[David Harshbarger]

I've been looking at Ross plans from the Tufts archive and comparing the sketches of the greens to what is visible on aerials, in this case for the Sagamore in Bolton Landing NY.  

The greens on the plans have all manner of convex and concave borders.  Bunkers are drawn flush to the green boundaries.  Explicit instructions are given for mounds, elevations at edges, and in a few cases plateaus that extend well into the greens.

Interestingly, the fairway plans are generally vague.  Bunkers are referenced but not placed on the plans.

Here are the plans for 5th green, from the Tufts archive:



On the aerials the greens are ovals.  The bunkers are now separated from the green edges, and in some cases fewer in number.  

Here's the 5th green from Google:



Without the benefit of referencing historical aerials, would one expect the course to have been built close to plan, including the green shapes and proximity of bunkers to the green?

For this course, based on correspondence, Walter Hatch was involved on the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

 if you didn't have old aerials You'd have to examine the footpads in order to try to get the answer.

If the Ross field drawings exist and Hatch or Johnson were the on-site supers, I'd tend to believe that the greens were built as drawn

[David Harshbarger]

Pat,

I'll have a look on Thursday in person.

After the renovations at Mountain Ridge did your greens come back with more irregular shapes?  At my course the super has accelerated the process of ovalization on the pretense of ease of maneuvering mowers...and we have hand mowers! 

Here's another irregular green from Sagamore's design which now fewer bunkers now disconnected from an oval green.,,,

[Ronald Montesano]

Wow, if that was the original plan and your image is what is there, such a shame.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Unlike GCGC, MRCC's greens tend to be raised structures with a definitive footpad, thus expanding/recapturing the putting surface back to the boundaries of the footpad returned the greens to their original configuration in compliance with the field drawings.

In general, it's hard to imagine going wrong by following that procedure.

With increased green speeds, there are three problem greens, #'s 7, 17 and 18.
The problem is with the steep slopes.
The solution is..........unresolved

[Mark Bourgeois]

David,

You're aware of the story of what happened to the Sagamore course, yes? I'm not sure what's there now is representative of what originally went in the ground. Not saying it is, not saying it isn't, just that that course went through the ringer.

[David Harshbarger]

Mark, I am vaguely aware that the course though tough time but is on a godd trajectory now.  That's about it.  The shape of the holes aligned with the plan: distance, par, sequence, and general green description, at least in as much as the "tooth-shaped" 5 in the plan is an oval wider at the top than the bottom.

Here's backstory on Sagamore: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14284.0.html

[BCrosby]

For Athens CC I have copies of Ross' field sketches of the greens (1925), copies of his follow on construction drawings (for only some holes, done by Johnson?), an overall routing plan (probably done by Johnson?), and War Department aerials (1938).

At each step along the way, from initial drawing to the finished green, Ross' green designs were increasingly neutered. The dramatic green contours, nasty greenside bunkering and irregular green shapes in his field sketches were toned down in the construction drawings and further toned down in construction, at least as seen in the '38 aerials.

A good deal of the neutering occurred in the construction drawings done by Ross' own shop. Perhaps they decided to simplify things for a construction crew who had never built a golf course before. (Ross did not oversee construction.)    

In short the Athens CC architectural arch went in the wrong direction as the course came closer to completion. To be noted is that Athens CC turned out to be a good course. But an even better course was left on the drawing room floor. I wish I understood better what happened.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

I think they were conceptual and meant to "over emphasize" the corners, ridges etc to the builder.  A course where I am a member "believed" that in order to have a Ross restoration they needed to copy the greens drawiings and they gps'ed the perimeters exactly as the drawings conveyed.  However they interpreted the third dimension.  It will be interesting to see how long we maintain some of the corners etc....

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think they were conceptual and meant to "over emphasize" the corners, ridges etc to the builder.  A course where I am a member "believed" that in order to have a Ross restoration they needed to copy the greens drawiings and they gps'ed the perimeters exactly as the drawings conveyed.  However they interpreted the third dimension.  It will be interesting to see how long we maintain some of the corners etc....

Very interesting indeed. Mike, can you flesh out your "over emphasize" comment?

[David Harshbarger]

I think they were conceptual and meant to "over emphasize" the corners, ridges etc to the builder.  A course where I am a member "believed" that in order to have a Ross restoration they needed to copy the greens drawiings and they gps'ed the perimeters exactly as the drawings conveyed.  However they interpreted the third dimension.  It will be interesting to see how long we maintain some of the corners etc....

Very interesting indeed. Mike, can you flesh out your "over emphasize" comment?

While Donald Ross may have counted to infinity twice, he must have found that builders were challenged raising a green to 4' once!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here is the 5th green in 1942:



It appears the green has lost its shape. The question is, had it lost any by 1942?

[Mike_Young]

Mark B,
By "over empasize" I am referring to the methods he used in his drawings to convey slopes and tie -ins.  Note how abrupt the tie-ins were around bunkers and also of ridges or features entering into the green surfaces.  They are left completely to interpretation.  When a bunker floor is gps'ed as to his drawings it can often be something that doen't look anything like a "Ross bunker".

David,
While Donald Ross may have counted to infinity twice, he must have found that builders were challenged raising a green to 4' once!

I think he was doing it for the ones that have never built before.   IMHO it is like a drawing for a piece of furniture and the basic measurements are given but no where is sanding, planing, varnishing etc described...
I like DR drawings and think they convey enough..not saying he was wrong...just saying that too many take every little nuance as brilliance when he may have not even realized he was doing it...

[Carl Johnson]

David, if you have not already done so, I'd suggest that you read Bradley (Brad) S. Klein's book, Discovering Donald Ross.  It will give you a great start, and frankly there's not much else, in learning about Ross design and construction.  Wonderful book.

My club's Donald Ross course dates from 1929.  Until five years ago it had not been significantly touched (except for tree plantings).  The greens were (had become?) small and round.  Our restoration/renovation architect, Kris Spence, could point out the old green perimeters, which which were "squarish" with now-off-the-green-edge high points, small knolls, indicating the start of ridges that would have come into the greens.  Although Kris had no detailed green drawings to go by, I believe that Kris did an excellent job of bringing back the old green shapes and contours, where they could be discerned from the surrounding areas.  Based on my reading of Klein, and other fuzzy stuff (that's my fuzzy mind, not the original stuff) I picked up along the way, I think they'd be best described as Walter Hatch-style greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Hardly any great greens are built to plan.  The elevations on MacKenzie's drawings are also much more exaggerated than the finished product.  But, the guys who are following the plans know not to follow the plans.

(And before someone thinks I mean the architects didn't know what they were doing, let me be clear ... the plans were just a basis to try to get the builder to get what you want.  They weren't meant to be pegged and surveyed.)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Since there is a Gulph Mills thread up, I will note that in general, I always felt the Ross plans were exaggerated.  First, I don't ever recall seeing a bunker right on the green edge. 

However, I recall that the 17th at GM had a fill pad that really did have all those sharp corners shown on plan, so I can say that at least some Ross greens were built to those crazy (to my eye) plans.

We should all recall the Ross story about building for the Canadian Pacific (or was it CN?) and they thought he was writing those elevations in yards, not feet, resulting in some real wild contours on the rough graded greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hardly any great greens are built to plan. 

Tom,

I'd disagree with you regarding their shape/footpad, especially with some of the Ross drawings at Seminole, Plainfield and Mountain Ridge.

Internally, I'd agree, I don't see how precision could have been achieved.

The elevations on MacKenzie's drawings are also much more exaggerated than the finished product.  But, the guys who are following the plans know not to follow the plans.

(And before someone thinks I mean the architects didn't know what they were doing, let me be clear ... the plans were just a basis to try to get the builder to get what you want.  They weren't meant to be pegged and surveyed.)

[BCrosby]

Tom Doak -

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that an architect's drawings are always more extreme/edgey because the architect knows that builders will tone it down and that, as so toned down, the end product is what the architect really wanted?

Bob

[Mark McKeever]

Since there is a Gulph Mills thread up, I will note that in general, I always felt the Ross plans were exaggerated.  First, I don't ever recall seeing a bunker right on the green edge. 

However, I recall that the 17th at GM had a fill pad that really did have all those sharp corners shown on plan, so I can say that at least some Ross greens were built to those crazy (to my eye) plans.

We should all recall the Ross story about building for the Canadian Pacific (or was it CN?) and they thought he was writing those elevations in yards, not feet, resulting in some real wild contours on the rough graded greens.

Good call Jeff regarding 17 at Gulph Mills.  If Ross were around and walked up to that green today he would probably say "yeah, this is the green I wanted built"

Mark

[Mike Hendren]

I agree with Bob and Mike.  It seems that not just Ross, but most of the Golden Agers either exagerated or romanticized their drawings, perhaps for marketing purposes, or maybe to over-emphasize drainage.  The Captain was among the chief culprits.   I can't fathom that they ever intended that such wild and theatrical green complexesto  ever be constructed.  Is it possible that this was nothing more than an elaborate doodling exercise for them?

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Then why go to the effort of having the drawings formalized and provided to the club ?

As a board member wouldn't you ask, WTF, when Ross presented drawings that bore no resemblance to the greens as built ?

Common sense dictates that the drawings were a reasonable likeness of what went in the ground, with maybe Aronomink being a possible exception.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

...which is why I thought Tom's statement above was odd.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

Then why go to the effort of having the drawings formalized and provided to the club ? 

As a board member wouldn't you ask, WTF, when Ross presented drawings that bore no resemblance to the greens as built ?

Common sense dictates that the drawings were a reasonable likeness of what went in the ground, with maybe Aronomink being a possible exception.

Perhaps these drawings were nothing more than a marketing brochure?

Patrick, do you really believe Ross ever intended to build the green depicted in David's post?  While he utilized sharper edges far more than the current versions of his greens suggest, I still suspect that is a caricature, not a blueprint.  Otherwise, he makes Banks, Raynor, Stranz and Muirhead look like minimalists!

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

Then why go to the effort of having the drawings formalized and provided to the club ?

As a board member wouldn't you ask, WTF, when Ross presented drawings that bore no resemblance to the greens as built ?

Common sense dictates that the drawings were a reasonable likeness of what went in the ground, with maybe Aronomink being a possible exception.

Patrick / Bob:

I usually have to do a plan for my courses.  I haven't drawn greens plans for a while now because we were never going to look at them once we started, anyway ... but the few times someone actually built a green the way I'd drawn it, those were some of the most severe greens in my entire body of work.

It's not just the old guys.  I remember Jay Morrish telling me that when he worked for Desmond Muirhead, he and the contractor had a convention of cutting all of the slopes down to half what was in the plans ... and lying to Desmond if he asked about it.  And I remember Pete Dye telling someone to build up a green four feet, when he really meant two, because the contractor was likely to skimp on it, and he could always just taper off the edges more gently if they actually gave him that much.

I'm saying these guys didn't spend all that much time on the drawings.  They trusted the guys in the field to get it right, or at least MacKenzie did.  He specifically instructed Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath not to worry if Morcom decided to deviate from the plans.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

...which is why I thought Tom's statement above was odd.

Bob,

I agree.

Hard to believe that Ross would deliver a product that bore no resemblance to what he offered as an inducement

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()