What makes a course a Ross course???

« **on:** April 26, 2006, 12:38:12 PM »

or any other "dead guys" course for that matter.
As a few on this site know, I have always questioned the myth of the dead guys. Yet at the same time I appreciate the research and efforts that many have put into these different dead architects so I ask the question. However I continue to come across places where one will say this course is a Ross course or Raynor or somebody else's course etc and yet there is no proof. the old guys at a club say "dead guy" did it. I saw him here one day when I was 5 years old".....no plans anywhere to be found....no clippings mentioning his hiring...just handed down spoken word... Or a course may have a "dead guy " in to redo bunkers or greens etc...or even one bunker and all of a sudden it is the "dead guy's" course. Does that make it a "dead guy" course??? Not in my book.
My question is where is the line? Sure "dead guy " is great for marketing but in many cases "dead guy" was just spending an afternoon with the particular club while in the area working for another. It happens today all the time. One will make a call on a club trying to get work and he takes a ride around the course with a couple of guys and next thing you know the club is saying "live guy" had us do this and that"....
400 courses is a lot of work with communcation the way it was. My assumption is that if the same parameters were used today to determine the author of a course someone such as RTJ may have had 1000 or more. I have seen first hand where a developer would have a preliminary routing a prominet signature today and never hire the guy. Yet he might build it a few years later w/o the permission of the signature and verbally tell everyone it is "signature" design.

« **Reply #1 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:30:08 PM »

Architectural attributions are funny things. As long as nobody cared enough to check, people got away with making up stuff. Now wingnuts like us are asking questions and snooping around.

Growing up in GA, I was always told that Idle Hour in Macon was by Ross. Turns out it isn't. (Anyone know the full story?)

I know Wayne M. has uncovered some non-Flynn Flynn courses. I've heard of a couple non-Tillie Tillies. No doubt there are lots of other similar cases.

People are only correcting these things now because until now there wasn't much interest in getting in right. Clubs with a prestigious architectural pedigree had little incentive to confirm that pedigree.

Now that many of them are interested in restoration programs, the pedigrees are being looked at more closely. In turns out sometimes that there was no Golden Age archtiect there to restore.

All of this is going to be fun to watch.

Bob

« **Reply #2 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:41:50 PM »

Bob,
I thought about Idle Hour in connection with the Dayton CC issue on the other thread. I think some of the oldtime members there still say the same thing, but the scorecard doesn't claim a Ross connection.

Another example would be Hillandale, a muni in Durham, NC that goes back to about 1916 or so in one form or another. They DO claim Ross on their website, but that connection isn't found anywhere else. There's logic to it, because it is only an hour and half from Pinehurst and Ross did Hope Valley in Durham as well, but it doesn't FEEL like a Ross course at all to me.

There just isn't any way not to interested, though.

« **Reply #3 on:** April 26, 2006, 02:05:12 PM »

Mike,
You asked "....where is the line", isn't that what the research helps to determine?
I've been privileged to have spent some time with George Bahto and have seen how much info he has dug up on CBMac, SR,CB and RB. That kind of stuff is invaluable when trying to determine what they did and where. George also found a few Raynor's that were previously unknown.
If you "...appreciate the research and efforts that many have put into these different dead architects" it really doesn't hurt to believe it, if the source is credible. And what does it matter if a club is using a dead architect's name for marketing without knowing the true extent of that architect's contribution? Sooner or later someone interested in that particular architect will come along and research what was done. Someone else will follow him, and so on, and pretty soon a general consensus will be formed, based on research, that will give a fairly complete historical record of who did what and when.

« **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2006, 02:22:13 PM »

The former Norfolk Country Club (now Sewell's Point) had 2 golf courses, one by Ross and one by Flynn. The club had no idea that Flynn built the second golf course for them in 1924. What they also didn't know was the only course that was retained was the Flynn course, naturally

They advertise the current course as Ross with his name on the scorecards, are registered with the Ross Society and have Ross's portrait hanging in the clubhouse. I proved to them that their course is a Flynn through drawings and photographs. They are not changing the attribution. Maybe they will when the book finally comes out.

Ross courses now known to be Flynn although not all acknowledged:

Old Course at Homestead (has 4 Ross holes and 3 RTJ)

Prince Georges (completely remodeled by Flynn, now NLE and formerly Beaver Dam)

Indian Spring (completely remodeled by Flynn, now NLE)
McCall Field (9 Ross completely remodeled by Flynn and added 9)

Pocono Manor (6-7 Ross remodeled by Flynn and added 11-12)

Sunnybrook CC (completely remodeled by Flynn, nine holes remain and now known as Flourtown CC)

Washington Golf and CC (Ross did some routing and laying out the course--completely remodeled by Flynn)

Concord (formerly Brinton Lake) was thought to be Ross but is Flynn with some changes made by Cornish

There are some others that were thought to be Flynn:

One green (14) and one tee (15) at Flynn's Huntingdon Valley is Ross.

Hercules Powder Company Course (Wilmington, DE) was thought to be Flynn but is Alfred Tull.

There are probably other examples, but I cannot think of them at the moment.

« **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:08:08 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on April 26, 2006, 02:05:12 PM

Mike,
You asked "....where is the line", isn't that what the research helps to determine?

If you "...appreciate the research and efforts that many have put into these different dead architects" it really doesn't hurt to believe it, if the source is credible. And what does it matter if a club is using a dead architect's name for marketing without knowing the true extent of that architect's contribution?

Jim,
I do appreciate the research of people like George, Wayne, TE Paul, Bob Crosby. My question is a simple one in my mind. If there is no proof a course is a Ross course except pure hearsay....and it is promoted as a Ross course...Is it a ross course. And to me it doesn't matter if a course uses a dead guy's name w/o knowing. I just think it is wrong.
Mike

« **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:12:36 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on April 26, 2006, 02:22:13 PM

One green (14) and one tee (15) at Flynn's Huntingdon Valley is Ross.

Hey Wayne,
Can we call Huntington valley a Ross course??
seems like it meets the criteria....

« **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:20:52 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on April 26, 2006, 03:08:08 PM

My question is a simple one in my mind. If there is no proof a course is a Ross course except pure hearsay....and it is promoted as a Ross course...Is it a ross course. And to me it doesn't matter if a course uses a dead guy's name w/o knowing. I just think it is wrong.

Is it any less wrong for a course to advertise a "name" architect that didn't actually design a course, or for a former player to get design credit for a course that their "team" created? Or is that ok because it's the price of doing business?

« **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:23:36 PM »

Mike,

There is a course in North Jersey, Bergen Hills (originally RiverVale) that is managed by RDC Group. They also manage Forsgate. When they took over from a Japaneses owner it was a Ross course based on what they were told. They did some digging as one of the guys there used to work for Links Magazine and found out that it was really Orrin Smith who did the work. It is not clear when Smith went out on his own away from Ross, so now they call it a Ross/Orrin Smith course. Is it accurate? Who knows, but they had the right intent.

I would guess the real problem is that most people (previous Japanese owners, patrons and management) really don't care much, more than some sort of false advertising.

« **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:23:59 PM »

If the folks at Sewell's Point can call their course a Ross (just because a former course on different ground was Ross) then anyone can call any course whatever they want.

I think if architectural evolution reports are made they should detail as much of the history as possible. Whatever attributions people want to make from that are up to each individual. The record is a lot more complicated than most realize or care about. Discovering and presenting historical records is my personal interest.

« **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:25:58 PM »

Accurate attributions only really matter when you are contemplating spending millions of dollars to restore a course. Before writing the check, it is helpful to know whose work you are restoring.

Other than that, attributions are of purely historical interest. Wayne's example above is wonderful. Even after proving to a club that their course is by Flynn, they elected to continue to claim to be a Ross course!!! But who's to tell them they can't? They aren't breaking any law. They haven't breached any contract. (Though they are a little weird.)

As more and more older courses get restored (or whatever), correct attributions will become more and more important. Getting it right will matter. Good research will matter.

It will also be interesting to see what surprises come out of the woodwork in the coming years.

Bob

« **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2006, 04:31:07 PM »

Doesn't the truth matter, regardless?

If someone buys property in a new development because of the name associated with the golf course, or if someone just decides to join a club because of its connection to Donald Ross, doesn't the truth as to who designed it matter? Even if you think less of a person because they might do such things because of the designer name, doesn't it matter if they are basing their decision on a lie? Should the responsibility be on the buyer only to do their research?

Caveat Emptor?

« **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2006, 04:40:59 PM »

God, I love this stuff.

I spent way too many days over the years trying to research the architectural attributions of every public course (and many privates) in the mid-Atlantic region and came up with just scads of information, some of it very cool, and other stuff only of value to the most obscure of golf course nerds like myself. I ended up sending all my stuff to Whitten and Cornish and hopefully it will find a useful home someday.

This thread makes me think of Seaview CC, (Bay Course) which for many, many years called itself a Donald Ross design.

It turns out that Hugh Wilson actually designed it, and that Ross was brought in a few years later to "trap" it.

Yet, The Donald is the guy who is still on the scorecard picture as of my last visit there.

btw, this information was found by Ron Whitten.

« **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:18:50 PM »

Kirk -

Clubs make no warranties about nuthin' when they sell memberships.

If you are buying into a housing development, that's a little different. But I don't know of many housing developments these days that are sold by developers using Golden Age architects. (Although Wayne M. is working on something that might prove me wrong.

) As between you and an owner/seller in an old development, that's pretty much caveat emptor. Which is Latin for you are #@*^ed.

Things would be different if you are buying in a new development that advertises that a certain modern archie did its course who in fact didn't do the course. The architect whose name was used improperly would also have a case. He'd probably be able to enjoin the developer from using his name. Which is why you don't see such shenanigans very often.

Bob

« **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:51:43 PM »

Bob,

It looks like that housing project/golf course got the green light. I'll believe it when I see the signed paperwork.

Mike,

Good one, I forgot about that. Tom and I independently found out about Wilson/Ross at Seaview. I'm not sure who found out first. We discovered that fact in the Green Section files at the USGA in letters from Hugh Wilson to Piper and Oakley.

« **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:01:21 PM »

Wayne

You forgot the erroneous attributions at Philmont on both of their courses. What's the current status of their club history?

Steve

« **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:10:45 PM »

Oops. Right again, Steve. Flynn was long credited with the North Course at Philmont Country Club. While the club still maintains that position, there is no archival evidence whatsoever. I believe that Willie Park, Jr. routed and perhaps designed the course as there is a letter from J.Wood Platt mentioning his participation in an inaugural tournament on the new course corresponding to the time of the opening of the North Course and that he attributes to Willie Park, Jr. Maybe Flynn constructed the course according to Park's plans and perhaps made some redesigns later on. However, that is all speculative. Without any evidence, some at the club continue to attribute the course to Flynn. There was a photograph (I haven't seen it) of William Gordon at the opening. But what certainty can that lend to Flynn's attribution. By my standards none at all without additional information. The club seems to agree that the South Course is not a Park, Jr. as was thought, but was designed by John Reid.

« **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:18:32 PM »

Cirba,

what complicates the case of Seaview-Bay is that they have on display a wonderful full set of Ross plans for the golf course -- even if they are redesign plans.

Mike Young -- you seem to focus in your comments here on the issue of label and scorecard claims about the designer. I think it would help if you shifted your focus onto the golf course and more openly acknowledged the value of doing research there into what features are prominent or distinctive. What makes these dead-name architects valuable, after all, is that most of the stuff they did was pretty good, and their good stuff was way better than what most everybody then and since has ever done. It would help to look for those elements in the design, esp. as member memories are notoriously suspect and in those many cases where clubhouse archives have been lost, burned or flooded. That's why archival work is needed, whether aerials, design plans, correspondence, telegrams.

In doing the Ross book, I found some courses where Ross' alleged presence could not be confirmed. I also found many cases where a bill, a train ticket or a hotel receipt plus a chain of travel (Birmingham, Mobile, Knoxville) further provided evidence of visits.

I think the best example of this, as suggested above, is what Bahto has done with Raynor. I was at Elkridge in Baltimore last week. It's a good course, not a great course, it has two miserable car wreck holes done by Ed Ault in the 1970s who didn't know a thing about classic design, and it has the bones of 16 pretty solid Raynor holes - restored (rescued) by Silva. The membership had no idea until very recently who Raynor was. Thanks to Bahto's research and Silva's work, they know now. And those sixteen teen holes are very impressive.

When I was there, a fellow came up to me and told me that before he was a member of Elkridge, he had been green chairman of Lookout Mountain, and the whole time he was there, niether he nor anyone else had ever heard of Seth Raynor. Thanks to Georga Bahto. Brain Silva and some supportive members at Lookout Mountain, its place now is phenomenal - a reborn Raynor.

That's why it's worth taking seriously the possibility that some of these dead guys had actually been there. In part, I don't have much faith in modern architects to do stuff that is better than what the classic guys did - and that includes you, Mike, as much as I like the courses you've done that I've seen (seven of them, at last count).

« **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:46:43 PM »

Quote from: Brad Klein on April 26, 2006, 06:18:32 PM

Cirba,

what complicates the case of Seaview-Bay is that they have on display a wonderful full set of Ross plans for the golf course -- even if they are redesign plans.

Mike Young -- you seem to focus in your comments here on the issue of label and scorecard claims about the designer. I think it would help if you shifted your focus onto the golf course and more openly acknowledged the value of doing research there into what features are prominent or distinctive. What makes these dead-name architects valuable, after all, is that most of the stuff they did was pretty good, and their good stuff was way better than what most everybody then and since has ever done. It would help to look for those elements in the design, esp. as member memories are notoriously suspect and in those many cases where clubhouse archives have been lost, burned or flooded. That's why archival work is needed, whether aerials, design plans, correspondence, telegrams.

In doing the Ross book, I found some courses where Ross' alleged presence could not be confirmed. I also found many cases where a bill, a train ticket or a hotel receipt plus a chain of travel (Birmingham, Mobile, Knoxville) further provided evidence of visits.

I think the best example of this, as suggested above, is what Bahto has done with Raynor. I was at Elkridge in Baltimore last week. It's a good course, not a great course, it has two miserable car wreck holes done by Ed Ault in the 1970s who didn't know a thing about classic design, and it has the bones of 16 pretty solid Raynor holes - restored (rescued) by Silva. The membership had no idea until very recently who Raynor was. Thanks to Bahto's research and Silva's work, they know now. And those sixteen teen holes are very impressive.

When I was there, a fellow came up to me and told me that before he was a member of Elkridge, he had been green chairman of Lookout Mountain, and the whole time he was there, niether he nor anyone else had ever heard of Seth Raynor. Thanks to Georga Bahto. Brain Silva and some supportive members at Lookout Mountain, its place now is phenomenal - a reborn Raynor.

That's why it's worth taking seriously the possibility that some of these dead guys had actually been there. In part, I don't have much faith in modern architects to do stuff that is better than what the classic guys did - and that includes you, Mike, as much as I like the courses you've done that I've seen (seven of them, at last count).

Brad,
I don't think we are that far apart on how we determine if a course is a Ross course. With DCC I am not focusing on scorecard...I am basing it on discussions with green committee members , supt, and the golf professional as well as a few older members. I personally did not see that much of what I would call ross there. Now, yes, he may have been there for a day but that is about all I can give it. Supposedly the masterplan will include research into the subject...and that will be good....
As for other matters, I do have faith in modern architects more than the dead guys but I can appreciate some of the dead guy's works. And we can agree to disagree on that....And , also, I do consider you to be the Ross expert and the only one I would ask.....so if you tell me Ross was the architect at DaytonCC I will agree with no questions asked.
Mike

« **Reply #19 on:** April 26, 2006, 07:51:39 PM »

Dayton CC? I can't confirm details of Ross' involvement there.

Of course a white knight riding on the back of a bull could arrive in town, and though he might never have done a golf course he might declare himself to be a savior and an expert and thereby make Dayton CC into the Ross course it never was!

« **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2006, 08:33:39 PM »

Brad,
Sorry..got my threads confused....we had been discussing Dayton CC, Ohio on the Art Hills thread.
Mike

« **Reply #21 on:** April 26, 2006, 11:42:46 PM »

Brad,

Yes, I've seen the splendid Ross drawings at Seaview.

Somewhat interestingly, although I'm sure not at all unusual for him, he also did some wonderful drawings for his redesign of Schuylkill Country Club north of Reading, PA.

The original nine holes were built in the 20s and we've been unable to determine for certain who the architect was although Willie Park Jr. and/or his builder Frank James seem to be the likeliest candidates based on what evidence exists.

Ross came in the 40s and added nine and made some minor changes to the existing nine, but produced some lovely diagrams of all the holes.

News:

Mike_Young

BCrosby

A.G._Crockett

Jim_Kennedy

wsmorrison

Mike_Young

Mike_Young

Kirk Gill

Mike_Sweeney

wsmorrison

BCrosby

Kirk Gill

Mike_Cirba

BCrosby

wsmorrison

Steve_ Shaffer

wsmorrison

Brad Klein

Mike_Young

Brad Klein

Mike_Young

Mike_Cirba