they addressed field conditions.  I also include being able to interpret and understand drawings and how they apply to what may currently exist in the field.

More specifically, the way drainage was addressed on paper and in the field.  Most drainage work was surface drainage instead of catch basins and so the way Ross and his disciples would addresss drainage may limit their abilities to create specific features such as grass hollows.  The tendency to ensure surface drainage broke in at least three ways, including off the front in many cases, may lead to a better understanding of Ross's green contours.  Understanding how Ross or a Maples looks at drainage, one can decipher features that may not be authentic (when considering restoration) or one can apply a certain drainage ideal to the ground with more "adherence" to Ross, et al.

The way grading plans were completed showed the amount of freedom Ross allowed his workers in shaping.  One has a better understanding of where, why, and how a cut or fill is executed.  It is also helpful to understand what it really means when he one denotes, "cut bunker into face of mounds".  Dan Maples taught me how Ellis was taught by Ross to create bunkers, by specifically creating subtle mounding and allowing the random mounds to create the bunker shape.

Methodology regarding greens design was centered upon visibility and surface drainage.  We learned to think in section lines which helped us to understand the relationships between putting surfaces and bunker faces.

All these items and more certainly add up to a different way to understand an architect's final product, whether you agree with that product or not.  It also does not guarantee that apprentices will follow mentors in terms of strategy or aesthetics.

We can only speak in generalities on all these issues and can never declare concretely, "Ross never... or Ross always...  If he is the genius most people make him out to be, then he should never say "never" or "always".  Hopefully people will never say never again (What a great title for a spy flick!).

[Brad Klein]

TEPaul, what a great question. A good restoraton before the 1990s? Only on courses that never did anything and accidentally got it right (Essex County Club, The Orchards), but I know of no such restoratio per se The whole generation followed Trent Jones in burying the past.

Richard, do you mean to say that Dan Maples' work on Ross courses was respectful of classical shotmaking, features, etc? I'm still waiitng to see that in Maples' work on older, Ross courses. Would welcome any evidence.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul: I can think of only one...Pete Dye.

[Richard Mandell]

Brad:

No.  Not in Maple's case.  You need evidence because no one has any, unfortunately.  My thoughts on process and methodology may work for me, but may not have worked for others.  Just cause I worked for them, doesn't mean I would follow their lead.  Teachings, yes.  Lead?  No.  You're familiar with the quote, "Do as I say, not as I do"?  No further comment.