Donald Ross courses overrated?

Watching the Rocket Mortgage tournament and reading some comments about the course, does anyone else think that Donald Ross courses are overrated or overhyped? I’ve played a couple and while they are fine, good courses I can’t say they were special. I haven’t played Pinehurst but even that gets a lot of mixed feedback on this forum. Thoughts?

Ohio has some of the best Donald Ross gems in the country. I’m a big fan so my vote is no they are definitely not overrated. Now, if a course has evolved in the wrong direction or fallen on hard economic times might be a different sorry. Do you really think Pinehurst No.2 gets mixed reviews?? I haven’t played it but I’ve seen enough to know I want too!

Nope. Pros are good.

> @buckeyefl said:

> Nope. Pros are good.

I don’t mean for pro tournaments, just in general.

> @"Big Ben" said:

> Ohio has some of the best Donald Ross gems in the country. I’m a big fan so my vote is no they are definitely not overrated. Now, if a course has evolved in the wrong direction or fallen on hard economic times might be a different sorry. Do you really think Pinehurst #2 gets mixed reviews?? I haven’t played it but I’ve seen enough to know I want too!

Which public ones do you think stand out?

In these forums I’ve read many comments saying that after playing Pinehurst 2 they are disappointed and don’t see it as one of the best. I want to do a Pinehurst trip so interesting to read people’s views.

Most of them have been molested by Rees Jones or his type.

No. 2 is amazing.. I'm a member of a club whose greens were renovated back to the original 1920 design, it's simple, but so much fun to play, the greens are amazing.

What Outback said. If there is an overrated Donald Ross course, it sure ain't his fault. Nobody did more with less.

So the real question is whether Pinehurst No. 2 is "overrated"?

Original post really doesn't demonstrate any in depth knowledge that would lead to the suggestion. Click baity.

Why not simply ask what people think of Pinehurst No. 2? Or search and find the hundreds of opinions on this site.

I've played the one in Iowa, it was really nice. It has been undergoing gradual restoration over the past few years, doubt I'll get the chance again, but would love to see the restored holes in person sometime.

I never said I had in-depth knowledge of Ross courses, other than the two I said I played. Hence the question to hear others’ views. This is a golf forum after all.

I will argue that Donald Ross courses do tend to be *overrated*. The reason is simply that he designed more than 400 courses, and there are probably a handful of "great" ones (Seminole, Oak Hill, Pinehurst, Oakland Hills); a group of "very good" ones; a couple hundred pretty average courses; and a few downright clunkers. When people talk about Donald Ross, they think about Seminole and Pinehurst...but when you're standing on the tee box at Sandy Burr all that matters is the lousy routing staring you in the face.

Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> @matthewb said:

> Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

>

> If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

>

> On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> >

> > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> >

> > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

>

> Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

> @"Big Ben" said:

> Ohio has some of the best Donald Ross gems in the country. I’m a big fan so my vote is no they are definitely not overrated. Now, if a course has evolved in the wrong direction or fallen on hard economic times might be a different sorry. Do you really think Pinehurst No.2 gets mixed reviews?? I haven’t played it but I’ve seen enough to know I want too!

No.2 does get mixed reviews by those who have played it and others in the area. Me being one of them.

_Edit: "others" being other courses in the PH area_

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> > >

> > > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> >

> > Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

>

>

>

> You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Inapplicable reference. Golf courses are designed for golfers to play.

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> > > >

> > > > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> > >

> > > Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

> >

> >

> >

> > You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>

> Inapplicable reference. Golf courses are designed for golfers to play.

Again, you’re simply exposing your ignorance. But carry on as it’s obvious that you’re oblivious to that of which you’re unaware.

Ultimately, you’re the one making the claim that Ross designs are overrated and, thus, the burden is on you to prove your claim.

If one is to defend a claim that something is overrated, then they need to supply a credible basis on which something is rated. Yet you haven’t bothered to do this.

So, in your esteemed opinion, what are the qualities upon which we rate golf course design and architecture? How does your criteria compare to the others that have gone before? Why would one take your criteria seriously?

I am a huge fan of Ross and at last count have played 106 of his courses. The highlights were Inverness, Holsten Hills , Pinehurst# 2, and Plainfield. There are dozens of second tier courses that lack the prestige of these, but are pretty dang good or just as good. My personal criteria for judging a golf course is that it can be playable for the beginning golfer, and challenging for the best of the best, and many Ross courses fit that bill. His courses were fair, and he seldom used water as a hazard.

One thing that is really amazing about Ross is how he can take a very compact tract of land, and route it in such a way that you get the feel of a grander property. He was a routing genius, perhaps no other architect could do so much when given so little. If you read about his life, he was a very kind and decent man, very much respected by his peers. He must have been a genius, as I have been told that some of his courses were designed unseen, he worked off topographic maps while riding the train going from project to project.

Sadly, many of his original courses have been closed or renovated and the character of his work destroyed. Some have been restored very close to his original intent. His designs were subtle and minimalist. He used the land, respected it. if you like some of the more grandiose layouts of today, you might find his courses boring. I sure don't.

I live in Georgia and we are lucky to have a number of fine golf courses by Ross. . Athens Country Club and Country Club of Columbus are great examples of Ross's work. They are both beyond fun to play. I know Ross is credited with East Lake, I think a lot of it has been renovated and wonder how much of that course is "true Ross". There are many more in the South, if some of you have not tried them, hope you will have the great opportunity some day!

> @matthewb said:

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> > > >

> > > > Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

> >

> > Inapplicable reference. Golf courses are designed for golfers to play.

>

> Again, you’re simply exposing your ignorance. But carry on as it’s obvious that you’re oblivious to that of which you’re unaware.

>

> Ultimately, you’re the one making the claim that Ross designs are overrated and, thus, the burden is on you to prove your claim.

>

> If one is to defend a claim that something is overrated, then they need to supply a credible basis on which something is rated. Yet you haven’t bothered to do this.

>

> So, in your esteemed opinion, what are the qualities upon which we rate golf course design and architecture? How does your criteria compare to the others that have gone before? Why would one take your criteria seriously?

>

You are not very good at debating or presenting arguments. Your reference is like saying a particular chef is outstanding, but only experts at cooking food can understand how good she is. Restaurant goers and foodies are too ignorant to know. Your applying that premise here is nonsense.

Rather than state why you think Ross courses are excellent, you set forth a new premise that only architecture experts can understand how good they are, with no factual support for that premise. Why don’t you explain these hidden features of Ross courses that make them so good that serious golfers are too ignorant to observe or understand?

> @TheSouthernGentleman said:

> I am a huge fan of Ross and at last count have played 106 of his courses. The highlights were Inverness, Holsten Hills , Pinehurst# 2, and Plainfield. There are dozens of second tier courses that lack the prestige of these, but are pretty dang good or just as good. My personal criteria for judging a golf course is that it can be playable for the beginning golfer, and challenging for the best of the best, and many Ross courses fit that bill. His courses were fair, and he seldom used water as a hazard.

> One thing that is really amazing about Ross is how he can take a very compact tract of land, and route it in such a way that you get the feel of a grander property. He was a routing genius, perhaps no other architect could do so much when given so little. If you read about his life, he was a very kind and decent man, very much respected by his peers. He must have been a genius, as I have been told that some of his courses were designed unseen, he worked off topographic maps while riding the train going from project to project.

> Sadly, many of his original courses have been closed or renovated and the character of his work destroyed. Some have been restored very close to his original intent. His designs were subtle and minimalist. He used the land, respected it. if you like some of the more grandiose layouts of today, you might find his courses boring. I sure don't.

> I live in Georgia and we are lucky to have a number of fine golf courses by Ross. . Athens Country Club and Country Club of Columbus are great examples of Ross's work. They are both beyond fun to play. I know Ross is credited with East Lake, I think a lot of it has been renovated and wonder how much of that course is "true Ross". There are many more in the South, if some of you have not tried them, hope you will have the great opportunity some day!

>

>

>

Thanks for that great response. Have you played his Detroit course where the pros are playing now? Would you consider that one a highlight or second tier? How about the Biltmore in Miami? Sagamore in NY?

Donald Ross courses are each unique and easily the most fun to play for any and all levels. You can't say that about many other architects. From the 17 to the +2 handicapper, anyone can get around. And you can (and SHOULD) do so by walking!

Moving past fun and playability, many of his courses still provide a very tough test for the best players. That's the reason why his courses have hosted over 100 major championships and USGA events. Now, to be fair, not all Donald Ross courses are created equal. The same player could go out and easily shoot 73 from the tips at Roaring Gap Club, then turn right around and easily shoot 86 from the tips at Charlotte Country Club while playing no better or no worse. One is a championship course and the other is not.

So you have fun, playable, walkable golf courses, some of which will challenge the very best of the very best. What's not to like?

I think Ross gets dinged because many of his courses are parkland style and he never really had an urge for drama. Consider his most famous designs. #2, while very special, is a flat piece of land in the middle of North Carolina. Hard to compare that setting to the National or Shinnecock. Seminole is an even more unremarkable piece of land, and I don't think anyone is comparing the views at Seminole to those of Cypress. Both #2 and Seminole are widely considered to be two of the best courses in the world, however. Why? Because nobody could do more with less.

Did Ross create some duds? Without a doubt. But so did MacKenzie, Crump, Tilli, and Raynor.

So that gets back to the original post - what is the driving force behind the question? Is it specific to #2?

Side note - based on the slope/rating of Detroit Golf Club's two courses (and I know that they are playing some sort of composite), it would appear that the course is closer to Roaring Gap than Charlotte CC in terms of difficulty. It should be no surprise the pros are going way, way low.

Played a number of Ross courses in the Detroit area. Certainly some are far better than others, but even the municipal courses in average condition have a charm, and they are all fun. Played Detroit Golf Club many times and it is not as easy as it appears on tv for us mortals. Some Ross greens can have very subtle illusions that make predicting the break fairly difficult. And it's amazing how often he has put a bunker in exactly the right spot to punish a poor drive or to protect a green approached from the wrong angle. I'm a fan.

> @LICC said:

> Watching the Rocket Mortgage tournament and reading some comments about the course, does anyone else think that Donald Ross courses are overrated or overhyped? I’ve played a couple and while they are fine, good courses I can’t say they were special. I haven’t played Pinehurst but even that gets a lot of mixed feedback on this forum. Thoughts?

Over 10 years ago, I was doing due diligence on the casino resort being built in French Lick, where they hired Pete Dye to build a new course, while another architect was restoring the existing Donald Ross course, including returning all tee boxes and greens to their original square shapes from the traditional Ross designs. (In cleaning out the attic above the clubhouse, they found Ross's original hole designs. Each hole was designed on its own type of parchment! The 18 pieces were cleaned up and framed to hang on the walls of the Ross clubhouse.) I got to speak to Pete Dye about the Ross Course. I don't remember the details, but I do remember he was highly complimentary of the restoration of the Ross Course because he had great respect for Ross and his original designs.

@LICC which two Ross courses have you played?

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

> > >

> > > Inapplicable reference. Golf courses are designed for golfers to play.

> >

> > Again, you’re simply exposing your ignorance. But carry on as it’s obvious that you’re oblivious to that of which you’re unaware.

> >

> > Ultimately, you’re the one making the claim that Ross designs are overrated and, thus, the burden is on you to prove your claim.

> >

> > If one is to defend a claim that something is overrated, then they need to supply a credible basis on which something is rated. Yet you haven’t bothered to do this.

> >

> > So, in your esteemed opinion, what are the qualities upon which we rate golf course design and architecture? How does your criteria compare to the others that have gone before? Why would one take your criteria seriously?

> >

>

> You are not very good at debating or presenting arguments. Your reference is like saying a particular chef is outstanding, but only experts at cooking food can understand how good she is. Restaurant goers and foodies are too ignorant to know. Your applying that premise here is nonsense.

> Rather than state why you think Ross courses are excellent, you set forth a new premise that only architecture experts can understand how good they are, with no factual support for that premise. Why don’t you explain these hidden features of Ross courses that make them so good that serious golfers are too ignorant to observe or understand?

You completely ignored that you are the one claiming that Ross designs are overrated and yet you have said nothing of substance to back up your claim. Again, what makes a golf course design to be a great design? Please enlighten us.

I think whether a course is over/underrated is entirely up to the golfer. In my opinion, the best courses are those that flow naturally through the existing landscape and use those natural features to challenge the golfer. From reading about Donald Ross, that is what he always was trying to achieve. A course that’s was built by removing the natural features or building outrageously fake enhancements, is not truly golf course architecture. I love playing interesting layouts and enjoy scenic views but courses that are designed with the natural layout first and foremost are the better ones. I’ll be playing 2 DR courses later this year in the Pinehurst area and am very interested in how they play. One opinion I’d like to share is about #2 is that the turtleback greens seem to be too artificial. Ive never played them and may be wrong but they seem to be just an attempt to punish average golfers. Are they really a natural feature in the area? False fronts, forced carries, and natural barriers are all an interesting and challenging part of the game. I have played a few DR courses and as I get a better understanding of the game, I enjoy them more.

> @"Big Ben" said:

> Ohio has some of the best Donald Ross gems in the country. I’m a big fan so my vote is no they are definitely not overrated. Now, if a course has evolved in the wrong direction or fallen on hard economic times might be a different sorry. Do you really think Pinehurst No.2 gets mixed reviews?? I haven’t played it but I’ve seen enough to know I want too!

Not sure if it was you or not but someone mentioned playing Tippecanoe recently and I meant to ask them if they nee there was a 36 hole public Donald Ross about a mile away. I don't think people in the area appreciate what a gem it is from a classic designer standpoint. Also where I passed my PAT many moons ago so it's a sentimental favorite.

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > > > Depends on how much one knows about golf course architecture.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you don’t know much about architecture, then it’s easy to think that Ross designs are overrated.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand, the more you know about architecture, the more you respect his designs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not buying that. Avid golfers have opinions on golf courses. If a course is so good but only architecture experts can understand why, it’s probably not that good.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You’re providing an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

> > > >

> > > > Inapplicable reference. Golf courses are designed for golfers to play.

> > >

> > > Again, you’re simply exposing your ignorance. But carry on as it’s obvious that you’re oblivious to that of which you’re unaware.

> > >

> > > Ultimately, you’re the one making the claim that Ross designs are overrated and, thus, the burden is on you to prove your claim.

> > >

> > > If one is to defend a claim that something is overrated, then they need to supply a credible basis on which something is rated. Yet you haven’t bothered to do this.

> > >

> > > So, in your esteemed opinion, what are the qualities upon which we rate golf course design and architecture? How does your criteria compare to the others that have gone before? Why would one take your criteria seriously?

> > >

> >

> > You are not very good at debating or presenting arguments. Your reference is like saying a particular chef is outstanding, but only experts at cooking food can understand how good she is. Restaurant goers and foodies are too ignorant to know. Your applying that premise here is nonsense.

> > Rather than state why you think Ross courses are excellent, you set forth a new premise that only architecture experts can understand how good they are, with no factual support for that premise. Why don’t you explain these hidden features of Ross courses that make them so good that serious golfers are too ignorant to observe or understand?

>

> You completely ignored that you are the one claiming that Ross designs are overrated and yet you have said nothing of substance to back up your claim. Again, what makes a golf course design to be a great design? Please enlighten us.

>

>

Of the two Ross courses I’ve played (and two others that Ross was the architect but others also changed the course substantially), I thought they were good to very good, but they didn’t stand out as much in consistently incorporating strategic decisions and risk reward features as Tillinghast, MacDonald, Raynor, Coore/Crenshaw, Doak and others I have played. The Ross courses seemed to much more often have one clear best way to play each hole. Also the greens were good but nothing beyond the other designers.

Note that you dodged my question.

> @Kevlar10 said:

> I think whether a course is over/underrated is entirely up to the golfer. In my opinion, the best courses are those that flow naturally through the existing landscape and use those natural features to challenge the golfer. From reading about Donald Ross, that is what he always was trying to achieve. A course that’s was built by removing the natural features or building outrageously fake enhancements, is not truly golf course architecture. I love playing interesting layouts and enjoy scenic views but courses that are designed with the natural layout first and foremost are the better ones. I’ll be playing 2 DR courses later this year in the Pinehurst area and am very interested in how they play. One opinion I’d like to share is about #2 is that the turtleback greens seem to be too artificial. Ive never played them and may be wrong but they seem to be just an attempt to punish average golfers. Are they really a natural feature in the area? False fronts, forced carries, and natural barriers are all an interesting and challenging part of the game. I have played a few DR courses and as I get a better understanding of the game, I enjoy them more.

I think all the designers of Ross’ era sought to flow their courses naturally through the existing landscape. They really didn’t have much choice as they didn’t have more modern machinery to do otherwise.

> @"QC Heel" said:

> Did Ross create some duds? Without a doubt. But so did MacKenzie, Crump, Tilli, and Raynor.

Please enumerate the MacKenzie courses that you view as "duds". They might not be all "world class" - but I can't come up with one that I think is a dud.

Secondarily, could you explain why you view Pine Valley to be a "dud"?

Like so many things, it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I love Ross courses. They aren't a zillion yards long. They aren't (at least the two dozen or so I've played) target golf. They're challenging without beating you over the head. The greens will make you work for your par.

They aren't all going to be great, because he did so many and not all of them were on the best pieces of land.