[Kyle Harris]

I've seen enough low-low-high and high-high/low-high/low-low Ross holes to know that assigning a formula like that to Ross is trite at best.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

That Ross did that more than perhaps anyone else is not trite at all.

Anyone should know if they thought about it for a while that it's virtually impossible for basic topographical and routing reasond for anyone to do a course where all the holes were like that.

The point is, if you look at Ross's courses with this in mind that have some topography you can't miss how much he did that---eg probably just about as much as would be possible for anyone to do it given the ramifications of routing, balance, variety and topography.

I feel the reason Ross courses are so much that way was because it was a modus operandi he got into via topo routing (which was probably a result of doing so many courses and projects). In other words, he just started out identifying all the spots on the course that were high elevations, measuring their distances and placing tees and greens on those high spots as much as the site's topography would allow. With the remainder he probably just connected them across whatever ground was left. I'm not saying this was some primary instinct on his part, just something of a modus operandi over time that makes pretty good sense to me if one is basically using topo maps first without being all that familiar with property.

If you ask me Ross was probably a "contour line counter". There is just far too much of the same thing (high tees-valleys-high green sites) on the courses he did with topography for it to be coincidental.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, I think one can pick up on some very different tendencies among various architects if you look at enough of their stuff.

For instance, in my opinion (and I think Wayne's too) Flynn was much more of a gutsy free flowing router across topography than Ross tended to be.

In other words, there just seem to be so many more holes on Flynn courses that went right over convex landforms on hole mid-bodies (ridges and hills) than Ross ever did.

Ross just seemed to prefer to route holes and their mid-bodies through concave landforms (valleys).

[Tom_Doak]

There you boys go again, trying to stereotype the work of the great men of the profession.  They were great BECAUSE they didn't do the same thing all of the time [although Raynor was closer to it than most].

Flynn could only design four or five courses a year because he insisted on planning out everything meticulously and leaving nothing to chance (nor to be improved by the contributions of others).  Ross turned out way more courses either because he believed in his system and in his associates, or because he didn't take the finished product quite so seriously (the correct interpretation depending on your respect for Ross's body of work).

To not have a great degree of respect for the work of both men is to show a lack of acceptance for great golf architecture.

As for one architect studying another, I would have to point out that the main reason great architects don't study one another's work is that they are much too busy "just doing it", myself included today, although I do get to see others' work on occasion.  

The only reason I was able to study so many courses is that I did most of it between the ages of 18 and 28, when I was single and not too busy on my own, and I could afford to do it.  I do think it was more productive to study all of those courses before I had established a style of my own; though there are exceptions, I would say that it's much harder now for me to come upon a new course and really learn a lot from it, because I always think about what I would have done differently.  In my earlier years (despite my reputation) I wasn't so convinced I would have done better, and even if I disagreed with the prevailing opinion I would try to figure out why a hole had been highly regarded.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom, my admittedly small battery of Ross courses (about a dozen) simply does not corroborate your assessment.

First off, are we speaking about the Ross "brand" meaning courses overseen by the Ross office with men in the field such as JB McGovern and Ellis Maples, or are you speaking of courses with which Ross was at his most personally involved?

Your statement about routings seems to imply that Ross built holes through Valleys instead of across them? Am I correct? That way, the valley sides would be natural containment features... Are there any examples of a Ross hole routed as such?

Ross's work at Schuylkill and Jeffersonville (both of which I assume were done by McGovern) has no such examples.

I've seen Ross mass-produced courses with tees on upslopes, downslopes, greens in hollows, high points, and hillsides and landing zones of all different orientations.

Do they have a different "look" and "approach" than a Flynn course? Yes, but I can't find any formula yet.

Apart from the CC of York stuff, are there any other examples for comparison?

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I'm not trying to stereotype Ross or Flynn or anyone else.

If anyone sees enough of their courses (particuarly ones with topography) it's possible to pick up on some of the common tendencies that they each had.

That's all I'm saying and there isn't any disrespect for their architecture intended. Frankly, I think it's interesting as could be to pick up on such things.

I hope you're not trying to imply that every time out they tried something entirely novel and different for them. It doesn't take all that astute an observer to realize that definitely wasn't the case.

Frankly, I'm glad to see those individual tendencies with various architects that make their courses somewhat identifiable one from the other.

At this point, I doubt I'd ever confuse any Ross course for a Flynn course and vice versa. I know I'd never confuse a Macdonald or Raynor course for the courses of either of those two.

[Jay Carstens]

Did Ross study Raynor? Probably not.

Did Raynor study Ross? Probably not.

Did Nicklaus study C&C (at SH)?  Probably not.  

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

You can hardly use courses that are attributed to Ross that he probably had little or nothing to do with, particularly routing them. Courses like Jeffersonville likely fall into that category.

There's really no point in even pursuing this discussion if some are going to cite particular golf holes or even some courses that are not this way.

But that's not the point at all. Of course Ross would not want to do this kind of thing or overdo it where it would become somewhat ridiculous such as at the expense of variety and balance and such, all of which need plenty of change of direction and so forth.

But if you look carefully at courses like GMGC, or St David's or Torresdale or Riverton in this area Ross used valleys and the concave ground form in the mid-bodied of holes whenever he could find them and when they happened to fit spatially with what he needed in balance and variety (par holes) in a routing.

If someone thinks by this I mean he tried to do it on every hole then to me that's just not good and clear thinking or analysis because it's very simple to tell that would be totally impossible anyway.

I just think it's a most recognizable tendency on his part on his courses and probably a routing tendency, again, probably because he did a whole lot more topo-routings before seeing sites or analyzing them than most any other architect did. And the reason for that is probably because he did so many more courses than most.

One thing is certain, and that is if an architect routes a course on a topo map before seeing it this modus operandi via topo maps and their contour lines of concentrating first on high tee and high green elevations with lower ground between them at least he knows he's basically avoiding blindness to a large extent on those holes.

Without seeing a site first it's a whole lot harder to tell from a top map's contour lines what convex landforms in the mid-bodies of holes are going to look like to golfers and play like for them.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I'm certainly not talking every hole, and I did ask as to what level of involvement for Ross qualifies, Schuylkill and Jeffersonville were most likely developed in office and Ross never saw the final product. I last played Torresdale a year ago and I'm still not convinced, the first hole qualifies and the first par 3 (4?) and 14, but then you get holes like 18 that hang off the edge of a hill... Furthermore, how much of Torresdale was changed by the Grant Avenue expansion and the loss of their second course?

I haven't seen GMGC, St. David's or Riverton.

If we aren't going to cite specific examples, then what exactly are we analyzing? Tendencies take data...

I think we're just barking up the wrong tree in looking at Ross's style, especially in routing.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Then let's use your example of Torresdale Frankford. And let's try to steer away from the property side that #17 and #18 are on because I don't think those holes are original Ross and I know a few of them on that side were changed.

#1 high tee--valley--high green par 4
#2 There is no valley in the vicinity so he ran a par 4 second hole over the rise to the edge of a ridgeline on which the 3rd tee sits.
#3 high tee---valley---high green par 4
#4 high tee---valley---high green par 3
#5 high tee---valley---high green par 4
#6 He ran a long par 4 from a tee through a valley to a high fairway landing area and then gently down to the green. If he hadn't used a hole of that length and direction and if he planned to turn left and head back towards the clubhouse on the back nine he would've run right into #5 in a routing sense.
#7 He ran a long par 4 from a high tee through a valley for the tee shot then continued up to the green site.
#8 If he planned to get back to the clubhouse on #9 he pretty much had to use the direction and topography he did on this hole.
#9 High tee through a valley to the green beyond.

Do I need to go on? This to me is maxing out available high tees and valley and green sites given the available topography and all the other exigencies of balance and variety (in a par sense) and necessary direction change to a golf course routing and limited amount of land.

There could hardly be a better example of a high tee---valley and up to a green site tendency than this one given all the other exigencies of golf course architecture, particularly routing.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

GMGC's original Ross routing:

#1 high tee--valley---high green
#2 high tee--valley--up to the green
#3 high tee---valley--up to the green
#4 Ridge tee on the side of a deep quarry and across the deep quarry to the geen on the far edge of the quarry=tee--valley--and up
#5 High tee--down slightly to a canted fairway and up to the green
#6 High tee across a pond to the green beyond
#7 long par 4 across a side hill to green. There is no valley in that vicinity.
#8 high tee to a valley and waaay up to the green.
#9 High tee into a valley and waasy up to the green.

If you aren't getting the picture now I doubt you will and there's probably no reason to continue with this point.

[Kyle Harris]

Yes, you do need to go on... here's why

10 goes uphill to the green, high tee and then a slow rise to the green, the landing area is as high or higher than the tee.
11 downhill par 3
12 another dead uphill hole
13 across the ridge, landing zone as high as the tee, green perched about second shot landing zone on this par 5
14 I cited
15 is pretty level, valley in front of the tee, but the LZ is on the other side, not within.
16 goes back down the hill that 12 comes up, levels off, then By slowly rises to the green on this par 5
17 and 18 were the Grant Avenue holes.

The question is... how is this any different than what another architect would do on the site?

Do we simply ignore the Ross courses that don't follow this model? (Lulu comes to mind...)

Steering away from the property side of 17 and 18 is probably reasonable... but would the topo still have allowed Ross to do as such?

I just think there are better things to study regarding Ross's use of terrain than this high point to high point shoe horn.

By the way, what was Ross's involvement with Torresdale?

I ask because I think the high point to high point tendency may not travel outside of Philadelphia too far.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

I don't believe you understand what I mean by all this which very much includes the topography of the ground at Torresdale for golf holes.

Look at it this way;

You try to explain to me how Ross or any other architect could possibly have gotten more holes that went from high tees down and then back up than Ross did on that site.

How many other ways could other architects have routed Torresdale? How high can you count?

Flynn probably would have done one of his "inside nines/outside nines" on that property as he did at HVGC. For instance on #3 he might have done a long par 3 that  dropped down from a tee behind #2 to a green somewhere along the far end of the valley. From there he might've run a par 4 from about the present 3rd green site to the left towards the 5th green etc.  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

The inside and outside nines do exist on the property... just play the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th as 6-9.

All you're saying is that Flynn would have stuck a green on at the bottom of the hill on the 3rd hole and made it a long par 3 and then built a longer par 4/5 from the 3rd green, over the 4th hole to near the present 5th green. I can see the differences in shot presentation and all, but the angles of attack and usage of the topo is essentially the same. All Flynn would have done is not stick a green on one high spot in favor of the another...

Furthermore, Ross showed he'd put greens on the low spots for par 3s and 4s on the back.

The only real difference is the order of pars, and which high points are being used. I'd say Ross could have just as easily did that. Now tell me that he would have made a left turn on a par 3 after the second using the creek at the bottom of the present 7th, and then benched a green into the hill side near the present 5th tee using the slope of one side of the valley to force a certain shot shape into a green that accepts the opposite for the 4th hole... and we're talking.

Again, I'm not asking this because I believe otherwise, but to actually show the where and how of this Ross assumption, and how they could be site/regionally dependent.

[wsmorrison]

"Furthermore, Ross showed he'd put greens on the low spots for par 3s and 4s on the back."

Kyle,

Nobody is saying that Ross or any other architect classic or modern were absolute in all they did.  You offer exceptions when there are bound to be many.  That doesn't mean that Ross didn't have a tendency to do something more than another architect.  Come on.  You must get the point.  Why be so oblivious to it?  I remember Tom Paul mentioning the number of high-lpw-high holes by Ross.  Once you start to bear it in mind, recognizing the design tendency (nothing more) is unavoidable.  

Speculating what one architect would do versus another is interesting but there are no assurances.  Considering the routings of architects, if it is to be done, has to be done with a complete understanding of all the grounds available, not the way it ended up being done.  Tom is very good at that and now devotes a lot of time to studying the golf courses.  Tom gives you examples of clear tendencies and you think a set of holes that go against the trend invalidates the trend.  It is not so.  

The Ross tendency does exist and is probably more systematic for the topo routings versus the on-site work.  I don't know the percentage of significant on-site work by Ross and exactly which ones they are (I think Brad has figured it out pretty faithfully in his book) but I would guess that such an analysis would bear predictable results.

"The inside and outside nines do exist on the property... just play the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th as 6-9."

Huh?  

[Kyle Harris]

Instead of playing the 6th hole after the 5th, walk an additional 10 yards to the 15th... and voila... inside and outside nines. Tom's idea was essentially jiggling things about within the current hole corridors... which is exactly what I was driving at - the site dictates the golf course at Torresdale more so than a different site where Ross may have had a bit more freedom of movement.

If this isn't that big of a deal, and not important... why bring it up every time Ross gets mentioned in terms of his significance to golf architecture?

If a set of holes or courses that goes against the trend doesn't invalidate the trend... what does then? How else can one invalidate a trend without citing examples that invalidate the trend?

Seriously, your statement is essentially, "Ross routes courses from high point to high point except in cases where he doesn't."

So? Why bring it up as a demerit to Ross's abilities?

Oh, and regarding Tom's time and ability to study golf courses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

I've provided three examples of Ross not being on site on a course and that tendency not existing. All were discredited because Ross had minimal involvement.

Just what evidence and examples to the contrary are admissible in this discussion for you guys?

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

Some courses were routed by Ross using a topographic map and then implemented on site by members of his staff with Ross site (and sight) unseen.  Other courses were designed and built by Ross's staff (McGovern for instance) with little or no input by Ross.  Some sites were visited by Ross and plans developed after careful in-person study and planning.  Thus there are three scenarios to consider, not two.  I didn't go back to check, but maybe the courses you mention fall into the second category and should be factored out of your analysis.

"Instead of playing the 6th hole after the 5th, walk an additional 10 yards to the 15th... and voila... inside and outside nines.  "

That is not how the routing progression was designed nor how it was played.  Yet you maintain that Ross designed inside and outside nines.  Are you satisfied with that conclusion?

"Seriously, your statement is essentially, "Ross routes courses from high point to high point except in cases where he doesn't.""

Because you think this way, you don't realize what we are trying to say.  Stick with it and it may come to you.

"So? Why bring it up as a demerit to Ross's abilities?"

It was brought up to demonstrate a tendency and a contrast in methodology.  Flynn and other architects differed in their routing tendencies.  Who was ranking ability as opposed to making observing tendencies?  You need an awful lot of specific information to make a determination about which approach is better on a specific site.  I don't see us doing that.  Applying any sort of intent to demerit Ross because of a different method of operation is your conclusion.  However, you may be right.  

If Ross's best courses happened to be those he spent the most personal time on and worked hardest at, how would you interpret the work to quality ratio?  If other architects spent more time on site to make sure the results are exactly according to their study and plans, might there be a consequence to such an approach?

[Kyle Harris]

Re: The routing

No, it isn't how Torresdale was designed or routed. I never said Ross designed inside and outside nines either, I said that the hole corridors for such a routing exist.

Tom said that if Flynn were to design, he may do inside and outside nines. As I just said, the corridors for such a routing exist and would be going over the same topography as the present holes cited, or would the topo magically change if Flynn did the design over Ross? Mix up the routing as you want, but the holes in either case would be going over the same ground. T/F is a very tight site with transverse ridges that must be over come whereas a site like Huntingdon Valley has its length follow the valley instead of going across it.

If we take a look at a Flynn course with a bit more freedom in shape... we see the same tendency.

Rolling Green, for example:

2nd Hole
6th Hole
9th Hole
11th Hole
12th Hole
13th Hole
14th Hole
15th Hole
16th Hole
18th Hole

Like Torresdale, Rolling Green is dominated by one nine where this design tendency persists. Obviously, the execution is different, but that's where the difference is... NOT in using the high points and the concavity between them.

Getting off the topic of the conversation. But I just don't see the significance in Ross using high point to high point every so often. I think it's just a safe and well-tested design philosophy that translates itself well to a variety of styles, Ross, Flynn and Raynor included.

[wsmorrison]

As for T/F, I don't have any idea how Flynn would have routed that course.  But given the routing tendencies of Flynn and those of Ross, it wouldn't surprise me if they were very dissimilar, certainly perpendicular at times even if the same start/finish point was established.  

So when you say the corridors of Ross's design at T/F could, if the progression was changed, be made into an inside-outside routing, that does not indicate at all that routings by Ross and Flynn would have gone over the same topography in the same way.  That is absurd.

Again, I'm not giving Ross demerits for differing from Flynn, simply observing that they would likely find a far different routing.

As for Rolling Green, the topography of that very constricted site, dictated the routing.  Consider an even better example, Merion East.  There's no other way to route that golf course.  Anyone would have generally done the same things once the land available was established.  The starting points and finishing points for each individual hole would likely be different, but the general routing is dictated by the dimensions and by the topography.  You will find similarities and differences in some cases, it is when you see them over and over again (and especially when they competed for the same project--CC York and TCC, Brookline) where you begin to see the different tendencies played out.

"But I just don't see the significance in Ross using high point to high point every so often."

So let's not discuss it then.

[paul cowley]

Tom Doak said;

"As for one architect studying another, I would have to point out that the main reason great architects don't study one another's work is that they are much too busy "just doing it", myself included today, although I do get to see others' work on occasion.  
The only reason I was able to study so many courses is that I did most of it between the ages of 18 and 28, when I was single and not too busy on my own, and I could afford to do it.  I do think it was more productive to study all of those courses before I had established a style of my own; though there are exceptions, I would say that it's much harder now for me to come upon a new course and really learn a lot from it, because I always think about what I would have done differently.  In my earlier years (despite my reputation) I wasn't so convinced I would have done better, and even if I disagreed with the prevailing opinion I would try to figure out why a hole had been highly regarded".

Well said, and I am envious you were able to spend the time in your youth on a study quest.
I wasn't as fortunate....I didn't have the money, time or access.
Now that I have the money and the invitations to visit the best courses, I am frustrated because I can't seem to find the time.....kids, my own work schedule etc.....but what you also suggest...that your time for study is well past, because you become more immersed in what you might do, as opposed to absorbing what others had done previously, is also true for me.

I like your script....who crafted it?  

[Kyle Harris]

I tend to agree with you with regard to Flynn and the Torresdale site. I think the only similarities would be in the beginnings and endings of the nines. I think Flynn would have hit the ridges and topo at oblique angles whereas Ross went straight up and down. I don't think Flynn's design style would have dictated an inside/outside routing as Tom said. An inside/outside routing, to me, implies that one nine would need to go around the perimeter and another contained within it. The perimeter of the property is entirely bordered by holes that parallel, so no, it's not absurd to say the holes would be over the same topography or down the same corridors. The only difference could be the location of the greens, tees and the direction (clockwise or anticlockwise).

Are you serious in saying that Rolling Green's property is constricting? I agree with you on Merion.... and Torresdale's property is the same shape... but not with Rolling Green - there's plenty of room to do a lot of different things there. The first hole could go in any direction but south, for example, as evidenced by the fact that 1, 3, 11, and 15 all are within a reasonable first tee distance from the clubhouse and all go in different directions. The sites at Torresdale, Huntingdon Valley and Merion East do not offer such discretion.

Sorry if I misinterpreted, but your post #48, both through wit and direct statement, implies that Ross's standards for quality were not up to that of Flynn's. I can explain the the percentage of work in the Top 100 quite easily, actually - only 100 courses could get on. Ross did more Top 100 courses than Flynn, but if it were a Top 500, how would that percentage change...

Come on Wayne... rank the Flynn clunkers... I'd love to see a battle between the old CC of Harrisburg, Flourtown CC, Plymouth CC and Doylestown CC ;-)

[Kyle Harris]

On the thread's topic - I know many musicians who do not listen to their contemporaries, nor do the listen to their influences after they have put out some work for fear of losing the development that the creative process brings.

The minute I start writing music full time again, I'll probably stop listening to most of my influences and contemporaries. Through creation comes influence as well - a lot of times the influence just brings a starting point.

In fact, if this golf architecture thing ever happens for me, I may exclusively play my own designs and tweak them, if possible.

[wsmorrison]

I don't keep track of the magazine rankings, but Flynn's percentage of courses in the classic 100 is about 25% of his existing course designs.  If that were the case with Ross, all the courses on the list would be Ross.

As for clunker Flynn courses, two of the ones you cite were redesigns (Flourtown--where he had to fix the Ross crap that preceded it   and Plymouth CC, which is on tight and fairly boring land).  CC Harrisburgh and Doylestown CC have been changed so much from its original design, it is hardly a Flynn anymore.  If you know what the original Flynn course looked like, you have more knowledge of the course than anyone I know.  Only recently, with the help of Jim Blaukovitch and David Gordon were we able to figure out the Flynn holes (what little is left of them).  Do you know which ones they are?

[Kyle Harris]

No clue, I only brought them up because I knew they were significantly altered. We've had that conversation... many times and you've shown me the overlay that Gordon did on the original Flynn course at Doylestown.

Flourtown was one of the old Cederbrook sites, right? Was the Ross course on the same site? That club has moved golf course more than any other in Philadelphia, I think.

I also tend to think that Ross wasn't nearly as selective with his clients as Ross (or perhaps it was the other way around) which is another explanation about the percentages.

How many municipalities did Flynn do designs for?

How many estate courses did Ross build?

Flynn seemed to deal with the higher end almost exclusively.

[wsmorrison]

The current Flourtown CC has nine holes left of Flynn's redesign of the original Sunnybrook CC site that was Ross prior to Flynn.  The only Ross work on a Flynn course was a new green (14) and new tee (15) at Huntingdon Valley CC.  This was done after Flynn died and was probably the work of McGovern.  Flynn redid a number of Ross courses.  One course currently attributed to Ross never was one and is a Flynn:  Sewells Point.  One course that was attributed to Ross is now known to be a Flynn and always was one (Concord CC).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()