[TEPaul]

This is wonderful research stuff! I love it.

Great material and response Tom!

Response from the other side of the debate please!

[T_MacWood]

Here is a cool picture I found while searching in American Golfer (1/10/25). A 36 hole match at Asheville CC between American Amateurs and British Pros. The pros won 2-1.



Francis Ouimet, George Duncan, Bobby Jones, Abe Mitchell and the beautiful Grove Park Inn..

[TEPaul]

I agree Donald the Ross sure looked like your favorite old uncle and seemed to be a man of real integrity but he surer than hell was a super salesman boardering on the.....

This from Ross on the contract to build my course, Gulph Mills G.C. in Philadelpia in 1916;

He promised GMGC's course to be "....one of the best inland courses in this country and it will undoubedly be a much superior course to any around Philadelphia."

Uh, Don, Don, don't forget about Pine Valley G.C and Merion East!!  

[TEPaul]

Wow, I guess the club got those great players down there to celebrate Donald Ross redesigning a couple of greens and some tee. That looks like a mighty large clubhouse looming  behind those stars!  

What was the deal with the hotel and the club in 1925? Was there some kind of hotel/club arrangement like the Lido in the beginning?

[Brad Klein]

More research. I have in my hands an original, faded but genuine pamphlet from Donald J. Ross, Golf Course Architect, listing his courses that he did, organized state-by-state, roughly issued in 1930 - there are no dates, but Seminole is on there, for example. Among the North Carolina listings are the following:

Biltmore Forest Country Club  18 holes
   Biltmore

Beaver Lake Country Club  18 holes
   Asheville

Asheville Municipal  18 holes
   Asheville

Not every Ross course is listed - he leaves off White Bear Yacht Club and Kennett Square, among others. He also separately lists courses as "remodeled" if he did just tinker with an existing layout (note, not indicated for any of the Asheville courses). As for resort courses, he also did Shennecossett, Augusta CC-Hill Course, and I think proper credit is due him for Seaview-Bayside, Miami-Biltmore, and, up in Canada, Banff Springs (Alb.) and the Algonquin (N.B.).

[Dunlop_White]

Tom MacWood,

Wow! As usual, your research uncovers some remarkable stuff. I need to read through this thread once again to gain a full understanding.

[TEPaul]

My take on this thread (I agree with Dunlop, I have to reread it to understand what really may be going on here since I've never seen this course and know nothing at all about it) is Tom MacWood is beginning to point out that it's possible that a whole slew of people, and some apparently knowledgeable ones, have assumed, perhaps for years, that a golf course was completely redone by Ross when it may not have been.

This research by Tom MacWood (if it plays out the way it might) is not exactly proving who designed and built some golf course but who may not have designed a particular golf course---eg GPI---by Donald Ross.

If Tom MacWood proves that Ross, at best, had little to do with the course design-wise it only proves to me how far rumors go and for how long until and unless someone actually proves there is no truth to those long-lasting rumors of architectural attribution. This is certainly not the first time this has happened. There may be a good number of golf courses out there who think or claim their desiginer may have been some famous architect or someone absolutely other than the one who actually did it.

[Brad Klein]

I was driving around town just now, waiting for my local Starbucks to open, and realizing that when Kris Spence was re-doing Grove Park Inn - I visited him on site in the middle of the process - he never claimed to be "restoring" the placr to the way Ross had it. He never misrepresented the facts, and admitted that in the absence of plans or documentation as to what the course looked like when Ross was done with it, what Spence was doing was putting it into the kind of shape that looked like Ross had done (elsewhere) and that Ross might well have done at GPI if he had the chance himself in the late 20th century to do it. This isn't p.r. flimflam, it's being honest. GPI's wwonderful director of golf then, Dal Raiford, who knew more about GPI than anyone and who loved the place (and golf) like noone, was thrilled and fully supportive of exactly that approach. And it was the rightr one and the only one to take.

It's also exactly the approach that, under parallel circumstances, Chip Powell did at the Bellevue Biltmore in Fla. 2002-2003, when, in the absence of Ross diocumentation or plans, he went ahead and did as sensitive and thoughtful an interpretation of Ross as anyone could muster.

I think it's easy to get carried away with the ideal or paradigm of pure restoration. Of course it's hepful to know the historical facts and record, but it's also helpful to have architects sensitive to the nuance of interpretation when they might otherwise get carried away by their own egos. The American golf landscape has never fully outgrown the scars of those who lacked this hubris. GPI is better off now for Spence's approach than it had been, or than it would have been in someone else's hands less sensitive to Ross. In the case of Ross, the best restoration efforts make the course now more Ross than it ever was.

[TEPaul]

But Brad, that's the type of thing any golf course faces that contemplates a restoration of a particular architect.

The difference here (at least according to what Tom MacWood may be attempting to prove) is that this golf course never really was Donald Ross, at least not in the comprehensive way from the 1924-1926 era that has been claimed by so many for so long.

It wouldn't be any different than if Kris Spence came into Concord G.C that claimed for so long that they were a Ross course and restored the course to something that looked like a Ross course.

That's an interesting idea and probably would make Concord G.C. more interesting than it is now but the point is the course never was a Ross course, and they came to understand that in the last few years when they found out who their original architect really was.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, to be touched by God is good enough to have been embraced by him, isn't it?

[TEPaul]

Brad said;

“Tom, to be touched by God is good enough to have been embraced by him, isn't it?

Brad:

I guess one could certainly say that if they felt Donald Ross making a couple of minor architectural changes was akin to being touched by God. But the point here from Tom MacWood is as follows;

“American Golfer May 30, 1925 titled ‘Divots from Asheville’: Because the new clubhouse will be on the north edge of the property, the holes must be rearranged.  In response Donald Ross will build one new hole, in addition he will remodel three greens. He evidently was planning to move some tees because the course will be 200 yards longer. It will be ready January 1.

American Golfer June 1926 titled ‘Asheville Activities’: May 18 the new clubhouse officially opened. However according to article the course only has an additional 30 yards. It then goes on to list the renumbering of the holes: #15 is now #1, #16 is now #2, and so on. No mention of the new hole.

Ross was a man of integrity; he never took credit for designs in which he only made minor changes….I don’t think one hole and possibly three greens would warrant attribution. Herbert Barker is not chop liver, the Grove Park Inn should still be proud, plus the jury is still out on what Willie Park Jr. may have done.”

The point of this thread is whether or not what was reported above is historically accurate or not. In other words, is that all Donald Ross ever did at Asheville C.C, later to be called GPI (since we’re trying to assume we’re discussing one and the same golf course)? If that was all he ever did there it seems like Tom MacWood has proven that this golf course never was the total Donald Ross design or redesign the club and some who are Ross experts have claimed it was.

If Ross redesigned a couple of greens and added a few yards to some tee I guess I have every right to call my golf course a Ross, or a Maxwell, or a Stiles, McGovern, Gordon or RTJ depending on who I’m talking to and who might be most impressed by any of those architects.

[Brad Klein]

Understood and accepted, TEP. I was just being facetious without relying upon the crutch of that dopey little smiley face.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

I know. I've tried to take Dan Kelly's everlasting advice that if one wants to be humorous on here try to do it with words not the crutch of those little no-neck monsters (the smileys that have given me a nightmare or two). The only trouble with this site is its ability to get humor ain't great or else those trying to float it ain't great.

But humor, as much as I like and appreciate it, can't escape the nub of this thread. In your opinion, and Michael j. Fay, Kris Spence and GPI G.C's opinion. is Tom MacWood's contention of what Donald Ross did or did not do at this golf course in question on this thread (Asheville CC or CC of Asheville or GPI or whatever the hell it was called at any particular time) true or not true?

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Would you say that Tom MacWood is out to destroy your "Donald Ross" credibilty and perhaps Michael J Fay's and the Donald Ross Society's too?

If so, just let me know. I should be driving back from Michigan in about ten days time and maybe you'd like to meet me somewhere around Cleveland or wherever that Ivory Tower is in the deep of night and we can both take care of this dangerous iconoclast once and for all!

(Ummmm umm, ummm, was it ever hard to resist the smiley face this time).

Wake up Tom MacWood, you've got a ton of some serious posting to do this morning. Some of the stuff you've been uncovering lately is a lot better than those "Cold Case" shows that are getting popular on TV these days!

[T_MacWood]

Taking the GPI from the Ross column and moving it to the Barker column is obviously not going to 'destroy' DJR.

This excercise has brought out some interesting dilemmas when it comes to restoration. But the restoration angle wasn't what sparked my interest and the original question, I honestly wanted to know who did what.

I read a quote from David McCullough the other day, he was asked what he thought the job of a historian was, and he said it was to show that nothing ever had to happen the way it happened. History could have gone off in any number of directions in any number of different ways at any point along the way.

When looking at tons of golf architecture history, that thought has crossed my mind on occassion, but I haven't thought about it that way often. But this thread did get me thinking that way.

In 1915 when Barker went back to Europe to help with the War, I think it could be argued he was the more prominent of the two architects (he and Ross) or at least on an even footing. He had Mayfield, Columbia, Arcola, Rumson under his belt. Like Ross he had collaborated with Colt in Chicago (Winnetka)--the difference being Ross constucted Old Elm for Colt, Barker co-designed Winnetka with Colt. He had also already ventured West, it was reported he designed or redesigned a course in Portland.

Barker was also making great strides in the South--historic Asheville CC (GPI), Richmond (Westhampton), Druid Hills, East Lake (redesign) & Brookhaven in Atlanta, and Palm Beach CC. And perhaps a few more.

If Barker hadn't gone back to fight, been wounded, never able to return to the States, would we be discussing the Barker Society's annual meeting at the Grove Park Inn in 2003?

[Brad Klein]

Oh please, that sort of speculation goes nowhere and everywhere. If I had won the six U.S. Opens I had caddied in I'd be designing golf courses right now, not writing about them.

TEP, finding the truth is a valid historical exercise, with a certain competitive dimension to get it right. But anyone who thinks these is macho combat or a struggle for destruction misunderstands what historical research is all about - or in some cases I know of, comes from folks with terribly insecure egos. Those who proclaim bombastically as self-appointed experts have no place here. It's a matter of patient searching and sifting evidence. Looking back, there's no claim that I know of that Ross did all of GPI in the 1920s. If it turns out that Ross did even less than thought and Barker (and perhaps Park Jr.) did more, then fine. If that proves to be the case (it hasn't been proven yet, but there's better reason to think it's the case now than three days ago) I can always tweak the chart in the book (it does say "remodel" and doesn't indicate a new course for GPI) when it goes into another edition if that proves necessary.

It won't be the first refinement and I hope it won't be the last. As I mentioned above, I think Spence was pretty clear and consistent in how he claimed he was doing what he was doing. I still think the issue today for restoration is that GPI is now more of a Ross course than it ever was.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
No need to jump off the deep end....nobody is re-writing history with Barker as the star or criticizing you (or Spence). And you are still THE Ross expert. The twists and turns of history, and the Barker Society are just food for thought.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, I welcome the research you're doing and think it's helpful. That part we agree on. I do think there are some self-appointed experts who jump to all sorts of grandiose and self-serving conclusions based upon limited evidence. Your inquiry is sa reminde rof how flimsy much evidence is, which i thinkis very sobering. I was just warning against any ensuing speculation involving speculation as to what would have happened had Hitler fallen off a ladder while painting a house in Bavaria in 1920.

[T_MacWood]

"I was just warning against any ensuing speculation involving speculation as to what would have happened had Hitler fallen off a ladder while painting a house in Bavaria in 1920."

I agree that would be goofy. But speculating what if Hitler hadn't taken a right turn when he was within view of Moscow, or didn't venture into Russia before taking care of Britain or didn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor or finished off the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk are all legitimate historical exercises.

Perhaps I give Barker a little more credit than you...he was on a fast track prior to joining the British Air Force. IMO he was closer to long term architectural fame than you were of winning six US Opens or Hitler dying from a fall.

[Brad Klein]

I resent that. My man Skeeter Heath tied for 37th at Oakmont in 1983.

True story - on the 72nd hole, he was 16 over-par and in the middle of the fairway. He had 191 to the back center hole location and asked if 6-iron was enough. I said

"I like 5-iron. If you make birdie here you tie Sam Parks Jr."

Skeeter: "Who the hell is Sam Parks Jr.?"

Klein: "Won the Open here in '35 with the only score under 300 - shot 299. Go for it."

He takes 5-iron, hits it 8 feet left of the hole and sinks the putt.

[T_MacWood]

...which naturally leads to the burning question, what would have happened had Skeeter Heath fallen off a ladder while painting a house in Winston-Salem...

[TEPaul]

I think what would be a lot more useful on here is to find out who designed some of these golf courses or how much of them they did instead of speculating on how famous Barker would have been had he not gone to war in Europe. As Brad Klein said that sort of stuff leads everywhere and anywhere and ultimately nowhere.

Tom MacWood:

I'm a huge fan of David McCullough and certainly his "John Adams". His writing style alone can almost make one taste and smell the life and times back then of Adams and I think that's extremely evocative of the reality of times past. But I see no real purpose of applying the potential of the small increments of fate that would have taken some event in some entirely different direction. To me the best use of history is to first understand better what actually did happen in the past and why. There is always too little of that today and there needs to be more understanding of it before historians try to redefine and reinterpret some historical time for some agenda or philosophy one may be fond of today.

[T_MacWood]

"I think what would be a lot more useful on here is to find out who designed some of these golf courses or how much of them they did instead of speculating on how famous Barker would have been had he not gone to war in Europe."

Thanks for the advice (maybe you should pass it along to McCullough as well)....as far as finding out who do what, thats what I've been doing for several years. My Barker file is almost as thick as my Flynn file.  

[Ken_Cotner]

Seems like the articles from American Golfer from the 1920's are raising a lot of the valid questions here.  Just to add another one into the mix (although I think it's an important one)...

Are we certain the magazine got the names of the courses correct?  Are we sure it's talking about the Grove Park course?

It's easy to get these courses confused -- Country Club of Asheville (where the NC Am is being completed today); Asheville CC (now GPI apparently); Biltmore Forest.  All commonly attributed to Ross, all old.

Isn't it possible they got the name of the course being tweaked incorrect?  Goodness knows, magazines today are full of similar errors.

Do the hole numbers referenced give any clues?

Ken

[T_MacWood]

Ken
It was much simpler in the 20's. It only became complicated in the 1970's when they started re-naming these courses. Prior to 1978 there was no Grove Park Inn golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()