How Much of Ross' 407 Can We Trust?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I fully appreciate and understand your point.  Perhaps this belongs on the state of the website thread that Ran put up yesterday, but I'd agree that we (the collective "we") often stray afar from the theme of this forum, which is to actually discuss the architecture.

With all that you've said, part of that exercise is identifying and studying the work of individual architects.  And if we can't accurately attribute a particular course (or hole or green) to a Watson or a Ross, how can we begin to discuss how that course (or hole or green) fits in to that architect's overall body of work.

I see the attribution game as a tool to understanding the larger picture.  If there's a mistake made hereabouts, its that we are rarely satisfied with saying we just don't know.  But in those cases that we do know, the truth is important.

Sven

Sven:

But do we do that?  Can we do that?  I'm not sure that we have really done a good job of studying the overall body of work of ANY architect, living or dead.  

We've progressed quite a way in terms of finding and attributing more projects to certain old dead architects (MacKenzie, Ross, Raynor, Tillinghast).  But when somebody has done so many courses, what exactly can you conclude about their "body of work" ?  It's all over the map.  I think it's easier to draw conclusions about the work of Javier Arana [as in Alfonso Erhardt's new book] or George Thomas [though he really wrote the book on his own work, himself] than somebody like Ross, who did so much over such a long career.  The danger is that we will typecast them, when their body of work was much more varied.

I've been participating on this forum for close to 15 years now (!) and have probably typed more thoughts on architecture than most architects ever have, but other than some generalities about my philosophy as a designer, what else have you learned from it all that you want to know about Willie Watson or Donald Ross?

[DMoriarty]

But do we do that?  Can we do that?  I'm not sure that we have really done a good job of studying the overall body of work of ANY architect, living or dead.

I can't speak for Sven or anyone else, but I've never been interested in studying the overall body of work of ANY architect, living or dead.  I am more interested in the whole story of the development of golf course architecture.  The "larger picture," as Sven put it.  I don't know that we need to totally understand everything Ross or Watson ever did to understand the larger picture.  But it helps in understanding the whole story if we at least try to be careful to get the facts correct where we can and to the extent that we can.  If we think of WBYC as a Ross course, and it isn't, then that slightly skews the overall picture.  It skews our opinion of Ross, and it skews our opinion of Watson.   It may be we'll never know who was responsible for the exact features you admire at the course, but it sure doesn't help the conversation to pretend they are Ross features when they are not.   Likewise it doesn't help to pretend they are Watson features, but I am not sure that noting that Watson penned the original design suggests he is totally responsible for everything there.  At least that is not my intent.

So I guess I do think that sometimes questions as mundane as attribution do help us understand the whole story. Not attribution in the political sense of who the club or some society chooses to acknowledge, but more in the sense of who actually did what, and when.  Sorting those things out can help bring the overall story of the development of golf course design more into focus.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I still don't understand what you mean by the "larger" picture.

In the large picture, WBYC has existed since 1915 or 1920.  It's been largely overlooked, so I don't know that it had much influence on the design of subsequent courses -- but if it did, then it did, no matter who was the architect.

[DMoriarty]

Ill try to explain later Tom.  No time now. 
_____________________________________________________________



In the meantime, here is some food for thought, linked from the tufts archives, which says the course is aka Lake Wales Country Club.

Note the date as well as the description of No. 6 from the article in Ken's initial post, and No. 6 on the map.  A match?



Just curious, did Ross engage in any construction projects?

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:

We don't do it enough.

We can do it, but it is certainly harder with someone that had a long and varied career like Ross.  It may be all over the map, but there is a map.

I'm not sure what to make of the last part of your post.  Are you suggesting that we aren't going to learn anything about other architects by reading what you write about your own work?

In any case, I'd rather read a thread trying to explain what Ross did on a particular course than the as-of-lately popular "is it worth playing?" question followed by the fish stories of those that have (including how long it took, what tees they played, whether they rode or walked, what the halfway house was like or if their twosome was able to play through the foursome in front of them).

Just my thoughts.

Sven

[Chris_Blakely]

I know of numeous courses on that site that are not Donald Ross and frnakly, I don't think they care. Immergrun is one that jumps out where there is concrete proof that it is a Devereux Emmet courrse, but they still list it as Ross.


Chris

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure what to make of the last part of your post.  Are you suggesting that we aren't going to learn anything about other architects by reading what you write about your own work?

In any case, I'd rather read a thread trying to explain what Ross did on a particular course than the as-of-lately popular "is it worth playing?" question followed by the fish stories of those that have (including how long it took, what tees they played, whether they rode or walked, what the halfway house was like or if their twosome was able to play through the foursome in front of them).

Sven:

I understand what you are saying in the last paragraph above, I just don't know how realistic it is to think anyone can explain what Ross did on a particular course.

What I was trying to say in the previous paragraph is that, even with me right here to respond to people's questions, I'm not sure that we can explain what I was trying to do on my own courses.  I can explain how and why I decided to put the holes where I did -- I will get that in print someday, hopefully while I can still remember -- but I can't explain how one after another fits into my career, and I'm not sure I would trust anybody else to draw those conclusions for me later    

That's part of the reason I participate here, actually -- to refute the things that aren't true.

[Mike_Young]

A D1 BB coach with a NCAA championship to his credit used to play golf with us a few times a week.  He was always saying how much fans complicate the simplest things.  Fans would talk of all these complicated plays and yet his emphasis was on the basic fundamentals and execution.  He said the kids could not comprehend much more than that.  I think the same goes for all the hype with the Ross thing and the other ODG's.  They were good but it was not complicated...they kept it simple...

[DMoriarty]

Just a quick look, but the Ross course above seems to be a different course than the public course that eventually became Lake Wales Country Club.  Nine holes of the Lake Pierce Country Club were being developed around the same time (about a year later, I think) than the Raynor course described in the first post of the thread.   But this course might be the source of the confusion for the Ross site and the course itself.   

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

Wouldn't you agree our little group is the anomaly in all this?

Most golfers hear Ross' name and think the course HAS to be good, hence the need for courses to hold onto the connection even if there isn't one.

Our group wants to know not only if Ross was responsible for the routing and design, but how much time he was there, if he was there, who did the work and who fed the horses pulling the grading equipment.

I understand the points both you and Tom are making.  Enjoy and analyze a course not because who did it but because what's there.  Don't you find it helpful to identify who was responsible for what's there to see how they handle what the property has provided as a canvas?  Again, not to guess what they were thinking but to identify tendencies that either you agree or disagree with?

Ken

[Ken Fry]

Just a quick look, but the Ross course above seems to be a different course than the public course that eventually became Lake Wales Country Club.  Nine holes of the Lake Pierce Country Club were being developed around the same time (about a year later, I think) than the Raynor course described in the first post of the thread.   But this course might be the source of the confusion for the Ross site and the course itself.   

David,

It's funny I was using Google Earth to try and find similarities like you did.

In the article George Bahto posted, the course location is specific:

The course is on a beautiful 200-acre rolling tract of land just one mile from the city limits, north of and on the Hesperides  Road..."

and..

"An attractive little clubhouse stands on a wooded knoll at the entrance of the course from Hesperides Road."

The course being referenced is indeed Lake Wales Country Club.  The website touts itself as a 1926 Ross course.

As Tom and Mike elude to, does it matter who did the course?  What's there now?  I find conflicting history such as this interesting.  Is this a case of early marketing because Ross became a more recognizable name to the golfing public that Raynor?

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

Don't you find it helpful to identify who was responsible for what's there to see how they handle what the property has provided as a canvas?  Again, not to guess what they were thinking but to identify tendencies that either you agree or disagree with?

Ken:

For me it's more the other way around ... I enjoy analyzing what's there for the work in its own right, and then sometimes wondering whether the attribution is really correct, if it conflicts with my sense of that architect's work.  For example, in The Confidential Guide I questioned the providence of North Shore C.C. in NY, and wondered aloud about White Bear Yacht Club just because the greens were so different than most Ross courses I know.  I haven't got the time (or the interest) to look at train schedules and try to prove who did or didn't do it, and it doesn't really matter that much anyway, it's the work that I enjoy.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I understand the points both you and Tom are making.  Enjoy and analyze a course not because who did it but because what's there.  Don't you find it helpful to identify who was responsible for what's there to see how they handle what the property has provided as a canvas?  Again, not to guess what they were thinking but to identify tendencies that either you agree or disagree with?

Ken

Ken,
IMHO...how a designer handles the canvas creates the designer's identity and I don't think the identity of the designer changes how the canvas was handled.  My method has always considered anything more than a routing and strategy plan overkill.  I like to provide the macro and let the guys on the site develop the micro.  I think Ross did the same thing as did most guys before RTJ felt stacks of plans could create a more "professional" air to the business. ( And it is a business not a profession BTW)  

[Sven Nilsen]

To get back to Ken's original question, I took a scan through the Ross Society List (dated as of 2011) and the list contained in the back of Brad Klein's book (published in 2011).  

I'm only up through three pages of the DRS List, but at this point there are notable discrepancies in about a third of the records.  Some of these may be due to descriptive differences in how to treat the work done, but many relate to dates and more than a handful of courses appear on one list but not the other.

As for Lake Wales, the Tufts Archives has a listing (http://www.tuftsarchives.org/ross-course-listing.html) that appears to be more up to date than either of the previously noted sources.  On their list, Lake Pierce CC is noted but Lake Wales is not.  I'd suggest that the Tufts Archive listing is probably the best source right now for anyone who cares to research Ross' work.

[Sean_A]

A D1 BB coach with a NCAA championship to his credit used to play golf with us a few times a week.  He was always saying how much fans complicate the simplest things.  Fans would talk of all these complicated plays and yet his emphasis was on the basic fundamentals and execution.  He said the kids could not comprehend much more than that.  I think the same goes for all the hype with the Ross thing and the other ODG's.  They were good but it was not complicated...they kept it simple...

Happy New Year Mr Young

I couldn't agree more with thoughts. 

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

I'm with Ken on this. While I agree with Tom that the primary thing worthy of study is the product itself, I still think the lineage matters if only for its own sake. Identifying the courses that best reflect Ross' design principles helps paint a better picture of the man behind them. That image doesn't matter when I play the course, but as someone interested in history it still gives me some personal satisfaction. I can't explain it much further than that, but I also can't explain why I so ecstatically participate in this group of 1500 dorks who spend inordinate amounts of time talking about a subject that seems totally ridiculous to everyone else I discuss it with (and I say all of that with love). I just like knowing a bit about where our playing fields came from.

Ken mentions the controversy surrounding who actually designed Lake Wales. The most interesting attribution of work on a course I've seen is on Ravisloe's website, which touts Theodore Moreau as one of the two men who laid out the original course in 1901. Theodore J. Moreau of Langford and Moreau fame was about 11 years old at the time. I have no idea whether (in descending order of likelihood) the course history is inaccurate, another Theodore Moreau worked on Ravisloe, or whether child labor laws at the time allowed a preteen shaper to do a bunch of work on a course in Chicago in 1901. I don't guess the answer really matters, but I do find stuff like that interesting. I mean, that's one of the primary reasons for the existence of a site like this, isn't it?

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike (and Sean):

There's an old MacKenzie quote which I found in Shack's book which suggests he might not have agreed with you:

"Golf is a game and not a mathematical business, and...it is of vital importance to avoid anything that tends to make the game simple and stereotyped.  On the contrary, every endeavor should be made to increase its strategy, variety, mystery, charm and elusiveness so that we shall never get bored with it, but continue to pursue it with increasing zest, as many of the old stalwarts of St. Andrews do, for the remainder of our lives."

I realize that the first part of the quote is discussing the play of the game and not the activity of the architect, but what follows suggests that Dr. Mac thought the process of providing interest to be anything but simple.  

As to whether or not all of this matters (a question frequently asked on this thread), I thought this quote was of interest:

"It is safe to say that no game in the whole realm of sports has been so miswritten and unwritten as golf.  This is very strange, for probably there is no other game that is so canvassed and discussed by its followers.  The reason may possibly be found in the fact that golfers are a most conservative class of people, and that they follow wonderfully the line of thought laid down for them by others.  This at its best is uninteresting; at its worst most pernicious."  P.A.. Vaille, The Soul of Golf, 1912

And I do see the irony in using Vaille's words to reiterate his point, but I assure you there is nothing pernicious about it.

Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Identifying the courses that best reflect Ross' design principles helps paint a better picture of the man behind them.

That's the part of the argument where we diverge.  I don't think you can choose what "best reflects Ross' design principles," or my own.  We build what we think is appropriate on each site, and the sum of that work is our principles -- breaking it down into 13 rules or simple sound bites misses the point.

Indeed, Dr. MacKenzie drew up his 13 Ideals of Golf Course Architecture in his 1920 book, and in his follow-up manuscript just a dozen years later, he pointed out how he had ignored his own rules here and there in the course of his work.  His very first ideal was that the course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes, and here's what he had to say about that a few years later:

"During recent years in the United States I have had more sleepless nights owing to committees being obsessed by this principle than anything else, and I have often regretted that it had ever been propounded.

If land for a golf course lends itself readily to constructing the two loops, well and good, but it is a great mistake to sacrifice excellent natural features for the purpose of obtaining it.  Most of the world's best known courses, such as nearly all the British Championship courses, The National, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, and many others I could name, are without loops.  There is a charm in exploring fresh country and never seeing the same view twice until one arrives back at the clubhouse."

Likewise, Donald Ross' first order of business was to find a great routing.  If you really understood how he did that so well, you should be making a living in this business, because nobody today does any better.  I don't think it can be simplified, and spotting tendencies is to ignore the many exceptions which made his work so great and so hard to pin down.

[Jason Thurman]

And Tom, you don't think it's interesting to explore Ross routings or Mackenzie's breaking of his own rules? If attribution doesn't matter, and we truly look at courses independent of their architects, then we never see in action where Mackenzie found settings in which he would break his own rule of two nine-hole loops, and we never even recognize how gifted Ross was at routing courses. If we truly divorce the course from the architect, then the architect doesn't matter at all and we never assimilate any kind of picture of what his philosophies on design might have been.

It's not just about identifying tendencies. It's also about identifying exceptions, or seeing how concepts changed over time, and trying to identify whether those exceptions happened because the architect found something unique in the site or because greens committees or subsequent architects erased part of the original design.

I agree that you can't break an architect's philosophy down into 13 rules or sound bites. I'm sure you notice when certain GCA posters quote the writings of Ross or Mackenziie or any of the ODGs as though a rule they once wrote should be taken as gospel. It's easy to draw those kinds of blanket conclusions when you don't study their work, but when you start digging in their courses you find that Ross didn't always follow his own rules, nor did Mackenzie. For me, that's when things get really interesting. As we start digging and realizing that the architecture game is much more complicated than we originally thought, and that there are almost no absolute rules and only general rules waiting to be broken, and as we also realize that much of what we see today is fool's gold that has in fact been bastardized and altered from its original intent, that's when we really start to become scholars on this subject and not just guys who read a Wikipedia article.

Learning, for me, is all about making the picture fuzzier and more complex. I don't feel like I know anything about a subject until I'm overwhelmed by how much I don't know about it. When it comes to studying architecture, the scope and exceptionality of the work of the ODGs becomes much more compelling when I look at the courses attributed to them and start trying to put pieces together that don't fit very neatly in many instances. But then, maybe we're saying a lot of the same things. I'm not as big on drawing conclusions as I am on just identifying the potential conclusions that could be drawn, I guess, and so I agree that it's not necessary to try and ascertain what work Ross did on a site versus what work Art Hills did 70 years later and why.

[Tom_Doak]

But then, maybe we're saying a lot of the same things. I'm not as big on drawing conclusions as I am on just identifying the potential conclusions that could be drawn, I guess, and so I agree that it's not necessary to try and ascertain what work Ross did on a site versus what work Art Hills did 70 years later and why.

Jason:

We are indeed saying a lot of the same things, and just coming to different conclusions.

For example, I think it's important to note the differences between Ross' original work and what Art Hills did 70 years later ... because I would presume that Ross' original work was better, and I'd want a real reason why it should have been changed.

[DMoriarty]

Artists are a little bit like teenagers in that they often think that their body of work is infinitely too complex for their critics (or their fans) to even begin to understand.  

While this may be true at some level of detail, I would suggest we can nonetheless learn an awful lot by studying not only the art itself, but also the context in which the art was created.    

[Tom_Doak]

Artists are a little bit like teenagers in that they often think that their body of work is infinitely too complex for their critics (or their fans) to even begin to understand.  

While this may be true at some level of detail, I would suggest we can nonetheless learn an awful lot by studying not only the art itself, but also the context in which the art was created.    

I'm not opposed to study.  I just think many people bring their own preconceptions and their own agenda to the discussion, and that warps the discussion.  Plus I agree with what Mike Young said about people over-analyzing things.  There are a lot of times I'm making a decision about what to do on a certain hole, that I couldn't really explain why I chose one solution over another ... it just looked better or felt better.

And that doesn't even address all of the times someone from my crew has created something really cool, and I just left it alone, for someone to opine on my motives 30 years from now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

To the architectural addicts on this site and perhaps to others, there's an interest in knowing where the "purity" lies.

Not just on Ross courses, but mostly, on all good to great courses.

"Building Sebonack" is the kind of roadmap or record that helps determine what was intended or perhaps, more accurately, what was built.

I found the book fascinating for a number of reasons, none of which I'll go into.

As a member of a golf course for over 64 years, I've seen a significant alterations over those 64 years, some internal, some external, some approved, others not approved.

Other than tee lengthening, there's something to be said for preserving the "purity" of the original design.

Yes, I know that almost any course can be improved subsequent to opening day, but, where and when does that "process" end ?

When do alterations obscure the original design integrity ?
When does the course lose it's distinctive design ?
When does it lose it's pedigree and transition to a mutt, a quilt work wrought upon the course by dozens of authors other than the original author.

If my son and I return to Streamsong in five years or ten years, do I want to see that which you crafted, or that which you crafted, as modified by others ?

Even if the modifications resulted in improvements, there's something to be said for preserving the original.

Paintings, books and wines don't get modified over time, why should golf courses ?

Now, I realize the unique interactive nature of a golf course versus the above, but, there's something to be said for being able to identify what you did, versus what others did to amend/alter your original design.

I know that it would rankle you if, within a year of opening, someone modified several of your holes.

But, look at it another way.

Wouldn't you want golfers to know what you did, along with knowing what others did to modify your original designs ?
Wouldn't you want golfers to know that certain changes were NOT your doing ?

If I return to Streamsong and see that someone has modified the 5th hole, one of my favorite par 3's in golf, I'll be more than a little vocal about it and claim to all those within shouting distance that Tom Doak would never have disfigured that hole and that it should be restored as he intended, designed and built it.

[BCowan]

IMHO...how a designer handles the canvas creates the designer's identity and I don't think the identity of the designer changes how the canvas was handled.  My method has always considered anything more than a routing and strategy plan overkill.  I like to provide the macro and let the guys on the site develop the micro.  I think Ross did the same thing as did most guys before RTJ felt stacks of plans could create a more "professional" air to the business. ( And it is a business not a profession BTW)  

I think this is said so well and very few words.  Mike do you think that shapers should get there names mentioned more and or credited?  I wish we could get back to simple fundamentals such as not building so many artificial water hazards and being conscious of the avg golfer not losing sleeves of balls as Ross was.  

The fact that Ross was working on so many projects across the country is a feat of its own, delegating responsibilities is pretty impressive.  I think the fact that Mackenzie and Ross published notes or had their own rule of thumbs is good.  Ross used natural features and his approach seemed so simple that I can see why so many golfers love his work.  I am surprised that some questioned Dr Mackenzie's own principles.  I see nothing wrong with quoting the sources mouth, why wouldn't one use source documents to drive home points in certain discussions?  I think many of us GCA ''amateurs'' know arch's break their own rule of thumbs.  One can see different Ross features in different regions of the country and concur that DR isn't going to waste natural features even if it means breaking a rule of thumb.  I think it is awesome that Ross did some great designs on 130 acres of land, which is really impressive to me.  I am interested in delving into certain courses i play and grew up around and i like what Ken is doing.  I think knowing train schedules is a bit over the top, but whatever works for you.  I have seen some Ross courses that have evolved for the better IMO and ones that make you curse.  

Mr Doak-  Can you mention some of the routing features that you like about Ross courses?  I can understand what you mean by not being able to remember what you did 10 years ago on each and every feature, so how could we find that info on ross.  I also really learned a lot from ''Anatomy of a Golf Course''.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting thread, lots of good posts/points and debate. I've been more guilty than most of finding analogies from other arts and crafts and then foisting them upon gca; of seeing (or imagining) parallels between playwriting (or music-making or furniture-building etc) and golf course design, and of then drawing conclusions from those parallels both about gca's past and its future. And it struck me now, reading this thread, that I've been bringing the same approach to studying/analyzing the work of golf architects as I used to bring to bear on  great musicians and writers and filmmakers and philosophers and artists -- and that maybe that approach (and the related underlying assumptions about the creative process) don't really apply to gca at all. I won't argue the point (such as it is) one way or the other; I just note it as something that just occurred to me.

Peter