Donald Ross courses overrated?

[raynorfan1]

Clarifying previous comments, I will continue to argue that Donald Ross courses _tend_ to be _overrated_. Not _bad_, but simply rated more highly than they deserve to be (i.e. the definition of overrated).

 

Ross worked on more than 400 courses. Including designing a handful of unarguably elite courses. But he was also prone to _really_ lazy routing. On the aerial of Detroit Golf Club, I see **14** fairways that are effectively parallel to one and other, squeeze in like so many hot dogs in a package. While it's certainly _efficient_, it's just not good routing. A huge number of his courses have this forced march of side-by-side holes through a big open field, often delineated with a line of trees.

 

In my opinion, he has two things going for him: first, he was a great marketer when he was working. Second, he had a patron in Richard Tufts who was keenly interested in marketing his image. Pinehurst has done a spectacular job in marketing Donald Ross to the golfing community; connecting with members of 400+ Ross courses, and encouraging them to visit his masterpiece at #2. The resort's marketing machine created a legend that gives Pinehurst a "hook" into thousands of golfers in their target demographic to convince them to come visit the resort.

 

I'm not arguing that Donald Ross didn't build some great courses. I just joined one and I love it. But as an architect, was he _really_ better than, say, Wayne Stiles? I'm not convinced that he was.

[QC Heel]

Nevermind

[LICC]

> @"QC Heel" said:

> @LICC which two Ross courses have you played?

 

Biltmore in Miami and George Wright in Boston. Also Wykagl in Westchester and Echo Lake in NJ, but those have had other architects do multiple holes over time.

[LICC]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @"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"?

 

Did Crump do any other course but Pine Valley? And he brought in famous golf architects to design various holes, Travis and Tillinghast in particular.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

 

Thanks. You’ve confirmed that you’re not to be taken seriously.

 

You state that “Ross courses . . . have one clear best way to play each hole” and that “the greens were good but nothing beyond . . . other designers.”

 

By those with reasonable education in golf course architecture, Ross is lauded for providing multiple hole routes that are appropriate for varying skillsets and he’s highly regarded for his green complexes.

 

Your criticism of Ross is as valuable as someone attempting to argue that Shakespeare’s plays are overrated when compared to Hamilton and High School Musical.

 

[buckeyefl]

Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

[buckeyefl]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

 

You need to play some more courses.

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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.

>

> Thanks. You’ve confirmed that you’re not to be taken seriously.

>

> You state that “Ross courses . . . have one clear best way to play each hole” and that “the greens were good but nothing beyond . . . other designers.”

>

> By those with reasonable education in golf course architecture, Ross is lauded for providing multiple hole routes that are appropriate for varying skillsets and he’s highly regarded for his green complexes.

>

> Your criticism of Ross is as valuable as someone attempting to argue that Shakespeare’s plays are overrated when compared to Hamilton and High School Musical.

>

 

Again you type a lot of nothing and add no substance. Do you have anything intelligent to add? Examples where his courses provide all these multiple options and amazing greens? Anything substantive to address @raynorfan1 ‘s views? Sounds like you just read some Golf Digest articles and think you actually know something.

[buckeyefl]

> @postfold said:

> 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.

 

Dead on

[LICC]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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.

>

> You need to play some more courses.

 

 

Another brilliant comment with such substance ...

[raynorfan1]

> @buckeyefl said:

> Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

 

I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

[raynorfan1]

> @matthewb said:

> By those with reasonable education in golf course architecture, Ross is lauded for providing multiple hole routes that are appropriate for varying skillsets and he’s highly regarded for his green complexes.

>

> Your criticism of Ross is as valuable as someone attempting to argue that Shakespeare’s plays are overrated when compared to Hamilton and High School Musical.

 

Here's the fundamental problem: what you write in the first part, above, is 100% true for the best Ross layouts. Absolutely true. They are masterpieces.

 

But Ross also did a ton of commercial work that was very "meh". In other words, he wrote a lot of High School Musicals to pay the bills...and they're just not very good.

[raynorfan1]

> @LICC said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @"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"?

>

> Did Crump do any other course but Pine Valley? And he brought in famous golf architects to design various holes, Travis and Tillinghast in particular.

 

He did not. _(Edit: to clarify, he did not do any other course; he of course DID consult with many of the leading designers of the day on the layout)._

 

One of the paradoxes in my mind with respect to golf course architecture is this:

**IF** we subscribe to the greatness and genius of a certain subset of architects (Ross, MacKenzie, Colt, Old Tom Morris, Braid, Dye, Coore, et.al), then how do we explain that 6 of the 20 Greatest Courses in America (according to Golf Digest Panelists) were designed by rank amateurs with no experience in the field?

 

Pine Valley

Oakmont

Merion

Pebble Beach

Chicago Golf Club

The Country Club

 

Fully 30% of **the best** courses were designed by guys with no experience. So in how much esteem should we hold experience?

[sgersten19]

> @LICC said:

> How about Sagamore in NY?

 

Sagamore is a very fun course to play with a good amount of risk/reward but I don't believe it's a true Ross. He never set foot on the property.

 

Glens Falls CC 20 min to the South is a true Ross and is even more fun to play (full disclosure I grew up playing there).

 

Modern pro tournament golf has sort of passed by Ross courses. Aronomik is a very tough golf course and 20 under or so won a year or two ago. Their putting/short game are so good it eliminates most of the courses last defenses.

 

I agree with the previous comment that no one did more with less than Ross.

[LICC]

@raynorfan1 said: But as an architect, was he really better than, say, Wayne Stiles? I'm not convinced that he was.

 

Or Devereaux Emmett? Or Stanley Thompson?

[Hawkeye77]

Of all the things to troll on and on about and revealing no real knowledge of the man the more the OP posts.

[Roadking2003]

> @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?

 

Yes. I've only played six of his courses and I tend to think they are overrated. Pinehurst #2 and East Lake are two good examples.

 

But criticizing Ross is like being against motherhood and apple pie.

[CCTxGolf]

Lol. Seminole, East Lake, Oak Hill, Pinehurst... Famous for designs across the country in all different climates and topographic features. Hosted multiple majors, US ams, PGA events...

[Roadking2003]

> @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.

 

Exactly! PH #2 may be perfect to an architect. But almost all golfers rate courses on "fun to play" scale, not a "perfect architecture" scale. If great architecture produces a fun and exciting course, that's wonderful.

 

Personally, I found East Lake to be boring. So when people say ".....but...but....but it's great architecturally", I say "so what?" It wasn't as much fun as dozens of other courses I have played.

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said:> Thanks. You’ve confirmed that you’re not to be taken seriously.

>

> Your criticism of Ross is as valuable as someone attempting to argue that Shakespeare’s plays are overrated when compared to Hamilton and High School Musical.

 

Just another "if you don't agree with me, you are stupid" post.

[buckeyefl]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

>

> I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

 

I'm not even sure where you are getting "propensity" from because I have literally never experienced that issue with Ross courses. Maybe you should review some of the qualities of his better designs. You mentioned parallel holes and cramped and those simply aren't normal design features you see in his better courses.

 

You were correct in saying that he did "build" a lot of courses and since he was commissioned to design some of those without ever stepping on the site there will if course be "duds" that were also restricted by the acreage available and the quality of the crew.

 

“I think Ross realized he was introducing a new populace to the game of golf and felt a responsibility to use his work to teach the game in a balanced manner and examine a player’s ability to hit a broad spectrum of shots. His use of bunkers to direct a player to the proper line of play and or suggest a shape of shot spoke to the player abilities. Ross didn’t force the player around the course, he gave them multiple options and let them chose. Many times the shortest route was fraught with danger but the longer route was more visible and comfortable. The approach from each would present a different requirement and difficulty. There are certainly cases such as the Volcano par 3's where he required one dominate shot type to reach the green, an aerial approach in this case.

Ross' work is so unique because he routed and designed from what he was given at each and every piece of property. His courses and or holes seldom look alike due to the way he connected each and every hole to "that" piece of property. I've often said Ross designed his holes by visualizing golf shots and knowing how the ball would react once on the ground. He placed bunkers and angled his greens and edges to interact with what he perceived the ball movement, drainage, and other factors to be. His ability and willingness to route holes and place greens over, through and across a variety of what would be considered severe topographic features to a modern day architect was very impressive considering the equipment at his disposal.”

 

There were several great designers of that era and only a person unaware of his work would suggest that it wasn't too tier right along with the others.

[buckeyefl]

> @LICC said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > You need to play some more courses.

>

>

> Another brilliant comment with such substance ...

 

Wasn't shooting for brilliant but thank you. You've played two courses so I think suggesting you play more before lecturing people might just be a brilliant suggestion. Reading a book or two about the man and his designs before playing any more might also be a brilliant idea. Sometimes "great" doesn't hit you up side the Mellon like an island green and takes a few rounds before you realize what you just experienced.

[buckeyefl]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > > @"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"?

> >

> > Did Crump do any other course but Pine Valley? And he brought in famous golf architects to design various holes, Travis and Tillinghast in particular.

>

> He did not. _(Edit: to clarify, he did not do any other course; he of course DID consult with many of the leading designers of the day on the layout)._

>

> One of the paradoxes in my mind with respect to golf course architecture is this:

> **IF** we subscribe to the greatness and genius of a certain subset of architects (Ross, MacKenzie, Colt, Old Tom Morris, Braid, Dye, Coore, et.al), then how do we explain that 6 of the 20 Greatest Courses in America (according to Golf Digest Panelists) were designed by rank amateurs with no experience in the field?

>

> Pine Valley

> Oakmont

> Merion

> Pebble Beach

> Chicago Golf Club

> The Country Club

>

> Fully 30% of **the best** courses were designed by guys with no experience. So in how much esteem should we hold experience?

 

Someone should start another thread on Golf Digest panelists. Let's take location, history and exclusivity all of which sway far too many weak minds, out the equation and do some new reviews.

[LICC]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

> >

> > I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

>

> I'm not even sure where you are getting "propensity" from because I have literally never experienced that issue with Ross courses. Maybe you should review some of the qualities of his better designs. You mentioned parallel holes and cramped and those simply aren't normal design features you see in his better courses.

>

> You were correct in saying that he did "build" a lot of courses and since he was commissioned to design some of those without ever stepping on the site there will if course be "duds" that were also restricted by the acreage available and the quality of the crew.

>

> “I think Ross realized he was introducing a new populace to the game of golf and felt a responsibility to use his work to teach the game in a balanced manner and examine a player’s ability to hit a broad spectrum of shots. His use of bunkers to direct a player to the proper line of play and or suggest a shape of shot spoke to the player abilities. Ross didn’t force the player around the course, he gave them multiple options and let them chose. Many times the shortest route was fraught with danger but the longer route was more visible and comfortable. The approach from each would present a different requirement and difficulty. There are certainly cases such as the Volcano par 3's where he required one dominate shot type to reach the green, an aerial approach in this case.

> Ross' work is so unique because he routed and designed from what he was given at each and every piece of property. His courses and or holes seldom look alike due to the way he connected each and every hole to "that" piece of property. I've often said Ross designed his holes by visualizing golf shots and knowing how the ball would react once on the ground. He placed bunkers and angled his greens and edges to interact with what he perceived the ball movement, drainage, and other factors to be. His ability and willingness to route holes and place greens over, through and across a variety of what would be considered severe topographic features to a modern day architect was very impressive considering the equipment at his disposal.”

>

> There were several great designers of that era and only a person unaware of his work would suggest that it wasn't too tier right along with the others.

 

Saying that he routed courses based on what he was given with each property doesn’t say a lot because what architect during that time period didn’t do this? They had to given the technology of the day. The key is how talented and creative were they in doing so. And while routing is extremely important, there are lots of other aspects of design that are also key. And I never said his courses aren’t good. I’m wondering if they are generally overrated in that people speak of Ross as at the highest level of golf architects in history. I’m asking for views from others given that I’ve only played a few. And contrary to @Hawkeye77 ‘s simplified remarks, it seems a good number of people do think Ross courses tend to be overrated and have provided quality commentary here in that regard, as have some of the Ross proponents who disagree. We have a good back and forth discussion happening if you and a couple of others can please avoid the low level comments.

[caniac6]

I am no expert on golf architecture, probably didn't even spell it correctly, but I like Ross courses. I've played about half a dozen, and worked (Raleigh Country Club & Forsyth Country Club) two. They were all fun to play. Had a good variety of holes, and options on how to play each hole. I enjoyed the courses, so I would not say he is over rated. It sure seem like a lot of designers have copied some of the things he did. I've played courses by well known designers that I never want to play again. I would like to play every Ross course I've ever played again. I guess that's the best thing I can say about Ross's courses.

[LICC]

> @CCTxGolf said:

> Lol. Seminole, East Lake, Oak Hill, Pinehurst... Famous for designs across the country in all different climates and topographic features. Hosted multiple majors, US ams, PGA events...

 

 

Hosting PGA Tour events doesn’t equal great design.

[raynorfan1]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

> >

> > I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

>

> I'm not even sure where you are getting "propensity" from because I have literally never experienced that issue with Ross courses. Maybe you should review some of the qualities of his better designs. You mentioned parallel holes and cramped and those simply aren't normal design features you see in his better courses.

>

> You were correct in saying that he did "build" a lot of courses and since he was commissioned to design some of those without ever stepping on the site there will if course be "duds" that were also restricted by the acreage available and the quality of the crew.

>

> “I think Ross realized he was introducing a new populace to the game of golf and felt a responsibility to use his work to teach the game in a balanced manner and examine a player’s ability to hit a broad spectrum of shots. His use of bunkers to direct a player to the proper line of play and or suggest a shape of shot spoke to the player abilities. Ross didn’t force the player around the course, he gave them multiple options and let them chose. Many times the shortest route was fraught with danger but the longer route was more visible and comfortable. The approach from each would present a different requirement and difficulty. There are certainly cases such as the Volcano par 3's where he required one dominate shot type to reach the green, an aerial approach in this case.

> Ross' work is so unique because he routed and designed from what he was given at each and every piece of property. His courses and or holes seldom look alike due to the way he connected each and every hole to "that" piece of property. I've often said Ross designed his holes by visualizing golf shots and knowing how the ball would react once on the ground. He placed bunkers and angled his greens and edges to interact with what he perceived the ball movement, drainage, and other factors to be. His ability and willingness to route holes and place greens over, through and across a variety of what would be considered severe topographic features to a modern day architect was very impressive considering the equipment at his disposal.”

>

> There were several great designers of that era and only a person unaware of his work would suggest that it wasn't too tier right along with the others.

 

I think you’re having a hard time understanding my point.

 

Donald Ross was a great architect. His best designs are up there in the pantheon of great courses. I’m proud to be a member of one of his better regarded designs.

 

BUT

 

He did a lot of work. A good number of those courses are very average. They hype the “Donald Ross” pedigree and become more highly regarded than they should be on their merits as a result.

 

I’m not arguing that his “best” or even “better” courses are over rated. My point is that the ~300 courses that are NOT among his “better” ones ARE overrated by their association with somebody capable of such great work.

[buckeyefl]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > > Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

> > >

> > > I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

> >

> > I'm not even sure where you are getting "propensity" from because I have literally never experienced that issue with Ross courses. Maybe you should review some of the qualities of his better designs. You mentioned parallel holes and cramped and those simply aren't normal design features you see in his better courses.

> >

> > You were correct in saying that he did "build" a lot of courses and since he was commissioned to design some of those without ever stepping on the site there will if course be "duds" that were also restricted by the acreage available and the quality of the crew.

> >

> > “I think Ross realized he was introducing a new populace to the game of golf and felt a responsibility to use his work to teach the game in a balanced manner and examine a player’s ability to hit a broad spectrum of shots. His use of bunkers to direct a player to the proper line of play and or suggest a shape of shot spoke to the player abilities. Ross didn’t force the player around the course, he gave them multiple options and let them chose. Many times the shortest route was fraught with danger but the longer route was more visible and comfortable. The approach from each would present a different requirement and difficulty. There are certainly cases such as the Volcano par 3's where he required one dominate shot type to reach the green, an aerial approach in this case.

> > Ross' work is so unique because he routed and designed from what he was given at each and every piece of property. His courses and or holes seldom look alike due to the way he connected each and every hole to "that" piece of property. I've often said Ross designed his holes by visualizing golf shots and knowing how the ball would react once on the ground. He placed bunkers and angled his greens and edges to interact with what he perceived the ball movement, drainage, and other factors to be. His ability and willingness to route holes and place greens over, through and across a variety of what would be considered severe topographic features to a modern day architect was very impressive considering the equipment at his disposal.”

> >

> > There were several great designers of that era and only a person unaware of his work would suggest that it wasn't too tier right along with the others.

>

> I think you’re having a hard time understanding my point.

>

> Donald Ross was a great architect. His best designs are up there in the pantheon of great courses. I’m proud to be a member of one of his better regarded designs.

>

> BUT

>

> He did a lot of work. A good number of those courses are very average. They hype the “Donald Ross” pedigree and become more highly regarded than they should be on their merits as a result.

>

> I’m not arguing that his “best” or even “better” courses are over rated. My point is that the ~300 courses that are NOT among his “better” ones ARE overrated by their association with somebody capable of such great work.

 

Not misunderstanding at all.

[buckeyefl]

> @LICC said:

> > @CCTxGolf said:

> > Lol. Seminole, East Lake, Oak Hill, Pinehurst... Famous for designs across the country in all different climates and topographic features. Hosted multiple majors, US ams, PGA events...

>

>

> Hosting PGA Tour events doesn’t equal great design.

 

You missed something.

_"Famous for designs across the country in all different climates and topographic features. "_

[buckeyefl]

> @LICC said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > > Routing is many times dictated by the area and money available

> > >

> > > I presume this is directed at my criticism of Ross' propensity to parallel route his courses. I agree that routing is many times dictated by the area - but most of these out-and-back-and-out-and-back layouts are built in essentially potato fields where Ross could have done anything. No design variety whatsoever. It may have been a question of money in some cases, but that doesn't absolve bad design. It **does** mean that these Donald Ross courses built on the cheap are _overrated_ by virtue of the Ross brand name.

> >

> > I'm not even sure where you are getting "propensity" from because I have literally never experienced that issue with Ross courses. Maybe you should review some of the qualities of his better designs. You mentioned parallel holes and cramped and those simply aren't normal design features you see in his better courses.

> >

> > You were correct in saying that he did "build" a lot of courses and since he was commissioned to design some of those without ever stepping on the site there will if course be "duds" that were also restricted by the acreage available and the quality of the crew.

> >

> > “I think Ross realized he was introducing a new populace to the game of golf and felt a responsibility to use his work to teach the game in a balanced manner and examine a player’s ability to hit a broad spectrum of shots. His use of bunkers to direct a player to the proper line of play and or suggest a shape of shot spoke to the player abilities. Ross didn’t force the player around the course, he gave them multiple options and let them chose. Many times the shortest route was fraught with danger but the longer route was more visible and comfortable. The approach from each would present a different requirement and difficulty. There are certainly cases such as the Volcano par 3's where he required one dominate shot type to reach the green, an aerial approach in this case.

> > Ross' work is so unique because he routed and designed from what he was given at each and every piece of property. His courses and or holes seldom look alike due to the way he connected each and every hole to "that" piece of property. I've often said Ross designed his holes by visualizing golf shots and knowing how the ball would react once on the ground. He placed bunkers and angled his greens and edges to interact with what he perceived the ball movement, drainage, and other factors to be. His ability and willingness to route holes and place greens over, through and across a variety of what would be considered severe topographic features to a modern day architect was very impressive considering the equipment at his disposal.”

> >

> > There were several great designers of that era and only a person unaware of his work would suggest that it wasn't too tier right along with the others.

>

> Saying that he routed courses based on what he was given with each property doesn’t say a lot because what architect during that time period didn’t do this? They had to given the technology of the day. The key is how talented and creative were they in doing so. And while routing is extremely important, there are lots of other aspects of design that are also key. And I never said his courses aren’t good. I’m wondering if they are generally overrated in that people speak of Ross as at the highest level of golf architects in history. I’m asking for views from others given that I’ve only played a few. And contrary to @Hawkeye77 ‘s simplified remarks, it seems a good number of people do think Ross courses tend to be overrated and have provided quality commentary here in that regard, as have some of the Ross proponents who disagree. We have a good back and forth discussion happening if you and a couple of others can please avoid the low level comments.

 

Nothing low level about it. You have next to zero experience and you are talking about a man who designed a large number of courses. If you are referring to my last comment then it most certainly applies to someone like yourself who is showing their ignorance or lack of knowledge of the subject. The cut and paste above is from an architect site not from myself so maybe take it up with the golf course architects who hold Ross and others of his era in the highest regard. Again a book or two on architecture would be a huge help in you increasing your knowledge before lobbing grenades devoid of little if any experience.