[hick]

will be at Wannamoisett in the morning for the Ri Mid Am, The par three 3rd has stood the test over the years. One can stand behind the tee box and watch it cause fits. at 140, most take  more club and dont hold the green.

[Brad Klein]

As usual. TEPaul's request for clarification goes to the heart of the matter. It's never easy to explain precisely what pure Ross means today. There are some fine Ross courses where the routing of hole corridors has remained unchanged and where the tees and green sites remain in place, even if some features have been tinkered with that could be easily restored. Evanston GC north of Chicago is undertaking such a project now, and despite some awkward Nicklaus bunker work there from the early 1980s the original green pads are still exactly in place and readily reclaimed -- as they will be by Prichard.

Brookside in Canton, restored by Silva, represents a very good version of recapturing Ross and undoing some previous awkward changes, with basic hole corridors intact. I think it simplistic to adopt some sort of fundamentalist position that if any work was done or a bulldozer used on site, it can't be pure Ross or is not a pure restoration. I think a lot can be said for undoing previous changes and getting back as close to possible to routing, fill pads, open-ness, and bunker style, even if revised in terms of distance/placement to accommodate modern play. Excellent examples include Longmeadow (Ma.), Timuquana (Fl.), Franklin Hills (Mi.); Essex County Club (even if Doak had to move the 14th green slightly), plus above-named Aronimink, Beverly, Holston Hills, Orchards, Wannamoisett.

In other words, using original Ross plans counts a lot; as well as undoing intermediate "modernization" by less-classical designers who disregarded Ross.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of mindfields that abound, not only among those who oppose restoration but also by some who crusade for it. In politics and in golf course architecture, the search for purism leads to witch hunts and terrorism.

[Mike_Young]

As usual. TEPaul's request for clarification goes to the heart of the matter. It's never easy to explain precisely what pure Ross means today. There are some fine Ross courses where the routing of hole corridors has remained unchanged and where the tees and green sites remain in place, even if some features have been tinkered with that could be easily restored. Evanston GC north of Chicago is undertaking such a project now, and despite some awkward Nicklaus bunker work there from the early 1980s the originl green pads are still exactly in place and readily reclaimed -- as they will be by Prichard.

Brooskide in Canton, restored by Silva, represents a very good version of recapturing Ross and undoing some previous awkward changes, with basic hole corridors intact. I think it simplistic to adopt some sort of fundamentalist position that if any work was done or a bulldozer used on site, it can't be pure Ross or is not a pure restoration. I think a lot can be said for undoing previous changes and getting back as close to possible to routing, fill pads, open-ness, and bunker style, even if revised in terms of distance/placemrnt to accommodate modern play. Excellent examples include Longmeadow (Ma.), Timuquana (Fl.), Franklin Hills (Mi.); Essex County Club (even if Doak had to move the 14th green slightly), plus above-named Aronimink, Beverly, Holston Hills, Orchards, Wannamoisett.

In other words, using original Ross plans counts a lot; as well as undoing intermediate "modernization" by less-classical designers who disregarded Ross.

In politics and in golf course architecture, the search for purism leads to witch hunts and terrorism.

Brad,
I would agree that what you state above can be done to a golf course, any course, whether ross or somebody else.  I just think the issue with most is the play on words.  I could see it being called a "Ross style" renovation but not a restoration.  Just as if one takes a house built before indoor plumbing and renovates toward the period in which it was built but they add lights and plumbing....that's not a restoration...
And I just see golf courses the same way......if you take the original green pad and take it back out to the edges and till it and seed it....ok but if you build a USGA spec green on the original green pad and waste spoils etc .....sorry but I call that a renovation.....now it can be Ross style or Elvis style but I just can use the word restore......doesn't mean I am against renovation......same for irrigation or any oter line item that was not there in the original.....
Mike

[tomgoutman]

Torresdale-Frankford in Philly--all but four greens are untouched Ross originals circa 1920. They've taken a few bunkers out over the years and added a few, but otherwise just as Ross designed it. Confirmed by Ross drawing and 1925 aerial photo. They are doing a restoration/master plan now, drawn up by Steven Kay. Calls for tree removal.

[Ian Andrew]

"In politics and in golf course architecture, the search for purism leads to witch hunts and terrorism."

Brad, I’m going to be as straight forward as I can on this one. I was asked if I was interested in interviewing for Ross course last week. Rather than jump at the opportunity I hesitated, which caught the person completely off guard. You know why I hesitated? As a person not recognized by The Ross Society I was afraid of how much I would have to deal with the society and how much influence they would have on the decision of selecting an architect.

I hope I’m completely wrong, but the Society leaves the impression to an outsider like myself that they are meddlers and want to be completely involved with everything. I like assistance and love to have somewhere to turn for advice, but the outside impression is that the society wants to call the shots.

Two architects that have been mentioned on this thread numerous times have encouraged me to get involved with Ross courses because I believe in restoration through research and that I have no preconceived notions on what Ross is. Their opinion is at this point it would be helpful to go in with more open view. I still think I will pass because I have enough work with other architects I admire.

Brad, I'm not trying to put you or the society on the defensive, I'm more interested in your reponse to my outside perception of the society.

[Brad Klein]

Ian, good for you to be interested in serious Ross restoration, but don't be gun shy or intimidated. Yes, there are politics involved in any such work, and sometimes some elements in the Ross Society would pretend to know it all and try to meddle. But there are also others inside DRS and around it that are simply interested in encouraging interest in Ross and promoting more architects to take such restoration work seriously and without DRS being the sole arbiters of taste. Don't be intimated by the theatrics. There is not supposed to be any "approved list" of architects, DRS policy specifically prohibits such a policy, anyway.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Ian,

Your trepidation is well-founded. Brian Silva's villification by the Ross Society affected his career for a number of years. While Brad's biography of Donald Ross seeks to put aside the Silva situation and even comes to his defense, the Society as a group, and/or Michael Fay have never backed off their criticism of Silva's work. Now I hear that Fay is acting as a paid consultant under the umbrella of the Donald Ross Society. I think one can safely assume that he does not recommend Silva for any restoration work.

I find it interesting that architects encourage you to join the Donald Ross Society in light of the Society's history with Silva. Of course, the more pertinent question would be where were those, and other, architects when Fay first slandered Silva?

Tony

[Brad Klein]

Tony, I think other architects were urging Ian to get involved with Ross restoration, not necessarily to join the DRS.

[TEPaul]

I wonder who on here is willing to admit or honest enough to admit that there may be some things on even the most notable Ross courses that may not be worth restoring.

In other words, is it reasonable or even responsible for an architect (or a club) to simply forego altogether architectural analysis of any kind and simply say, "If Donald Ross did it originally it must be as good as it can ever get."

At my own golf course Donald Ross certainly didn't feel that way about his own original work.  

[Jamey Bryan]

I appreciate Tim Copeland mentioning my home course, though I'd have to say it's not really a "pure" renovation.  We did make an honest attempt to recreate the DR greens (the routing is mostly Walter Travis) but there were important changes made to holes to accomodate a new clubhouse, swimming pool, etc.

--I must admit I'm hesitant to ask this, but I'd be very interested to know if Tom Doak has visited Camden since the renovation and, if so, what he thinks (especially since there's a VERY sizable contingent that wishes he had the job).

[michael j fay]

Gentlemen:

Let me try to explain the Donald Ross Society.

We only go to courses that invite us. We do not cold call. Therefore we cannot be interfering with anyone, anywhere. If you feel that our presence alone constitutes interference, you are simply someone bearing a grudge.

Over the past 17 years I have visited 235 Donald Ross designed golf courses. I have seen more than anyone else in the field. My approach is to promote restoration. That is the theme of the mission statement of the Donald Ross Society. What we are trying to do is to get the Club into a competitive position in the marketplace so that they will prosper in the future. This is done through long range planning. It is product enhancement. The long term plan invariably has a strong element of restoration, after all, this is usually in the best interest of the Club and is our stated goal. As a member of a Ross course that has suffered financially for many years I know better than most that product enhancement is the only way to get things on an even keel. It does not help a Club to pay millions of dollars for work on their course only to have to face a larger layout of cash ten years later to get it right.

We do not take credit for the work we do. That credit is shared by the Architects and the members that had the hutzpa to carry the message to the membership. They do all the work, we promote the concept.

We do not include or exclude any Architects. If a Club is searching, our advice is to get as much input as possible and if the Architects they are considering have done restoration work we ask them to go see the work in the ground. If the Architect has not done restoration work we urge that the Club consider them as well. We don't get paid by Architects, we (unlike others on the is site) have no financial motive. That has been true from the beginning.

I have seen the work of Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf, Ron Prichard, Ron Forse and Jim Nagle, Brian Silva, John Fought, Kris Spence, Bob Cupp, Bobby Weed and Scot Sherman, Tom Devane and many others. I have seen wonderful work, I have seen really unsightly and inferior work. I keep those opinions to myself. I have taken a lot of crap about the SI interview of seven years ago. I apologized for the form of my statements but I stick by the substance. To this day no writer has ever contridicted the specifics of my statement.

Most of the restoration work is done by a handful of Architects. You can aver that the Donald Ross Society has steered the business in their direction. You are wrong but you are entitled to your erroneous assumptions. I rather think that the cream has risen to the top. Five years ago no one knew Kris Spence, but his work in the ground has convinced many that he is the best guy for the job.

If anyone wants to discuss a particular Architects restoration work, I am happy to accomodate. I will bring notes and photos. I will have facts and figures. I welcome a discussion and am quite open-minded.

Ian Andrew:

I have given your name to two Canadian Ross design courses as a guy to consider for restoration work. I saw the bunkers you built at CC of Farmington and feel that you have a talent for the work. My email address is mjf2349@earthlink.net. Get in touch with me.

Tony Pioppi:

You are uninformed and and vitriolic when it comes to this subject. I have seen a great deal more of the work of Brian Silva than you have. If you want a discussion, act like a gentleman and call for it. If you want to fling inane brickbats like a four year old, get a life.

If you want detail on the SI interview, call your buddy Klein, he sat in on it.

Mike Young:

You harbor great resentment because you blame the Ross Society and myself for not getting the work at Athens. You and I both know that that is not the case. If you want to believe it fine.

You may not know this but referring to the Masters of Classical Architecture in America as the "dead guys" is an insult to your profession. When you can put up a Crystal Downs, a Winged Foot, a Pinehurst #2 or any of the 17,000 golf courses that are rated higher than anything you have designed maybe you can start using this terminology.

You have been on a constant, unrelenting campaign against the Ross Society for some time. A number of things you have put forward (including your diatribe about Brunswick) are filled with inaccuracies and your opinion and no fact.

As for those interested in discussing the subject of Golf Course Architecture or specifics about a given restoration, let me know, I love the subject and hope that I can assist in making golf even a better game.


Defending Tradition,


Michael J. Fay

[Mike_Young]

Mr. Fay,
Thanks you for your kind comments.....

Mike Y

[Dan Boerger]

Tom Paul - You bring up a very good point on your #60 post. I, for one, really like the water hazard on #10 at Aronimink and what appears to be the enlarged water hazard on #17. I think they are both better holes because of it. -Dan

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Mike,

You have seen more of Silva's work than me? Wow, good for you. You have also called more golf courses and convinced owners/green committees not to hire him as their restoration architect than I have (I haven't called any.) You have also called owners looking to build golf courses and told them not to hire Silva (I have not called any.) What I'm flinging here is the truth, you just don't have the ability to recognize it.

Anthony

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Gentlemen:

Let me try to explain the Donald Ross Society.

We only go to courses that invite us. We do not cold call. Therefore we cannot be interfering with anyone, anywhere. If you feel that our presence alone constitutes interference, you are simply someone bearing a grudge.

Over the past 17 years I have visited 235 Donald Ross designed golf courses. I have seen more than anyone else in the field. My approach is to promote restoration. That is the theme of the mission statement of the Donald Ross Society. What we are trying to do is to get the Club into a competitive position in the marketplace so that they will prosper in the future. This is done through long range planning. It is product enhancement. The long term plan invariably has a strong element of restoration, after all, this is usually in the best interest of the Club and is our stated goal. As a member of a Ross course that has suffered financially for many years I know better than most that product enhancement is the only way to get things on an even keel. It does not help a Club to pay millions of dollars for work on their course only to have to face a larger layout of cash ten years later to get it right.

We do not take credit for the work we do. That credit is shared by the Architects and the members that had the hutzpa to carry the message to the membership. They do all the work, we promote the concept.

We do not include or exclude any Architects. If a Club is searching, our advice is to get as much input as possible and if the Architects they are considering have done restoration work we ask them to go see the work in the ground. If the Architect has not done restoration work we urge that the Club consider them as well. We don't get paid by Architects, we (unlike others on the is site) have no financial motive. That has been true from the beginning.

I have seen the work of Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf, Ron Prichard, Ron Forse and Jim Nagle, Brian Silva, John Fought, Kris Spence, Bob Cupp, Bobby Weed and Scot Sherman, Tom Devane and many others. I have seen wonderful work, I have seen really unsightly and inferior work. I keep those opinions to myself. I have taken a lot of crap about the SI interview of seven years ago. I apologized for the form of my statements but I stick by the substance. To this day no writer has ever contridicted the specifics of my statement.

Most of the restoration work is done by a handful of Architects. You can aver that the Donald Ross Society has steered the business in their direction. You are wrong but you are entitled to your erroneous assumptions. I rather think that the cream has risen to the top. Five years ago no one knew Kris Spence, but his work in the ground has convinced many that he is the best guy for the job.

If anyone wants to discuss a particular Architects restoration work, I am happy to accomodate. I will bring notes and photos. I will have facts and figures. I welcome a discussion and am quite open-minded.

Ian Andrew:

I have given your name to two Canadian Ross design courses as a guy to consider for restoration work. I saw the bunkers you built at CC of Farmington and feel that you have a talent for the work. My email address is mjf2349@earthlink.net. Get in touch with me.

Tony Pioppi:

You are uninformed and and vitriolic when it comes to this subject. I have seen a great deal more of the work of Brian Silva than you have. If you want a discussion, act like a gentleman and call for it. If you want to fling inane brickbats like a four year old, get a life.

If you want detail on the SI interview, call your buddy Klein, he sat in on it.

Mike Young:

You harbor great resentment because you blame the Ross Society and myself for not getting the work at Athens. You and I both know that that is not the case. If you want to believe it fine.

You may not know this but referring to the Masters of Classical Architecture in America as the "dead guys" is an insult to your profession. When you can put up a Crystal Downs, a Winged Foot, a Pinehurst #2 or any of the 17,000 golf courses that are rated higher than anything you have designed maybe you can start using this terminology.

You have been on a constant, unrelenting campaign against the Ross Society for some time. A number of things you have put forward (including your diatribe about Brunswick) are filled with inaccuracies and your opinion and no fact.

As for those interested in discussing the subject of Golf Course Architecture or specifics about a given restoration, let me know, I love the subject and hope that I can assist in making golf even a better game.


Defending Tradition,


Michael J. Fay

I've had to read some of these posts like three times, because I can't believe what I'm actually reading.

Further, I have to question a Society and it's board of directors who continually allow it's Executive Director to make rhetorical statements and personal accusations, all while self-praising himself for a job well done.

How much more is the board and the members of the DRS going to put up with this unprofessionalism? When are members of the DRS going to wake-up and finally do something about this behavior? (which I have no doubt what-so-ever that if Donald Ross were alive today, he would condemn.)

The Donald Ross Society hurts it's noble cause by allowing it's paid executive director to continually blur the line with his personal views and the formal goals of the Society itself.

Ian,
Just to show what you have in store for you, you see how its done here. Get on his good side and your in. If your on his bad side like Mike Young and Brian Silva, then your in line for public humiliation and career assassination.

[michael j fay]

Tony:

Nice allegations. How about some people places and circumstances to back it up. I have never called a builder of a potential course and said don't hire Silva. Why would I, it is not in the purview of the Society.

As for recommending against him, where are your facts. You are great at vague accusation.

If you have visited the Ross website you will find a picture that I took at Brookside, Canton which I put on the front page of the site. Inside you will find praise for Brian for the work done at Brookside.

The Silva issue died years ago.

By the way, as the Executive Director of the Seth Raynor Society, how do you explain that only Mr. Silva has done restoration on the Raynor courses?

Just curious.

Tommy N.:

I have never met you, don't know you and frankly don't care.

You have seen, like all GCA members the endless stream of anti-Donald Ross Society blather from Mike Young. Neither the Society or myself has ever done anything to try to exclude or alienate Mike Young. We do reserve the right to defend ourselves.

I do not know what you consider to be unprofessional. I believe that when one is falsly accused that person has a right to defend himself. If you don't like that, too bad.

Over and over again Tony Pioppi has made allegations on this site. Let us see the proof. Mike Young is bitterly disappointed that he did not get the Athens job. I believe that his problem lies with the Committee for Long Term Planning at Athens Country Club.

[Geoffrey Childs]

By the way, as the Executive Director of the Seth Raynor Society, how do you explain that only Mr. Silva has done restoration on the Raynor courses?

Just curious.

Michael

As a member of the Raynor Society and as one who appreciates his work you need to get your facts straight.

Yale -  Work by Roger Rulewich (renovation rather then restoration   )
Sleepy Hollow - current work by Gil Hanse and George Bahto
Essex CC (Raynor/Banks) - work by George Bahto
Whippoorwill - (Banks) - Ken Dye
Yeamans Hall - work by Tom Doak
Camargo - WOrk by Tom Doak
Chicago GC - Doak consultant
Fishers Island - Gil Hanse consultant

need I go on.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

 Mike,

I'm not here to represent the Seth Raynor Society but Tom Doak at Yeamans and Camargo, Ron Forse at Metairie, Ron Prichard at Wanumetonomy, Craig Schreiner at Dedham, Lester George at The Greenbrier, Roger Rulewich at Yale, Gil Hanse at Fishers Island, Hanse and George Bahto at Sleepy Hollow - just to name a quick few off the top of my head - eliminates your theory about only Silva working on Raynor courses, but it was a nice try to distract us from the topic. By the way, what is your salary at the Ross Society and how much a year does the society pay in your travel expenses?

Anthony

[michael j fay]

Geoff and Tony:

I stand corrected.

As for my remuneration and the travel expenses you will find a financial statement on the website. Suffice to say the remuneration is below minimum wage.

Now Tony, where is that prooof of calls to clubs and owners?
A little short on fact?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is what I think:

I've stated previously that I think this is more about the integrity of the Donald Ross Society and which serves to protect the memory and reputation of that famous golf course architect, Donald Ross.

Yet, that Society and it's board of directors continually allow it's Executive Officer to attack the integrity of certain golf course architects, including now, Mike Young in a public forum.

Amazing!

Well frankly speaking, this not only makes me, but also allows me to question the integrity of the Board of Directors of the Donald Ross Society, who apparantely seem to think that their Executive Officer is acting in the most professional manner. This is why I find it hard to believe that the Donald Ross Society continually allows this to happen.

[michael j fay]

Define continually attack. I made one public statement about Mike Young after 24 months of him tearing down the Donald Ross Society and myself.

I have not made a public statement about Brian Silva in seven years. For that matter I have made no public statement about any other Architect in any negative capacity in better than ten years.

I think that we should allow Mike Young to demean Mike Fay, the Donald Ross Society and the Masters of Classical Architecture continually for two years and then defend him when the other side fights back. A little lop-sided, no?

For once why don't you offer some proof rather than your obviously biased opinion. Give me facts, dates, places or keep your poison to yourself!

[TEPaul]

Wow, sentiments over these Architect Societies seems to get pretty bitter and pretty intense.

I'm working at a Macdonald/Raynor course right now in combination with Hanse and Bahto. I'm writing a design evolution report for them as I did for my own Ross course.

Does that mean I need to contact the Seth Raynor Society? Frankly, I wasn't aware of it. Well, if the Seth Raynor Society wants to get in touch with me about it please feel free to do just that, you all know where to find me. I would have to ask the club about it though. But in my mind do we really need the Seth Raynor Society if we already have a guy who does seances with both C.B and Seth?  

The real deal or perhaps the real problem exhibited on this website is all this stuff is all about who has the credibilty with any club or course at any particular time. And as most of the architects on this site are more than willing to admit to the participants of this website----eg Welcome to the real world of golf course architecture.  

Obviously there's a lot of jealousy and back-biting in the business, always has been and probably always will be. But in the end anybody has to live with what it is they were responsible for and if it worked well or not.

I call that the "test of time" and it's the final arbiter in golf architecture, in my book.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom,

I'll put on my Executive Editor/Chief Bunker Raker hat, hold on. OK. As it says on our homepage: "The Seth Raynor Society is a gathering place for enthusiasts of the work of Seth Raynor, Charles Blair Macdonald and Charles Banks.

Members enjoy discussing, arguing about - as well as playing -  their creations.

We in no way claim to be experts."

There is no reason for you to contact the Seth Raynor Society if you do not want to. I was at the course you mention, Sleepy Hollow, with George last week. He is involved with the Society.

As I tell people who contact me about joining, we are not the Donald Ross Society. We do not endorse or blacklist any golf architect when it comes to Raynor restorations. We have not and will not recommend architects. Speakers at our annual meeting have included Brian Silva, Ron Forse, Brad Klein and the green chairman of Fox Chapel. Ron Whitten was supposed to speak this year but was forced to cancel.

By the way, in one of the seances C.B. told George your report is taking too long to complete.

Best Regards,

Anthony

[michael j fay]

Tony:

Still awaiting the long list of names, places and what was said.I would be truly interested in seeing the blacklist.

As I said on an earlier post, you are uninformed. You continue to be and now we are all uninformed about the alleged calls to owners and clubs.

You are really insistent on continuing a slanderous track.

Put up or shut up!!!!

[Geoffrey Childs]

As for my remuneration and the travel expenses you will find a financial statement on the website. Suffice to say the remuneration is below minimum wage.

Michael

I was interested in the Donald Ross Society and I went to the website

http://www.donaldrosssociety.org/

I could not find anything relating to the finances or where the member dues go and what is done with them.  Could you point us to the correct link?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()