Ross's List

[Adam_Messix]

Mike C--

Were the 17th and 18th holes part of Ross' redesign of Torresdale-Frankford or were they changed as part of the adjacent road construction project?  This may have been brought up before, but I'm not sure.  Those two holes do seem a bit out of place compared to the rest of the course.

[T_MacWood]

sean
I understand Bill Q is a fine researcher and perhaps he has uncovered something definitive. But depsite the fact Ross has been credited for Siwanoy by many sourses, there seems to be more questions than answers.

What stands out to me are three things: Why didn't Ross take credit for the course if he designed it--it was a significant course? Why wasn't he given credit in the magazines at the time? And why doesn't the Tuffs archives have anything on Siwanoy--they don't even have a file because they have nothing?

I wonder if he might have been involved in the courses construction or if he gave some advice at some point.

[Paul Richards]

Tom;

You said:

>>Depression or no Depression, IMO there is no way Ross was involved in a disinformation campaign to overstate his resume. Are you kidding? The guy had an unreal list of designs. Are you saying listing Beverly would make an impact on his credibility. With all due respect to Beverly, that makes no sense. Ross was one of the few architects who didn't need to pump up his reputation, he had more solid designs than anyone of that era...by far. I think it is worth noting the bigtime courses he was involved with that he didn't list and/or the courses he listed as remodel jobs--that would seem to disprove this theory.

That's the first I've heard that Ross was desperate for work during the Depression. I've always been under the impression Ross was a superior business man, and didn't face the financial woes of some of his contemporaries. I thought he pretty much disbanded his design machine shortly after the Depression. Was he desperate for work at this time?

I think your questions might be misplaced with Ross and should be placed on Cornish.



You make some valid points.  I'm just passing along information that I received from Mr. Cornish.  

As far as adding Beverly to his book of original work to help him gain business was probably a real issue.  Keep in mind that the second-biggest tournament of that era in the US was the National Amateur and Beverly did host it in 1931, so it was known far and wide as one of the best courses in the country at that time.  So, yes, it probably did help his case at the time.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Being the age that you and I are, we probably have a hard time comprehending how bad things were in the Great Depression.  So perhaps Mr. Cornish was correct in his assessment after all....

[T_MacWood]

Paul
I'm not questioning how difficult the Depression was....I'm questioning your assertion that Ross had to inflate his resume bcause he was desperate for work. His resume wasn't fabulous without Beverly? And it isn't as if he wasn't going to list the course at all...afterall he was largely responsbile for the design or the redesign (isn't that your view?) .

Tell me how placing a " (remodeled) " after Beverly or not placing a " (remodeled) " after Beverly would have an impact on Ross's overall resume.

If he was on a disinformation campaign, as you claim, why would he list Inverness as a remodel? Why would he list Skokie as a remodel?

Do you know the extent of his work at Beverly...what features did he incorporate from the old course?

[david h. carroll]

What about CC of Salisbury NC?  I thought it was a 1928 Ross.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

You're asking me questions that only Ross can answer.  I don't know WHY he did what he did.  I just know that he either 1) purposely misinformed the readers of his pamphlet by putting Beverly as his original or 2) maybe an underling wrote the thing and he failed to proofread it or 3) something else.

I would love to ask Mr. Ross why he did this, but, unfortunately, I cannot.

I do know much of the extent of his work at Beverly.  We have many of the minutes when the course was renovated according to the "Ross plan."  The corridors of some of the original holes were left in place, but much of the course was changed.  

When you get to Chicago, I'd love to show you first-hand the original plans, Ross' work and, of course, Prichard's excellent restoration!

[T_MacWood]

Do you have Ross's plan?

Do you have a map or aerial of the old course that proceeded Ross?

[TEPaul]

One of the interesting things, tragic things, I suppose I should say about Ross's list of courses and the details of some of his work, particularly some of Ross's business records, design records, plans, drawings etc, is they did not all survive.

When we started to do the restoration planning on my course (Ross) about five years ago I called Kris Januzik in Pinehurst and asked her if she had anything on my course. She looked but had nothing. Of course we have a few things from what the club had but I asked her what happened to his records down there and she said when he died in 1948 they took most everything in his house or office there, put it in an oil drum and burned it. I asked her why they would ever do such a thing and she said they must have thought that no one would ever be interested in it!!

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Sadly, we do not have Ross' original plan.

However, we do have a plan drawn up by Chick Evans' golf architectural firm of the course as it existed in 1932.  Chick's firm was hired to draw up a plan that took into account the widening of 87th Street by Cook County.  87th bisects Beverly and was, originally, basically the entrance to the club.  Chick made some suggestions that weren't feasible with the day's equipment, and the first tee ended up getting moved forward and the ninth green was replaced, since it was originally in what is now 87th Street.

The course that Chick drew up was Ross' course, which 2 years previously had hosted that National Amateur.

Chick, btw, won the 1910 Western Open at Beverly under match-play.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Additionally, we do have a drawing of the original routing of the course from one of the golf magazines of the day in 1908.  

I can go hole-by-hole, but, as I mentioned earlier, I'd rather show this to you in person when you get to Chicago.

Interestingly, the original second hole was a very short three par which played from today's first green along the ridge to a punch-bowl or circus-ring green.  This green sits just behind today's 2nd hole ladies' tee.  You can still see the mounds that had surrounded this green even today!

[T_MacWood]

 I don't know WHY he did what he did.  I just know that he either 1) purposely misinformed the readers of his pamphlet by putting Beverly as his original Unlikely based on the fact Ross's list of designs was so strong--with or without Beverly. Logcially looking at this, no one would care if Ross designed the course a new or completely remodelled a previous course--the result is a Ross course. The suggestion that he deliberately mislead the public is without basis, irresponsible and frankly insulting to Ross.or 2) maybe an underling wrote the thing and he failed to proofread it Any careful analysis of the list shows this is not the case. The list is very consistant. or 3) something else.Yes. The Beverly Ross left was basically a new course, its immeterial that he constructed it upon the site of an old course.

I've always come to believe from everything you have written, from the 'My Home Course' essay to your exerpts of the long range plan that you believe Beverly is a Ross golf course. I find it ironic that you question Ross's credibility and motives because he portrayed the course as his own.
 
"The date that he designed Beverly may be in question, but there is little doubt that the course we enjoy today has the earmarks of a Ross classic."

"The Beverly Country Club membership is blessed with a wonderful, well-maintained Donald Ross golf course! "

"However, we do know that Donald Ross came to Beverly some time in the mid-teens and redesigned the golf course.  Over the subsequent years the course was renovated and rebuilt as a Ross course.  The course we play today is Ross' routing ."

Now you've really got me confused. Please explain how Ross was involved in a misimformation campaign.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

It seems we are splitting hairs here!

I don't believe Donald Ross was in the business of misinformation.  

I do wonder WHY he wrote that Beverly was his original design when it surely wasn't.  Although, there is the slim, outside chance that he did come to Chicago in 1907 and design it.  Of course, we have no evidence to point to that EXCEPT for his pamphlet!  

And, as I've stated before, it was not MY contention that Ross was misinforming people, but it was my IMPRESSION that that was what Mr. Cornish had concluded AFTER he came to find out that others (probably) designed Beverly in 1907 and Ross wasn't there until much later for the REdesign.  Mr. Cornish stated that Ross was very meticulous and wasn't known to make mistakes, so something strange occurred with the fact that Beverly was described as his original.

Conclusions:

1 - Beverly REALLY WAS designed by Ross in 1907.  - not likely, because of his location on the East coast. - which means the pamphlet was wrong.

2 - the pamphlet is correct

3 - whoever wrote it made a mistake

4 - misinformation

5 - something else?


Tom, perhaps you can help explain it.  I really am looking for this answer.  It would be big news if we can prove that Ross really DID design Beverly at the get-go.  Maybe you can help prove it?

[T_MacWood]

Paul
Maybe we are splitting hairs, but when it comes to portraying a historical figure in a negative light (when the facts don’t warrant it), IMO its worth splitting hairs.

You wrote: “The bottom line is that this is an example of the misinformation (disinformation?) put out by Donald Ross and Company during the depression when I am sure he was looking to try to develop more work for he and his company.”

Ross did not claim he was at Beverly in 1907, that idea is ludicrous. Ross was at Beverly in 1918 through the early 20’s to totally overhaul the golf course. The result was brand new wonderful Ross design.

If Ross was misinforming people. Then you and Ron Prichard are also misinforming people. Perhaps you should go back and re-write the introduction to the long range plan. Don’t take it out on Ross that Cornish mistakenly dated Ross’s activities to 1907—Ross never said he was there in 1907.

Most everyone familiar with attributions understands and accepts that a total redsign of an existing course very often results a new design by that architect. Brad Klein lists Beverly as a new Ross design. He also lists Metacomet as a newe Ross design (a complete overhaul of a Willie Park remodel of an older course). Do you have a problem with Shinnecock Hills being credited to Flynn as a new design? Baltusrol and SFGC to Tillie? Crystal Downs to MacKenzie/Maxwell? Chicago to Raynor? Banff to Thompson? Eugene to RTJ?

Conclusions:

1 - Beverly REALLY WAS designed by Ross in 1907. - not likely, because of his location on the East coast. - which means the pamphlet was wrong. Ross wasn’t in Chicago in 1907 and the Beverly course of 1907 wasn’t in Chicago in the early 30’s when the pamphlet was written.

2 - the pamphlet is correct The pamphlet was put together in a very consistent and logical manner.

3 - whoever wrote it made a mistake The attribution of Beverly as a Ross design is accurate.

4 – misinformation It can’t be misinformation if its accurate.

5 - something else? Yes. Ross was practicing the common and accepted practice of taking credit for the wholesale changes to an older course. It was common then and its is common now.

IMO its not that complicated and difficult to understand.

[Paul Richards]

Paul
Maybe we are splitting hairs, but when it comes to portraying a historical figure in a negative light (when the facts don’t warrant it), IMO its worth splitting hairs.


Tom, yes, we are splitting hairs here.  In the famous words of a politician, "What is the definition of 'is'"?  I am NOT attempting to portray Ross in a negative light - to the contrary.  I pointed out a 'disconnect' between what Ross wrote and what is historical fact.  Your explanation below probably is the best explanation we can come up with.  

[Paul Richards]

5 - something else? Yes. Ross was practicing the common and accepted practice of taking credit for the wholesale changes to an older course. It was common then and its is common now.

If, indeed, Ross was taking credit for redoing an already-existing golf course (keep in mind however dreadful this course may have been, it did host what was considered a 'major' tournament in its day, the 1910 Western Open, won by Chick Evans - in fact, I've read that this was the first 'major' tournament captured by an American - this before Ouimet's Open victory even), and then calling it his 'original' design, then that must be what happened.  I'd love to ask Mr. Ross that question.  

[Paul Richards]

tom;

the above are actually your quotes and my replies.  for some reason, i cannot figure out how this quote thing works!

help!

[TEPaul]

".  for some reason, i cannot figure out how this quote thing works!

help!"

Paul;

You and me both. If you figure it out please let me know. And while you're at it if you can figure out how Golfclubatlas itself works, let me know that too!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's simple.

If you want to quote someone in a response, hit the quote bar within their post.

Then, with your backspace or erase bar eliminate that part that you don't want to reference.

You will also note that at the end of the quote, the brackets, enclose a backslash / followed by the word quote.  
Move your cursor to a position after that, and type whatever you want.

It will save you a lot of typing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Adam Messix;

The 17th and 18th holes at Torresdale-Frankford were revised by William and David Gordon in 1963 due to widening of the road that runs parallel to them.  Evidently 17 used to be a par four and 18 was longer, to the existing greensite.  

However, only one other hole has really changed much over the years, a par five on the back nine (14?) where the green was moved further up the hill over time.  

The course is not a "redesign" by Ross, but a brand new 18 hole course by Ross that opened in 1922.  

[Allan Long]

AG,

Did you ever make it to Asheboro and see the documentation in person? As I stated in your thread, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the Dunn book, this being one of them. As you will notice they make reference to photos of "the Ross plans" but instead have a picture of the course and some guys sitting around the clubhouse. The Dunn book is the only source I have seen Asheboro listed as a Ross course. It is not listed in
C&W's book, Brad Klein's book, Pete Jones' book, DJR's Golf Has
Never Failed Me, or by the Ross Society. All those are pretty respectable sources. If it is a true Ross course then it should be part of his legacy. But I will withhold judgment until I see proof.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That's too danged complicated--I'm not that smart. I just copy and paste with the thing enclosed in my quote marks.

But I guess I'll figure it out one of these years. I'll make a deal with you, though---you teach me stuff like this and I'll teach you golf architecture!  

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I can't see how #17 at Torresdale could've been a par 4 and #18 could've been longer to the same green site. To have had something like that in that limited space what else had to be changed? Where could the 17th tee and green have been? And where could the 18th tee have been if that hole was longer? Is the 17th green a Gordon green? Now that that's mentioned as a possiblity it really doesn't look much like something Ross would've done. To be honest #16 green doesn't feel all that much like a Ross green either.

[A_Clay_Man]

I do know much of the extent of his work at Beverly.  We have many of the minutes when the course was renovated according to the "Ross plan."  The corridors of some of the original holes were left in place, but much of the course was changed.  

Paul- Isn't it reasonable that if Ross did do "much of the course" that he would call it his own?

You have the original routing, does that course look amateurish? Is it possible that the original was of such poor conception that Ross' would've had a good chuckle the first time he laid eyes on her?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

17 is a Gordon green.

I've been in the process of moving so it might be tough to dig up, but Dr. James Martin wrote a booklet (similar but not nearly as detailed as your own on GM) a few years back on TF that explains the changes.  17 was evidently a very challenging par four, and 18 might not have been much longer, but the tee is evidently part of the work the Gordon's did.