Donald Ross courses overrated?

[Kevlar10]

Just googled it, Apparently it was his first course, Shawnee

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

 

How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

[buckeyefl]

quality of design, however, not so much.

 

You can put a 25 handicapper on the back tees on a course with water on every hole and forced carries and he'll shoot 150 and he'll come off 18 telling you its the best course he's ever played. At some level golfers are sadomasochists and enjoy a good stiletto to the groin. Judges of good design most are not.

[LICC]

> @Kevlar10 said:

> Just googled it, Apparently it was his first course, Shawnee

 

That is not really Tillinghast anymore. Most of what he did was changed when they expanded from 18 to 27 holes in the 1960s.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

>

> How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

 

What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

 

For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

 

You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

[duffer987]

> @Chanceman said:

> > @duffer987 said:

> > @matthewb - OK, with the new format and the collapsing quotes, wasn't sure.

> > And yes I don't disagree with those points, I just picked a couple specific points there where I felt (regardless of all the preceding white noise) he wasn't overly mischaracterizing in his reply.

> >

> > I guess an agreed upon definition of "overrated" maybe was needed, as I said I agree with Raynor's POV in regards to excellence and overratedness being able to co-exist; for instance in a one-off example I think Dornoch is fantastic, but overrated.

> > But I also take your point in regards to architects, that volume shouldn't count against someone.

> > There's a good deal of interesting stuff in this thread: minus the handbags :-)

>

> OK so Royal Dornoch is "fantastic but over-rated". By whom and on what basis ? Certainly not by me. If it is not one of the top 10 or 20 courses in the world what is? I have never played Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Augusta National but to my unprofessional eye it sure rates with all the others up in that region of the Top 100. (That I have played, I should say). Do you know somethng that I dont?

 

I don't want to go off in the weeds anymore than has been done here already, so you're welcome to take your case of the vapors over to the [uK forum](https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1776352/tr-blustery-scottish-links-classic-english-heathland-and-deal/p1 "UK forum") and I'll reply there.

But I thought it the context of this thread it was pretty clear, in that I was using it as an example of saying someone/something is 'overrated' doesn't mean someone is casting aspersions on something and people need to get their back up... ironically enough.

[Chanceman]

> @duffer987 said:

> > @Chanceman said:

> > > @duffer987 said:

> > > @matthewb - OK, with the new format and the collapsing quotes, wasn't sure.

> > > And yes I don't disagree with those points, I just picked a couple specific points there where I felt (regardless of all the preceding white noise) he wasn't overly mischaracterizing in his reply.

> > >

> > > I guess an agreed upon definition of "overrated" maybe was needed, as I said I agree with Raynor's POV in regards to excellence and overratedness being able to co-exist; for instance in a one-off example I think Dornoch is fantastic, but overrated.

> > > But I also take your point in regards to architects, that volume shouldn't count against someone.

> > > There's a good deal of interesting stuff in this thread: minus the handbags :-)

> >

> > OK so Royal Dornoch is "fantastic but over-rated". By whom and on what basis ? Certainly not by me. If it is not one of the top 10 or 20 courses in the world what is? I have never played Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Augusta National but to my unprofessional eye it sure rates with all the others up in that region of the Top 100. (That I have played, I should say). Do you know somethng that I dont?

>

> I don't want to go off in the weeds anymore than has been done here already, so you're welcome to take your case of the vapors over to the [uK forum](https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1776352/tr-blustery-scottish-links-classic-english-heathland-and-deal/p1 "UK forum") and I'll reply there.

> But I thought it the context of this thread it was pretty clear, in that I was using it as an example of saying someone/something is 'overrated' doesn't mean someone is casting aspersions on something and people need to get their back up... ironically enough.

 

So far this has been about an architect and his body of work, and then you bring in a single course by saying it is fantastic but overrated - so I guess that means you disagree with its high rating and think there are very many better courses in the world, say at least 20. I am just asking on what basis you state that opinion. Rating a single course is much easier surely than rating an architect and his various efforts. I have played most of the top 50 in the world apart from the US private enclaves so I am interested in how you reach your opinion.

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

> >

> > How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

>

> What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

>

> For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

>

> You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

 

well, your post is 100% foolish and lame. Divot rules have nothing to do with an evaluation of Ross.

 

And yes, deciding if Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

> > >

> > > How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

> >

> > What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

> >

> > For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

> >

> > You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

>

> well, your post is 100% foolish and lame. Divot rules have nothing to do with an evaluation of Ross.

>

> And yes, deciding if Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

 

You’re very wrong.

 

Saying that you don’t enjoy Ross courses is what we’d think of as subjective. (Referring to one’s description of their mental state.)

 

On the other hand, saying Ross is overrated is hardly 100% subjective as one is then noting that Ross is rated by others according to some standard. (Referring to an established conversation with criteria, etc.)

 

You should stick to whining about divots.

 

 

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

> > > >

> > > > How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

> > >

> > > What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

> > >

> > > For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

> > >

> > > You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

> >

> > well, your post is 100% foolish and lame. Divot rules have nothing to do with an evaluation of Ross.

> >

> > And yes, deciding if Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

>

> You’re very wrong.

>

> Saying that you don’t enjoy Ross courses is what we’d think of as subjective. (Referring to one’s description of their mental state.)

>

> On the other hand, saying Ross is overrated is hardly 100% subjective as one is then noting that Ross is rated by others according to some standard. (Referring to an established conversation with criteria, etc.)

>

> You should stick to whining about divots.

>

>

All opinions about courses are subjective and course ratings are based on subjective standards. Whether someone believes Ross courses are overrated or not is subjective opinion.

 

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

> > > > >

> > > > > How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

> > > >

> > > > What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

> > > >

> > > > For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

> > > >

> > > > You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

> > >

> > > well, your post is 100% foolish and lame. Divot rules have nothing to do with an evaluation of Ross.

> > >

> > > And yes, deciding if Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

> >

> > You’re very wrong.

> >

> > Saying that you don’t enjoy Ross courses is what we’d think of as subjective. (Referring to one’s description of their mental state.)

> >

> > On the other hand, saying Ross is overrated is hardly 100% subjective as one is then noting that Ross is rated by others according to some standard. (Referring to an established conversation with criteria, etc.)

> >

> > You should stick to whining about divots.

> >

> >

> All opinions about courses are subjective and course ratings are based on subjective standards. Whether someone believes Ross courses are overrated or not is subjective opinion.

>

 

How do you know this? What makes a claim subjective? What do you mean by subjective?

 

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @matthewb said:> To me, the most interesting way to explore Ross and how he is regarded starts with how one judges golf course architecture and then moves to discussion of individual courses and particular holes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How one judges golf courses is 100% subjective and individual. There is no right or wrong, just our opinions.

> > > > >

> > > > > What’s the criteria for determining what type of claim is 100% subjective versus what type of claim is not 100% subjective?

> > > > >

> > > > > For instance, why are claims about golf course architecture (according to you) 100% subjective while you certainly don’t think rules (or lack thereof) about divots are 100% subjective? Or do you think rules are 100% subjective too but you like to argue about rules simply for the sake of arguing?

> > > > >

> > > > > You’re quite a argumentative fellow to then fall back on a lame position like a discussion concerning whether or not Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

> > > >

> > > > well, your post is 100% foolish and lame. Divot rules have nothing to do with an evaluation of Ross.

> > > >

> > > > And yes, deciding if Ross is overrated is 100% subjective.

> > >

> > > You’re very wrong.

> > >

> > > Saying that you don’t enjoy Ross courses is what we’d think of as subjective. (Referring to one’s description of their mental state.)

> > >

> > > On the other hand, saying Ross is overrated is hardly 100% subjective as one is then noting that Ross is rated by others according to some standard. (Referring to an established conversation with criteria, etc.)

> > >

> > > You should stick to whining about divots.

> > >

> > >

> > All opinions about courses are subjective and course ratings are based on subjective standards. Whether someone believes Ross courses are overrated or not is subjective opinion.

> >

>

> How do you know this? What makes a claim subjective? What do you mean by subjective?

>

 

Seriously? I have to educate you on the definition of subjective?

 

characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

 

Subjective things depend on your own ideas and opinions: there isn't any universal truth. Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:> You should stick to whining about divots.

 

 

You should stick to whining about people who whine about divots.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:> On the other hand, saying Ross is overrated is hardly 100% subjective as one is then noting that Ross is rated by others according to some standard. (Referring to an established conversation with criteria, etc.)

 

Saying anything is overrated is 100% subjective. Saying anything is pretty is 100% subjective.

 

You should learn the English language.

[JeffreySpicoli]

You two are demonstrating your vast ignorance concerning epistemology.

 

Just because something is not objective does not mean that it’s simply a form of subjective that doesn’t require reasoning.

 

A statement that claims Ross is overrated is expected to be informed, provide evidence, and be well reasoned. Subjective claims aren’t, “I can say whatever I want and there’s no valid reason to question me.” You can’t defend poorly reasoned arguments by trying to hide behind “subjective.”

 

Further, I’d love to learn more about “100% subjective.” For instance, how does one determine if something is 100% subjective versus 95% subjective or 50% subjective or 25% subjective?

 

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> You two are demonstrating your vast ignorance concerning epistemology.

>

> Just because something is not objective does not mean that it’s simply a form of subjective that doesn’t require reasoning.

>

> A statement that claims Ross is overrated is expected to be informed, provide evidence, and be well reasoned. Subjective claims aren’t, “I can say whatever I want and there’s no valid reason to question me.” You can’t defend poorly reasoned arguments by trying to hide behind “subjective.”

>

> Further, I’d love to learn more about “100% subjective.” For instance, how does one determine if something is 100% subjective versus 95% subjective or 50% subjective or 25% subjective?

>

 

You are in over your head with debating nomenclature. You can argue that a subjective opinion is not valid or supported well. That has nothing to do with whether something is subjective or objective.

 

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

 

>

> A statement that claims Ross is overrated is expected to be informed, provide evidence, and be well reasoned.

>

 

From a well-respected golf architecture researcher and author on William Flynn:

 

“Three reasons for my selection of Ross as most overrated:

 

1. The vast majority of his courses had little staying power. He didn't seem to foresee the future of golf and account for it. A number of his courses were remodeled within less than 10 years of their construction; including seven by Flynn (a high percentage of Flynn's redesign work).

 

2. His routing style was rather one dimensional. [...] has noticed his propensity to have high tees, low landing areas and high greens. I've seen this over and over. Well, at CC York ... he did this a lot and missed out on some really great topographic features and the course, in my mind, did not make the best use of land.

 

For the Flynn book we're just going to stick to a comparison and contrast of the routings and demonstrate routing tendencies. But here I will say that Ross did not come up with as interesting a design nor does his stand the test of time as Flynn's would have. Not only that but Flynn's routing would have taken the golfer to interesting spots with great overlooks or natural settings for walks, tees and green sites in and across ravines that Ross simply avoided because the topography got a bit complicated and the holes were possibly too difficult for a membership that did not want such a test of golf. Maybe Ross gave them what they wanted, but it was a far cry from what the terrain called for. ..,

 

3. Ross's greatness is established by a relatively small number of courses in his overall portfolio. Are many of his courses disregarded in favor of his best efforts? I think so. Put it this way, do you think his HR to at-bat ratio is poor compared to other architects? How about his batting average? Quite a few big game-winning hits, but are they enough to place him at the apex of the pyramid?"

[buckeyefl]

The expert with no experience cuts and pastes once more! Long live Google.

[JeffreySpicoli]

@Roadking2003 and @LICC, you’ve both proven that you know little about golf course architecture and that you know even less about introductory epistemology and logical argumentation. Given this, I’m going to leave you to your trolling and/or your self-congratulatory celebration of your ignorance.

 

This is my final post in this thread. I know that each of you will need to bolster your ego by getting in the last word. You are now free to get in that last word. Have at it.

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:

> You two are demonstrating your vast ignorance concerning epistemology.

>

> Just because something is not objective does not mean that it’s simply a form of subjective that doesn’t require reasoning.

>

> A statement that claims Ross is overrated is expected to be informed, provide evidence, and be well reasoned. Subjective claims aren’t, “I can say whatever I want and there’s no valid reason to question me.” You can’t defend poorly reasoned arguments by trying to hide behind “subjective.”

>

> Further, I’d love to learn more about “100% subjective.” For instance, how does one determine if something is 100% subjective versus 95% subjective or 50% subjective or 25% subjective?

>

Saying Ross is overrated is entirely an opinion because there are no facts involved. Therefore it is completely subjective and no reason to question the statement. You can't quantify "overrated" with facts. You might quote facts to support your opinion but it's still completely subjective.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:

> @Roadking2003 and @LICC, you’ve both proven that you know little about golf course architecture and that you know even less about introductory epistemology and logical argumentation. Given this, I’m going to leave you to your trolling and/or your self-congratulatory celebration of your ignorance.

>

> This is my final post in this thread. I know that each of you will need to bolster your ego by getting in the last word. You are now free to get in that last word. Have at it.

 

Too bad you are done with this thread. If you stuck around longer you might learn something from those of us who have an opinion that differs from yours. You might even develop the mental fortitude to accept that others have valid opinions that differ from yours. Your opinions are not more important than others on this board.

 

BTW, in case you come back, this thread isn't about golf course architecture.

[AppAlum]

> @CDM said:

> Perry Maxwell anyone??? =)

>

Yes please. Old Town Club for the win!

 

[FairwayFred]

> @AppAlum said:

> > @CDM said:

> > Perry Maxwell anyone??? =)

> >

> Yes please. Old Town Club for the win!

>

 

Perry Maxwell was VERY under rated..... (IMO) :smiley:

[LICC]

I just read someone who compared the recently released 2019 Golf Magazine World's Best Courses list with the 1989 Golf Magazine list, and he observed that other than Pinehurst, Donald Ross courses have dropped like rocks. Oakland Hills down 54 spots, Inverness down 28 spots (although both of those have had significant renovations), Oak Hill off the list, Scioto off the list, and Seminole down 21 spots.

[FairwayFred]

Does that mean Ran Morrisette is biased against Donald Ross? Lol JK

Having played all but one of those courses I'd agree w them all dropping. I'd bet Oakland Hills goes back up rankings after it reopens from the extensive restoration that's being done there. The layout that was ranked in this ranking is not relevant anymore. I'd agree it was over rated by many. Absolutely top notch set of greens but few standout holes tee to green and VERY penal off the tee. Inverness is really good now that they took the Fazio out but the back and forth, parallel, repetitive nature of the back 9 makes it a course that should not be in the Top 100 imo. Scioto is not really Ross anymore (Nicklaus) and is an above average parkland but again shouldn't be anywhere near the top 100 imo. I have not played Oak Hill so no comment. Seminole is in about the right spot. I think Seminole is fantastic especially with the recent work out there but imo often gets a bump because it's in Florida and so much of the golf there is uninspiring, housing development courses.

I think of Ross as a lower ceiling, higher floor type of architect. Lots of better than average courses, few terrible ones but very few best of the best type courses also.

[LICC]

Scioto is an interesting one. It wasn't Nicklaus that changed the course away from the original Ross version. It was Dick Wilson. Nicklaus worked with Hurzdan decades later to fix the greens and make them closer to what they were before the Wilson changes.

It is interesting that as the Golf Magazine rankings skewed more favorably toward Golden Age architects, that trend doesn't seem to include Ross. I hold your opinion in high regard regarding Ross, and I mentioned earlier that you can say the same about quite a few other architects of his era.

[FairwayFred]

That's interesting I didn't know the full history. There's definitely alot at Scioto that doesn't remind me of Ross. Most of it really. I grew up on a great old Ross in Detroit and I thought he was just the pinnacle of golf courses. Then I got out there and played more stuff and started to realize that most of the Ross I had fallen in love with was just really good and not truly great compared to what I found elsewhere. Plus you find alot of similarly between Ross courses there is not alot of completely unique holes on Ross courses. I absolutely love the short 300 yardish par 4 w the pushed up volcano green but you find that hole at so many Ross courses. Lots of holes with high greens and tees and low fairways in the middle. Again lots of really good but few truly great courses.

[LICC]

To add on another interesting feature of the Scioto renovation history, when Dick Wilson was hired to remodel the course in 1960 or so, he send Robert Van Hagge and Joe Lee to do the work, and assigned each a different 9. So you had a front 9 with greens that were a markedly different style than the back 9. Von Hagge liked smaller greens with slopes throughout and Lee liked larger greens with flatter interiors, but they both built elevated pushed up greens. Supposedly quite a few weren't designed or constructed well and the course had problems for years keeping the greens in good shape until Hurzdan and Nicklaus came in around 2006 and changed all the greens.

It does make you wonder just what in the world some of these greens committees at top clubs were thinking years ago.

[BigDan]

I have played two Donald Ross designed golf courses, at least two that I know of anyway, so take this with a grain of salt. I have played the course at the Grove Park inn in Asheville North Carolina, and the Ross course at French Lick in Indiana, played each one time.  The French Lick course was beautiful and just seemed special. While the Grove Park course was nice, it didn't really seem special.  Now, if I went back and played each course a dozen times or so I might have a little more empirical data to go by, but this is the feeling I have on these two courses playing them once and and not really being able to delve into the particulars.

 

With all that said, I will say that as many courses as he designed, I'm quite sure there are several clunkers in there and many no better than very average courses. But when you hear Ross's name mentioned in conjunction with golf course design, you always hear how great he was and how great his designs are, you never hear about the clunkers and many average courses. So in essence, you would almost have to infer that yes, there are probably many Ross designed courses out there that are overrated, simply because they carry a higher "respect" than they should just by being associated with the Ross name/brand.  Even if this is the case, it doesn't take away from the truly great golf courses that he did build.

[Imp]

Lots of Ross courses up here in New England. Much of it comes down to the same... how was/is the course kept up/maintained for the level of play it sees? 

 

A couple of them off the top of my head are muni courses (Triggs, George Wright, and Shennecossett), get full tee sheets almost every day, and lots of play, and the conditions are the same which you'll see on any muni course... average to worn. Hard compacted soil, a sweeper will have a better time than a digger.

Same with some of the Private courses up here, Agawam Hunt, Wannamoisett, Metacomet (RIP), Newport Country Club, etc... average to decent (for the area). Note on Newport CC: since it's by the water/ocean, always takes a beating and very compact soil and thin grass compared to regular resort courses... and conditions are typical to the "good" courses, resting on the laurels of it's prior history. You have to be a sweeper here (and on the other courses too). 

Then others, like Brae Burn, Brookside Club, Misquamicut, Pt. Judith, R.I.C.C, have the "damn great conditioning". Ball sits up almost everywhere, etc....

Then you think of the other courses, like French Lick, Oakland Hills, Broadmoor, East Lake, Interlachen, or Pinehurst and... wow. Next level, but also, "destination courses", not like any of the ones I mentioned above...

It's not JUST layout that plays into the wow factor for a Donald Ross, but also conditioning and maintenance over the years. Great conditioning and maintenance, and the $$ that goes along with it, will be more impressionable to the memories than just the designer.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Imp