Mike Young,
   I am curious as to why you don't think Dayton is a Ross routing. I haven't seen a lot of Ross work so I don't know what the hallmarks are that one would look for. What would you normally expect to see?
   This Dayton thing made me think of the course in Lake Placid NY that bills itself as a Mackenzie course. If he was there it is gone but for a few features in 18 holes. I don't know anything about the Dayton thing you guys are discussing, but I do know I don't rely on marketing or scorecards to find out who designed a course.

Ed
No where does it say he routed the course and I don't think he would have routed it as it is routed.  Also, the only work he is mentoned as having done is designing the greens in 1915 in jim Nugent's thread above.  The few times the course has been reworked it has only been a few holes.  
It would be interesting to see how many courses across America are listed as Ross courses in this same manner.  IMHO opinion it just can't be backed up.  Brad K says as much in his book...no plans or notes of site visits.  

Mike,

When I said he, I was referring to Ross, that is what this discussion is about. Whatever you need to say to bolster your story Mike, old guys at the table- I like that, I probably know them. All of them golf historians that would never just say what they heard the week or year before.

Sorry, when you said carts I assumed you were speaking to me since DR never had a cart.  And I am not worried to bolster my story....arguing with you has become old and boring...good day..

Mike,
   I am not trying to challenge you here, I am trying to learn something. What are the hallmarks you would be looking for that would make you think a course is a Ross routing?

Barney; I don't think any of us were raised in a convent (certainly not me for a number of reasons).  Strong language doesn't offend me nor do strong opinions.  But you refuse to differentiate between the manner of communications and the subject.  If someone says "Architect A's work s__ks", that comment, while not very informative, is on point.  If he says "it s__ks because" and then gives some reasons, we can have a discussion.  But if he says "Architect A is an a__hole", he adds nothing to the discussion and he is just plain rude.  That trait is unrelated to intelligence or the ability to articulate.  I have known any number of people who would not have done very well in a debating society but who were as polite and kind as anyone I have known.  Like all of us, I hve met many bright well spoken people who have little or no respect for others.  Thus this is not a discussion about intelligence or facility with the written word; it is about common courtesy and the respect for a professionals personal reputation.

Mike Young,

If you would like to avoid arguments in the future, here are a few suggestions.

1. Don't tell someone what they are trying to accomplish by starting a thread in Reply#2
2. Don't tell another poster that you have an issue with a facetious title and answer it with one word like a smart_ _ _ in Reply #17
3. Don't tell someone that a golf course was not designed by someone even though all sources known to man say that it is. Reply 100 and something.
4. Don't say that you got your facts from a professional that was there for a couple of years, over decades of information.
5. Don't say that you will stick by your guns when they are not loaded.

I found some interesting quotes in a book. Let's see who can guess who wrote the following...

"The architect whose success puzzles me the most is Art Hills: I can't figure out how his career has taken off without ever having done a single course that the press or public has taken to heart."

AND

"If this is the course that rocketed Hills to prominence, he should be forced to give it all back."

Interesting. Those appear to be relatively common sentiments. Should the author be taken to task for publishing such criticism?

I found some interesting quotes in a book. Let's see who can guess who wrote the following...

"The architect whose success puzzles me the most is Art Hills: I can't figure out how his career has taken off without ever having done a single course that the press or public has taken to heart."

AND

"If this is the course that rocketed Hills to prominence, he should be forced to give it all back."

Interesting. Those appear to be relatively common sentiments. Should the author be taken to task for publishing such criticism?

Taking your questions in reverse order:

No.

That is Donald Ross, in "Harsh Criticism Has Never Failed Me."

Just a side comment on Dayton CC -

The degree to which the course on the ground now is similar to Ross's plan is best left to those who have both seen the course recently and seen photos of it from Ross's era. I provided the club with an aerial from 1938 which showed fairly convincingly that the course was a Ross design. I also gave them an aerial from 1949 which showed virtually no change from 1938. I've never seen the course but comparing the aerial to a contemporary image shows that the location of the holes hasn't changed all that much. The greens and fairways are generally where they were in 1938 and there doesn't look like there was any re-contouring of the ground. Of course, trees have taken over.

If Wm Diddel worked on the course in the 1940s, it would take a sharper eye than mine to see what he did. The big changes came after 1949 - almost none of the original bunkering remains.

The first quote referred to The Champions GC in Nicholsville, KY. The second was one of the courses at The Golf Club of Georgia.

It won't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the author was GCA contributor Tom Doak  

Tom, I hope you don't mind being used as supporting evidence on this thread!

Barney; I don't think any of us were raised in a convent (certainly not me for a number of reasons).  Strong language doesn't offend me nor do strong opinions.  But you refuse to differentiate between the manner of communications and the subject.  If someone says "Architect A's work s__ks", that comment, while not very informative, is on point.  If he says "it s__ks because" and then gives some reasons, we can have a discussion.  But if he says "Architect A is an a__hole", he adds nothing to the discussion and he is just plain rude.  That trait is unrelated to intelligence or the ability to articulate.  I have known any number of people who would not have done very well in a debating society but who were as polite and kind as anyone I have known.  Like all of us, I hve met many bright well spoken people who have little or no respect for others.  Thus this is not a discussion about intelligence or facility with the written word; it is about common courtesy and the respect for a professionals personal reputation.

Shelly,

I hope I'm not being rude being so familiar...but with that said.  What percentage of the American public have the ability of being critical without being rude...We can't all be Paula Abdul..or want to be..

Tiger,
 
If any of those men could explain how Hills gets the projects that he does, I would love for them to 'get a hold of me'. Is this kindergarten?

Doug,  While you accurately quoted the "Confidential Guide" you weren't entirely fair.  While Tom makes the statements quoted he also includes some cogent analysis of the shotcomings of each course thus supporting his conclusion.  I would also suggest the remarks are less personal in nature and are directed at the work when read in context.  Not quite the same as the remarks criticized here.

Just a side comment on Dayton CC -

I provided the club with an aerial from 1938 which showed fairly convincingly that the course was a Ross design.

Craig, why does a 1938 aerial convincingly show Ross designed the course?