Is Ross in the Penal School?

[Anthony Fowler]

I’ve been fortunate to spend a lot of time on Ross courses recently.  A well preserved Ross course is instantly recognizable as such, and I started thinking about why.  How would I describe Ross’ style to a non-GCAer?   Here’s what I came up with.

1. Greens built on high places, sloping back-to-front, with a lot of internal contour (unlike No. 2).  Despite a lot of false fronts, short is usually the best place to miss as long, left, and right can be costly.

2. Most of the challenge is on and around the greens, while Ross usually provides a decent margin for error tee-to-green.

3.  Both sides of the hole are lined with moderate hazards, particularly in the areas that are 200-220 yards off the tee (right where players would have been driving it in Ross’ day).  It is surprising how many holes have 2 bunkers that pinch the fairway in at this distance (just like RTJ would have built them in the 1920’s), but you may not have noticed it because you hit your drive 50 yards past them.

I was surprised at how much this sounds like “penal school” architecture.  The most strategy lies in which club to hit, as the lines are dictated by penal nature of the hole.  The only bailout around the greens is to leave it short, and the only safe play off the tee is to hit less club.  I love Ross courses, and I think they are a blast to play because the greens are so exciting, but I can’t help but think that Ross belongs in the penal school.

What do you think?  Was Ross the RTJ of the early 20th century?         

[Mike Sweeney]

What do you think?  Was Ross the RTJ of the early 20th century?         

How could Ross be the RTJ of .....

Anyway, not seeing it (Penal School) for either Ross or RTJ. Sure Spyglass is hard, but penal?

Please name a course where short is not the best leave. I am sure there are a few Pete Dye or Stone Harbor in its heyday, but Ross courses seem to have less option, but not penal. RTJ was tough but if "hard par easy bogey" is your philosophy, is that really penal?

What is penal at The Orchards?

[Bill Brightly]

I am far from a Ross expert, but I dont think he  "pinched" fairways with bunkers. Rather, he would stagger the distances, such as left bunker 200 from the tee, right 240, then left 280.

[Chris Buie]

Ross definitely did not see himself in the penal school.  Here is a quote from him: "golf should be a pleasure, not a penance".  An interesting quote to put up during U.S. Open week!  He wanted to challenge the player but not beat him up.  He also wanted to give the player a chance to redeem himself with a particularly good recovery stroke.  I agree with that perspective and have a certain amount of disdain for gratuitously difficult courses.
Some of the Ross courses are more difficult than others because they were designed more for the highly skilled player and the sharp player would obviously require a more intense challenge.
Mike: Ross courses not having many options?

[Anthony Fowler]

Hi Mike: By penal I certainly do not mean difficult.  Less options, hard par, easy bogey is exactly what I'm talking about.  

The best example of a penal course that I have played is Eugene Country Club (a good course by the way).  Every hole is lined with minor hazards (rough or shallow bunkers), particularly in the driving zone.  You don't have a lot of options, particularly with line.  You just have to execute the shot in front of you.  It's not necessarily difficult and you won't make many double bogeys, but it's penal.  

Contrast that to a strategic course like Rustic Canyon.  You can make a lot of birdies but also a lot of doubles.  There are numerous ways to play each hole.  You can take risks to try to make birdie, but if you fail, you will pay.  However, if you want to, you can typically bail out to a safe side of the fairway or green.  This also serves as my example of a course where short is not always the best leave.

To find penal (in the sense in which I've defined it) at The Orchards, I don't have to look past the first hole.  There is not much of option off the first tee but to hit a straight 220 shot.  Then you'll have a 170 shot to a small green which falls off on the left, right, and back.  It's a good hole, but there's not much strategy.  Execute two good shots to the middle of the fairway and the middle of the green.  




Bill: You are right that the pinched fairways are not as common on Ross courses as they are on RTJ courses.  However, here are a few example off the top of my head.  

The Orchards
2nd shot on 13
Tee shot on 14

Shennecossett
Tee shot on 13

You wouldn't notice these because they're only in play for someone who drives it under 220, but in Ross' day these would have been equivalent to RTJ's bunkers in the 250-280 range.

There are many more examples of Ross holes will moderate penalties of some kind on both sides of the fairway in the driving zone.  In some cases, this might be unavoidable (like lateral hazards on both sides of 13 at Essex), but this theme seems more common on Ross courses than for some of his contemporaries like MacKenzie, Flynn, Thomas, etc.  






  

[Mac Plumart]

I personally don't see how any designer/architect can be pigeon-holed into one classification of golf course architecture.  Especially classifications so narrowly focused/defined as penal, strategic, heroic.  Almost every course (maybe even every hole) has elements of all three.  But aren't there better definitions to describe an architects style/philosophy?  Ross to me is most accurately desribed as subtely brilliant.  But that is just how I think about what I've seen on Ross courses.

[Anthony Fowler]

Chris, I should have defined "penal" in my first post.  Please see my response to Mike.  I don't think Ross courses are particularly difficult.  Look at #2 in my original post.  He may have believed that golf should be a pleasure, and his courses are a pleasure.  However, I don't see a lot of strategic options on his courses.  Can you discuss more of the options on Ross courses that Mike and I are missing?

Perhaps some of this has to do with the way in which his courses are maintained.  Pinehurst No. 2 looks like it was strategic in the old photos, but now with the ribbon fairways and the repetitive, domed greens, much of that is gone.


Mac, I agree completely that we shouldn't pigeon-hole architects, courses, or even holes.  However, how would you describe Ross' style and recurring themes to a non-GCAer?  "Subtely brilliant" doesn't tell me how I would recognize a Ross course if I saw one.

[Mike Sweeney]

To find penal (in the sense in which I've defined it) at The Orchards, I don't have to look past the first hole.  There is not much of option off the first tee but to hit a straight 220 shot.  Then you'll have a 170 shot to a small green which falls off on the left, right, and back.  It's a good hole, but there's not much strategy.  Execute two good shots to the middle of the fairway and the middle of the green.  

Ross has been credited with what 400 courses? Times 18 holes (some 9's in there) let's call it 7000 holes? And you picked the worst hole Ross ever built to make your point !!! LOL

Easy bogey may be penal for a good player like you, but for me.....

Penal to me is well Yale, at least in spots. The following is not meant to mock Wesley who you probably know I contacted through his coach after the NCAA's:


Sports
Final-round drama for NCAA golf at Yale

Published: Sunday, May 23, 2010

No comments posted. | Email to a friend | Print version | ShareThis | RSS Feeds

By Bill Cloutier. Assistant Sports Editor
bcloutier@newhavenregister.com

NEW HAVEN — You don’t have to play golf to know how South Carolina’s Wesley Bryan feels. You just have to have a heart.



Imagine the swing of Bryan’s emotions in a span of 10 minutes.

Bryan stepped up to the ninth tee (his last of the day after teeing off on No. 10) with a 2-shot lead at the NCAA East Regional Championship at The Course at Yale. His fabulous play on the first 53 holes had not only vaulted himself into the individual lead but moved his entire team to the verge of a berth in the NCAA championships at Chattanooga, Tenn., on June 1.

And, to quote a line from "Caddyshack," Bryan could possibly have broken the course record as he prepared to play his final hole.

And then it all came crashing down.

Bryan made a nine on the par-3 ninth hole at The Course of Yale, destroying his personal round. To make matters worse, his meltdown cost his entire team a berth into the finals.

"You can’t help but feel for him," Kent State coach Herb Page said. "That’s the cruel game that we play."

Wesley’s collapse was good news for the University of Virginia team which was packing up their van and heading home when they found out. In the regionals, the Top 5 teams advance to the championships. Virginia leap-frogged South Carolina to earn a berth in the nationals.

Wesley’s ninth hole also cleared the way for East Tennessee State’s Rhys Enoch to advance as the top individual not on one of the qualifying teams also advance.



That's penal. There are not too many options on Yale 9. Sure you CAN run it onto the back green but who does it in competition these days? Okay okay the pressure was extreme, but I just don't see 9's at RTJ and Ross style courses for the most part.

[Mac Plumart]

Anthony...

Again, this is how I think of Ross courses...so take it at face value.  Others might see it differently.  But everytime I describe playing a Donald Ross course to a non-GCA type,  I do indeed use the term "subtle brilliance".  But then I try to elaborate.  Here is what I usually say...

Off the tee, Ross generally doesn't show you too much if you aren't paying attention.  There won't be too many trees crowding the fairways and the course won't be over bunkered.  There may be a trap here or there, but in general you will feel free and wide open standing on a typical Donald Ross tee box.  You will swing away and most likely be in what looks like (at first blush) a decent spot.  But, of course, one of those few traps might just have gobbled up a wayward tee shot...but assuming you have avoided that you should think you are in good shape.

But, if you didn't notice his subtle brilliance you might have an awful angle to approach the green/pin to.  A bunker, water, a mound, something probably will be blocking you or hindering you from getting the ball on the green in optimal position.  Again, a novice to Ross (or golf) still might not be able to appreciate this.

On your approach shot if you were out of position off the tee, even a good shot won't hold the green (or if it does hold the green you will have to hole a miracle putt for your birdie).  If you hit a bad shot, you are in trouble.  Bunker, short-sided...something.  But in general the penalty isn't overly penal.  You should have a recovery shot, but it will be a difficult one.  

Once on the green, of course you've got the typical Ross contours to contend with.  But again, many non-GCA'ers or Ross novices still might not get the fact that trying to putt from non-ideal spots on the green can result in plain and simply not being able to get the ball close to the hole.

So in short, if his subtle brillance is over-looked you might think he is a boring architect.  Easy tee shot, open approach, hilly greens...pretty straight forward...but then again why did I hit good shots but make bogey/double bogey...bad luck I guess.

But if you get his subtle brillance, you develop your strategy off the tee and try like hell to execute that strategy and hit good and wise shots.  

So, that is what I try to say to people as I define Ross' work.  It looks like a lot of words, but I can spit it out in a matter of seconds.

But again, this is how I think of it...others might think differently.  Brad Klein is certainly an expert.  Tom Doak probably has some great ideas.  And many, many others are more qualified than me.  But that is my take.  

[Chris Buie]

Well, as most know the majority of Ross courses have been changed quite a bit from how he designed them.  #2 is possibly the most obvious example of how they largely eliminated the options.  Instead of being able to come at the greens from preferable and advantageous angles you had to hit it in the little green stripe they called the fairway.  That is not how it was designed.  Luckily, that is being fixed by skilled hands.
Ross most definitely offered options in his original designs.  I've done a couple of threads on that particular subject.
His general theme is you can gain the preferable position or angle if you take a bit of risk.  Or you can play the safer shot leaving you with less advantage but a solid chance for the next shot.  I said a bit of risk rather than a stark risk.  He did not really believe in a do or die shot.  As I've said before, if you bungled a shot you were given a proportinate reprimand but given a chance for recovery.  Many architects use water for a do or die shot.  You can decide for yourself which is better design.
Here are the links regarding options I was referring to:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43112.msg930417/topicseen/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ojevbek6csir43kn3ubptcn7s7&topic=44652.0
(I love the look of the original hole in this thread)

[Mike Cirba]

No.

[Anthony Fowler]

Mike, again I will reiterate that penal does not mean big numbers on holes.  Look at my description of Eugene Country Club, a classic "penal" course.  You could play the par 4's 100 times and not make a double.  9 at Yale just happens to be a (mostly) penal hole that is also hard as hell. 

Chris, 12 at Mid-Pines is a great example of strategy on a Ross hole.  Thanks for posting that.  I would imagine that there would have been even more strategy if we were playing it with hickory shafted clubs.  I have to say that I saw little strategy when I played Mid-Pines, but I think it was because of the length.  You don't have to think about angles too often when the approaches are so short.  It would have been a different story in the old days. 

4 and 11 at the Orchards also reward tee shots hit to the appropriate side, but the fairways are small enough that I'm just trying to hit the short stuff.  Perhaps different mowing lines would reveal some of the strategy that Ross was thinking about.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Okay, it's not enough to provide one or two counter-examples.  Surely, we could find examples like this for any architect (from RTJ to Ted Robinson).  If we compare Ross to other golden age architects (Flynn, MacKenzie, Thomas, etc.), how does he stack up in terms of strategy and options.  It still seems to me that there are fewer strategic options tee-to-green on Ross courses and similar strategic options on and around the greens.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Another question:  To what extent are we fooled by the beauty and charm of Ross courses?  They really are visually appealing (and fun to play as I've already mentioned).  However, is there a possibility that we've overlooked his penal style and lack of options because the courses are just so beautiful and charming?

[Sean_A]

Ross is most certainly not of the penal style.  He is probably the first archie working heavily in the States that decidely moved design away from the penal style.  Penal architecture is a holes lined with trouble (I wouldn't count as trouble rough back in Ross's day because I think his fairways may have been systematically dramatically narrowed more than anybody else's) down each side of the fairway and/or many forced carry shots.  The only course of Ross I have seen like this is Oakland Hills and RTJ had a lot to do with the modern bunkering and the club has everything to do with the modern rough (even more penal than the bunkering).  Certainly Ross wasn't afraid to have a few holes on each course which were penal. 

To me, once Ross really got his stride going his courses can be generally described as

many knob to knob tee shots (player must decide if he will go on top or try to drive to the next valley for distance and flat lie)
many knob to knob second shots
undulating greens (sometimes sectioned) on high ground which slope back to front (keep the ball between and the hole type golf)
visibility 
relatively lightly bunkered compared to his peers

Although I have seen some holes attack ridges at angles, greens on lower ground (often Ross didn't get too crazy building up greens on flatter sites) and blind holes. 

Playing a true Ross course is like going home.  8 times out of 10 our expectations are met, but the odd surprise is usually very welcome.  Bottom line, when I think of parkland golf in the USA, the first name to come to mind is Ross.  I will always defend Ross because the guy was super efficient with his designs and rarely went for the flash when the simple would do.  We could do more Ross like thinking these days.   

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

I don't believe there was a penal school, and certainly no one claimed to be part of it. It was derogatory term. The penal school was an invention of proponents of a certain style of strategic golf architecture to pigeon hole or discredit others, who were usually proponents of a more penal leaning strategic style. Ross was definitely in the camp of the penal leaning strategic side, as were most American golf architects at the time.

[Mike Sweeney]

4 and 11 at the Orchards also reward tee shots hit to the appropriate side, but the fairways are small enough that I'm just trying to hit the short stuff.  Perhaps different mowing lines would reveal some of the strategy that Ross was thinking about.

I think that fairway on #1 should be much wider on the left too.

[David_Madison]

There is hardly anything penal about Ross designs. You can't blame Ross for shoddy or silly maintenance practices where over time his courses have been fundamentally altered. Assuming a Ross course today reasonably resembles what he designed, you get wide fairways with options off the tees, and greens where if you miss even wildly you can usually recover to relatively easy 2-putt range. That's not penal. Where are the double and triple bogeys at #2, or Pine Needles if you hit remotely reasonable shots? Or take a look at some of the better and more recent renovations/restorations of his work, those done by Kris Spence (Sedgefield, Myers Park, etc.) and others whose work is respected on this site. Take a look at the videos of Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw discussing their restoration work at #2. They're all about restoring the strategic values and the options that Ross incorporated into the course. Why would Jack Nicklaus consider the course to be among the very best ever in terms of shotmaking and strategic value? I think of Ross courses as "death by paper cut", where it can seem that you are putting for pars from 5'-10' all day, but wonderful opportunities to post a very good score if you are thinking clearly and executing reasonably well. These are all aspects that are 100% opposite of what I think of as penal.

[Dan Boerger]

Because he was so prolific and because much of his work has been altered and maintenance practices can vary wildly, I've experienced a wide range of "Ross" over the years. That stated, for the most part when I'm on most Ross courses I feel a very distinct continuity. Seminole is a prime example. It's rarely dramatic stuff, but generally more subtle and certainly enjoyable.

[Mike Cirba]

The Penal School was best exemplified by Fownes' dictate about any and every misplayed shot irrevocably lost.

Ross was nowhere near that end of the architectural strategic continuum from a philosophic standpoint.

[Sean_A]

I don't believe there was a penal school, and certainly no one claimed to be part of it. It was derogatory term. The penal school was an invention of proponents of a certain style of strategic golf architecture to pigeon hole or discredit others, who were usually proponents of a more penal leaning strategic style. Ross was definitely in the camp of the penal leaning strategic side, as were most American golf architects at the time.

Tommy Mac

I can get on board with there not really being a penal school of architecture other than the odd guy here and there with Fownes being the most obvious example.  However, I have to question if you really know what penal architecture is.  On the continuum, Ross is much more centre to centre-left than right with not many people at all to the left (Simpson being about as left as it gets) just as there are very few to the right.You say the same thing about Colt and I believe you are off-base there as well.  

Ciao  

[Gary Slatter]

I’ve been fortunate to spend a lot of time on Ross courses recently.  A well preserved Ross course is instantly recognizable as such, and I started thinking about why.  How would I describe Ross’ style to a non-GCAer?   Here’s what I came up with.

1. Greens built on high places, sloping back-to-front, with a lot of internal contour (unlike No. 2).  Despite a lot of false fronts, short is usually the best place to miss as long, left, and right can be costly.

2. Most of the challenge is on and around the greens, while Ross usually provides a decent margin for error tee-to-green.

3.  Both sides of the hole are lined with moderate hazards, particularly in the areas that are 200-220 yards off the tee (right where players would have been driving it in Ross’ day).  It is surprising how many holes have 2 bunkers that pinch the fairway in at this distance (just like RTJ would have built them in the 1920’s), but you may not have noticed it because you hit your drive 50 yards past them.

I was surprised at how much this sounds like “penal school” architecture.  The most strategy lies in which club to hit, as the lines are dictated by penal nature of the hole.  The only bailout around the greens is to leave it short, and the only safe play off the tee is to hit less club.  I love Ross courses, and I think they are a blast to play because the greens are so exciting, but I can’t help but think that Ross belongs in the penal school.

What do you think?  Was Ross the RTJ of the early 20th century?         

I'm certainly not a Ross expert but would the change in mowing equipment not have made his green designs more penal than designed/intended?
To answer your second question, was R the RTJ of the early 20th century - NO, but maybe an influence to every designer since then.

[Anthony Fowler]

I can see that the language is causing some problems.  When I say "Penal School", I do not mean that the courses are hard or that it is easy to make double/triple bogeys.  In fact, it is often the opposite.  When I say penal, I am referring to a lack of strategic options options and moderate penalties for every missed shot.  Contrast that with the "strategic school" in which there is often a bailout, safer routes, etc.  However, on a "strategic course" you can easily make a big number if you take a risky strategy and fail.

Given that there is confusion: let me rephrase the question.  Is there a lack of strategic options, tee-to-green, on Ross courses?


Sean, I think knob-to-knob routing is a good way to describe many Ross holes.  Can you more fully explain the strategic options involved in such a hole? 

David, "death by paper cut" is exactly what I was referring to with the "penal school."  On many Ross courses if you miss your target slightly, you will have a hard time making par and be left with a lot of 5-10 foot par putts.  However, if you are executing your shots well, you can really go low because there are few severe hazards or severe penalties around.  It sounds like we agree on everything but the terms.  Can you explain how strategy plays a role on these types of holes.


Tom and Sean, I agree with you that we should not draw hard lines around architects, courses, or even holes; and we certainly shouldn't pigeon-hole anyone.  However, there is a continuum along which we could place architects based on the extent to which they provide strategic options.  Where would you place Ross on such a scale?  I am inclined to put him closer to RTJ than to MacKenzie or Thomas.

[Tom MacWood]

Oakmont is a great strategic golf course that happens to be heavily bunkered, not unlike PVGC, Hollywood, Aronomink, CPC, Seminole, Shinnecock Hills, Bethpage-Black, Nassau, SFGC, among others.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't believe there was a penal school, and certainly no one claimed to be part of it. It was derogatory term. The penal school was an invention of proponents of a certain style of strategic golf architecture to pigeon hole or discredit others, who were usually proponents of a more penal leaning strategic style. Ross was definitely in the camp of the penal leaning strategic side, as were most American golf architects at the time.

Tommy Mac

I can get on board with there not really being a penal school of architecture other than the odd guy here and there with Fownes being the most obvious example.  However, I have to question if you really know what penal architecture is.  On the continuum, Ross is much more centre to centre-left than right with not many people at all to the left (Simpson being about as left as it gets) just as there are very few to the right.You say the same thing about Colt and I believe you are off-base there as well.  

Ciao  

What do I say about Colt?

[Sean_A]

Oakmont is a great strategic golf course that happens to be heavily bunkered, not unlike PVGC, Hollywood, Aronomink, CPC, Seminole, Shinnecock Hills, Bethpage-Black, Nassau, SFGC, among others.

Tommy Mac

Oakmont just happens t be heavily bunkered?   If you don't consider Oakmont a penal course (a totally different question of its greatness) than what exactly is penal design? There must be at least 14 holes at Oakmont with bunkering on both sides of the fairway or the green, often times around both "targets".  Your lack of understanding the concept "penal" explains some of your views.  

I can understand debating which height of rough or width of fairways constitutes penal (both of which Oakmont is famous for being penal), but to argue that a course with with considerable more penal holes than Oakland Hills (often the benchmark for penal) as just a coincidence and therefore not penal is not understandable.  Take a look at the bunkering schemes of Oakmont, Oakland Hills, Lytham, Muirfield and TOC.  All are championship courses with a heavy does of sand.  You tell me where in the continnum they fall.

You have said more than once that Colt had tendencies toward penal design (and no, I won't look up the instances).  However, your lack of understanding the concept "penal" explains some of your views.  


Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

My understanding of penal is just fine. There are no purely penal or strategic golf courses, just blends of both usually leaning one direction or the other. You cannot have a strategic golf course without some penal elements, in fact one could argue the best strategic golf courses have a wealth of interesting penal elements. TOC for example with its many bunkers and prominent use of OB. Oakmont is a great strategic golf course, and like all strategic golf courses their is a heavy emphasis on choosing your course wisely. You must use your mind as well as your skill.

Colt was a strategic architect whose designs had their fair share of penal elements, with well bunkered elevated greens being his trademark. Ross was heavily influenced by Colt.

Have you read any contemporaneous critiques of Colt? Colt's redesigns of Lytham, Hoylake and Muirfield would be a good place to start.