Donald Ross courses overrated?

[ALIF]

I played #2 a couple of weeks ago. By far the greatest course I’ve ever played. The funnest time I’ve ever had playing golf! I would play that course every day for the rest of my life if given the opportunity. YMMV.

[jibbs1082]

I personally really enjoyed No. 2 as well...East Lake was cool because of the prestige but didn't blow me away.

 

Call me crazy but I lean Pete Dye, his courses really mentally mess with you and generally are carved into the land which I love. Also a glutton for William Flynn tracks and those classic holes with crazy green complex's and false fronts.

[italianstallion]

Since we're resurrecting an old thread, I figured I'd go to bat for Oak Hill Country Club. Andrew Green renovated the course at the end of 2019 and its unbelievable now. I saw it as a spectator in 2013 and didn't think much of it, but playing it for the first time this year I think its spectacular. The green complexes are amazing, the revisions to the bunkers are beautiful, conditions are incredible, and the course just oozes history. I've played a few top 100 (and top 10) courses and this is a place I'd love to play every day. I'm sure the pros are going to have high praise for the place in 2023 (provided it isn't under a foot of snow then). I've got a long write up I might drop on here someday.

 

 

5 hours ago, jibbs1082 said:

I personally really enjoyed No. 2 as well...East Lake was cool because of the prestige but didn't blow me away.

 

Call me crazy but I lean Pete Dye, his courses really mentally mess with you and generally are carved into the land which I love. Also a glutton for William Flynn tracks and those classic holes with crazy green complex's and false fronts.

 

Pete Dye's courses are the most mentally taxing courses I have ever played. Full focus is required for the entire round. They have the potential to beat you down, but when you play well and stay in it there's no greater feeling. If you can play well on a Pete Dye course you can play well anywhere.

[hammergolf]

I don’t think the word overrated is correct. I think people prefer some architects style over others. If sloping greens and runoffs aren’t you’re thing, you won’t like Ross courses. If you don’t like optical illusions off the tee you won’t like Dye courses. If you don’t like courses that penalize for right misses, you won’t like Nicklaus courses, etc… I’ve played many Ross courses, and while they aren’t my favorites, I still enjoy playing them because of the questions they ask of your game. I’ve also played tons of Nicklaus courses, and since Im a drawer of the ball, they aren’t my fav. Good courses yes, but just not my fav.

[golfday]

I don't think necessarily overrated, but with the volume of work that he did you will find some stinkers if you look hard enough. Maybe they started out nice 100 years ago and after a century of neglect they've become stinkers, but it's hard to say at this point. 

 

However, his top end courses compare with anyone's. #2, Inverness, #4, Pine Needles, Mid-Pines, Seminole, Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, Aronomink, Inverness, and that's only a few of his really good designs. Anyone that could do all of that is worthy of a Mt. Rushmore spot. 

 

I do also love Pete Dye, but the things he did would have been unimaginable in Ross's day. Potentially not doable either, even if you could have imagined it.

 

Nicklaus is the one who I find overrated. I find his courses hard, but not interesting. And anyone can design a hard golf course. 

 

I'm also intrigued to see how we view Coore Crenshaw by the time I'm an old man. They are loved now, but their style my lose popularity (similar to what's happened to Fazio over time). I love their work, but I do wish they would cut down fewer trees. 

[Fairway14]

I've only played a few Donald Ross designed courses an found  his  "upside down saucer" greens to be good for water drainage but difficult on which to play iron shots , pitches, and chips.

[caniac6]

I played Sedgefield recently, and it really was a good course. It was built in the 1920s, and unlike a lot of courses built at that time, it is routed through a neighborhood, much like some modern courses built through a real estate development. A bit spread out, and not the easiest walk. A few years ago, the greens were converted to Bermuda, and they were very fast and smooth. There were several times when it was tough to keep a chip or putt from above the hole on the green. I really doubt the slopes of the greens were built with the current speed in mind. It seems like a very nice club, but it's not a course I'd want to play everyday. 

[Imp]

2 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I played Sedgefield recently, and it really was a good course. It was built in the 1920s, and unlike a lot of courses built at that time, it is routed through a neighborhood, much like some modern courses built through a real estate development. A bit spread out, and not the easiest walk. A few years ago, the greens were converted to Bermuda, and they were very fast and smooth. There were several times when it was tough to keep a chip or putt from above the hole on the green. I really doubt the slopes of the greens were built with the current speed in mind. It seems like a very nice club, but it's not a course I'd want to play everyday. 

Correct. Stimp has gone up over the years, yet curvature and sculpting of the greens remains close to same (some courses have realized this, and have the money to fix, some... don't). Some changes have been done to some greens, due to buildup of the 100 years of deposits from bunker sand being thrown. 

Stimp adopted by USGA in 1970. 1978, Augusta National was running below 8. Oakmont below 10. In the 60s and earlier, most majors were below 7.
 

[stevopagolf]

On 6/30/2019 at 8:55 AM, QC Heel said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Crump only designed most of the holes at Pine Valley.  No duds on his list.

[MountainKing]

If he's overrated, then I hope to be overrated in my career

[DLiver]

On 6/30/2019 at 12:32 AM, JeffreySpicoli 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?

 

Definitely in the running for the most pompous post of the year.

[hollabachgt]

On 9/8/2021 at 10:25 AM, caniac6 said:

I played Sedgefield recently, and it really was a good course. It was built in the 1920s, and unlike a lot of courses built at that time, it is routed through a neighborhood, much like some modern courses built through a real estate development. A bit spread out, and not the easiest walk. A few years ago, the greens were converted to Bermuda, and they were very fast and smooth. There were several times when it was tough to keep a chip or putt from above the hole on the green. I really doubt the slopes of the greens were built with the current speed in mind. It seems like a very nice club, but it's not a course I'd want to play everyday. 

 

Interestingly, The greens at Sedgefield are not so much Ross's design and much more of Kris Spence. The original greens were lost over time and when he restored the course in 2007 he build a new set of greens that were inspired by Ross's sketches. So the slopes were actually constructed with the current green speeds in mind.

[CDM]

On 9/8/2021 at 10:51 AM, Imp said:

Correct. Stimp has gone up over the years, yet curvature and sculpting of the greens remains close to same (some courses have realized this, and have the money to fix, some... don't). Some changes have been done to some greens, due to buildup of the 100 years of deposits from bunker sand being thrown. 

Stimp adopted by USGA in 1970. 1978, Augusta National was running below 8. Oakmont below 10. In the 60s and earlier, most majors were below 7.
 

 

Staying on the Ross aspect.  I have played a number of Ross courses. Really good designs but not my favorite. Having played No.2 a few times, the first time I was not impressed at all. Second time I started to see aspects I did not notice the first time. design wise that is and started to understood why given the topography he worked with.

 

Would I play No.2 all the time, no, is it a good course, yes.  I do agree the turtle greens are difficult but some holes on No.2 are soooo flat (just look at hole 1 to start) there really is no defense unless he did some crazy bunkers.

 

The part above about STIMP  speeds is so true today.  Courses built in the 1920-1940's were set with a lot more undulation.  Given today most are set on having 10+ speed it makes you question why?  Greens today are huge compared to the designs in the 20's-40's but with less undulation and faster.  To me at times it feels less technical.

 

Increasing the speed in older designed greens takes the original design intent out or off IMHO.  Though there are some fantastic courses that have been able to increase green speeds a bit over time and find a balance and be consider amazing to putt on.

Edited September 9, 2021 by CDM

[caniac6]

43 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

Interestingly, The greens at Sedgefield are not so much Ross's design and much more of Kris Spence. The original greens were lost over time and when he restored the course in 2007 he build a new set of greens that were inspired by Ross's sketches. So the slopes were actually constructed with the current green speeds in mind.

Were they not Bentgrass after Spence did the renovation, and then converted to Bermuda for the tournament? They just seemed too fast for either the slope or type of grass. I'm a pretty good player, and on a couple holes, my goal was to keep the ball on the green after my first putt. That's not a lot of fun. Spence renovated Forsyth, and the greens were a lot better before he did it.

[caniac6]

6 minutes ago, CDM said:

 

Staying on the Ross aspect.  I have played a number of Ross courses. Really good designs but not my favorite. Having played No.2 a few times, the first time I was not impressed at all. Second time I started to see aspects I did not notice the first time. design wise that is and started to understood why given the topography he worked with.

 

Would I play No.2 all the time, no, is it a good course, yes.  I do agree the turtle greens are difficult but some holes on No.2 are soooo flat (just look at hole 1 to start) there really is no defense unless he did some crazy bunkers.

 

The part above about STIMP  speeds is so true today.  Courses built in the 1920-1940's were set with a lot more undulation.  Given today most are set on having 10+ speed it makes you question is there a design the green?  Typically greens today are huge compared to the 20's-40's but less undulation and faster.  To me at times it feels less technical.

 

Increasing the speed in older designed greens takes the original design intent out or off IMHO.  Though there are some fantastic courses that have been able to increase green speeds a bit over time and find a balance and be consider amazing to putt on.

We were down in Pinehurst a few weeks ago. We didn't play, but went around looking at courses. Mid Pines/Pine Needles looked like they would be more fun to play than #2.

[hollabachgt]

On 9/9/2021 at 4:27 PM, caniac6 said:

Were they not Bentgrass after Spence did the renovation, and then converted to Bermuda for the tournament? They just seemed too fast for either the slope or type of grass. I'm a pretty good player, and on a couple holes, my goal was to keep the ball on the green after my first putt. That's not a lot of fun. Spence renovated Forsyth, and the greens were a lot better before he did it.

 

Yes they were converted to Bermuda a few years ago.

 

You said you played the course recently, since they just held the tour event there a month ago it's probably the greens were either being sped up for tournament play or coming off that peak. One thing I've noticed is the PGA tour has limited spots to put pins on those greens for their standard green speed. The members pin positions are nearly always more challenging than the tour's pin positions. Playing there the Friday after the tournament the green speed had come down a little bit from the tournament conditions, but were still quite slick for their normal pin spots. When the greens are at their normal pace you may still need to watch where you leave your ball when playing an approach shot, but they are completely puttable. 

 

[Schley]

The man designed over 400 courses. Many of them he wasn't on site for much of the construction. I love Plainfield CC and Essex CC with the greens being the highlight. Seminole will be next this winter.

[caniac6]

Country Club of Salisbury, and Alamance Country Club are both fun Ross courses. I worked at Raleigh Country Club while in school at NC State. It was long before McConnell bought it, and the money was tight. It was a blast to play. My favorite might have been The Orchards in South Hadley, Ma. I played back in the mid 80s, and just remember it as a very cool course. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by caniac6

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

Great thread.

 

I appreciate Ross’s courses but tend to find them rather boring and repetitive until the greens.  
 

For people that love old school, tree-lined, natural and walking oriented courses they are perfect.  I’d just rather play a Stranz course and have no shame admitting that.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by TrueBlue4Lyfe

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

On 7/1/2019 at 8:58 PM, JeffreySpicoli said:

 

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.

Maybe the emperor has no clothes

[Golferpaul]

On 9/7/2021 at 8:09 AM, jibbs1082 said:

I personally really enjoyed No. 2 as well...East Lake was cool because of the prestige but didn't blow me away.

 

Call me crazy but I lean Pete Dye, his courses really mentally mess with you and generally are carved into the land which I love. Also a glutton for William Flynn tracks and those classic holes with crazy green complex's and false fronts.

I agree.  I"ve played No. 2 and East Lake and neither impressed me.  There are several other course architects that I would always choose over Ross.

[caniac6]

49 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Maybe the emperor has no clothes

The emperor has a whole lot of clothes. Not all of them are dress up clothes. Btw, I’ve played three Stranz courses. Two were really good, and one was not good, but I still consider him a great designer.

[the bishop]

I haven't read every response in this thread but c'mon?  Overrated?  If so is that his fault?  Donald Ross designed many, many courses during his career.  Not all would be masterpieces of course.  So what if Podunk Valley C.C. doesn't compare favorably w/Pinehurst #2?  Donald Ross was a man, confined to any restraints that would affect any other man.  Maybe Podunk Valley had enough $$ to hire Ross so they could put his name on it but then gave him a budget that resulted in a competent, benign design.  Was he supposed to turn that work down?  He had to keep his own lights on.  

[miamistomp]

 I love Donald Ross courses

   Built for real golf fans

[Tdsjfb]

Donnie is in a class by himself.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

2 hours ago, miamistomp said:

 I love Donald Ross courses

   Built for real golf fans

These are the kinds of opinions that probably created the OP.

 

His style isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.  Doesn’t mean they aren’t real golf fans. 
 

 

[CDM]

On 9/9/2021 at 2:31 PM, caniac6 said:

We were down in Pinehurst a few weeks ago. We didn't play, but went around looking at courses. Mid Pines/Pine Needles looked like they would be more fun to play than #2.

No a few months back but Mid Pines to me is more fun.  Pine Needles is great too

Edited September 13, 2021 by CDM

[hollabachgt]

Because Ross was credited with so many courses its easy to find someone who has played 1 or 2. The problem is because he built so many courses they do not all exhibit the ultimate skill of Ross as an architect. This change appears in a few different ways.

 

Most clearly is the distinction between the courses he spend a significant amount of time on and the courses he mainly designed from afar and had supervisors on site manage the construction. They both got Ross's name, but for some the routing and some of the hazard placement is all Ross contributed. Granted, Ross's greatest skill as an architect may have been in his routing, so the foundation of the course was always going to be good. 

 

Next up are courses Ross was hired to consult / renovate / expand. As was the strength of his name at the time, it was not uncommon for clubs to hire Ross to consult on their course. At times his involvement in the course was very small, but the club still used that involvement to sell the course as a Ross. Ross was not the original architect at East Lake, Tom Bendelow was, then Ross was brought in to rebuild it. What we don't know is how much of the "new" course was Ross and how much of the course was still Bendelow. Same for a place like Grove Park Inn. Herbert Barker was the original architect with Ross making some small changes to the course. Now the course is fully known as a Ross.

 

Then you have Ross courses that were at one point in time "improved" by their membership and consulting architects. These are the properties in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's that "updated" their course in significant ways but kept the Ross name. What I find humorous about these changes is they were more significant than projects Ross consulted on and was given architectural credits on. If Ross was given full credit when he added a few bunkers and moved 3 greens, then today there should be a lot less Ross courses and a lot more RTJ, Dick Wilson, and Rees Jones courses. Maybe the best example of this is East Lake. Rees Jones' "Restoration" in the mid 1990's.

 

Newly added to this list are the Ross courses that have been "properly" restored. The places that unwound 100 years of changes, neglect, or ignorance to put the golf course back the way it was. Places like No. 2, Mid Pines, French Lick, Oak Hill, & Oakland Hills that have all been applauded for what they have done to restore back the lost Ross elements. The challenge in this group is with as much information Ross left us about his course plans, there are still some debates as to what was designed vs. what was built. A good example of this is Aronomink, a course that was "restored" twice in about a 15 year period. The first time based upon original drawings and the second time based upon pictures found of the course shortly after opening. With the pictures showcasing a course very different than the Ross drawings, and giving a lot more credit to construction foreman J.B. McGovern for the bunkering style used on the property. 

 

Finally, The original courses like Holston Hills that was never wealthy enough to screw up the golf course they had. These properties are as rare barn find Ferrari's. Maybe not in the best of shape, but you can still see exactly how they were put together back in the day. Often times these courses still can't afford a full restoration, but a light polish is enough to bring out the shine in the paint and a simple tune up still makes for a fun day.

 

The point being. It's really hard to evaluate when you're playing a Ross course, what about that course is actually Ross? You should not simply take it at face value and make sure when you like/dislike something to apply credit where credit is due.

 

I played Athens Country Club earlier this year. While I felt like the routing was solid, there were bits and pieces to the course that did not feel like a Ross, parts of the course felt too modern. Upon further research I found that the course was "restored" 10 years ago and the elements that were the focus of that work were the same that I felt were out of place. So my ability to judge Ross's Athens CC is limited to the parts that were not "restored".

[caniac6]

Forsyth CC , in Winston-Salem, is a "Ross" course. Some old timers have told me of significant changes through the years. Some holes were rerouted, and new holes created. 

 

[Primo1868]

I’m a Ross fan. Wouldn’t consider them overrated.