Bad Ross Courses

« **Reply #50 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:00:00 PM »

I count ten nominees thus far, including the mysterious Carolina CC. Of those ten, six have been defendeding, leaving four apparent stinkers. We're stuck on 1% unless there are others.

Mike

« **Reply #51 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:27:06 PM »

Heres two more:

Bartow GC, Bartow FL. Pretty lifeless.

Palatka GC, Palatka FL. Its so rough that it is hard to appreciate what Ross wisdom might exist, if any.

I am not to impressed with what I saw at Dunedin, although I haven't been able to play there. I have been there but it was too crowded for me to get worked in.

« **Reply #52 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:40:17 PM »

I have no record of Bartow in Bartow, Florida and do not think that Ross did it. I think that the Palatka Municipal is a pretty decent layout with a greens budget of a putt-putt. The conditions are so very bad at Palatka that the virtues of the course go unnoticed.

I think that you would like Dunedin. It is minimalist to say the least (I suppose that is saying the least). There are some very hearty and difficult par four holes and the front side is a very nice loop on a dead flat piece of ground. The back has some elevation change and some very good holes.

In regards to the Ponce which came up somewhere back on page 2, the course had been altered but was a sporty little layout nonetheless. The thing that killed the Ponce was the 1500 feet of frontage on the intercoastal and the lethargy of the locals. That property was for sale for 15 years before it was bought by the developer and it could well have been acquired by the City of St. Augustine or St. Johns County. The local politicians really let the constituancy down.

« **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2004, 07:08:42 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Hendren on October 18, 2004, 06:00:00 PM

I count ten nominees thus far, including the mysterious Carolina CC. Of those ten, six have been defendeding, leaving four apparent stinkers. We're stuck on 1% unless there are others.

Mike

Mike,
You can delete Carolina CC from the stinker list. It is NOT a Ross course.

« **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2004, 08:08:17 PM »

Can anyone confirm if the existing Woodlands Course in Hampton, Virginia was done by Ross?

« **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2004, 10:06:27 PM »

Ross built three courses in Birmingham AL: Country Club of Bham (West and East), and Mountain Brook Club. The CCB East course is pretty forgettable, suffering mostly from uninteresting (and not really enough) ground. The West underwent a significant Dye job in the '80's; it's a very good course but not too Ross-like anymore. MBC underwent substantial change over the years as well; they have just last month finished taking the greens back to Ross's plans. This has by report improved the course a good deal; it needed improving. It nonetheless is situated on a creek that floods about every two years or so; Ivan put about half of the back nine under water and felled a tree on the 18th green.

« **Reply #56 on:** October 19, 2004, 02:25:30 AM »

micheal j fay...love golf design has copies of the original Ross plans for brunswick cc and has spent alot of time preparing a very definative restoration plan for the membership based solely on these.
....removal of the accumulated top dressing to reveal the original greens contours being the main consideration .

its funding , not love golf design , that currently stands in the way of implementation [not us ,as you not so slyly suggested ]

.....but then again , considering that your playing partner might have been suffering from gastic uvitis , i'll give your post #21 a hall pass , as they usually seem well reasoned and thought out.......not just bounding down the Rather road.

p :-*ul

« **Reply #57 on:** October 19, 2004, 09:05:52 AM »

Paul:

I have no grudge with the Love Co. I would love to see them restore the greens, it is not a difficult job given the drawings that are on hand. When I was last there there was some talk of the Love Co. working in the Rossner style (Ross/Raynor). While I am a fan of both Architects I have seen Raynor work done on a Ross course and while the style is not unpleasant it is a stepchild and not true to original intent.

If the Love Co. does get the job at Brunswick (it is only natural given their location) and does a true restoration I will be as enthusiastic as the next guy.

I was worried when they told the Committee that they do not do drawings before they do the work, ala P.B. Dye. Maybe they have altered their approach.

« **Reply #58 on:** October 19, 2004, 09:35:28 AM »

micheal j fay.....you have been poorly informed....

we always do full construction drawings on our 'new' courses .

rossner is a term coined about the look and playability of some of our 'new' courses.

we have never suggested anything but a true restoration at brunswick cc , using the the wonderfully drawn and detailed original plans .......this is not a love golf 'redo' or renovation.

i would suggest you check your sources before you spread anymore false information.....

« **Reply #59 on:** October 19, 2004, 09:47:13 AM »

Just because an architect says he doesn't do any drawings before they do the work does not mean they do not do drawings it means they are not going to produce detailed drawings until the go ahead is given.

Why should an architect of the calibre of Paul Cowley do any drawings until a go ahead is given?

We don't do any detailed drawings until the contract is signed and the first payment is made.

They way I read your first post Micheal you seemed to imply that Love and Co. were too expensive and that is why the project hasn't gotten started.

Brian Phillips

« **Reply #60 on:** October 19, 2004, 02:07:03 PM »

thank you brian.

.....and micheal , we HAVE done plans that were presented to the membership committee.
after searching for and finding the original ross plans ,we then combined the original greens with a current aerial to create an overlay layer to compare and contrast the original greens with what is there now.....we also showed drainage improvements , cartpath additions and reductions and new back tees on some holes....we did archival research in the local newspaper and interviewed old timers who were familiar with the courses' early history....we did field analysis ,including boring and probing....we interviewed past superintendants about course conditions .....we prepared a detailed cost analysis in an a la carte format ,so the improvements could be prioritized according to availiable funding ........our involvement to date and supervision in the future would be 'pro bono' [well , we did negotiate a company membership for key love employees

].......this is a course the loves grew up on and all of us feel very attached to the project.

i would expect a person in your position as pres of the ross society to act a little more impartial and not push for your favorites ,especially when other peoples money is concerned.

needless to say we are disapointed by your words and actions......and i need to get back to work.

paul

« **Reply #61 on:** October 19, 2004, 09:33:48 PM »

....yo micheal j ?...or michael j ?

« **Reply #62 on:** October 19, 2004, 10:13:11 PM »

Paul:

Please don't get me wrong. I have no bad words for the Love Co. The business about the Rossner may have been taken out of context but was used by Mark Love at a meeting at Brunswick.

I don't expect that an Architectural firm would do drawings before being contracted but it was mentioned by an employee of the Love Co. that they did not work from drawings. Maybe my source misinformed me, but he would have little reason to do so. Maybe he misunderstood the comments made. I really don't know. Maybe because my information is second hand I should not comment on it, and therefore I will make no more comment.

I have imminent faith that the Love Co. can do a very competent job of restoration at Brunswick. I would love to see it. I understand the financial problems of Brunswick and I think that it is a very good relationship to trade membeship for services.

It appears that the Love Co. is doing its homework in regards to Brunswick and that is a good step in the right direction. As the Love Co. has numerous professionals on its staff I would expect no less. I have absolutely no apprehension that the Love Co. would do a good job restoring the course.

If I insulted you or your company I apologize, it was not intentional.

« **Reply #63 on:** October 19, 2004, 11:00:32 PM »

Mike Fay,
Your comments on page 1 and here on page 3 and in the above post concern me.
As Executive Director of DRS I think you should be more responsible in your comments both on and off the record.
Many clubs, individuals and committees mistakenly accept the DRS as an authority on Donald Ross. I don't. I consider it A DR fan club.
The comments regarding Brunswick CC and Love and Co should have never been made. I have always wished to support the DRS but have been placed in the same situation as Love and Co with my home course Athens CC.
I would wager that there are not many places where an outside "restoration specialist" can compete with a local or member architect such as Love at Brunswick either in knowledge of his course or in price.
The DRS needs to understand that "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" applies to most club committees. The DRS official stance may say one thing but "off the record" comments say a lot more. Please be careful with these situations.

« **Reply #64 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:01:25 AM »

Mike:

I thought that I had made it clear that the Donald Ross Society does not really care which Architect is picked for any job. We only care that the work be done properly and that the course ends up being restored. We are often asked for recommendations of Architects. We have have followed restoration projects for fifteen years and have seen some very competent work and some not so competent work. We may suggest some names. We do not recommend against. We are also rather excited when a new restoration Architect steps into the forefront, the more the merrier.

Our emphasis is that the Club send a group to recently restored courses and examine the work in the ground. In that fashion they can make an informed decision.

« **Reply #65 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:50:11 AM »

Mike,
These days perception outweighs reality in many aspects of our lives.

IMHO, DRS is a fan club. Yet, because of perception many consider it the authority and I do not see the basis for this. I do consider it worthy pastime for golfers and others that are interested in Ross but it stops there.
I don't see professional sports teams asking fan clubs for recommendations. Restoration today is basically interpretation.
There are several "restoration specialist" that interpret in ways that DRS thinks is acceptable. That acceptance is opinion. To say we may recommend some but " we do not recommend against" is not acceptable to me. Not all clubs want what DRS may think they need.
Not all architects seek the label of "restoration specialist" because it sort of limits you. One would need to be a psychic to determine what DR desired on some of the courses he just saw once. And if DRS thinks that using his old drawings takes a club to where DR wanted it, well, I don't know. I do know if someone tried to follow my drawings in 75 years, they would have something completely different thhan what I had on the ground. So , I think there is a huge "myth factor" going here. But at the same time I think it takes years to become a "specialist" in any field. I like the work of most of the "restoration specialist" I see. But I do not think the DRS is capable or qualified to distinguish. There is much more than the eye sees when a restoration/renovation/remodel is implemented . I almost consider it intrusion when a club must feel they have the blessing of the DRS on a restoration.
IMHO the DRS should be an organization that honors the memory of DR and acts much as a librarian and a gathering place for those that share that interest and nothing more. I hope it works toward that.
I am sorry if this offends anyone.

« **Reply #66 on:** October 22, 2004, 02:59:46 PM »

To borrow from the preacher under the revival tent:

Four (10 nominated less 6 controverted) have come forward. Are there any others?

Mike
A Casual Golfer

« **Reply #67 on:** October 22, 2004, 03:36:20 PM »

Again, I'm not sure this question makes much sense.

Example: The Ross course at Grove Park Inn was a terrible course 10 years ago. Really bad. Today, after some tender, loving care, it's a pretty good course. Is it a bad Ross or a good Ross?

There are lots of Ross courses around like Grove Park Inn before it got some much needed attention.

The Portland Course at Troon is by MacK. It's not terribly memorable, but how much of its current quality is due to neglect and how much should be allocated to its original design? My guess is than no one knows.

Ditto for Walter Travis at Jeykl Island.

I'm not sure you can make black and white distinctions between good and bad Ross courses (or anyone eles's courses) without knowing something about the course histories.

Bob

« **Reply #68 on:** October 22, 2004, 03:51:56 PM »

This fall I found a real sleeper in Youngstown Country Club. It certainly is not one of the bad ones. Then a month later I walked Oakland Hills for the first time during the Ryder Cup. The similarities were amazing. Youngstown has alot of the same undulating fairways and elevated greens. I was told you could become a member ay Youngstown with no initiation fee. This must be the best deal in the country.

« **Reply #69 on:** October 22, 2004, 04:11:56 PM »

David,

Youngstown CC in Ohio? golfcourse.com says it was designed by Walter Travis.

« **Reply #70 on:** October 22, 2004, 05:44:54 PM »

Yes, Youngstown Ohio. Well the member I played with told me Donald Ross. I will admit that was the extent of my research. When I go home, I will look in Brad Klein's book. Nevertheless, it was chalk full of classical features.

« **Reply #71 on:** October 22, 2004, 05:58:38 PM »

CC of Birmingham is a good example of a great pair of golf courses gone badly awry due to two different sets of botched renovations, the East (as I recall) by Willard Byrd and John LaFoy and the other by Trent Jones and Pete Dye. The land is great underneath and both courses could be brought back to brilliance.

« **Reply #72 on:** October 22, 2004, 06:19:58 PM »

Good examples, Brad.

It's one thing to say that this is a bad Doak or Cupp or Fazio or Hills or Dye course. Courses by those designers are relatively new. We can assume that the course that we play today is - more or less - the one they designed.

But when you want to call a course built in the 1920's "bad", you need to have a pretty good handle on where it started and where it's been. Lots and lots of things happen to courses that have been around for nine decades.

No doubt there are some bad Ross courses. But do your homework before you give one that label.

There are a lot of stooped old ladies around who were once the belles of the ball.

Bob

« **Reply #73 on:** October 22, 2004, 06:27:09 PM »

Mike Hendren seems to be attempting to force out admissions of contributors of bad Ross courses to prove perhaps a point that this website can't come up with that many by Ross. If I said I knew of a number of bad Ross courses I should amend or retract that remark here and now. What I should've said is I've seen some pretty mundane Ross courses but they surely weren't bad golf courses. And this goes back over 50 years with some like Daytona Beach. They aren't bad, it's just that some were pretty simple obviously because Ross or perhaps anyone else probably didn't put much, if any, time, effort and money into them when they were built.

« **Reply #74 on:** October 22, 2004, 11:20:12 PM »

I checked Brad's book on Ross. Youngstown CC built by Ross - 1924.

News:

Mike Hendren

John_Cullum

michael j fay

A.G._Crockett

Bill Gayne

John Goodman

paul cowley

michael j fay

paul cowley

Brian Phillips

paul cowley

paul cowley

michael j fay

Mike_Young

michael j fay

Mike_Young

Mike Hendren

BCrosby

gookin

Brian_Gracely

gookin

Brad Klein

BCrosby

TEPaul

gookin