[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Donald Ross designed hundreds of golf courses during his 30+ year career (in every corner of the country). Some were designed and built solo, many others were under the guidance of a handful of associates, and some were redesigns where he inherited and melded with the work of other's.

It has become very popular to restore his golf course. With these restorations are we going to be left with a steriotypical Ross style across the board. For example the restored Oyster Harbors looks very similar to other Ross restorations - typical grass facing etc., but the original course was quite wild with sandy waste areas and stylish flashed bunkers. Charles River and Aronomink apparently now have a similar look - was that the case originally? Seminole now has the steriotypical look, is that accurate? Did McGovern's courses look like Hatch's courses - should they now? Pinehurst #2 seems to be the greatest influence on the 'look' - the model for the 'look', but does the model even reflect the 'look' that Ross intended at that great course? I don't think so.

Are we loosing the deversity of Donald Ross's portfolio?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think that you're asking a fair and insightful question.

One needs go no further than "Golf Has Never Failed Me" to find clear textual and pictorial evidence supporting the fact that Ross designed all sorts of bunkers that tended to be VERY "site specific" (i.e. flashed sand at Seminole).

I'm concerned as well that perhaps some idea of a "stereotypical" Ross bunker has somehow inserted itself into the general mindset, and we have to be careful that every individual restoration effort doesn't standardize into the same look when that might not be historically accurate.  We clearly risk losing something unique and precious, otherwise.

Beyond Ross, I think we're really starting to see the homogenization of championship golf courses to a great degree.  I was astounded at the very clean, generic look of Oakland Hills this past weekend.  

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm really not sure where you're coming from on this one!

At the very least some of Ross's courses, probably far more than any other architect, are at least now going through restorations and to a large degree wiping away much of the out of character and odd style combinations, the corruptions, distortions, wear and tear that many of his courses became saddled with over the decades!

My own club may be one of the strangest and most multi-architecturally visited. But it's an odd example as about half is still very much original Ross. Some of the rest by Maxwell is probably better than Ross!

I can't imagine how Ross's look could be truly homogenized if there are a number of restoration architects today working on those restorations--as they all probably have a slightly different take on Ross and his architecture too!

But to even consider restoration or anything that could pass as restoration is certainly going in the right direction, don't you think?

The clubs that come to even consider restorations and embark on them generally respect and admire Ross, what he did and what they have of him that's original or restorable.

But in these projects there's room for interpretation, it's probably even very necessary, as I think Ron Prichard is proving and might additionally prove when more becomes known about the Aronimink restoration. Ron might even prove that he may have interpreted what Ross may have intended even better than what was once done or that Ross left him to work with ("in the field" drawings).

Those involved generally try to do the best they can with what they have (aerials, on ground photos, remembrances, plans, drawings etc).

Maybe, though, you'd be good enough to explain what better way there could be to do these kinds of things, in your opinion.

It's not just the people intimately involved in the restorations, there're many others to consider and everyone knows that golf and architecture goes on, times change, needs change, technology, agronomy, slews of things change too. None of us can forget those things, although sometimes we think we might like to.

[Steve Wilson]

To what extent does restoring to a look determine the playing characteristic of a course?  

Isn't there a danger that in achieving a look the more substantive issues will be shortchanged?

Can a course be made to "look" like a Ross but play like a Ferdinand Garbin?

What good does it do to restore a bunker to the proper appearance but leave it out of play because the fairway is still cut too narrow or left too soft?

Isn't there a danger in creating a maintenance headache if bunkers are restored to a style that is inappropriate to the turf conditions, etc?

Not trying to be contentious here, just asking questions and trying to create food for thought--hope it isn't junk food.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I don't doubt they all have a slightly different 'take' on Ross. The potential problem I see is that they all have a specific 'take' on Ross, and repeat that 'take' even when it isn't an accurate representation of the original design. And it appears the 'take' from one architect to the next is very similar. Will the result be a universal Ross style?

I don't think Ross intended Charles River to look like Aronomink to look like Beverly to like Oyster Harbors. I don't think Hatch or McGovern did either. Weren't they all built under unique circumstances which is why they resulted in four completely different courses? As Mike said site specific.

Steve
Moving bunkers is a different issue from replicating the orginal style of bunkers. Under the right circumstances that can be a good thing, particulary if it restores strategic interest. However sometimes bunkers original intent is replaced by equally good strategic intent if kept in the same location.

Are you saying that original flashed design of the bunkers at Pinehurst, Seminole, Oyster Harbors and Beverly represent a maintenance problem to those clubs? Which Ross course's bunkers can/could not be restored accurately because of inappropriate turf conditions?

Soft fairways and trees are all important issues, but why should addressing those issues effect accurate replication of hazards? I'm all for addressing everything, most restoration include rebuilding bunkers, why not give the clubs its historical look?  

Strategy is determined by hazards - be they bunkers, undulations or water. When determining how to play a hole you do so by looking at the hazards and judging the relative penalties/rewards of each choice. The pot bunkers registers one penalty, the bunkers at Melbourne another, the grass walls of Chicago GC another. Playability is effected by the coices you make, which is determined by look as much as how the bunker actually plays (plus they do play differently).

Visibliity is another factor in playability, if I can't see the pot bunker or grass faces bunker very well, it might not even enter my choice (but perhaps the was what the architect had in mind). Where as a particular flashed bunker at Melbourne might not even be that much in play, but its look is bold and intimidating, and that ultimately effects my choice. In effect fooling me. (That might be the intent of the architect or perhaps he wants to give me a thrill, which would not be so thrilling if the bunker looked non-descript)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

What would you suggest to a Golf Club desirous of restoring
their Donald Ross Golf course ?

What do you find homogenous about Seminole's bunkers ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I think it is the clubs responsibility to do their homework, to determine exactly what they had/have. Then either do the work in-house or if they require an architect make sure he understands they want their architectual heritage reclaimed accurately. And make sure he doesn't have any preconceived ideas and has the ability/flexibility to reproduce a number of styles - especially the style similar to their own.

Seminole now has the typical grass facing.

What does deserious mean?

[Brad Klein]

Homogenizing? If you compare Ron Pruchard's restoration work on Aronimink, The Orchards and Wannamoisett, you have three completey different styles in terms of bunker faces, rolls, and relationship between bentgrass/poa annua surfaces and fescues. It helps using different contractors (always the key to restoration) but also paying attention to distinct styles. It also helps knowing that Walter Hatch relied upon more rigid green forms and J.B. McGovern was more flowing. But there are enormous distinctions that need to be respected and are by those who pay close attention.

LIkewise, for Brian Silva's work at Seminole and Augusta CC - one is more contemporary, with turfed rolls, the other more severe and Raynor-esque.

Anyone who thinks there's a formula here hasn't been doing their homework. One thing that never gets discussed enough on this Web site is the use of different grasses to achieve certain classical looks. The old guys understood this, as do the good restorers. It's the modernist landscape architect guys who end up homogenizing, with "containment mounding," "chocolate drop mounds," or the old canard about how Ross supposedly built all of his greens back to front or turtle-backed - all of which is b.s.

I know many fo the folks who actually do this genre of work - Doak, Forse, Hanse, Liddy, Spence, Weed - agonize over this and look to distinguish rather than to photo-copy. I'd be very leery of any restorer who came in with a plan without doing their homework, securing aerials, looking at old records, etc. Ross courses varied tremendously owing to different builders, soils, topography, etc.  

[Steve Wilson]

Pat you wrote:

"Moving bunkers is a different issue from replicating the orginal style of bunkers. Under the right circumstances that can be a good thing, particulary if it restores strategic interest. However sometimes bunkers original intent is replaced by equally good strategic intent if kept in the same location."

Agreed, but I wasn't so much thinking about moving bunkers as I was of pictures I have seen of bunkers surrounded by yards of rough on the inside of the dogleg.  Going for the look without widenin g the fairway would be a stylistic but not a substantial change.  

"Are you saying that original flashed design of the bunkers at Pinehurst, Seminole, Oyster Harbors and Beverly represent a maintenance problem to those clubs? Which Ross course's bunkers can/could not be restored accurately because of inappropriate turf conditions?"

I can't imagine any of those clubs having a maintenance problem they couldn't handle or, for that matter, creating one.  I was merely reflecting on a comment a golf course owner made to me at Holston Hills last year during the Donald Ross get together.  He said "I hate flashed bunkers and mentioned what a maintenance problem they could be.  Didn't have the opportunity to pursue it, but I wonder if it might apply in some circumstances.  

"Soft fairways and trees are all important issues, but why should addressing those issues effect accurate replication of hazards? I'm all for addressing everything, most restoration include rebuilding bunkers, why not give the clubs its historical look?"

A restoration should return a club to its historical look, but I think Tom MacWood is apprehensive that too many clubs undergoing restoration are going to follow the Pinehurst model.  I can''t speak to this issue directly, that's why I phrased my comments in the form of a question, I was seeking information and opinions.  "Soft fairways and trees are all important issues."  Yep, returning a course to its look without returning it to the playing conditions would be like taking a classic car and lavishing time and care on it to make it look good but leave the drive train and engine in disrepair.  It would be beautiful but it wouldn't perform.

You mentioned visibility and how concealment (grass faces) or a false threat (the flashed but unreachable) can influence play.  A funny thing happened to me at a new hole where I play in golf league.  I had a third into a par five over a waste area.  The marker said one fifty but the flag looked further away.  To make a long story short, I overclubbed and when I got to the green I could see to what degree the green was depressed.  The flag seemed further away because part of the stick was blocked from view.  I'll take that into consideration in the future.  The invisible pot bunker or the difficult to detect grass faced bunker and the  partially hidden flagstick have this in common,  sometimes you have to encounter the problem before you can plan for it in the future.  And of course, at that point the architect is in your head and isn't that part of strategic design?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Brad
Who constructed the original bunkers at Wannamoisett, The Orchard, and Charles River? What differentiates them today post-restoration? Do you know if the original Aronomink had grass faced bunkers? What about Oyster Harbors?

Is the current state of Seminole's bunkers, or Pinehurst #2,  an accurate depiction of how Ross created them?

[Dave_Miller]

Tom MacWood:

As a member of the restoration committee at Charles River I can tell you that the original bunkers, from substantial research, photos from the 20's and 30's, newspaper articles and newspaper photos from the 20's, etc., etc., had grass facings down them.

I can also state that Donald Ross was on site and oversaw the construction of these bunkers.  Donald Ross was also a dues paying member of Charles River.  His cancelled membership certificate is on display over the fireplace in the foyer of the Club.

While I am also a member of Aronimink I am not as familiar with the research or the original construction.  

Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

Tom:

How do you even know Seminole, Aronimink and Charles River look alike post restoration? What makes you say they look "homogenized"? Seminole doesn't look homogenized to the look I see now at Aronimink which just happens to be a restoration to some of the best of Ross's very own Aronimink drawings complete with specs.

Charles River I don't know at all original, pre or post restoration but I sure hope to know it in a month or so. I'll tell you Gulph Mills original or pre-restoration didn't look particularly homogenized to Aronimink or Seminole post restoration either and I really doubt it will post Hanse restoration either. Gulfstream doesn't look to be homogenized to much else either.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dave
I know they did. As did the majority of Ross's courses, but not all of them.

TE
I know Aronomink and Seminole do not look identical.  My question is are they accurate depictions or have they been Ross-stored (introducing classic Ross charicteristics where they may not have existed)? That is the reason for this thread, to see if my questions and concerns are legit or unfounded.

Did Aronomink originally have grass faced bunkers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Seminole does not have typical grass facing.
Many bunkers are pure sand, floor to ceiling, with little or no grass facing.  Seminole has different bunkers styles, depending on the location and/or function of the bunker.

How does a club do their homework if no records or pictures exist ?

Asking a club to do everything in-house is almost certainly, the formula for failure.  They should always retain outside consultants, specialists in Ross's works as a safeguard and guiding light.

I don't know what "Deserious" means.  
Where did you see the word ?  
Perhaps you need reading glasses.
I used the word "Desirous",
which means, impelled or governed by desire.  
Are you familiar with the word ?

Now, I must say, I am not familiar with the word
"Deversity" which appears in the last paragraph of your opening post.  
Perhaps you could enlighten us with respect to its meaning or definition.

Lastly, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Steve Wilson,

I believe you might have mis-addressed your response.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

As to how Aronimink was restored, or at least the bunkering, refer to the very first post on the "Aronimink, a true Ross Championship venue!?". I believe it's on the second page of the discussion section and it talks about how Aronimink's bunkers were not built originally to Ross's own Aronimink drawings and bunker specs, for some reason.

As for Seminole, it seems the original bunkering was flashed with capes and bays, not something Ross seems to be much known for bunker-wise, but just look at some of the early photos of Pinehurst #2 with some of them showing Ross playing.

I believe there has been discussion that Seminole may have thought at some point those flashed cape and bay bunkers were the work of Dick Wilson but apparently not so.

What they are now is what the club asked for or wanted specifically, simple as that. The club had a very specific and particular reason to ask for this but unfortunately I was asked a while ago not to talk about that reason, on here anyway. The architect asked for privacy here simply because the club asks for it or would like it that way, and I have to respect that for sure--sorry about that.

Of course there're original photos (Ross) and current photos floating around for you to compare--I think they are probably somewhat more grassed down now than they were originally but again there was a very good reason for that from the club and the club and architect did total comparative research despite it all!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
If no records exist it is impossible to perform research. I understand that Brian Silva was unnot presented with any good photographic evidence, so he went with his best interpretation of the Ross style. I've seen several old photos and these photos look more like the pre-restoration than post-restoration. Do you disagree? Seventy years of in-house served the club pretty well. I'm not against hiring outside agents - its just that the record for landmark designs is best in-house than out-house.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'm still not clear did the specs and/or the actual constructed bunkers at Aronomink have grass facing?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

It's a little hard for me to tell if the originally constructed bunkers at Aronimink were grassed all the way down--I'm looking at a pretty high aerial from 1939 (11 years after opening) and it doesn't really look like they were but it's hard to tell--and frankly it's a bit of a mystery still (to everyone) if the available aerials from the 1930s show the bunkers as originally built or altered a few years after opening. But the strong assumption from most everyone is that they show the bunkering as originally built although in number, shape and "sets" very little like Ross called for in his detailed bunker drawings that Ron Prichard had under his arm at all times on site!

So the course was restored to Ross original bunker drawings and specs and they are grassed down just like it shows in Ross's drawings.

Tom:

Silva and Seminole had every photos and other research material that's available. There were no mistakes in photographic research and no guess work. They all knew what was original and what was pre-restoration!

There was a rumor that a photo or photos threw them off as to what their original Ross bunkers looked like making them think what they were looking at in the photos were Dick Wilson redesigns but that's not true.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

But, if THE CLUB does NOT want a true restoration, but a departure from same, how will the finished product vary, depending on whether the work is done in-house or with outside contractors.

You and I might have elected to do a true/sympathetic restoration, but evidently, THE CLUB had different goals,
that produced different results.

I would be willing to wager, that more often than not, a club's goals would be at odds with ours.  Unfortunately, they are in control of their destiny, and the fate of their architecture.

As time has gone by, rarely is there a member who has any historical connection to the original or accepted architecture, and sadly, the desire to change or modernize seems to outweigh the desire to restore.

One can only hope that a club attempts to come close to a bona fide restoration, and that we can live with the deviation from the original or accepted architecture.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

How does club know what they want or don't want if they haven't done thorough research. How many clubs rely on the architect for expert avice and research? I'd say a lot of them. Is the architect always inocent - after all he is the expert?

My mandate says I need to hit the hay.

[Will E]

Does anyone really know what Ross wanted in his bunkering? From his book he clearly states that he thinks bunkering should not be an art, from his statements on drainage one could argue that he would be a fan of the Mickey D mechanical bunkering we are seeing today on many Hill's courses. Maybe Ross would be thrilled to hear of Oakland Hills plans to hire Art Hills to work on the course.
Look in the Ross book on about page 157 and let me know what you think. We just went through a bunker restoration at Barton Hills, and while I think the bunkers look awful I can't argue that they aren't what Ross would have ordered. Bunkering shouldn't be an art? I always thought bunkers shouldn't be done by Art.

[TEPaul]

"How does a club know what they want or don't want if they haven't done thorough research?"

Tom baby, big guy, what are you thinking out there in Ohio?

It wouldn't really surprise me if some of these clubs had a President, no less, who said; "Research!! What do you think I am the President of some drug company?"

They don't even have to know what they want or don't want they have a funny way of thinking they know anyway!

I guess you didn't hear Brad Klein's opening remark in the GAP Philadelphia restoration forum with Fazio.

When his turn came the moderator asked him about his history in architecture, when he first got interested and what he learned.

Brad's first remark to a ballroom full of pretty well heeled dudes: "The first thing I learned about golf clubs and golf architecture is that rich people can be real idiots sometimes!"

Place roared with laughter, thank God!

[Brad Klein]

Re: Seminole, Brian Siva was asked to restore the bnukers to the Dick Wilson verson of very fleshy turf. In my book on Ross, "Discovering Donald Ross," I show the old aerial of the original Seminole that shows the sandy waste-like areas of the original bunkering; compare this to the heavily turfed areas in the adjoining photos of Seminole's renovated 5th hole. I don't blame Silva for this; he was under close scrutiny and supervision of the club and did a good job of doing what was asked. But strictly speaking as far as I can tell, this was a restoration to more of the Dick Wilson version (circa 1947) than to Ross.

By the way, such decisions are not unusual. When Coore and Crenshaw worked on Riviera, they consciously decided not to remove all of the greenside sand that had built up vertically over the years; otherwise, they would have had to take out, in their view, way too much of the profile mounding that had built up between bunkers and greens. So they compromised to about half of it and kept some of the acquired character.

All restoration involves amatters of interpretation. There is no such thing as a poure restoration - just look at the quality of turfgrasses and the speeds of cut one relies upon today. Which is not to say that "anything goes."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

TEPaul is correct, many clubs decide on a course of action, and research is not a factor.

Many clubs KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, indepedent of, and without doing any research.

Some clubs have a general idea of what they want, or are open to ideas of what they should have, and hire an architect to formulate a plan.

In some cases the disfiguring of the golf course is the club's idea, in other cases it's the architects idea.  Sometimes, it's a combination of both.
In all cases, ultimately, the finished product is the club's responsibility.

Your notion of due diligence and research prior to embarking on a project is noble and prudent, but it's just not realistic.

Sitting in on Green Committee, Board or membership meetings can be one of the most frightening experiences you could have if you want to preserve and/or restore classic architecture.

[Patrick Hitt]

Tom,
I understand your concerns, but I don't think one look has been restored. The Pritchard Ross bunkers are different at Aronimink than at Skokie. The scale of the Aronimink bunkers is closer to the restored Langford Moreau bunkers at Skokie but with a different profile, face angle and surrounds. The bunkering around Ross greens is more subtle like the greensites (#2, #7,#9) or on the grade of the push up greens (#1,#10,#14). The restored fairway bunkers on #1, #10, #2, #14, and #17 retain the lower profile and kinder slope of the old bunkers.
I do agree that there is no substitute for good research in any restoration, but I have seen first hand at Monroe GC how a talented super can restore bunkers and green reexpansion in house after consulting with a restoration architect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()