The Top 100 Donald Ross Courses

[Sven Nilsen]

It's interesting to hear the hype of the article you posted for the course.  Unfortunately it doesn't have a Bendelow routing.

Is this not Bendelow's routing?  The 1915 article it was taken from says it is.



And its shockingly similar to what is on the ground today.



And also shocking similar to the plan produced by Hargrave and ascribed to Ross (to be clear, this map does not date from 1914, but was produced by Hargrave in a style "inspired by the drawings of Donald Ross").



As for Palma Ceia, that is another Bendelow design that was remodeled by Ross.  Here's the original plan, which is pretty much the same routing that is on the ground today.

[BCowan]

I counted 13 similar routed holes in the Walnut Cliff routing to today.  Thus I think Bendelow should receive partial credit.  Now the dotted lines aren't detailed with strategy like the Palma Ceia plan (nice find). 

[Mike Bodo]

Both GI and Western have great bones but in their present state are very tired. I agree with where they are rated. However, with a modest investment (starting with a chainsaw) both could easily add at least 2 Doak points.

Agreed! On a positive note, Western is looking at doing some tree removal per recommendations received over the summer from Andy Staples of Meadowbrook CC fame. We also recently received copies of the original Ross plans for the course courtesy of the Tufts archives, although I am not sure at this time what the intention is. I know there have been rumors and whispers of renovation, but to what extent I do not know. That said, Western was intended to be a parkland course, no different than the majority of Ross courses designed and built in the metro-Detroit area. Trees are a good thing, but we have too many in certain spots and a few in really unfair spots.

OK Mike, I'd like you to take a slow tour through the Western clubhouse. Look at all those old black and white pictures of when Western hosted a tour event. Then report back to me how many trees were on the Ross 'parkland''course then. It's probably 10% of what is there now.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of those photos floating around the club or at least within easy access. That said, over time all of his courses in the Detroit area became tree-lined whether by design or not. Unfortunately, Ross isn't around to tell us if he envisioned certain courses having trees line the fairways of the courses he designed on what was upland at the time and to what extent. That said, we are all in agreement that there are too many trees and I can only hope the board will implement an extensive tree removal plan that achieves the desired results from both an agronomy and playability standpoint.

[BCowan]

Mike,


   This thread below will help you out.  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64984.msg1548935.html#msg1548935


  Parklands-  ''A Parkland normally has a very open aspect to it with GROUPS of trees integrated into the landscape. The idea was to allow the visitor specific views of the surrounding area. Many courses claiming to be parkland do not have the open vista aspect so central to parklands and are in reality tree-lined or woodland courses.’’- Jon Wigget

‘’I'll get into some of the details of it tomorrow but the term "Park" (parkland) in this particular context goes back to England in the 18th century particularly amongst some of those famous English landscape gardners or landscape architects like William Kent, Lancelot "Capability" Brown, Humphrey Repton who did some of those famous massive English estates on a grand scale of hundreds of acres. Blenheim is an example. Those estate lands were called "parks" and that's where the term parkland came from in the context that was applied to the style of golf course called "parkland". In some cases some of the late 19th century English golf courses were just done right into those preexisting "parks" or parkland estates.’’- Tom Paul

"Open land consisting of fields and scattered groups of trees."- Oxford Dictionaries


Tree-lined is NOT a Parklands IMO and others.  It's possibly a former Parklands that over-planted trees and is now a Woodlands.

[Sven Nilsen]

Ross planting trees at Oakland Hills.

Dec. 15, 1921 Detroit Free Press -

[Craig Moore]

Should only be so lucky if most parklands courses only planted 170 trees.  Too bad they went with 100 Maples at Oakland Hills.  That is 9.44 a hole.  I'd consider that a proper Parklands.  "No attempt was made to place them along the fairways as obstacles in the players' paths''

[Sean_A]

I am not convinced the term parkland as it was understood by English Landscape archies such as Brown and borrowed by early British golf archies as a style of design was ever an idea that carried over to the US.  I am not even convinced British archies fully embraced what parkland style was about in landscape architecture.  For golf, the main thrust of "parkland" in the UK reflects the soil/turf of the land moreso than an open space with some strategically placed trees for shade and to create dictated vistas and water features.  Parkland almost carries a negative connotation for hard core golfers because the soil will not drain relatively well.  Some of the early heathland designs were carved from heavily treed areas (a second growth after an initial removal) and never lost their trees...an example is New Zealand. The most important aspect of heathland, again is the soil/turf.  Heather thrives on this type of acidic soil.  When too many trees are allowed to invade the environment the profile of the soil is slowly altered.  So tree management is really a method to keep free-draining soils...heather is a pretty biproduct and when maintained well it can be stunning. The issue is maintaining the heathland...it is hard work to keep trees from invading and to keep the heather healthy and playable.  Heather will soon turn into a shorter version of gorse if allowed to run wild.   

Ciao   

[Mike Bodo]

Ross planting trees at Oakland Hills.

Dec. 15, 1921 Detroit Free Press -

Great find, Sven! Obviously in OHCC's case, Ross intended to have trees comprise the makeup and appearance of the course. I suspect the same applied to many courses he built in which there were few if any trees present at the time of completion. While I understand the aversion to trees by many in the discussion group, they serve a purpose - both aesthetically speaking and functionally in the form of shade, as well as presenting an obstacle for overtly errant shots or in the case of the old Eisenhower tree at ANGC, an in-course obstacle to hit around.


The real issue I have with regard to tree removal is that so much of what is done is subjective opposed to objective. What may be considered too many trees to some, may not be to others and there is no one-size fits all solution. I just get the feeling from too many posters that trees are more of a nuisance than they are a benefit to the game, course management and architecture. If they had their druthers tress wouldn't exist on any course, which would be a shame, as many courses would lose a lot of their appeal and character. Fortunately, Ross felt otherwise and the game has benefited as a result, as many people (myself included), like the feeling of being in a tree-lined park where it's just you and the hole you're on with no other visually competing distractions. If that goes against the grain of what the purists believe, so be it. Methinks the pendulum has swung too far in the war against trees on courses, but things have a way of correcting themselves over time so hopefully it will swing back the other way and we can find some type of happy medium.

[BCowan]

Ross planting trees at Oakland Hills.

Dec. 15, 1921 Detroit Free Press -

Great find, Sven! Obviously in OHCC's case, Ross intended to have trees comprise the makeup and appearance of the course. I suspect the same applied to many courses he built in which there were few if any trees present at the time of completion. While I understand the aversion to trees by many in the discussion group, they serve a purpose - both aesthetically speaking and functionally in the form of shade, as well as presenting an obstacle for overtly errant shots or in the case of the old Eisenhower tree at ANGC, an in-course obstacle to hit around.


The real issue I have with regard to tree removal is that so much of what is done is subjective opposed to objective. What may be considered too many trees to some, may not be to others and there is no one-size fits all solution. I just get the feeling from too many posters that trees are more of a nuisance than they are a benefit to the game, course management and architecture. If they had their druthers tress wouldn't exist on any course, which would be a shame, as many courses would lose a lot of their appeal and character. Fortunately, Ross felt otherwise and the game has benefited as a result, as many people (myself included), like the feeling of being in a tree-lined park where it's just you and the hole you're on with no other visually competing distractions. If that goes against the grain of what the purists believe, so be it. Methinks the pendulum has swung too far in the war against trees on courses, but things have a way of correcting themselves over time so hopefully it will swing back the other way and we can find some type of happy medium.

''No attempt was made to place them along the fairways as obstacles in the players' paths''


Mike,


   You obviously didn't read the article and or choose to overlook points in the article that were key.  Very few folks on here have stated that NO trees should be on Parklands courses.  Let thee above quote sink in.  Nowhere did Ross say that trees should be planted every 15 yards and that golf holes should be secluded from one another as you are stating in your post of personal preference. 


  Do you know the history of the Eisenhower tree and if Dr Mackenzie wanted it on the course?  If he didn't want it on the course and you were a board member would you not listen to him? 


   Much of the focus on Trees is objective imo.  You are the type of person that cares about how fast greens are and I'm sure you don't like soggy fairways.  Trees are great and specimen trees add value to a Parklands course.  Too many shitty trees were planted by Boards and located in poor spots the Architect didn't intend for them to be.  Course character shouldn't be derived from trees, that's an emotional based logic response.  Tree lined woodlot is NOT what Ross did.  170 trees on a large scale property is not that many, boards planted 50+ trees a hole, not 9.44 like Ross did.   You aren't going against the grain of purist, you are disrespecting Golden Age Architects by destroying their designs with emotional based logic.  What course has cut too many trees down, and name one you have actually been too? 

[Tim Martin]

It’s hard to put too much stock in the opinions of the author, M.F. Drukenbod with this quote early in the article “ Instead of a monotonous unobstructed view of the whole course, there will be more pleasing vistas through trees from all the tees”. Obviously not every critic has the same opinion but it seems that many of the most revered courses provide said unobstructed views and with others taking great strides to reclaim same. One of the major undertakings in the restoration movement has been tree removal not only to get more air and sunlight on the playing surfaces but to reclaim vistas. There are an abundance of examples where informed greens committees have endeavored this practice with stunning results. I think Mike overstated Ross’s proclivity for trees and tree planting.

[Mike Bodo]

Ben -


Where did I say that Ross was a proponent of tree-lined courses or having holes separated by trees? You're projecting something on to me that I didn't write. I stated that I like the separation and seclusion trees provide on certain holes, but that's just me. There are plenty of links courses I like to play as well. As it concerns Ross; all I said is that he obviously didn't have a problem with trees on his courses and went so far as to introduce them himself. Yes, 170 trees on an property as large and expansive as OHCC isn't much, but it changes the appearance, complexion and playability of the course. There is no denying that.


My big issue is where do you draw the line and find the right balance between too many trees and too few? Also, where it concerns renovating an existing Ross course that arguably has too many trees, how is one to ascertain what the architect envisioned for that particular course if no documented information exists?


Next time do you and me a favor and read what I actually write instead of hearing what you want and we'll all be better for it. 

[BCowan]

Nowhere did Ross say that trees should be planted every 15 yards and that golf holes should be secluded from one another as you are stating in your post of personal preference.

Mike,

This is what I wrote.  Re-read the last 4 words and you used Ross planting trees as a means to justify your personal tastes imo.  Prior to Ross planting the 170 trees the course was not a Links course, which the Author muddles early on in the piece.  It's heavy soil, no fescue, and it's not by a body of water.  If you like seclusion then why do you want to cut trees down on your home course? 

Where does one draw the line?  One looks at aerials, maps, and read notes.  A club then hires a respectable Golf Archie to research and decide whether or not to implement his recommendations and then pays them.  Jeff Bergeron asked you to walk around the clubhouse for there is many photos in there that would assist your membership and an Archie.  I have played Western 2-3 times, but I haven't been in the clubhouse. I'll take Jeff's word.

They were smart in hiring Ross in 21' to decide where to plant the trees, instead of a member who doesn't know what they are doing.  You said that 170 trees added by Ross changed the play-ability of the course.  How do you know that, it was 1921?  Especially given that the Author said that no trees were planted by the fairways, how could the new trees affect play-ability? 

[Mike Bodo]

Nowhere did Ross say that trees should be planted every 15 yards and that golf holes should be secluded from one another as you are stating in your post of personal preference.

Mike,

This is what I wrote.  Re-read the last 4 words and you used Ross planting trees as a means to justify your personal tastes imo.

Problem is your opinion in knowing the intent of my meaning is incorrect.

Prior to Ross planting the 170 trees the course was not a Links course, which the Author muddles early on in the piece.  It's heavy soil, no fescue, and it's not by a body of water.  If you like seclusion then why do you want to cut trees down on your home course?

There are trees in places where a good shot in the fairway is penalized and several more that encroach the fairway. Those I'd like to see removed.

Jeff Bergeron asked you to walk around the clubhouse for there is many photos in there that would assist your membership and an Archie.  I have played Western 2-3 times, but I haven't been in the clubhouse. I'll take Jeff's word.

I don't know who Jeff is, but I've been in the clubhouse at Western hundreds of times the past two years and I can't recall seeing any old photos of the course outside of the one in the men's bathroom in the pro shop taken when shortly after the club first opened. I am sure there are old photos of the course in the clubs archives, but they aren't prominently out on display in the Western Grill, clubhouse dining room or men's grill. I'll check the two private rooms in the clubhouse the next time I'm there to see if I'm missing something.

They were smart in hiring Ross in 21' to decide where to plant the trees, instead of a member who doesn't know what they are doing.  You said that 170 trees added by Ross changed the play-ability of the course.  How do you know that, it was 1921?  Especially given that the Author said that no trees were planted by the fairways, how could the new trees affect play-ability? 

Please definie what constitutes "near the fairway"? Is a tree 15 - 20 yds. from the edge of the fairway considered being near it? How about 25 - 30 yds.? Eventually, if you hit a ball far enough offline a tree is bound to come into play somewhere ergo changing the playability of the course. It doesn't take being a rocket scientist to figure that out. Second, I have a hard-time believing that none of the 170 trees planted in addition to those that were already present were so far removed from the field of play that they never affected a shot. Oakland Hills is big, but it ain't that big where you can have standalone arboretums that are there for admiration only.

[BCowan]

This photo was taken at Western in the Clubhouse.  Notice how few trees are on this Plan and look how exposed the River is.

[BCowan]

It's interesting to hear the hype of the article you posted for the course.  Unfortunately it doesn't have a Bendelow routing.

Is this not Bendelow's routing?  The 1915 article it was taken from says it is.



And its shockingly similar to what is on the ground today.



And also shocking similar to the plan produced by Hargrave and ascribed to Ross (to be clear, this map does not date from 1914, but was produced by Hargrave in a style "inspired by the drawings of Donald Ross").



As for Palma Ceia, that is another Bendelow design that was remodeled by Ross.  Here's the original plan, which is pretty much the same routing that is on the ground today.

On 2nd thought, I don't consider your 13 hole Bendelow routing to be adequate in determining the course to be a Bendelow.  Ross may have redone the whole bunker schematic and all the green complexes and added 5 holes.  The Bendelow routing is just dotted lines.  Unfortunately with the fires in the clubhouse, the club minutes are most likely lost.  Unfortunately Hargrave isn't on here to defend himself.  Most Architects today do their homework and I think you are trying to paint them as half assing their renovation work in a gotcha moment.  Club minutes are much much more accurate then newspaper clippings. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Ben:


Find something, anything, that says Ross was at the course in 1914 and we'll start to talk.


Otherwise, Hargrave's creation of a Ross routing with a date of 1914 is a fraud.  And if he had done his research he should know it.


Sven

[BCowan]

The 1914 date could have been a typo, might of possibly been 1924 Ross plan. Will have to see if more Ross info can be found, hard when club mins are most likely lost.

[Sven Nilsen]

The 1914 date could have been a typo, might of possibly been 1924 Ross plan. Will have to see if more Ross info can be found, hard when club mins are most likely lost.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[BCowan]

The 1914 date could have been a typo, might of possibly been 1924 Ross plan. Will have to see if more Ross info can be found, hard when club mins are most likely lost.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You really have a lot of angst, don't you?  Nice deflection.

[Sven Nilsen]

No angst, just a small pest issue.


Let me know when you find any Ross info on Columbus CC.  While you're at it, try to find something on Meadowbrook other than the rambling account of a "historian" who doesn't even have the right date for when Ross was there.


In the meantime, I'll stick with the contemporaneous reports.


For Columbus, that would be the March 1915 American Golfer report, the April 1915 American Golfer report and the May 1915 American Golfer report, all noting Bendelow working on the 18 hole course for the club. 


For Meadowbrook, that would be the March 18, 1927 article discussing changes to the 14th hole, noting in detail why the changes were made and specifically noting it as a two shot hole requiring a pitch shot to the green, not as a par 5 like the 12th.


If you actually did any research, you'd know that the contemporaneous magazine accounts and newspaper articles are accurate about 99.9% of the time.  Club histories hit a much lower mark. 

[BHoover]

Are you saying that Ross had no role at Columbus CC? I tried reading your earlier posts, but they were not understandable.

[Sven Nilsen]

Are you saying that Ross had no role at Columbus CC? I tried reading your earlier posts, but they were not understandable.

I'm saying that Ross had nothing to do with what was happening at Columbus CC around 1914-15 (MacWood agreed, if you care to use the search function).  The work done then was done by Bendelow.


As to any later dates, he may have done some remodeling, but there is nothing I've seen indicating what and when.  (The Donald Ross Society recently updated their course listing, and changed the remodel date for CCC from 1914 to 1935-40, so they might have something in the archives noting his involvement then.  Their 1914 date for a new course, however, is wrong.)


I am also curious as to when the club thinks H. S. Colt offered his input, as is noted on the club website.


To avoid any confusion on this, the Ross 1914 Plan copied above was not prepared by Ross or his team.  It is a modern day interpretation of what a Ross plan would have looked like and was prepared in connection with the recent plan of renovation.


Is that plain enough English for you?

[BHoover]

Is that plain enough English for you?

I asked a fair question and you ruin an otherwise logical post with snark. Fair enough.

[Sven Nilsen]

Brian:

I apologize if I offended.  My fuse has gotten a little short in this conversation.

Probably has something to do with quotes like this from earlier in the thread:

"If you look at Bendelow's 9 hole routing, there are holes that don't exist anymore.  From what I understand, when Ross came through and expanded the course to 18 holes, only a few of the Bendelow holes were included in that routing."

The author of that quote was staring at the 18 hole Bendelow routing when he wrote that.

See what I'm saying?


I'll bow out of this one for a while (there are plenty of other things to focus on).  Happy to revisit if anyone can find anything covering Ross at CCC.

Sven

[BCowan]

No angst, just a small pest issue.


Let me know when you find any Ross info on Columbus CC.  While you're at it, try to find something on Meadowbrook other than the rambling account of a "historian" who doesn't even have the right date for when Ross was there.


In the meantime, I'll stick with the contemporaneous reports.


For Columbus, that would be the March 1915 American Golfer report, the April 1915 American Golfer report and the May 1915 American Golfer report, all noting Bendelow working on the 18 hole course for the club. 


For Meadowbrook, that would be the March 18, 1927 article discussing changes to the 14th hole, noting in detail why the changes were made and specifically noting it as a two shot hole requiring a pitch shot to the green, not as a par 5 like the 12th.


If you actually did any research, you'd know that the contemporaneous magazine accounts and newspaper articles are accurate about 99.9% of the time.  Club histories hit a much lower mark.

I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.  It's okay, we can talk this through. 


I don't buy that magazine accounts and newspaper articles are more accurate then club minutes, which is funny that you cited club minutes in the other thread.  ''99.9% accuracy'' is a laugh and the gov't inflation rate is 2%, okay.  Where do you think Newspapers and The American Golfer get/got their info?  From the Club.  They aren't investigative journalist out trying to uncover false credit for Golf Course Architecture.   


You also don't know the history of the 12 hole, but you know everything, Ross renovated it in 1933 in the club minutes.  Yes, the article describes the 14th hole properly, which doesn't mean that Ross was re-working the hole!  The hole was renovated by Art Hills later on so the club didn't focus on that hole.   


Finding good info on CCC will be very difficult since they had a clubhouse fire, similar to Inverness which had 2 fires early on.  For the last time, nobody is arguing that the 1914 Ross date isn't wrong.  There only exists 13 of the 18 holes in his routing.  That is all it is, a routing.  No strategy, no green contours.  How do you know that wasn't a Ross plan from the 1930's that Hargrave used and amended for his Renovation?   


The Bendelow routing you provided was chicken scratch, Nice try.  Matt Damon should write a sequel, should call it Good Will Sven !