Donald Ross Misconceptions

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder how often any architect actually follows their own guidelines?  I recall the Ross designed Bob O Link near Chicago had hole no. 1 as the no. 1 handicap hole as well.

Not sure if that was Ross or Alison, but your point is a very good one.  I might start a whole thread on it.


Dr. MacKenzie lamented in The Spirit of St. Andrews how much grief his rule that "The course should be arranged in two loops of nine holes, wherever possible," had caused him with committees.


Often the most interesting courses / holes are the ones where the designer violates his general rules of design, because it looks like the best solution to the whole puzzle.  Such as . . . I had always tried to avoid building back to back par-3 holes, but when the land at Pacific Dunes [and David Kidd's routing for Bandon Dunes] forced me into that corner, I just went with it.  Turned out okay!     And that loosened my rule enough that I did it once more [at Rock Creek] when rerouting some other holes left us with back-to-back par-3's as the best way to connect the dots.[size=78%] [/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Yes, the design story of Bob O Link, I think has been in question. As I recall it, Ross originally designed it just before WWI, construction was delayed and maybe Allison came in.  One site said it was Ross, and then they got the land west of the channel and Allison did that, prompting me to think Ross was the designer or router of the first hole.  (Maybe Allison did the bunkering later that made it the hardest hole, I really don't recall.  BTW, Killian and Nugent used to do all kinds of crazy work in the winter to keep us busy.  One year, we did a full course survey of the type, size, condition of every tree on the course.  There were over 6000 trees on it, and we considered it more of a "parkland" course.  Can't believe I never got that question in Trivial Pursuit!


I have done back to back par 5 holes, but never a back to back par 3 on a regulation course.  I am guessing Mac got questions on the consecutive par 3's at Cypress, not sure where else he attempted them.  But, that is a good example of the best hole combinations winning out over any particular theory.  Golfers like par 3 holes, and in general, it seems that spacing them out around a course makes golfers happier, especially for those who a par 3 gives a bit of a break.


That said, the modern breed of pace of play consultants now recommend we put the hardest holes first and get successively easier.  Waiting before tee off isn't counted on the "4 hour" play clock.  Harder holes first let groups get out ahead and stay there.  I imagine we will see a 3-3-

reachable par 5-

long 4-long 4 or maybe reachable par 5- medium par 4, medium par 4, short par 4 sequence someday when speed of play, or at least keeping groups spaced out well, is deemed the most important design factor.

[Ira Fishman]

He is one of the best architects ever.

Since he is the patron saint of ASGCA, I am typing this with my fake nose and oversized glasses to protect my identity, but I agree.


He didn't have the flare of MacK or others. I always thought that perhaps his stereotypical Scot frugality held him back from the heights he could have accomplished artistically.  Remember that Seminole and its first time for him fancy bunkering was an attempt to catch up with what had evolved into the prevailing style.  Would a great architect do that?


Other architects had a bit more flamboyant personalities and I think it showed in their work. 


BTW, the other misconception is how his offices worked.  I have seen early photos of Beverly, done by his Chicago branch, and it looked thoroughly modern, not at all like the subtle forms we associate with his east coast courses.

Of course, its just speculation on my part, but it seems like that to me.

Is it possible that his greatness lies in the fact that he fit all sorts of land so well without needing "flamboyance"?


But if you look at the Ross Archives, many of his greens and bunkering push the edge of the envelop.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


Intentionally, or just because green speeds allowed 5-6% or more slopes while still be puttable?


I did spend nearly a full day in the Tufts archives looking at Ross plans.  Again, the most prominent note was "dig swale in front of green to build up back side and balance cut and fill" or something similar.  He did note bunker depths, which might have varied by length of hole, but I never saw a consistent enough pattern to convince myself of any prevailing theory.  I will probably go back and re-read "Golf Has Never Failed Me" just to see what I forgot to remember.


I didn't see anything like the Mac sketches where he showed arrows as to where you might kick a ball off a slope, etc.


I would agree that there is genius in routing alone, and he was very good at it, especially on the ones he supposedly never saw the site.

[Tom_Doak]

I am guessing Mac got questions on the consecutive par 3's at Cypress, not sure where else he attempted them.  But, that is a good example of the best hole combinations winning out over any particular theory.

Do you really think so?  He said when Cypress Point opened that there was no criticism of it, and I am inclined to believe that.  Although, apparently he was originally thinking of the 16th being a par-4, until Marion Hollins showed him it wasn't so hard to reach the green with a good shot.


When we were working on Pacific Dunes, Mr. Keiser's stable of friends were against the idea of back to back par-3 holes when first proposed, and I had to go through the lesser alternatives for him to get him to understand my choice.  But since the golf course opened for play, I can only think of two people who actually complained to me that I should have avoided that, because the two golf holes are beautiful and have proven themselves.  Plus, two players out of 750,000 rounds seem like they can be safely ignored.


For that matter, I've yet to hear a member of Rock Creek complain about the back to back par-3 holes, or even ask why I did that, considering how much land we had to work with.  One hole is 150 yards and the next is 240, so they are not very much alike.

In the end, I think a lot of designers stick to their rules because they don't want to admit they should bend them.  The number of actual complaints about unconventional design seems much less than the fear of such complaints.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,


Intentionally, or just because green speeds allowed 5-6% or more slopes while still be puttable?


I did spend nearly a full day in the Tufts archives looking at Ross plans.  Again, the most prominent note was "dig swale in front of green to build up back side and balance cut and fill" or something similar.  He did note bunker depths, which might have varied by length of hole, but I never saw a consistent enough pattern to convince myself of any prevailing theory.  I will probably go back and re-read "Golf Has Never Failed Me" just to see what I forgot to remember.


I didn't see anything like the Mac sketches where he showed arrows as to where you might kick a ball off a slope, etc.


I would agree that there is genius in routing alone, and he was very good at it, especially on the ones he supposedly never saw the site.

When he was working on a Master Plan for our course Hope Valley, Kris Spence sent me to the Ross Archives. The interior green contours, particularly off the bunkers, are pretty dramatic. I also think post-restoration, both PH2 and Mid Pines have a fair amount of drama and flair in look and play.


Ira

[Sven Nilsen]

I would agree that there is genius in routing alone, and he was very good at it, especially on the ones he supposedly never saw the site.

Since you said it, would you mind telling us what courses you know for a fact he never saw the site of?

[Sven Nilsen]

Although, apparently he was originally thinking of the 16th being a par-4, until Marion Hollins showed him it wasn't so hard to reach the green with a good shot.

Tom:


Not sure you have the players in this story quite right.


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Not sure you have the players in this story quite right.

Sven:


You are correct.  I re-read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and here is how MacKenzie described it:


"To give honor where it is due, I must say that, except for minor details in construction, I was in no way responsible for that hole.  It was largely due to the vision of Miss Marion Hollins.  It was suggested to her by the late Seth Raynor that it was a pity the carry over the ocean was too long to enable a hole to be designed on this particular site.  Miss Hollins said she did not think it was an impossible carry.  She then teed up a ball and drove to the middle of the site for the suggested green."


I remembered that MacKenzie had given most of the credit for it to Marion Hollins, but I thought she had hit the shot for MacKenzie's benefit.  Actually, I'd be a bit surprised if she didn't do it for him, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would agree that there is genius in routing alone, and he was very good at it, especially on the ones he supposedly never saw the site.

Since you said it, would you mind telling us what courses you know for a fact he never saw the site of?

Sven,

[/size][/color]

Not that I had the time really, but pulled out Brad K's Ross Book over lunch.  In the back, there is an entire list, with about 2/3 of courses having confirmed site visits, the others not.  I recall Brad saying (maybe in posts here, or in personal conversations) that he obtained Ross's detailed itineraries and train schedules, etc. and was pretty sure of most of the schedule.  He also quotes Ross near the end of his career as saying he wish he would have done less work to that he could personally supervise them.

His text made it seem like many of his visits were during routing rather than construction, but I surmise from seeing the notes from Franklin Hills that his visit there was more likely during construction.

I know you research time lines, etc., so if you are using this post to introduce some new findings that may contradict Brad (and older writings that often claimed he did several "paper jobs",  I'd be all ears.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:


Brad's listing is around 10 years old at this point.  There has been a ton of new information brought to light since the book was published.


I broke down a bunch of it in this thread, including a number of new courses that aren't noted in Discovering Donald Ross - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html


The latest version of the Donald Ross Society course listing is pretty close to containing everything we now know, but its not perfect.  There have probably been 4 or 5 updates to this listing since Brad's book was published.


https://rosssociety.org/resources/Documents/Ross%20Course%20List/Final%20Ross%20course%20list%20Dec%202018.pdf


You can find a bunch of updates to Brad's list in both of these sources, including a number of "confirmations" of site visits.  Like you, I don't have the time to revisit every one of the 400 or so courses individually.  But there are a couple of obvious examples that are worth pointing out.


1.  Overhills - Brad doesn't have "On Site Confirmed" for Overhills, a course located a mere stones throw from Pinehurst.  I think we can safely assume Ross visited.  There are a number of North Carolina courses that fall into the same boat.


2.  Sedgefield - The list notes he was on site for Sedgefield #1, but it is not confirmed for Sedgefield #2.  The plan he drew in 1924 was for 36 holes.  Shouldn't that be confirmation for both?


3.  Point Judith - Ross pretty much spent his summer seasons down the street from where Point Judith was built in 1927.  Do you think he never visited?


4.  Lake Wales - Its pretty hard to confirm someone was on site for a course they never designed.  There are a number of courses like this on Brad's list.


I should note that I am unclear as to what exactly was meant by "On Site Confirmation," specifically if it means he was there to oversee construction or it merely means that he saw the site at some point.  The major Ross misconception that my initial comment in this thread was directed at concerns the thought that he did routings for 1/3 of his courses off of topo surveys without ever seeing the land.  I think there are probably a good number of courses that he relied on his associates to drive the construction work.  This is especially true during the period in the early 1920's when he was essentially bedridden.  But on the whole it is my contention that the practice of survey-only design with respect to Ross is overblown.


One thing we discount these days is how much many of the early designers traveled.  It started with Bendelow and his expansion of the game into the Midwest and beyond, continued with the likes of Raynor (making it as far as Bermuda and Hawaii) and was taken to an extreme by Tillinghast during his PGA tour in the '30's.  Ross, a man who spent half the year in North Carolina and the other half in New England, was no stranger to this kind of life. 


I don't doubt that Ross wished he'd had more time to devote to individual projects.  Those where he did clearly shine.  But not every project could be a Pinehurst, or Seminole, or Aronimink.  Spending significant time on site for his Canadian designs was obviously not an option.  And as noted above, there were a number of smaller budget projects where the club could not afford that kind of attention. 


Its hard to articulate why this particular misconception bothers me the way it does.  I think it is because it misdirects the focus away from the incredible feat that his design career exemplifies.  He ran the largest design and construction firm in the United States during the busiest years of golf course development.  From big budget projects to small town 9 holers, he and his team covered them all.  When you start talking about an architect mailing it in, it detracts from what was actually done.  Even on these pages, the negative insinuation of the "paper job" creeps in from time to time. 


Sven
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

Its hard to articulate why this particular misconception bothers me the way it does.  I think it is because it misdirects the focus away from the incredible feat that his design career exemplifies.  He ran the largest design and construction firm in the United States during the busiest years of golf course development.  From big budget projects to small town 9 holers, he and his team covered them all.  When you start talking about an architect mailing it in, it detracts from what was actually done.  Even on these pages, the negative insinuation of the "paper job" creeps in from time to time. 

Sven

 

Sven,


I've made a mental note to catch up on Donald Ross history when I have some time.  I have always enjoyed the historical work many on this site pursue and agree we don't know it all yet.


For the record, even though Ross would have literally been "mailing it in" on any paper routings, I am not sure him doing that fits the general definition of "performing your job without passion and just going thru the steps to get it done."  I know you can route a course on topo if you have the skill Ross had.  (An example is Tom Doak closely nailing the Sebonic routing before stepping foot on the site.) 

Sure, without a site visit, you might miss opportunities to use final details like a beautiful tree if only the hole shifts 10 yards, etc., or any other thing you may see or think as building continues, trees cleared, or just a fresh look at the problem.  But I don't think those Ross paper jobs (if any) went from 99% perfect routing to near 0%.  Maybe they ended up 80% of what they could have been had he gone through the full iterative process. 

I also believe Ross felt like him doing just a routing left a lower budget client better off than if they did it themselves or hired a lesser architect, and was perhaps even proud of helping them at lower cost.  Like a politician, you have to get elected (or selected as architect) to help the people you want to serve.  If proposing lesser services does that, it's not always a bad thing.  Or, as my old mentors used to say, you probably do more for golf and golf architecture when you help some small town, low budget course than when you build a US Open venue.

I understand why it bothers you, but even if he did more paper jobs than we would want to think, it doesn't tarnish his legacy much at all IMHO.

[Mark_Fine]

There are stories and folklore about every architect but a lot of information does exist about Ross.  Of the 400 or so courses he designed it is believed he never saw about 1/3 of them (those are his famous “topo” courses) where he did a routing and someone else built the course without him ever stepping foot on the property.  I have seen quite a few of those courses and they are hit or miss.  Many have changed over time so it is always challenging to know for certain what you are looking at.  Another 1/3 of his courses he was believed to have at least been on site once or twice and the other 1/3 he spent more time on (the amount on each varies as well as one would expect).  It is amazing what he accomplished given the difficulty of travel at that time.  His design style also changed over the years and this was evident in his work and in the plans he/his associated created.  Again there is so much out there about Ross to study if one is really interested in trying to better understand who he was and his architecture styles/preferences. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:



Have you read every post in this thread?


He saw way more than 2/3rds of his courses, as I noted above.


Until people start realizing this, the misconception will remain out there, which is a shame.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I have not read all the posts.  I guess some of what I have read and studied about Ross is a misconception     Would Brad Klein agree with you on that?  Brad and I have worked together on several Ross projects.  He is someone I trust about Ross. 

[Kalen Braley]

Lets talk about the 800 pound elephant in the room. 

DR doesn't haven't the name of other guys due to a dearth of top notch courses.  Seminole, Pinhurst #2?  Anything else?

<Ducking and taking cover now> 

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I went back and read a few more of the posts.  Brad surely didn't get it all right.  There are many things about many architects we will just have to speculate on. It is a bit like giving design credit out.  Many times we just can't confirm the details e.g. Bethpage Black comes to mind.  Look at the greens at Pinehurst #2 and Seminole.  Who should get credit for what is there now?  You tell me   


Would you send someone to Scioto CC to learn about what a Ross course should look like or to Atlantic City CC to study a Flynn design?  How about Augusta National to learn about Mackenzie.  Most misconceptions come from the simple passing of time and evolution.
Mark

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark-


In this case we’re talking about static moments.  Its a bit different then the examples you gave.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
What do you mean by static examples?  I thought this was about Ross misconceptions such as domed greens!  That misconception comes from Pinehurst #2.  I actually think those greens are great but they are not Ross. I trust we at least agree on that?


I hope you agree that you need to look at the body of his work over different time periods to draw any kind of conclusions.  I may be wrong but I believe most architects had/have tendencies in some ways just like a painter or an artist.  Someone who studies great art can tell you who did what painting.  Golf courses I believe can be similar in that regard. 


They all have variations from their norm and those can maybe lead to some of the misconceptions. 


Mark

[SL_Solow]

Tom & Jeff,  I attended a talk by Adam Lawrence and Jim Urbina during Jim's restoration work at Bob O' Linc.  As I recall, the conclusion was that th course was clearly an Alison based on club records and some contemporaneous  records.  Lots of places claim a pedigree that may or may not be based in fact.  I defer to Adam and Jim on the details.

[Sven Nilsen]

Static as in he either saw the site or he didn't.  That is the only misconception I've discussed in this thread.


The problem with the 2/3rds example you used above is that what Brad's list does is note courses where it has been confirmed that he was on site.  No one has confirmed that he wasn't ever on site for all of those other 1/3rd.  Yet there are plenty of people will say he designed 1/3rd of his courses without ever seeing the land.  That is not a logical conclusion.


Sven

[Sean_A]

The problem with the 2/3rds example you used above is that what Brad's list does is note courses where it has been confirmed that he was on site.  No one has confirmed that he wasn't ever on site for all of those other 1/3rd.  Yet there are plenty of people will say he designed 1/3rd of his courses without ever seeing the land.  That is not a logical conclusion.

Sven

Thank you. I have been saying this forever. What is the best guess of the Ross Society concerning the number of courses Ross never visited?

BTW What happened with West Shore in Michigan? I thought you were satisfied it is a Ross design, but it isn't listed on the Ross site.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

I just emailed my friend Gerry Stratford to get his take along with that of the Ross Society.  It will be interesting to hear his thoughts. 

[Jeff Schley]

I would say that he wanted domed greens at Pinehurst.  Many don't realize they were oiled sand greens for at least 30 years before converting to Bermuda.


 I believe there is a story about how Pete Dye met Ross while serving in the military nearby and played Pinehurst, asking him about the domed greens. Ross had to top dress the bermuda often with sand, which gave them their domed appearance. IIRC Dye had stated that Ross said that wasn't his intention and wanted to correct that, but died before he could.

[Sven Nilsen]

Thank you. I have been saying this forever. What is the best guess of the Ross Society concerning the number of courses Ross never visited?

BTW What happened with West Shore in Michigan? I thought you were satisfied it is a Ross design, but it isn't listed on the Ross site.

Ciao

Sean -


I don't know what the DRS says on this question.


As for West Shore, hopefully it and a number of other updates show up in the next version of the course listing.


Sven