Did Ross study Raynor?

[JESII]

Mark,

A digital camera in his hands would be as useful as tits on a boar...if it doesn't have a filter, a flame or a cork he ain't doing anything useful with it...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim

Don't despair, I have plenty of experience with this demographic.  I introduced the ATM to my in-laws -- five years ago!

On the other hand, they struggle with the TiVo(!) and open child-proof medicine bottles by gnawing off the caps, so maybe you've got a point...

Mark

[JESII]

He's not so behind the times...he has a vocal receptor straight into his computer so he doesn't even have to type (can you imagine the two-finger peck with his prolific posts?) his posts...he just speaks and "poof" it's on the screen

[wsmorrison]

I swear I saw Tom Paul taking pictures at NGLA on Sunday morning.  He is studying the 7th green for use as a par 3 somewhere in Maryland.  He used to have a digital camera that he never used...I think it sh#t the bed because of neglect.  He's now on camera number 2 and in all the years we've been looking at golf courses, this is the first time I saw him use it.  He didn't even ask how it worked...and he took off the lens cap.  Of course he has no idea at all how to put the photos in his computer let alone post them here.  I think I'll pay his new office a visit and help him get edjumacated.

[TEPaul]

"..... I think I'll pay his new office a visit and help him get edjumacated.

EDJUMA---WHAT?

You watch your mouth Boy!

[Bill Brightly]

I dont see how Ross could NOT have studied Raynor, especially if you expand the question to Macdonald/Raynor. How could Ross and  others NOT be aware of what these guys did at National, Sleepy Hollow, etc? I dont think Ross copied, but there is no way he wasn't influenced.

[TEPaul]

"I understand his man crush on Flynn and his not so friendly attitude re CB/SR, I guess I must have missed the story where he pissed on their graves.
That is taking it to a whole new level, one that I find to be beyond funny."

JC Jones:

Actually the fact that Wayno Morrison pissed on Macdonald and Raynor's graves is not exactly funny. It's pretty danged interesting really.

You see Wayno is, or at least considers himself to be, a true naturulist in the look and aesthetics of golf course architecture. He thinks Flynn achieved that in spades. Unfortunately, he just doesn't think either Macdonald or particularly Raynor ever did. But Wayne also believes pissing is ultra natural and he believes in reincarnation too. I think he pissed on their graves just to help them and their architecture with a far more natural look the next time around.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

John:

I've always thought the 3rd at Ross' Wannamoisett (never played, only seen lots of pictures) is very similar to a Raynor Short. It's 132 from the tips, with deep bunkers center-front and left, and steep falloffs right and awkwardness long with the lie (cribbed from Fay's book on Ross courses...)

Phil,

I'd disagree with that comparison.

# 3 at Wannamoisett has a very narrow sloping green, a feature uncommon to Raynor's shorts, which tended to have larger greens, some with pronounced internal contours, not unlike the 6th at NGLA.

I don't see any similarity in the design of the holes save for the approximate distance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I swear I saw Tom Paul taking pictures at NGLA on Sunday morning.  He is studying the 7th green for use as a par 3 somewhere in Maryland.  He used to have a digital camera that he never used...I think it sh#t the bed because of neglect.  He's now on camera number 2 and in all the years we've been looking at golf courses, this is the first time I saw him use it.  He didn't even ask how it worked...and he took off the lens cap.  Of course he has no idea at all how to put the photos in his computer let alone post them here.  I think I'll pay his new office a visit and help him get edjumacated.

Wayno,

TEPaul, George Bahto and I studied and discussed that green in pretty good detail in October or November of 2003.

We agreed that from any of the 360 degrees that that green would make an excellent green for a par 3.

The voluminous angles of attack into any presented configuration are simply brilliant.

It's next to impossible for me to conceive of an even mediocre par 3 with that green and surrounds as the target.

If he's planning on duplicating that green for a golf course in MD, I'm sure that the hole will be superior, fun and challenging.

I just hope he leaves a commemorative plaque giving George and I some design credit  

[JC Jones]

"I understand his man crush on Flynn and his not so friendly attitude re CB/SR, I guess I must have missed the story where he pissed on their graves.
That is taking it to a whole new level, one that I find to be beyond funny."

JC Jones:

Actually the fact that Wayno Morrison pissed on Macdonald and Raynor's graves is not exactly funny. It's pretty danged interesting really.

You see Wayno is, or at least considers himself to be, a true naturulist in the look and aesthetics of golf course architecture. He thinks Flynn achieved that in spades. Unfortunately, he just doesn't think either Macdonald or particularly Raynor ever did. But Wayne also believes pissing is ultra natural and he believes in reincarnation too. I think he pissed on their graves just to help them and their architecture with a far more natural look the next time around.  

That is brilliant.  Is there a chance that Doak/Urbina are the "more natural" reincarnation of CB/SR?  Could we possibly give credit to Wayno for the architecture we are now blessed with?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Frankly, I don't think NGLA's 7th green would be a good par 3 green if it was approached from the direction of the 11th hole. On the other hand, I think it would be an awesome green for a long par 4 approached from that direction. That would be somewhat reminiscent of Pine Valley's 1at green.

And I certainly don't think NGLA's #7 green would be any good if approached from the direction of the 8th hole.

But as you know I've always thought it could be wonderfully strategic if approached from the direction of the 8th tee if it was a par 3.

You want to see a really cool iteration?

Next time you play NGLA when you're a 100 yards or so out off the 7th tee turn and look at the 6th green. That would be a great par 3 or short par 4 or medium length par 5 if approached from that direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frankly, I don't think NGLA's 7th green would be a good par 3 green if it was approached from the direction of the 11th hole. On the other hand, I think it would be an awesome green for a long par 4 approached from that direction. That would be somewhat reminiscent of Pine Valley's 1at green.

You'll have to explain that logic to me.[/color]

And I certainly don't think NGLA's #7 green would be any good if approached from the direction of the 8th hole.

Fortunately, George Bahto was a participant and can substantiate our conversation since your memory seems rather questionable.  I showed you how spectacular # 7 green would play from the 8th fairway.

Initially, you were doubtful, but, eventually acknowledged that the green would play well from that area. [/color]

But as you know I've always thought it could be wonderfully strategic if approached from the direction of the 8th tee if it was a par 3.

You want to see a really cool iteration?

Next time you play NGLA when you're a 100 yards or so out off the 7th tee turn and look at the 6th green. That would be a great par 3 or short par 4 or medium length par 5 if approached from that direction.


I think the 6th green plays well from any direction.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Whatever the case may be, they both should have studied Flynn  

[TEPaul]

"Is there a chance that Doak/Urbina are the "more natural" reincarnation of CB/SR?  Could we possibly give credit to Wayno for the architecture we are now blessed with?"

JC Jones:

The first question is one to ponder I guess. The better news is we are certainly able to ask both Doak and Urbina if they think their architecture and their styles are in some ways or in any way a more natural looking reincarnation of Macdonald and Raynor's basic style.

Frankly, I never thought about that.

I don't know what to say about Wayno's pissing being responsible for that reincarnation.

When he pissed on the graves of Macdonald and Raynor in that Southampton cemetary there were audible gasps from the rest of us that could probably be heard for a hundred yards.

I've seen him piss on a lot of golf courses and it's never any different than when other people piss on golf courses. But I've seen him piss on Macdonald and Raynor golf courses and you can tell it's with a far more dedicated purpose than to just relieve himself like on other courses of other architects. When he pisses on Macd/Raynor courses the grass immediately curls up and dies and the ground turns black and cracks into ugly looking fissures.

I'll see if I can take him out to say Doak's Stonewall and piss on that course to see if the same thing happens, perhaps in a more minimal way.

I think only then will we be able to tell if Doak and Urbina are a more natural reincarnation of Macd/Raynor without actually asking them first.

But without the benefit of this "Wayno Morrison comparative architecture piss-test", I can only tell you I've never noticed that Doak and Urbina are some reincarnation of the look and style of some other architect, alive or dead.

On reflection, that's probably a very good thing too.

On the other hand, the obvious first question is--have Doak and Urbina studied the architecture of other architects, particularly ones long gone?

The answer to that is you bet they have and in spades.

I've never actually thought about this before but it just may be that Tom Doak has studied the architecture of others and all around the world and more dedicatedly than any other golf course architect in the history of the business. And not just that---those who know him well say he also has almost total visual recall.

[TEPaul]

Hey Wayne:

I may have some time this week. Let me know if you want to go piss on some golf courses, particularly Doak's.

[Rich Goodale]

The more interesting question to me would be "Did Raynor (or any other of the MFAODG's) study Ross?"  He was the one with the greatest body of quality work, in both depth and breadth.

[wsmorrison]

Sure, Tom.  I'll drink plenty of strong tea  

Rich,

I'll grant you the breadth of Ross is without question.  As for depth, is that a coincidence of large numbers or does he have an All Star "batting average?"

When you studied Ross is an interesting consideration as his style changed over time.  I'm not sure if it did so independently or he was influenced by others.  He may have taken stock of things when he wasn't getting many Philadelphia commissions, and none of the top ones except for Aronimink, despite having and office in Wynnewood, PA.

[TEPaul]

"The more interesting question to me would be "Did Raynor (or any other of the MFAODG's) study Ross?"  He was the one with the greatest body of quality work, in both depth and breadth."

Richard:

I wonder if Ross's contemporaries (or some of the best of them) really felt that way about Ross and what you referred to as 'the greatest body of quality work' at that time.

Ross almost certainly had the greatest quantity at that time but do you really think most all his contemporaries thought it was also the greatest quality?

It may not have been much different back then with his contemporaries than it is today with Tom Fazio's contemporaries and his body of work. I think all Fazio's contemporaries today understand he has the greatest quantity of work (or perhaps Nicklaus does) but do you really think they consider it to be of the greatest quality of work today?

I certainly don't think they do and it may not have been any different in Donald Ross's time.

The general golfing public may've felt Ross had the greatest quality of work just as they may feel today that Fazio or Nicklaus might have the greatest quality of work simply because the general golfering public has an odd way of thinking quantity is some type of synonym for quality.

But I don't think Ross's contemporaries felt that way and I don't think Fazio or Nicklaus's contemporaries feel that way either.

 

[TEPaul]

"I think one aspect you guys are missing about Ross is that he operated a business - and a quite successful one at that.  It is my impression that Ross offered different levels of service to many of his clients.  In other words, you get what you pay for.  Because Ross operated this way and had a hand in creating however many courses it was, that should not be a mark against him.  In fact, it should be taken as a positive attribute because he helped build an awful lot of affordable courses and helped spread the game like no other archie."

Sean:

Some may be missing that point and fact but i don't think most of us on here are.

The ones who miss that fact and point are the same ones who for whatever reasons seem to assume that all golf architects seem to want to build the next best golf course in the country or the world every time out.

It doesn't take long if one goes out on projects and watches almost any architect (or really carefully studies the projects of the ODGs) that they don't do that and they don't even try to do that for a whole laundry list of good and logical reasons.

I think Donald Ross sure as hell was an advanced businessman in this profession for his time but even without that I think he understood that even in a philosophical way he was early enough where he had to promote the game itself in America and its popularity and that that very much should and could be reflected in much of what he designed and did. I think he understood that to do that successfully one just did not even try to build one hugely difficult or championship style golf course after another that may be considered the next great course.  

The danger here with some analysts is that they look at some of the cheaper or low budget courses that some of these architects do and they think for some reason he didn't have much talent.

To see how much talent any golf architect really has, in my opinion, one necessarily has to look at the best he did and precisely why it turned out that way.

Most of this just gets down to the simple fact of "time in". The longer one studies this stuff the more obvious that becomes.

If it were not that way or if that isn't true than how or why were the likes of those early "amateur" "one time" architects from the past such as Fownes, Wilson, Leeds, Crump, Macdonald and his NGLA et al able to create some of the very best golf courses in the entire world? And not just courses that were considered the best then but ones that still are.

[Rich Goodale]

Wayne

Are you are obsessed by "batting average" because of your in-laws?  As much as I loved Richie (great 1st name) I'd take Schmidt (i.e. Ross) for my team over the wee mon any day.

As far as I can see, Ross still has the most "Top" courses on whatever list, and it's not just all down to volume.  If that were the case, Bendelow would be the king, and I've played a few Ross courses that hardly show up on the radar but should be contenders.  Sure he built more than a few average courses, but he's not unique in that regard relative to his ODG contemporaries.

As for Philadelphia, we all know that it is a very strange place.  Perhaps if and when you and your factotum, TEP, finish the book we'll find out why only the guys at Aronomink were smart enough to hire Ross.  Could you imagine what DJR could have done with the land at Merion or Pine Valley?!  If he'd only been given the chance.......

TEP

You're the expert on Philly society.  Tell me why Ross didn't get more commissions down there, and while you're at it, why didn't Flynn get more work in his native Massachusetts?  Surely, it must be down to something other than capabilities or competencies?

Sean

Ross, Old Tom Morris and Braid are, and always will be, the Rodney Dangerfields of this website.  Why?  Beats me!

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

It's not unusual to read that one architect invited another to either look at or consult on a golf course being developed.

In that sense, I would imagine that most of those fellows were familiar with the others works.

To think that they didn't would mean that they didn't have any professional curiosity about the works of their peers or those who came before them.

Don't most modern architects examine the works of their peers and the works of those respected architects who came before them ?

I can't imagine them ignoring each others works, especially the high profile courses.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I would think so too, but since I have never heard of any of the other ODG's seeking out Ross (or even studying his courses), I wonder.....

I also wonder how Macdonald spent 4 months in Europe "studying" golf holes and only came back with at most 10 "templates," some of which (e.g. Eden, Biarritz) he never got right.  Was he practising "flask architectural study" but without the flask?

Rich

PS--When ND and Stanfoird meet, do you you think they should play touch football so nobody gets hurt and has to miss their Astrophysics 317 mid-terms?

RFG

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

We know very well what Ross would have done since he almost invariably routed high tee-low landing area-high green.  He would have 3 par 3 holes down the 4th fairway and 3 par 3 holes routed down the 18th at Merion.  He would certainly have designed the 3rd and 13th holes.  That makes at least 8 par 3 holes.  I guess he'd have 8 par 5s and 2 par 4s to make a par 72 golf course.  I don't know how he could've done that on such a small property, but I guess he would somehow find a way studying the topo map

Seriously though, Ross was systematic regarding his routings and usage of topography.  The analysis that Bob Crosby and Craig Disher are doing of Flynn and Ross at CC of York will demonstrate this very well.

Flynn did get two very big commissions in MA.  He got the redesign and added holes at TCC in Brookline.  Ross earlier submitted a plan for 36 holes but that was not accepted.  When the club finally decided to go ahead and revise and add, Ross was not chosen.  I've always been curious as to why that was.  The other big MA commission was Kittansett, chaired by Frederick Hood, also of TCC.

By batting average, I meant the number of quality courses to overall portfolio.  Perhaps we should consider slugging percentage instead.  Ross had almost as many at-bats in a single year as Flynn had in his career.  Surely this has an effect.
 
As much credit as you give to Ross having an assembly line process that spread golf and created numerous courses of varying degrees of design quality (The Henry Ford approach or Nicklaus/Fazio approach), what do you make of Flynn's time and devotion to individual projects (The Henry Royce approach or Coore/Crenshaw/Doak approach) that resulted in a better ratio of great courses (11 or 12 of 42 in classic top 100) than Ross?

[Rich Goodale]

Wayne

You disregard Ross's quality at your own peril.  I am not the only GCA maven who thinks that there is a relatively unknown Ross course in MA which is at least as good as Merion (and no, It does not finish with 3 par threes .......).

Why did Flynn design so few courses?  Was he prone to chronic injury (physical or sociological), a la Mickey Mantle?

As for your first sentence.....

"....(Ross) almost invariably routed high tee-low landing area-high green. "

...well that was written for the first time on this site by yours truly, before this site was even a gleam in your father's eye.  Somebody started a thread about what was a "typical" Ross hole, and since nobody answered for a few days (those were the good old days when posters spoke only when spoken to) I posited the above, and somebody (could even have been Old Tom Paul) said something to the effect of, "By Crikey, Youngun'!  You might just have something there!"

I absolutely love being lectured to with my own words, even though I was grossly generalizing at the time, in the absence oif any other substantive content on the topic.......

Peace and Love

Rich

PS--when talking about Ross Philly courses, how could you forget Gulph Mills?

[TEPaul]

...well that was written for the first time on this site by yours truly, before this site was even a gleam in your father's eye.  Somebody started a thread about what was a "typical" Ross hole, and since nobody answered for a few days (those were the good old days when posters spoke only when spoken to) I posited the above, and somebody (could even have been Old Tom Paul) said something to the effect of, "By Crikey, Youngun'!  You might just have something there!"


My God, is it amazing what some people take credit for as their own when it is nothing of the kind.

Richard Farnsworth Lightfingers Goodale you most certainly did not come up with that common characteristic of Ross courses and their routings, but nice try anyway. And I most certainly did not get that from you. I've been aware of that and mentioned it and wrote about it long before this website existed and long before knowing you. You probably think you coigned the term "Ross top shot" bunkers too.