Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?

[TEPaul]

Pat said:

"TEPaul,

You seem to miss the point, again.

If those bunkers weren't built to the architect and clients specifications, MacDonald & Co would have had to build them over, made a financial settelment, or gone to court, and none of the above happened, which would seem to indicate that they built them exactly as they were instructed, vis a vis the bid specs and contract.

Don't give me this hocus pocus about a guru shaper, most shapers understand exactly what the boss wants, and if they don't give it to him, they have to reshape it until they get it right or they're replaced.  Or, did the architect and club accept something other than what they had designed and contracted for ?

The point is simple.

How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?

They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere.

If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary."

Pat:

What the hell is going on with you? What do you think you're establishing here? That some people have no right to comment on what they think the bunker projects at both Aronimink and Merion look like to them? If that's what you're saying, and it sure looks like you are, you aren't establishing that point at all and someday you oughta realize you never will.

And I'm not blaming MacDonald & Co for anything here. All I've said is I really don't think they do very good Flynn style bunker restorations. I've also said I think they're capable of doing a good restoration on the look and style of other types of bunkering such as Ross's grass faced bunkering at Aronimink. My bet is they can probably do a real good job on the bunkering at Oakmont. Do you have any idea why I'd say that Pat? Do you have any idea why one would be different to restore than the others? Do you have any idea why the architectural reconstruction of the bunkering at Aronimink and Oakmont is different than Merion, Rolling Green, Riviera, Shinnecock and probably Atlantic City? Do you have any idea what MacDonald & Co's bunker reconstruction method is---their modus operandi for constructing bunkers, so to speak? If so let's hear it instead of having to read endlessly you're attempt to assign blame to someone and to question everyone's right to have an opinion on these projects.

I don't know exactly what Merion or the Fazio organization told MacDonald to do. My sense is they probably told them to recreate the look of the bunkers at Merion in 1930 and they tried to do that. What else are you looking for here?

If you want to get into exactly how they did that then fine, I'll do that because I'm both familiar with the pre-project look of Merion's bunkers from playing Merion scores and scores of times for the last 25 years as well as watching the new restored bunkers being reconstructed at Merion. I've talked to a ton of people over there for years now--I've talked to the Merion super and can even talk to the young man who was the project manager for the Fazio organization--since he's a terrific young man--and called me the other day about some research on a bunker at another course here in town. Plus he's the son of an old friend of mine. I could even talk to Buddy Marucci about it but I'm not going to do that. The green chairman I've talked to a lot--he's been extremely accomodating with me and anyone else interested in the Merion bunker project and the entire restoration of Merion.

Plus I spent a lot of time out at Aronimink with Ron Prichard and the guy from Aronimink who was most involved in their restoration project who I've known for years. It was a good learning experience for me in the details of what it takes in the field to do this kind of work from the architect, shaper, respresentative from the club and the superintendent. Since then I've talked to Ron Prichard a lot about this type of work and even how he views some of what's said on Golfclubatlas about restoration work, particularly bunker restoration work.

But did Merion get what they wanted from Fazio/Macdonald on their bunker project? Well, different people have differing opinions about that. Did they want access and egress problems with some of their bunkering? Did they want irrigation problems with their bunker surrounds? Did they want some bunker-wol problems?  What do you think?

So, I don't know why you're on such a campaign to assign blame to someone? Obviously you just don't like the fact that some may criticize the product for whatever reason because you're on this ridiculous mission to lay blame at the feet of club membership no matter what the situation.

It matters Pat--I guess, but the larger and better point here is some of these things need to be fixed and hopefully they'll get fixed. For some odd reason it doesn't appear that the restored bunkering at Aronimink needs fixing. To date, and through a major tournament last weekend the restored Aronimink bunkering appears to have passed muster with almost everyone I've heard from--except Tom MacWood who happens to think the club and Prichard made an incorrect decisoin of what Ross (or McGovern) look to restore to. That's not something I agree with Tom on and have given all the reasons why on here a number of times.

And I'm the guy who coined the term "puffy and upholstered" on here about 2+ years ago. If you want to know why I came up with that description I'll be glad to tell you again. It has a lot to do with the technical method MacDonald & Co uses on certain types and styles of bunkering, in my opinion. Ian Andrews thinks there may be a way of retrofitting that method at this point to catch a look on Merion's bunkers that's more representative of the way they used to look at certain times in their evolution. I'm not convinced of that exactly because there appears to be some bunker construction under those rolled over grass surrounds as they merge with the sand that probably isn't meant to be uncovered. But that might remain to be seen and known.

In my opinion, the way the entire dirt surrounds were reformed is probably just too rounded anyway, and MacDonald didn't use the so-called "ledge" where the sod merges with the sand upsweep as far as I can see and as far as the Merion East super said.

So what more do you want to know and what exactly are you trying to prove here? It sure looks like you're just trying to prove bias and a double standard against Fazio and maybe by association MacDonald & Co. Why bother to do that on here endlessly? It's a f...ing waste of everyone's time.

But I'll say it again--I think Macdonald can do certain types and styles of bunkering pretty damn well--particularly with the oversight of a really good restoration architect like Ron Prichard--but again Ron had to really work with them in the beginning of the bunker restoration to get them to do just what he wanted. He most definitely did not tell them to just go out there and make him some Ross style bunkers! Everytime I ever saw Ron at Aronimink he had copies of Ross's original drawing under his arm!

So once again Pat, when you ask a question such as;

"The point is simple. How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?"

Finding fault isn't exactly something I'm trying to do here but obviously you are. And if you don't or can't understand why I think the bunkering at Merion missed the mark after all I've said above then frankly I have little idea what more you need to know by way of an answer to your question.

And when you say;

"They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere. If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary."

I can't see what more there is to say or to prove. There's a lot of detailed information there for you. So get off your campaign to assign blame to those you categorically assign blame to on every single project. Matter of fact, why don't you just get off your campaign to assign blame altogether? Instead of asking everyone on here a zillion questions of how they can know or prove this or that why don't you just get into explaining on here what you really think about various aspects of golf course architecture and why?

I've done that and so have others. That's what this site is all about. And stop trying to quash people's opinions on architecture simply because you figure they have no right to have an opinion because they haven't proven to you that they've played the course and are intricately familiar with the details of these projects. People have eyes and they have opinions.

I'm surely not trying to quash your opinion on any of these bunkers on any of these courses, matter of fact I wish you'd be far more forthcoming about what your opinion is on these things and why. And surely you're not going to question the fact I'm about ten times more familiar with these projects than you are---or these courses pre-project either. I live right here and have played these courses and looked at them for the last 2 1/2 decades.

So give it up on this bias and double standard campaign of yours. Make your points about what you think about any of this architecture, like everyone else does on here and then just leave it at that. Your opinions about any architecture will just stand or fall on its own---just like everyone else on here.




 
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba, Tom Paul, DMoriarty, et. al.,

You were the fellows assigning blame, not me.

I'm trying to exonerate MacDonald & Co from your rumor based allegations borne of unfamiliarty with the project.

You fellows were assigning all the blame, I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Mike Cirba,

Your assumptions are flawed, hence your conclusions are flawed.

TEPaul,

Are you going to sit here and tell us that Fazio's organization just gave MacDonald & Co vague instructions to make the bunkers look like they were in 1930, based upon MacDonald & Co's interpretation ?  You know better then that.

DMoriarty,

Do you mean to tell me that when people make damaging allegations regarding the construction of the bunkers at Merion by MacDonald & Co, that they're not accountable to substantiate their charges when questioned about the facts and their allegations ?

If you don't see the bias, you're blind as a mole.

Tom MacWood holds himself out to be an expert on the bunkers at Merion and Aronimink, despite the fact that he's never seen one bunker, and noone else renders his opinion as unqualified.  Fellows, you're in the same camp, and biased.

Imagine someone criticizing Coore & Crenshaw's work, Doak's work, or Gil Hanse's work without ever seeing it.
This site would go ballistic.
But, because Fazio and MacDonald & Co are involved, the absurd statements are allowed to stand. Nah, there's no bias.

When it comes to construction, the architect and contractor, you guys just don't get it.

TEPaul,

Who is the member in charge of the Gulph Mills restoration project ?

Et. al.,

My money says that MacDonald & Co can build any bunker that any architect designs for them.

Is anybody familiar with the bidding process ?
Do clubs just pay any bill that is rendered by contractors and sub-contractors ?

Last question on this post today :

Were the bunkers at Merion built sequentially, or all at one time ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

You're getting warmer, and you're starting to catch on.

Relfect on the above statement, and expand your thinking a little further, you're making great progress.

To repeat another question, do you think that the bunkers at Merion were built sequentially, or all at once ?

Go back and review your quote, you're starting to get it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I'm not going to defend myself against charges of "bias".  

I also don't know how you can't see that a company who uses machine based construction methods can't be as precise or detailed as those who use handwork.  It's like giving a surgeon a chainsaw and asking him to do open heart surgery.  If, as in the case of Aronimink, bunker shapes are relatively rectangular and simple, he can make those cuts using that tool.  That was most definitely not the case at Merion.  

As far as seqential or all at once, it was sequential, with multiple holes chosen per sequence.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Different tools are used for different tasks.

Would you tell me how the 1st right side fairway bunker on hole # 1 was constructed improperly, and what machines were used, for what specific tasks ?

If the bunkers were constructed sequentially, as you say,
What happened after the first bunker was completed, while others were still in construction and others hadn't begun to be constructed ?

Was there a bunker opening ceremony when all the bunkers were done, or was each bunker reviewed upon its completion ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Ironic that you mention that rightside fairway bunker on the 1st hole.  When I last played there, one of my playing partners had the misfortune of hitting into it.  We all saw the ball go in there, but when we arrived, it was nowhere to be found.

We spent a minute or two looking further, and were about to give up, when I spotted someting white about 30 inches down the nearly vertical, thickly blue-grassed bunker face.  Sure enough, his ball had gotten stuck into what had formerly been one's introduction to the "White Faces", except the face had changed colors.    

Now, this fellow is no youngster, and he faced an awful predicament in trying to extricate his ball after it had lodged in the grass.  I was afraid he was going to hurt himself and we all just sort of said, "c'mon take it out of there", each shaking our heads bewildered at the ridiculous predicament.  



Now, what was it that you were asking?  

Patrick, to my knowledge, MacDonald & Sons don't do bunker "handwork".  I believe that it's impossible to "recreate" bunkers that intricately interesting and creatively varied without it, and so did everyone else who was ever intimately involved with the project or course maintenance for decades.  

The results speak for themselves as to who was correct.

Patrick, as far as wanting to place the blame on club officials (who I'm presuming you're suggesting should have made them do it over and over and over until they got it "right"), what were they supposed to do exactly?  The original bunker was GONE.  The original bunker surrounds were completely excavated.  So now you have a secondary design associate on site directing traffic and a bunch of well-meaning blue collar guys sitting on tractors and back hoes and you're trying to talk to them about 1930!, and getting answers like "I built you a bunker like you asked, sir."    

Perhaps instead of being so vague you can tell us what you think should have happened at that point.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I agree with Tom Paul that you are way off base with your ongoing campaign to find bias and double standards behind every tree.

If you like the work done by MacDonald & Co at Aronomink or any other course, why don't you just start a thread about it and tell us why? Instead, you seem to waste a lot of energy telling us that because nobody else has started such a thread, that is evidence of this bias/double standard thing you seem preoccupied with.

Pat, we saw the same pattern with all your comments about Rees Jones. You would almost never cite a Rees course and tell us what you found appealing about it. Instead, you went on endlessly about how everyone else is biased not to like his work.

What is gained by this?

There is no double standard with respect to MacDonald & Co and Merion or Aronomink.

News flash: most people visiting a golf course do not review construction specifications. They don't review all the written communications between various members of the project team. They don't have access to transcripts - or even gossip about - verbal communications between the team members. They don't know how many times the architect of record showed up. They don't know who was the on site project manager and what his/her experience/skills might be. They don't know anything about specific shapers on the project.

No, Pat, they simply walk the golf course and form their own impressions. At Merion, in many cases the impression has not been favorable. Having walked the course myself, I can understand why the famous bunker project got so much negative reaction. I have no bias against Tom Fazio or MacDonald & Co nor any desire to bash any Merion member associated with the project. I just didn't like what I saw. Period. I don't need to "substantiate" any "allegations".

With resprect to Aronomink, I haven't seen the work Pritchard and MacDonald & Co did there so I can't comment. But, I'd much rather you detail why it is worth going out of my way to see rather than deal with another lecture about bias.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Pat:

Just curious: What information do you have to suggest that Ross wasn't at Aronomink?  I personally have no documentation to suggest that he was or wasn't, but the quote "I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew" has always made me think that Aronomink might have been among the few that actually received some attention.

As I say, just curious...

DW

[Mike_Cirba]

Isn't there a film of Ross onsite at Aronimink during construction?  I believe I heard that mentioned here.  

[TEPaul]

"My money says that MacDonald & Co can build any bunker that any architect designs for them."

Pat:

Well, isn't that nice. I wish I could share your confidence in them doing that. I believe in giving them credit when it looks like it's due on a project but not if it isn't due on another project. And I've never blamed Macdonald & Co, only said I don't think they do very good Flynn bunkering from what I've seen. The rounded look they put on Merion and Rolling Green tells me they don't do great Flynn style bunkering, that's all, but maybe you don't notice or don't care or worse yet maybe you think that rounded look is the Merion and Flynn style.

You think MacDonald & Co could build bunkering like Friar's Head and Hidden Creek if Coore and Crenshaw designed it for them, Pat? You probably do--you're about that naive or that lacking in understanding the distinctions in these things. They probably could figure out how to build bunkers like that but only if they hired "The Boys" first!

"Are you going to sit here and tell us that Fazio's organization just gave MacDonald & Co vague instructions to make the bunkers look like they were in 1930, based upon MacDonald & Co's interpretation ?  You know better then that."

Did I ever say that? But you don't know otherwise do you? You probabaly didn't even know that MacDonald & Co is in the golf architecture business did you Pat? They say they're not just bunker contractors as you thought they were unitil you read this sentence. They'll offer to build or restore an entire course for you.

You didn't know that did you?

But after post #58 I'm about done discussing this stuff with you. That post is sad--and I'm starting to get phone calls from people asking me if you've truly lost your mind you've become such a pain in the ass with this constant "bias" and "double standard" crap, thread after thread--which even more incredibly you start yourself!!! I tell them I don't think you've totally lost your mind yet but it would be worthwhile to keep and eye on you--sort of like one of those crazy people in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" who sits alone in the corner ranting to themselves or anyone else who happens to be in earshot.      

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hey wait, it's my turn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pat,

-Where is your proof that Donald Ross wasn't at Aronomink?
-If Ross wasn't there, who was in charge of signing the change orders?
-Who was Ross' lead shaper, and what was his mother's maiden name?
-What was the intent of the Aronomink project?
-Who was in charge of that intent?
-What was his mother's maiden name?
-Where were you when during the construction process of Aronomink?
-Was Ross biased?
-What function did the shaper have in the project?
-What was his intent?

The point is Pat, you are just as unable to answer thes questions not only because of YOUR bias, but because you weren't there either!

And where do I stand in all of this ? ? ? ? NO WHERE! I just wanted to join in the fun!

[T_MacWood]

Please leave Pat alone. His purpose is simple--point out bias when ever and where ever he sees it. We can not and should not expect Pat to analyze architecture --  Pat Mucci is THE bias detector. And he does a damn fine job of it.

Analyze Rees's architecture? No.
Analyze the unfair bias toward Rees? Yes!
Compare the original Aronimink to the current Aronimink? No.
Comment on the success of recapturing 1930 at Merion? No.
Comment on the unfair bias against MacDonald & sons? Yes!

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, Tom Paul, DMoriarty, et. al.,

You were the fellows assigning blame, not me.

I'm trying to exonerate MacDonald & Co from your rumor based allegations borne of unfamiliarty with the project.

You fellows were assigning all the blame, I'm just trying to set the record straight.

 

Patrick, you are again just making things up.  When did I ever assign blame regarding Merion's bunkers?  Show me.

DMoriarty,

Do you mean to tell me that when people make damaging allegations regarding the construction of the bunkers at Merion by MacDonald & Co, that they're not accountable to substantiate their charges when questioned about the facts and their allegations ?

If you don't see the bias, you're blind as a mole.

Patrick, I dont mean to tell you anything.  I meant to ask you something, namely I asked for substantiation regarding your thin attempt at comparing and contrasting.

Dont be a hypocrit Patrick.  If you express an opinion, substantiate it with fact.  Or at least stop calling for others to do so.  You cant have it both ways.

Imagine someone criticizing Coore & Crenshaw's work, Doak's work, or Gil Hanse's work without ever seeing it.
This site would go ballistic.

 
Ive read quite a bit of implicit and explicit criticism of Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon, yet not many have gone ballistic, at least not for the reasons that you regularly go ballistic.

Were the bunkers at Merion built sequentially, or all at one time ?

How the hell should I know?  I know very little about Merion's bunkers, except that I thought them beautiful about 10 years ago when I lived nearby.  I havent seen them since, nor have I taken a position on either set of bunkers.  Is that so hard for you to understand?  

I am not here to defend anyone else's position, but to explore yours; to discover whether you have a legitimate point or not.  But you refuse to answer my question.

You're getting warmer, and you're starting to catch on.

Relfect on the above statement, and expand your thinking a little further, you're making great progress.

To repeat another question, do you think that the bunkers at Merion were built sequentially, or all at once ?

Go back and review your quote, you're starting to get it.

Patrick the reason you like my quote is that it sounds a lot like you when addressing others.  Of course you have missed that I am merely parroting you.  Making the same demands of you, that you foist upon others.  You think these types of questions are useful, we know that.  So start answering them so we can get somewhere.  I am a neutral observer in this bias discussion and I am looking forward to you shedding light on the issue.  Using your own preferred methodology no less.  

Please, explain the basis for your position, using the compare and contrast that you yourself proposed.  

One last thing . . . I have to laugh that, as I predicted, you appear to be unwilling to substiate your claim that Ross was never at Aronomink.  You are a class act, Patrick.  You try to put me down by calling into question my knowledge regarding Ross' involvement with the project, all the while you were apparently just making up the bit about Ross not being there.  

Who do you think you are?  You can throw out allegations without any real substantiation?  The only support you offer is a fiction you simply made up?  You have a lot of nerve accusing others of bais and hypocritical behavior.  

[Michael Moore]

Isn't there a film of Ross onsite at Aronimink during construction?  I believe I heard that mentioned here.  

Yes, there is!!

And I have some stills from that VERY FILM that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ross WAS on site!!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Michael, I hate to refute you, but I know that film, and they have a copy of it at the Ralph Miller Library. That isn't Ross either, It's one somewhat younger Pat Mucci taken a few years ago while signing change orders for construction of the original Preakness Hills CC!

Pat, Do they make those knickers in the VERY extra large sizes, and can I get a pair of them before Monday?

[Tom_Doak]

I happened to play Merion yesterday, for the first time in many years.  I had been afraid to go back because of all that had been said and written here and elsewhere, and because I would be forced to have an opinion on it which would undoubtedly offend one camp or another.

It also happened to be one of my 5-10 favorite places in all of golf, and I was very apprehensive about how it had come out.

The short opinion:  Merion is still a wonderful golf course.  It's clear to me now that the members had heard nothing but negatives about the course for most of the past twenty years (too short to host the Open!), lost sight of the fact they were better than all but ten courses in America because they were different, and decided with Tom Fazio to make the course a bit more like other US Open courses with deeper grass-faced bunkers.  Whether this decision was prompted by Fazio or by the USGA or by the club members themselves, I cannot say.

It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere.  Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers.

Yes, the bunkers are deep and not easy to get out of, and what they took away in unplayable broom they gave back in awkward stances ... no less than three times I had to hit a bunker shot with one foot out of the bunker!  I don't know if this was an intentional trade-off or not, but if so the credit or blame should go to the architect and NOT the contractor.

I have not seen the work at Aronimink (the boys at Stonewall all raved about it) so I won't comment on that.  

We did work with Macdonald & Sons at Atlantic City, and they are quite competent at what they do.  I would not go so far as to say that they "can build any bunker that any architect designs for them," unless one means to place all the onus on the architect for communicating his ideas to the last detail.  They are clearly more comfortable at some styles than at others ... as most contractors are, and as most architects are ... and we modified our style to fit not only what we thought the client wanted there, but what the contractor could produce.  

Macdonald and Sons do not intend (or pretend) to be adding creativity to the design of their renovation projects, which is probably a good thing.  I'm not saying that good shapers cannot add to a great course ... they certainly can, and that's why I keep around several on my own payroll.  Creativity is supposed to be the architect's job, and Chip Macdonald is fine with that.

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty said to Pat Mucci;

"Ive read quite a bit of implicit and explicit criticism of Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon, yet not many have gone ballistic, at least not for the reasons that you regularly go ballistic."

David;

Who criticized Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon? I don't even care if it was subtly implicit--I'm gonna kill them. I want names, telephone numbers and exact addresses and I want them NOW! I'm paying whatever reward it will take to get those "biased", "double standard" SOBs who criticized Gil Hanse! Whoever the hell criticized Gil Hanse's work had to be put up to it by Tom Fazio or Chip Macdonald--I just know they were behind this--I can smell it!

I want to know who criticized Gil Hanse NOW! They're gonna be dead meat before the sun rises tomorrow!    

[Mike_Cirba]

The short opinion:  Merion is still a wonderful golf course.  It's clear to me now that the members had heard nothing but negatives about the course for most of the past twenty years (too short to host the Open!), lost sight of the fact they were better than all but ten courses in America because they were different, and decided with Tom Fazio to make the course a bit more like other US Open courses with deeper grass-faced bunkers.  Whether this decision was prompted by Fazio or by the USGA or by the club members themselves, I cannot say.

It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere.  Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers.

Tom;

I agree that Merion remains a wonderful course, but I think your first point about the loss of such unique and distinguished features is what many here object to; the homogenization of classic golf courses under the name of "restoration", but actually done for reasons of modernization, consistency, fairness, and predictability.  

The fact that we appreciate gorgeous, well-integrated bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss.  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said;

"It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere.  Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers."

And Mike Cirba responded;

"The fact that we appreciate gorgeous, well-integrated bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss."

In many ways those two remarks encapsulates almost 2 1/2 years of continuous discussion and debate on Golfclubatlas about Merion's bunker project. (The Merion bunker project subject has undoubtedly been the most continuously hashed over subject in the history of Golfclubatlas.com. Was it obsessive? No question about it!).

It's also terrific to get Tom Doak's take on Merion from his playing of it this week after not having seen the course in a number of years.

Not that he necessarily wants to answer the question, or will, but I'd be interested to have him elaborate a bit more on this remark of his; "It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, ......"

And I'd like to add something when Mike Cirba says; "The fact that we appreciate gorgeous,.......bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss.

"We" all (if "we" means those who rue the loss of the "look" of the old pre-restoration bunkers) should be aware that if you lined up the entire Merion membership shoulder to shoulder (as well as others familiar with the course over the years) and asked them to look at an old bunker compared to a new bunker and which they prefer I dare say the majority of them would say they prefer the "look" of the new bunkers!

That's probably a reality "we" on Golfclubatlas should come to terms with and get used to. Why would the majority say that? In my opinion, because the old bunkering had come to be perceived by many as basically falling apart or fallen apart. And they're the ones who play the course everyday and are most familiar with it.

But still why would they say such a thing about such famous old bunkers? Obviously the playbility of the old bunkers had gotten to that point where the sand was road hard and the drainage had about totally failed and sand had leaked well out from the low ends of much of the bunkering into the rough making definition of "in or out" of a bunker questionable. A good deal of the top ends of the bunkering and the surrounds around them had become sort of choppy and spotty agronomically as well as sort of randomly irregular due to years of varying maintenance practices and particularly just the effects of the evolution of what might be called “time and tide” (and play).

But “we” must realize that the reality in golf today and even amongst a membership such as Merion’s is that something like that will be perceived in very different ways by a single membership. Some will look at the old bunkers as an unnecessary and unwanted disintegratation and others will look at it from the opposite extreme as something of true beauty in the manner of say a stream edge that has eroded from the forces of nature over time.

Many on here wonder and even assume that something must have gone wrong in the reconstruction of the Merion bunkers under Fazio/Macdonald/the club. I don’t know that that’s true--or at least when it comes to the "look" of the restored bunkers.

One may ask, though, if the club truly understood what the differences may have been if the club had hired another architect to restore the Merion bunkers under exactly identical instructions! Or if there would have been a difference in look at all if another architect was used and given identical instructions. An architect such as Tom Doak and his really fine crew, perhaps, who are known for their natural looking bunkering. But of course one shouldn’t assume that Tom Doak would ever have build or restored Merion’s bunkers to look like the  ultra natural looking bunkers of say Pacific Dunes---that’s a different place and a different style that fits with THAT course’s site. So if Doak’s Renaissance had done the restoration how would the Merion bunkers have turned out looking vs the way they look now?

I dare say the vast majority of the Merion’s membership would've liked them even better than what they have now or what they used to have. But why—that’s the question? And it’d be nice to know from Tom Doak if he'd have recommended that the bunker surrounds be completely taken apart and rebuilt from scratch as they were with the Fazio/Macdonald/club project.

I’ve always thought that it would have been a better policy to simply do two steps of what is generally a three step bunker restoration process and simply fix the internal drainage (1st step) fix the sanding (2nd step) and basically try to merge those two steps with the old surrounds and simply fix any perceived problems with those old surrounds instead of taking them completely apart and rebuilding them (to another look?).

Basically the two step vs three step bunker restoration method is what another club here in town did with their Flynn style bunkering at about the same time as Merion did their bunker restoration project. That, of course, was Philadelphia C.C. The decision was made at PCC to basically leave the surrounds alone and just work on them some instead of rebuilding them.

But there’s a lot more to the Merion bunker project than just the “look” of them, that’s for sure. That would be the playability of them today vs the old bunkers. I think the club got just what they wanted that way but for differing reasons.

Today the Merion bunkers are much harder to play in an architectural sense and not so hard as the old bunkers were in a maintenance sense. It’s an interesting trade-off indeed but the net effect is something that’s very interesting to ponder.

I also wonder what Mike Cirba means when he says the old bunkering was ‘so well integrated” vs what they have now.

One last thing---I don't mean to put you on the spot, TomD, and ask you to jump into this ongoing cauldron that's been the Merion bunker restoration project on Golfclubatlas but it sure would be a real help and undoubtedly a real education too if you would comment. My hope has always been (with this ongoing subject) to take it somehow out of the realm of continous antagonism and adverserialness of some on here with the club and into the realm of real architectural education--certainly for those on Golfclubatlas who comment on this subject without clearly understanding either the realities of Merion and its memberhip or the realities of golf architecture and particularly the realities of restoration architecture! And possibly in some way an education for the club too and other clubs who'll be doing some of the same things in the future that Merion has done with their bunker project.

To be continued.....

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I don't have much time today, unfortunately, so I'll try to quickly answer your question about what I mean when I say "integrated with their surrounds".

I don't want to come off as being cute, but in a word, "seamless".  The old bunkers looked to have been there since the dawn of time and the new ones look to be airlifted from a CCFAD with a "classic course" theme.

Your example of Philadelphia Country Club's bunker work exemplifies my point.  I defy anyone to have a walk around there and have any idea that bunker work was recently done.  They look to be part and parcel of the course.

As far as your other question as to what Merion's bunkers would have looked like if another architect had done the work, we already know that answer.  The work had been started by another architect and it was wonderful.  Unfortunately, it seems that it was also too labor-intensive (i.e. slow) for club officials concerned about a 2005 US Amateur timeframe.  I imagine other issues were involved, but let's not get into that.  

I even have pictures of those restored bunkers, including one of the 9th green from the exact same angle as the 1930 picture in Geoff Shackelford's "Golden Age" book.

It looks exact.  

Unfortunately, I won't post it here for reasons I won't go into, but let's just say that I wouldn't want to compromise personal relationships.    

[TEPaul]

redanman said;

"I won't venture a word about the short course at PV except that Mr Fazio's influence has led the Complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics."

redanman;

In fairness to Tom Fazio (or any architect), when you make a remark like the influence of Tom Fazio is why the original 18 holes of PV, or even the newer Short course, has changed somewhat in playing intent or aesthetics, I really do wonder why you make a remark like that and how you'd substantiate it. But since you have said it's the influence of Tom Fazio I would say there's a lot more that goes on down there than you know! It's been my understanding that although Tom Fazio belongs to PV and has for some time and has given his advice to the club but only if and when asked, and is somewhat, or perhaps more than somewhat, the reluctant advisor.

This is not in any way intended to denigrate Tom Fazio or to praise him, only to set the record straight and put an accurate description on things. Some on here might howl at that but do they really know what goes on down there and who calls the shots?

There are a number of architects who belong to PV but the fact remains the club has turned to Fazio for quite some time now if and when they ask for advice on the golf course from an architect. Is it logical to assume that if PV turned to any of the architects who are members of that club that any of them would or should say; "I can not or will not advise you in any way on this golf course?"

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I have no special knowledge of what goes on at Pine Valley, but can share one conversation I had with Ernie Ransome several years back. As Ernie put it, the involvement of Tom Fazio in an architectural matter came at Ernie's request and was NOT the result of Fazio trying to elbow his way into control of such matters.

Beyond that, I have mixed feelings about the way our discussion about Merion has unfolded over the past couple years. Like you, I would like to see less of an adversarial tone to our discussion. I can't believe the leadership of Merion wants to do anything other than the very best thing for their club.

But, I also worry if something might be lost if we got too buddy-buddy - no pun intended!

Recently, I visited a club I hadn't seen for more than twenty years. My hosts were quite gracious and the last thing I wanted to do was offend anyone. But, I did notice the accumulated effect of what must have been a big tree planting program. In a sense, the club was the antithesis of what we see happening at fine clubs like Merion or Oakmont with their well known tree removal programs.

When I commented that the course looked different because of all the trees, one member quickly replied, "Yes, the course is a lot better now". But, I thought it was a good example of what Geoff Shackelford has written about in recent years, i.e., eliminating width to dictate a single line of play.

Truthfully, I found it difficult to express my true feelings other than to point out one particular shot that was lost on a par 5. Interestingly, none of the members had even imagined such a shot. Fortunately, at least one was intrigued.

With respect to Merion, it may well be what you say. Perhaps a majority of members like the new bunkers. But, assuming this is true, should that really stop people here from expressing a candid opinion that something was lost, that really much better work could have been done, especially when it comes to the "look"?

Tom Doak is right that Merion has so many strengths that it remains one of the great places in golf. But, even such clubs may not always get it right and perhaps - just maybe - it takes a little bomb throwing, if you will, to get this message across.

I wish I knew how we could achieve the right balance between candor and constructive education.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

I wish I knew the answer to your final question.  

It makes me wonder if I shouldn't have posted anonymously here all along.  

Sometimes there is more intrigue on this site than in the halls of the CIA.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I think the example you cite is one of the non-agronomic reasons that I don't think the cantilevered grassed tops will survive.

How do you know that MacDonald & Co doesn't do hand work ?  How did those cantilevered tops get built ?

Does the term "quality control" have any meaning ?

Mike, did you ever think that perhaps they got the product that they contracted for ?

Tim Weiman,

How can you draw a quantitative conclusion with respect to how many people don't like the bunkers ?

You may know some people who don't like them, like some on GCA,  but, there may be many people who do like them, including members and non-members of Merion.

Dan Wexler,

I recall reading that Ross made that comment at the opening, possibly the official opening of the golf course.  
That upon seeing the finished product for the first time, he made that comment.

It is no secret that many of Ross's courses didn't enjoy a great deal of his personal attention on site.  Some on GCA had taken Fazio to task for not being at Merion enough during the project.  That contention may be false, but, even if it was true, why was it okay for Ross to be AWOL, but not other architects ?  It's a clear double standard, that's why.

TEPaul,

I think a pretty good case exists that MacDonald & Co was unfairly slammed for the work they did at Merion.

Perhaps they built the bunkers exactly as they were instructed to build them.  If so, why should they take any hits on the project.

What has been lost in this discussion is the "cost" to construct.  What was the budget for the bunker project, and could that budget have been met if the bunkers were constructed by hand as Mike Cirba would have prefered ?
Clubs don't always have the luxury of Steve Wynn type budgets.

I'm also curious if any of the critics have any experience in bunker construction or bunker construction projects at a club?

Tommy Naccarato,

It's locked up with your proof that Fazio wasn't there.  

Tom MacWood,

You might not be aware of it, but this thread is about current bunker construction projects at Merion and Aronimink, not guesswork on the original bunkers at Aronimink and Merion.

DMoriarty,

I addressed my comments to several named people and many others through "et. al.".  If you took the royal you personally that's your problem.

One only has to read the posts on Merion to see the overwhelming number of critical comments directed toward the architect and contractor.  If people are going to make allegations, they should support or substantiate them when asked.

"Quite a bit of criticism on Rustic Canyon"  
You must be kidding, high, or both.

The question regarding sequential bunker construction was meant to emphasize a point.  Obviously the question/point went far over your head.

I maintain that Ross wasn't there.
Do you know for a fact, as of this moment in time, that he was ?  If so, present your proof.

You knowingly entered this discussion without knowing anything about the bunkers recently built at Merion and Aronimink.  Don't get testy because you don't like the answer to questions asked, and don't tell me that I made something up.  It has been repeated several times on this site, especially a thread about Aronimink, that Ross wasn't on site, and returned upon completion of the course, something he was prone and known to do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

I won't venture a word about the short course at PV except that Mr Fazio's influence has led the Complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics.

Could you tell us how Fazio's influence has led the complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics ?

Could you also list the untrue assumptions regarding Pine Valley and Merion you said I posted ?

Thanks.