Donald Ross courses overrated?

[PuttCurseRepeat]

I don't know if Donald Ross is overrated. I think Neil Young is overrated, but a lot of music lovers rate him highly and many artists who I enjoy listening to, name him as a great influence. Many golf course architects hold Ross in high regard and his influence remains in elements of modern design, so there is something to be said about that. Perhaps "overrated" isn't the best term to use in a discussion of Ross' work, or use the term, along with caveats. The thing which is most irksome in this thread is the Ivory Tower mentality that has seemed to migrate here from areas such as the GCA discussion board. The condescending tone is the antithesis of what should make up a golf course design discussion. GCA is the greatest website that I'm aware of for information regarding golf course design but one could spend endless hours on its forum reading contributors attempting to convince each other how highly intelligent they are and how finely tuned their design sensibilities are, with a huge helping of subtle and not so subtle insults levied at those who challenge the incestuous group-think. Recently, one man who had the audacity to call Bethpage Black a great golf course, was ridiculed, spoken down to, insulted and eventually banned from the forum by pressure from some of the site's more prolific, tenured and petty members.

 

We are discussing golf courses and there has been some very good, positive input on this subject. Let's keep the discussion positive and leave the tweed jackets with the leather elbows in the closet.

[raynorfan1]

> @postfold said:

> There are a couple references ITT to Ross courses that are "bad". Can anyone list those? If I ever get a chance to play them I'd go out of my way to check them out. I've played a couple that could credibly be described as "uninspired", but I've enjoyed them anyway.

 

Newton Commonwealth

http://sterlinggolf.com/newton/

 

It should be noted that despite current status as a muni, it was built as a private club, and Ross lived just a few miles away, so it's unlikely that he didn't visit or know the site well.

[buckeyefl]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @postfold said:

> > There are a couple references ITT to Ross courses that are "bad". Can anyone list those? If I ever get a chance to play them I'd go out of my way to check them out. I've played a couple that could credibly be described as "uninspired", but I've enjoyed them anyway.

>

> Newton Commonwealth

> http://sterlinggolf.com/newton/

>

> It should be noted that despite current status as a muni, it was built as a private club, and Ross lived just a few miles away, so it's unlikely that he didn't visit or know the site well.

 

So the course was built then they asked Ross to come in and redo it. Do you see the numerous issues that would arise from that scenario? Established in 1897 and Ross paid to redesign in 1920. You are looking over quite a few courses in that area if the country to find something that Ross sorta/ kinda had his hands on in order to find a place to hang your hat.

[Zen_Golfer]

Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

[LICC]

> @Zengolfer36 said:

> Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

 

I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

[vallygolf]

> @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?

 

Is the 1925 Bugatti Type 35 Grand Prix overrated? Along with all the Bugatti sports cars of the early 1900"s. They for sure dont have the power or abilities of todays sports cars and driving some of them is really kind of meh, but they still command high six and even seven figures at auction. Ask any designer or architect and they will say that Ross in some way inspired them, just like car designers of today are standing on the shoulders of early Bugatti and other sports cars. The mere fact that so much of his philosophy architecturally spilled over into others designs stands the test of time and speaks for itself. IMO he is one of the masters of shot options on a hole, and matching the degree of difficulty off the tee and fairway to the complexity of the greens. Much of this nuance has been lost over time to remodel and changes in the game. Overhyped? Possibly, but if so it is our marketing centric society to blame....Overrated? as a huge body of work... I think not, but I have only played about 30 or so of his portfolio. I would go out of my way to play another.

[raynorfan1]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @postfold said:

> > > There are a couple references ITT to Ross courses that are "bad". Can anyone list those? If I ever get a chance to play them I'd go out of my way to check them out. I've played a couple that could credibly be described as "uninspired", but I've enjoyed them anyway.

> >

> > Newton Commonwealth

> > http://sterlinggolf.com/newton/

> >

> > It should be noted that despite current status as a muni, it was built as a private club, and Ross lived just a few miles away, so it's unlikely that he didn't visit or know the site well.

>

> So the course was built then they asked Ross to come in and redo it. Do you see the numerous issues that would arise from that scenario? Established in 1897 and Ross paid to redesign in 1920. You are looking over quite a few courses in that area if the country to find something that Ross sorta/ kinda had his hands on in order to find a place to hang your hat.

 

I was just highlighting the worst of the bunch. And he converted a 9 hole course into an 18...so fair to say most of the work is his. Should we not give him credit for the work he did at Essex County Club (widely regarded as one of the greatest Ross designs) because, after all, it was just a redesign?

 

But if you want an example of a "bad" original design, I'll propose Sandy Burr. Really uninspired layout.

[QC Heel]

@LICC said:

> > @Zengolfer36 said:

> > Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

>

> I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

 

In what ways is he spoken of that you disagree with or think are unjustified?

[LICC]

> @"QC Heel" said:

> @LICC said:

> > > @Zengolfer36 said:

> > > Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

> >

> > I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

>

> In what ways is he spoken of that you disagree with or think are unjustified?

 

At the same level as Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Macdonald

[QC Heel]

> @LICC said:

> > @"QC Heel" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > > @Zengolfer36 said:

> > > > Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

> > >

> > > I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

> >

> > In what ways is he spoken of that you disagree with or think are unjustified?

>

> At the same level as Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Macdonald

 

What about his work makes him undeserving of similar praise?

[buckeyefl]

> @LICC said:

> > @"QC Heel" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > > @Zengolfer36 said:

> > > > Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

> > >

> > > I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

> >

> > In what ways is he spoken of that you disagree with or think are unjustified?

>

> At the same level as Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Macdonald

 

How many Ross courses have you played again?

 

 

https://www.pinehurst.com/news/donald-ross-once-gave-a-tour-of-pinehurst-no-2-to-a-w-tillinghast/

 

 

[jerebear21]

go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

 

FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @jerebear21 said:

> go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

>

> FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

 

Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

 

[longballjs]

If you ever have a chance to play plainfield...do it. Its probably my favorite course, though havent played in a few years.

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @jerebear21 said:

> > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> >

> > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

>

> Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

>

 

Says the man too clueless to know that Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.

[LICC]

> @"QC Heel" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"QC Heel" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Zengolfer36 said:

> > > > > Ive played a couple Donald Ross courses here in Ohio and I like them. Tree lined fairways, oldschool feel. Whats not to love?

> > > >

> > > > I appreciate that too but the way Ross is spoken of is beyond just good, likeable old school courses, which you see from lots of architects from his era.

> > >

> > > In what ways is he spoken of that you disagree with or think are unjustified?

> >

> > At the same level as Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Macdonald

>

> What about his work makes him undeserving of similar praise?

 

See the comments above by me about the couple of his courses that I have played and from @raynorfan1

[Hawkeye77]

Edit: not worth it.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > >

> > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> >

> > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> >

>

> Says the man too clueless to know that Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.

 

Lol. I never said that. You sure struggle with easy facts.

[Hawkeye77]

I know Ross!

 

 

[QC Heel]

Ok, this is dumb.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > >

> > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> >

> > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> >

> Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

 

You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

 

What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

 

All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

 

Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

 

At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

[Roadking2003]

> @matthewb said: It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture.

So what? You don't need to know anything about golf course architecture to know what courses are good.

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > >

> > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > >

> > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > >

> > Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

>

> You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

>

> What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

>

> All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

>

> Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

>

> At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

 

You are like a broken record, and saying nothing substantial. And you clearly don’t know about golf architecture.

I’m copying this from another well regarded golf architecture site from an 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?

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > >

> > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > >

> > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > >

> >

> > Says the man too clueless to know that Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.

>

> Lol. I never said that. You sure struggle with easy facts.

 

Exactly. You haven’t said anything substantive whatsoever. Understanding golf architecture seems beyond your capability

[LICC]

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > > >

> > > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > > >

> > > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > > >

> > > Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

> >

> > You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

> >

> > What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

> >

> > All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

> >

> > Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

> >

> > At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

>

> You are like a broken record, and saying nothing substantial. And you clearly don’t know about golf architecture.

> I’m copying this from another well regarded golf architecture site from an 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?

 

I think the George Wright course is consistent with this observation on deficient routing. The course in several areas seems to just plow over and through some big elevation changes in a poor way.

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > > >

> > > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > > >

> > > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Says the man too clueless to know that Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.

> >

> > Lol. I never said that. You sure struggle with easy facts.

>

> Exactly. You haven’t said anything substantive whatsoever. Understanding golf architecture seems beyond your capability

 

You said that I said something about “Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.“ I never posted anything remotely like that. Now you’re simply lying and then trying to cover up your lies.

 

C’mon, aren’t you better than this?

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @LICC said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > > >

> > > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > > >

> > > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > > >

> > > Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

> >

> > You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

> >

> > What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

> >

> > All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

> >

> > Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

> >

> > At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

>

> You are like a broken record, and saying nothing substantial. And you clearly don’t know about golf architecture.

> I’m copying this from another well regarded golf architecture site from an 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?

 

Where’d you find this on a Googling adventure? Common courtesy is to provide a URL.

 

Flynn is certainly underrated. But there’s no need to unfairly and inaccurately diminish Ross as this person does. You picked a very weak example to try to prove your point.

[raynorfan1]

> @matthewb said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > >

> > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > >

> > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > >

> > Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

>

> You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

>

> What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

>

> All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

>

> Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

>

> At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

 

What frustrates me about this particular exchange is that I don't seem to be able to effectively communicate my point. We're in complete agreement. Ross is a genius, and his best work is undeniably among the best in the world. I think somewhere in the thread we got mixed up about whether we're debating Ross' talent, genius, etc. or the question of whether his portfolio is "over" rated. I think any great artist who produces a lot of work is going to end up with a catalogue that leans toward "over" rated. The bar of expectations is set against their best work, and then (and we've seen it upthread) we make excuses for the work that is not only not their best, but not very good at all.

 

In my view, the fact that Ross' best work is **so** good, it leads us to "over" value his average work (Detroit Golf Club) as something better than what it is, because it was created by such a talented individual.

 

Frankly, I'm a little bit frustrated that you guys have not recognized _my_ genius in this argument...

[LICC]

> @matthewb said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @matthewb said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > > > >

> > > > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Says the man too clueless to know that Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.

> > >

> > > Lol. I never said that. You sure struggle with easy facts.

> >

> > Exactly. You haven’t said anything substantive whatsoever. Understanding golf architecture seems beyond your capability

>

> You said that I said something about “Golden Age architects did not do lots of earth moving due to the lack of modern equipment.“ I never posted anything remotely like that. Now you’re simply lying and then trying to cover up your lies.

>

> C’mon, aren’t you better than this?

 

Glad you admit you having nothing substantive to say about golf architecture. So much for your failed statements that no student of golf architecture thinks Ross is overrated. Shouldn’t you just give up while you’re behind so you stop looking so foolish?

[JeffreySpicoli]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @matthewb said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @matthewb said:

> > > > > @jerebear21 said:

> > > > > go play brookside canton, timuquana, Holston hills, no2. And then let’s talk.

> > > > >

> > > > > FWIW I just think he’s trolling.

> > > >

> > > > Trolling assumes some intent. We are more likely to be seeing ignorance and hubris playing themselves out.

> > > >

> > > Claims Ross is overrated, gets pushback, claims only really interested in opinions about No. 2, claims Ross is overrated, gets unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, drops in some faux praise for people to appear to be balanced, claims Ross is overrated, gets more than unreasonably snippy with anyone who challenges his ignorance and inconsistency, says he's just asking not attacking Ross, claims Ross is overrated, claims even more unsubstantiated info about other architects, and on and on while admitting he really has no real knowledge of Ross or his courses . . . . just one continuous troll at this point for OP's personal yet strange amusement for some reason.

> >

> > You might very well be correct. I’m still leaning toward a self-destructive attempt to save face. It’s clear at the beginning of the thread that the OP didn’t know a speck about golf course architecture. After he gets called out, he starts throwing around the names of other architects but he never says anything of substance. In other words, he did a bit of Googling.

> >

> > What’s amusing is that the OP (and even raynorfan) wants to hang the overrated argument on the fact that some of Ross’ courses aren’t awe inspiring. This is a really perverse way to come at it as Ross is highly regarded due to the number of his great designs, not that all of his designs are great.

> >

> > All great artists—and all golf course architects (for good or bad) are artists—are revered for their great works. We don’t diminish their great works by highlighting their lesser works.

> >

> > Ross is highly regarded due to the sheer number of his courses that have stood the test of time. And standing the test of time is an essential component of the definition of a classic.

> >

> > At the end of the day, no reputable student of golf course architecture claims that Ross is overrated. They give credit for his skill and his great/good designs while excepting his lesser designs.

>

> What frustrates me about this particular exchange is that I don't seem to be able to effectively communicate my point. We're in complete agreement. Ross is a genius, and his best work is undeniably among the best in the world. I think somewhere in the thread we got mixed up about whether we're debating Ross' talent, genius, etc. or the question of whether his portfolio is "over" rated. I think any great artist who produces a lot of work is going to end up with a catalogue that leans toward "over" rated. The bar of expectations is set against their best work, and then (and we've seen it upthread) we make excuses for the work that is not only not their best, but not very good at all.

>

> In my view, the fact that Ross' best work is **so** good, it leads us to "over" value his average work (Detroit Golf Club) as something better than what it is, because it was created by such a talented individual.

>

> Frankly, I'm a little bit frustrated that you guys have not recognized _my_ genius in this argument...

 

I appreciate this post. You’ve cleared up where you’re coming from. I think we’re primarily in agreement.

 

I think you’re disadvantaged in this thread as long as the OP continues to drag you along with him. He’s on a bender and he seems to have adopted you as his wingman.