[Mike Bodo]

So which Ross courses are duds and forgettable?
Bogey

In Michigan alone I'd say Warren Valley, Monroe Golf and Country Club, Chandler Park and Rogell (NLE). One could argue he didn't have great tracks of land to work with at those locations, but the courses aren't anywhere near the caliber of work done at OHCC, Franklin Hills and Barton Hills. The Bobby Jones Golf Course in Sarasota is definitely not indicative of Ross best work, but who's to say how much of what Ross did there is even left? That said, I played it once and would never go back. Compared to Sara Bay there's a night and day difference. Then again, one is public and the other private. In any event I wouldn't rate any of these courses above a Doak 4.

[Mike Bodo]

Of the 400+ courses Donald Ross designed, renovated or reworked in his lifetime there are arguably a number of duds and forgettable tracks. In fact, the vast majority aren't in the conversation of Top 200 in U.S.

This has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with mathematics

It's an impossible and unrealistic ask to expect every architects work to be worthy of a Top 100 ranking.

Especially if he designed more than 400 courses!

Agreed! That said, I don't care what type of design or creative profession you're in. Not everything you do is going to be representative of your best work. Not every Beatles song was a no. 1 hit despite how talented the four members were. There are a number of less than memorable songs scattered throughout their catalog. Not everything the great impressionists did back in the day became masterpieces. That's just the law of averages at work. Every human being is susceptible to this because we are imperfect.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chandler Park is a Ross?


Sven

[Brad Tufts]

I'm a big Pete Dye fan, of the man and his courses.  One that seemed like a "mail-in" (whatever that means) was Old Quarry in Curacao.  It's certainly pretty and seaside, but the details for playability just weren't there in many places.  Add an island where golf is not part of the culture, and the sketchy detailing creeps into the areas that should be easier to maintain.


To be honest, it's not terrible...and the fact that I have to grasp at the Curacao straw probably means 95% of his designs are well done.


For symmetry, the "worst" Ross course I ever played was Fairview in Fort Wayne, IN...now called Donald Ross Golf Club, owned by Indiana Tech.  He did only 9 there, and I thought I had his nine pegged but the more interesting one was the 9 done in the 70s.  It's not offensive, just not dynamic at all.  The price is great for any type of golf too...$20 to walk 18!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Given everyone's love of rankings to a minute degree, no architect could get by with equally thought of courses.  In no time, for any gca, one course would creep to number 1, etc.    And, some courses would have to drop to 46(in my case) or 400 in the case of Ross.  Human nature.


And just to add to my previous post about how those relative duds might come to be, in my professional experience, design contracts can vary, which is a bit different than having a difficult owner or owner's rep.  I would guess my two least best courses would be Cross Timbers in Azle, TX and Eagle Bend in Lawrence, KS.  In both cases, they were designed for one of those (then more common) companies that promised small towns they could get a public course without using city money by issuing revenue (vs general) bonds.


However, they had to beat a budget, so they were both underfunded and my contract was with them.  They had their in house builder who felt free to make changes on behalf of his boss to meet budget, but also, he was a frustrated designer.  The contract called for only a minimum of site visits.  To my eye, it shows.


On the other hand, I did one design build for Landscapes Unlimited, and they had similar contract clauses, but more respect for the architect.  That course, not 50 miles from Lawrence is usually ranked the top public course in KS.  I am sure someone who plays both regularly could wonder how the same guy designed both.


And now you know the rest of the story.......except that I will say, I used to joke that I had designed the 1, 2, 3, and last ranked public courses in KS.  Eagle Bend has continually spent to basically put back in what was left out by the original budget, and then some, and it now has a much better reputation.


Something to ponder when considering what goes in a "restoration" of your favorite course.  It may not have met the original gca's vision, and almost certainly, left out some things that need to be put in, whether part of the original design or not.  In other words, as long as golf architecture exists in a time-space continuum there is always hope it can get better.

[Ben Hollerbach]

   Thank you Jeff. “Mail it in” is a pretty nasty term, implying to me, at least, and almost dishonest lack of effort.  Just discuss Pete’s work; don’t challenge his integrity.

How is "Mail it in" a nasty term in this case?

Didn't guys like James Braid route course by stake, leaving the construction to locals? Doesn't Donald Ross have courses in which he primarily designed only on paper, handing over his routing to guys like McGovern and Cobb to handled the construction and shaping?
If the practice has been historically common and accepted in golf course architecture, why in this case does it imply dishonesty?

Has it not been a practice for a client and architect to negotiate factors like how frequently the "named architect" would visit the site? More visits, more $$$. Isn't that why guys like Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and now Tiger Woods employ multiple senior architects to manage the day to day of the work while they oversaw the project at a distance?

[Mike Bodo]

Chandler Park is a Ross?

Sven

There's ongoing debate as to the architect behind Chandler, but there's a vocal contingent that feel its a Ross.

[Jeff_Brauer]

   Thank you Jeff. “Mail it in” is a pretty nasty term, implying to me, at least, and almost dishonest lack of effort.  Just discuss Pete’s work; don’t challenge his integrity.

How is "Mail it in" a nasty term in this case?

Didn't guys like James Braid route course by stake, leaving the construction to locals? Doesn't Donald Ross have courses in which he primarily designed only on paper, handing over his routing to guys like McGovern and Cobb to handled the construction and shaping?
If the practice has been historically common and accepted in golf course architecture, why in this case does it imply dishonesty?

Has it not been a practice for a client and architect to negotiate factors like how frequently the "named architect" would visit the site? More visits, more $$$. Isn't that why guys like Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and now Tiger Woods employ multiple senior architects to manage the day to day of the work while they oversaw the project at a distance?

There are some who would call name pros an exercise in dishonesty.  Not JN and AP, and a few others who built firms that can actually design courses.  But, others who would slap their name on a project for a cool fee, and as you say, negotiate to visit once or a few times for photo ops.  I think I represented the few I worked with well, but a few have used many different backing architects and don't seem to care exactly what the final product looks like.


That is, however, a subject for another day.  And, in common parlance now....not 100+ years ago, let's face it, "Mail it in" is a pretty snarky phrase.

[Ben Hollerbach]

 And, in common parlance now....not 100+ years ago, let's face it, "Mail it in" is a pretty snarky phrase.

When others have taken offense to the term because he's "one of the 10 greatest architects of all time", you can't just look at today, you have to look at 100 years ago as well. The question the OP proposed could be considered applicable for a wide range of architects over the past 100+ years, not just Dye. Especially consider at time architects have quite literally mailed plans to a site for construction with little to no actual contact.

While I do not believe Dye ever did that, I also believe that like many architects today he spent more time on site a certain courses and less time on site at others, relying on those around him to handle certain tasks that he would have otherwise undertaken himself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,


Your second pp is spot on.  Your last two sentences in the first pp are fine.  The 1st sentence in the first pp is a defensive stretch of logic.  The OP was specifically about Pete, not the last 100 years.  At least, I see it as a stretch of the OP's premise. 


That said, it is a surprise to me that even considering just Pete's career, it now covers about 60 of the last 100 years.  In the first 20 of those, however, we generally assume Pete and Alice were pretty hands on.  Later, maybe the last 20 years, he might not have been.  Time does fly.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,

Your second pp is spot on.  Your last two sentences in the first pp are fine.  The 1st sentence in the first pp is a defensive stretch of logic.  The OP was specifically about Pete, not the last 100 years.  At least, I see it as a stretch of the OP's premise. 

That said, it is a surprise to me that even considering just Pete's career, it now covers about 60 of the last 100 years.  In the first 20 of those, however, we generally assume Pete and Alice were pretty hands on.  Later, maybe the last 20 years, he might not have been.  Time does fly.

Jeff,
You are correct. I was not attempting to stretch the premise of the OP's opening question. Rather I was responding to the collection of poster who rejected the premise of the question due to the fact that Dye was such a revered architect and they did not like the phrasing. The moniker of top 10 greatest and the time span of 100+ years were not originally my words, but do help to frame Dye's career within the confines of the industries history.

As you acknowledged, the the scale of an architects participation is both sliding and has historically significant. Which just goes to reaffirm the validity of the original question. What each of us have to decide is what level of effort/time is required from an architect for their participation to be viewed as significant or insignificant.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Back to the OP's original question.
For Dye is there a correlation between the courses in which a lot of dirt was required to be moved being some of his best and courses where little dirt being moves were some of his worse? While that could easily be a greater question about project budget, when almost complete manufactured places like Whistling Straits, Sawgrass, and Kiawah are on the top of his list it does beg the question.
The biggest head scratcher I've played of his is Atlanta National. But there I have to wonder if Pete's name was only used to sell memberships and PB was the sole designer. That is a course that feels like it could have used another set of eyes questioning if the routing really made sense.

[JohnVDB]

Of the 400+ courses Donald Ross designed, renovated or reworked in his lifetime there are arguably a number of duds and forgettable tracks. In fact, the vast majority aren't in the conversation of Top 200 in U.S.

This has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with mathematics

It's an impossible and unrealistic ask to expect every architects work to be worthy of a Top 100 ranking.

Especially if he designed more than 400 courses!

If he designed 401 courses, his worst course would be outside the top 400. What a bum. 


I remember when I first got to Pittsburgh, going to a course called Montour Heights to set it up for a college tournament.  As I got rain d the course I knew I recognized a number of features.  I called my boss and asked, “Is this a Pete Dye course?”  He said the it was both a Pete and PB design, but if you asked either of them, they would probably tell you the other one did it.  The main issue was that it was way too hilly to allow a good course to be built.

[Sven Nilsen]

Chandler Park is a Ross?

Sven

There's ongoing debate as to the architect behind Chandler, but there's a vocal contingent that feel its a Ross.

It's not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back to the OP's original question.
For Dye is there a correlation between the courses in which a lot of dirt was required to be moved being some of his best and courses where little dirt being moves were some of his worse? While that could easily be a greater question about project budget, when almost complete manufactured places like Whistling Straits, Sawgrass, and Kiawah are on the top of his list it does beg the question.
The biggest head scratcher I've played of his is Atlanta National. But there I have to wonder if Pete's name was only used to sell memberships and PB was the sole designer. That is a course that feels like it could have used another set of eyes questioning if the routing really made sense.

Interesting question.  Many think Dye had a larger share of manufactured courses on dead flat sites (i.e., TPC Sawgrass, Harbor Town) but he did many courses on rolling ground.  I am not the expert having played some, but certainly not all Dye courses.  That said, it does seem later in his career, even his gently rolling sites got the full Dye treatment.  Here in Dallas, his Stonebridge Ranch was on pretty nice ground, but still had the mounding, lateral lakes with strip bunkers, etc.  I think Whistling Straits did have some gentle rolling ground, which was maybe generally used in the routing, but then he superimposed his faux dunes on top.


I was building a course in Atlanta near the time of Atlanta National, and do believe they told me PB was the main architect there.  It had a few of what I considered to be wildly experimental holes that weren't great, but couldn't say who was behind that.


Overall, I think we might characterize Pete's later style as a copy of his style developed at TPC, because (probably) that is what developers wanted out of him?

[JC Urbina]

Jeff,


I shaped for Pete at Stonebridge Ranch.  Rod Whitman was the project manager there.  I still remember to this day arriving on site and my first job was leveling teeing grounds.  Rod drove by and saw me working on the tees and laughed, ( like what are you doing get on a dozer)  said meet him on #18. Told me to grab the Dozer in the fairway and to meet Pete and him up by the green. 


The first thing Pete said to me, Jimmy get on that dozer and push the dirt around, gave a few quick ideas which I remembered from previous jobs and told me he would be back,  Rod checked in on me and made a few more suggestions and then told me to go over to hole #9. 


I recognized that layout with  two finishing holes wrapped around a large lake, (Pete's template holes) and got busy shaping that green in as well.  In typical Pete Dye fashion, adjust a little here move that over a bit there and then wait for Alice to chime in.    Sent me down to 17 green next, I was so comfortable with the jargon that Pete used that if anyone else had heard the conversation they would wonder if we were speaking a foreign language.


Pretty good piece of land especially down along the creek area on the North end of the property.  So long ago yet seems like yesterday.


Thanks for the memories.


Someone needs to define Mailing It In.


# of Days on site  - Results - Routing only- what is the definition of Mailing it In ??


Mackenzie mailed in a lot of his work???






 

[Steve_Lovett]

Pete Dye might've been the mentor to more of today's highly regarded designers than anyone. Some may not like his work but I don't think that happens if you "mail it in".

[Jim_Coleman]

   Jeff defined “mail it in” very well. It is an unkind term implying intentional lack of effort. For anyone hired to perform a service - lawyer, doctor, architect etc. - it is an insult. And although my contact with Pete was minuscule compared to many here, I am confident the answer to the question posed is NO.

[John Kavanaugh]

Or perhaps he gave all those wonderful architects who once worked for him the greatest gift of all. A chance to learn how to fail. At his expense.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


I shaped for Pete at Stonebridge Ranch.  Rod Whitman was the project manager there.  I still remember to this day arriving on site and my first job was leveling teeing grounds.  Rod drove by and saw me working on the tees and laughed, ( like what are you doing get on a dozer)  said meet him on #18. Told me to grab the Dozer in the fairway and to meet Pete and him up by the green. 


The first thing Pete said to me, Jimmy get on that dozer and push the dirt around, gave a few quick ideas which I remembered from previous jobs and told me he would be back,  Rod checked in on me and made a few more suggestions and then told me to go over to hole #9. 


I recognized that layout with  two finishing holes wrapped around a large lake, (Pete's template holes) and got busy shaping that green in as well.  In typical Pete Dye fashion, adjust a little here move that over a bit there and then wait for Alice to chime in.    Sent me down to 17 green next, I was so comfortable with the jargon that Pete used that if anyone else had heard the conversation they would wonder if we were speaking a foreign language.


Pretty good piece of land especially down along the creek area on the North end of the property.  So long ago yet seems like yesterday.


Thanks for the memories.


Someone needs to define Mailing It In.


# of Days on site  - Results - Routing only- what is the definition of Mailing it In ??


Mackenzie mailed in a lot of his work???

JC,


I appreciate that.  It was announced about the first month I started my own practice, and I got the name of the developer and called him and wrote them.   I got a nice answer back that they had already hired Pete prior to the public announcement, with an invite to go out there any time to monitor progress, and I did go out there once.


The original land plan had a lot of apartments and multiple family, and I have to admit I wondered why a name architect was required for low end housing.  The final product did edge up to higher end, especially around his course, which made more sense to me.  After all, I think North Dallas invented the McMansion trend........


My funny story about that version of the 9 and 18 around a lake.  I took a potential client there to play and he was slicing all day, and finding nearly every water hazard.  On 18, I bet him lunch on whether he would find water off the tee.  He missed the lake by over correcting right and landed in a swimming pool, which cause animated discussion on what the bet was.   I contended that hitting a swimming pool counted, as we didn't specifically say water hazard, and won the argument, but since he was a potential client, bought lunch anyway.


Another funny Stonebridge story, shortly after I hired Jeff Blume, we went out and played there.  He had been rejected by Alice in part because he has a hazard right in front of the traditional women's tees, and then he saw a deep bunker right in front of one of those tees on the course.  He brought in his drawing which Alice had marked up, "X" ing out hazards that affected women (this was right around when her "Two Tee System for Women" came out.  He was perplexed, to say the least, but probably only his first lesson in the fact that gca' don't always follow their own written philosophies to the T.


The one feature I always wondered about was the deep bunker behind ten green, which had a huge cut at the back.  It actually looked to me like it has been shaped as a constant back slope, until someone realized a drain tile had to be cut through somewhere, and they cut it so they could trench it, and just left it after trenching.  Sometimes the unique somewhat awkward design features are happy accidents (if my theory is true in that case)
Lastly, I was a member there briefly, when they changed it to "Dallas Stars Country Club" and gave all season ticket holders a membership, but it lasted a year, and seemed like too long a drive for me to use anyway. 

[Joel_Stewart]

Mackenzie mailed in a lot of his work???

Seems like that is never discussed.  He spent 3 months in Australia yet consulted on 9 courses.  It's a rumor in the Bay Area that he spent very little time if any at Green Hills.  That course was built by Jack Fleming.


Regarding Dye, of course he mailed it in. I played golf with Perry and Ann Dye at the Mountain course at La Quinta and Perry took credit for most of the work.

[David Ober]

I can't believe -- on this, of all sites -- some are seriously getting their knickers in a bunch over the relatively innocuous term "mail it in."


Otherwise amazing actors sometimes get accused of "mailing in" a performance on a film they never really wanted to do. It's a thing. Some people do it. The OP was asking if Dye ever did.


Good Lord.

[Brad Lawrence]

I can’t bring myself to either like or hate Pete Dye’s work. I often feel like once you’ve played one of his courses, you have played them all.  I can live with an island green and bulkheads, but extremely predictable and unattractive bunkering doesn’t do it for me.  But in the world of modern architecture which is almost completely rubbish, he was certainly above average.

[Cal Carlisle]

"Mailing it in" on something that takes so long to build? I don't know about that. I used to see landscape architcture projects get wittled down by clients. Projects that started as one thing and turned into something entirely different by the end. It happens, and sometimes your name (unfortunately) ends up on it. Depending on the state of the economy you take the work that keeps the lights on.

Did Robert DiNiro mail it in when he filmed "Dirty Grandpa"? Maybe....or maybe he went into the project thinking "it is what it is". (Why doesn't anyone say "it ain't what it ain't?) Filler work. Sometimes you get The Godfather II and Good Fellas, and in between you get Little Fockers and Dirty Grandpa. Some people choose to do it, others don't.


Mailing it in on a golf course construction would require someone dedicated, someone absolutely hellbent, with a singular focus to go into work and just not care. Every. Single. Day. For like a year. He just doesn't strike me as the type. JMO.

[Matt Kardash]

Mailing it in on a golf course construction would require someone dedicated, someone absolutely hellbent, with a singular focus to go into work and just not care. Every. Single. Day. For like a year. He just doesn't strike me as the type. JMO.

I don't think he mailed it in for a good chunk of his career. But to deny that he didn't have courses with his name on them that he had almost nothing to do with is naive, I think. I would call that mailing it in.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()