Ron Prichard Restoration work

[Will E]

Jeff,
You bring up a very valid point that Tom McWood drove home to all of us with his quiz featuring the range of Ross bunkers. I too have noticed that Prichard's bunker work does not have this same range.
As far as Mr.Paul's comment regarding the maintenance issues, with the current sand face wall products available today I don't think the cost issue is much of a deterrant to a true restoration.
Franklin Hills is complete, let me know when you want to venture across the river.

[TEPaul]

"But aren't those steep, "bumpy" grass faces a challenge to mow in some cases? That might be a maintenance issue itself."

Jeff:

That's a good question and one I asked when we decided to go to grassed-down faces in our Hanse restoration. Compared to the sand-flashed up faces we used to have the maintenance is a bit of a "net effect" but all in all we decided to go with the extra mowing on the grass faces so as to avoid the repair necessities of what maintenance has to do when you get severe washing down on sand flashed faces!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I'm simply playing the Devil's Advocate now, so have to ask: regular mowing of steep, "bumpy" grass faces versus how many rain wash outs of sand flashed-type bunkers per year?

I guess that's the question Gulph Mills was faced with, and answered.

You must get a lot of rain in Philly  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Further, Tom... I don't have your Gulph Mills evolution booklet in front of me, but the bunkers throughout the Ross course weren't originally grass faced, were they?

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[T_MacWood]

"...we decided to go with the extra mowing on the grass faces so as to avoid the repair necessities of what maintenance has to do when you get severe washing down on sand flashed faces!"

That must be why sand splashed bunkers are so rare in Philadelphia.

[T_MacWood]

I'm looking at TE's excellent GM booklet and the Ross bunkers were his typical grass faced. It hard to say for certain but Maxwell's bunkers appear to be sand splahed...which must have created a very interesting dynamic.

[TEPaul]

"That must be why sand splashed bunkers are so rare in Philadelphia."

That remark is just another vaguely sarcastic and very dumb one on Tom MacWood's part. Before you make more dumb statements like that Tom, maybe it'd be a good idea for you to come to Philadelphia first (something you've not done) and see for yourself if that's true. Sand flashed up bunkers in Philadelphia are not rare at all--and to my knowledge the courses that have undergone recent bunker restorations on bunker faces with sand upsweeps (including my course) have used a produce some refer to as "Bunker Wol" (Sand Trapper etc) to prevent sand from washing off sand flashed faces. Other course, particularly Ross courses have simply chosen to use the Ross style that have faces that’re more grassed down for maintenance reasons and cost saving reasons---obviously a reason and concept you might not understand since you don’t seem particularly aware that golf courses have memberships  who care about such things as maintenance costs. But before you condemn all restoration architects for sacrificing other Ross bunker styles perhaps you should get out there and see for yourself if that is true.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

It's really not a matter of how much rain we get in Philly---it's a matter of the condition of bunker sand faces (those that have no bunker lining in the sand upsweeps) and things like simple thunderstorms (something we can get a few times a week in hot summer weather). Just five minutes of pounding rain from a passing thunderstorm used to wash some significant rills out of our old sand swept-up bunker faces (this before the use of the bunker-wol type product). To repair those problems generally involved overtime maintenance pay and over any year would involve more man-hours and cost than what we do now with our mowing program on our bunkers following the Hanse project. Our super is really detailed and exact about cost comparisons and evaluating savings. Our bunkers, after our Hanse restoration project are not grassed faced down to flat floors anyway---they're only partially grassed down with sand partially sweeping up.

[T_MacWood]

TE
What was Flynn, Wilson, Tillinghast, Maxwell and Ross's (at Aronomink) rationale for using the very stylish sand splashed look in your opinion?

When one thinks of the classic Philadelphia style isn't the sand splashed bunker what comes to mind?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

First of all, and for about the tenth time, no one really knows, and certainly not you, what Ross himself intended the bunker style of Aronimink to be, other than what Ross actually drew. Other-wise why do you suppose Ross himself produced those "in the field" bunker drawings for Aronimink that were single bunker placements that were not really sand splashed up?

There's no question the course appears to have been built with sets of two and three bunkers where Ross apparently called for one but for all the club (and Prichard) knows those bunkers may have been redone after the course opened. Prichard asked me what I thought of that and I told him I thought it was unlikely that the bunkers could've been redesigned litearally only a few years after opening and in the middle of the depression too. And I think you do know the rationale why the club decided to restore Aronimink's bunkers to Ross's own bunker drawings. They wanted what they considered real Ross bunkers and they did not want to take the chance that what was in those aerials were merely J.B McGovern taking creative liberties with the course. I realize you may think that kind of thing is unique or regionally interesting or something but neither Prichard, the club or anyone else I've ever heard of seems to agree with you! The club and Prichard wanted what they knew to be Ross's bunkers and they had his drawings in hand. You may think what may have been McGovern's style of bunkers is completely fascinating but they don't agree with you!

And secondly, as interesting as the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" may have been and as closely connected (friends) as some of the architects that made up that "school" were there never was some kind of "classic Philadelphia flashed sand bunker" from Wilson, Flynn, Tillinghast and Maxwell as you seem to be implying here!

Both Wilson and Flynn did occassionally talk about and write about the utility and psychological efficacy of white sand in a player's face and view but I very much doubt any of them thought of such a thing as the "classic Philadelphia sand splashed faced bunker" as you seem to be now implying.

The history and evolution of architecture, including bunkering, is a truly fascinating thing to me but we don't need historical revisionism about it at this point. If you have anything from your magazines and newspapers that attributes the bunkering in Philadelphia of Wilson, Flynn, Tillinghast and Maxwell (thomas, Fownes and Crump) to the "classic Philadelphia sand splashed faced bunker" I'd certainly like to see it!

And as you probably know full well by now just because some magazine or newspaper writer from back then labeled something does not make it so in the eyes and minds of those architects back then who actually created the work!

[T_MacWood]

"First of all, and for about the tenth time, no one really knows, and certainly not you, what Ross himself intended the bunker style of Aronimink to be, other than what Ross actually drew."

I would think what he actually built might be worth considering.

There are few early drafts of the Gettysburg Address, if you prefer one of  those versions you might consider rewriting the history books....afterall no one knows for certain what Lincloln was intending.

When analyzing Ross's bold bunkering scheme at Aronimink (with flashed bunkers) I believe it is wise to consider the atmosphere at the time. Merion had recently been revamped and was recieving national praise (it hosted the '24 amateur and was scheduled to host the '30). Flynn had produced a number of classy courses in Philadlphia (not to mention Tilly's Philadelphia Cricket, Maxwell/MacKenzie at Melrose and Crump/Colt at PVGC). And the boldly bunkered Pebble Beach and Cypress Point were all the national rage.

At Aronimink, it appears to me, Ross was showing Philadelphia he could do the Philly style as well as anyone, in fact he could do it even more boldly they could. Its a shame his bold work was not preserved.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"I would think what he actually built might be worth considering."

Yeah, Tom, that's a good point there and a really novel point on your part! I realize it might not have occured to you but the club and Ron Prichard definitely did consider that and extremely seriously too! They also considered that it might have been logical to also consider that perhaps Ross DIDN'T BUILD those odd two and three set bunkers in place of where Ross called for one at Aronimink!

The plot even thickens in Prichard's own "INDEPENDENT RESEARCH"! Ron noticed that the only other Ross course he was personally aware of (Ron had previously restored it) that ever had those odd two and three sets of bunkers was little Jeffersonville G.C within about ten mile of Aronimink. This is a little Ross course where from all available records it's true to say that Ross may never have even seen it. Who was the foreman on that course? Yep, even you may have guessed it---J.B. McGovern! And according to Ron (again who previously restored it) there were vestiges of those little two and three set bunkers at Jeffersonville!!

If you haven't figured it out yet that kind of thing was further evidence that McGovern may have just taken things such as a bunker style into his own hands at Aronimink--after all McGovern was Ross's Wynnewood office manager.

And coincidently Wayne and I asked Flynn's daughter if there was any architect Flynn really didn't like. She said the only one she ever heard of was J.B McGovern. We asked if she knew why and unfortunately she didn't really know but a possible reason may have been that one thing that really pissed off Flynn apparently was when foremen departed from the architects drawn plans and took a course's architecture into their own hands---as Dick Wilson did at Shinnecock to their consternation requiring that Toomey and Flynn (and probably William Gordon, the actual Shinnecock project foreman to go back and fix it). Both Flynn's daugther and William Gordon's son confirmed that about Dick Wilson to us!

The other interesting piece of evidence to consider regarding Aronimink is Ross's truly odd remark on the opening of the course;

"I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built!"

I certainly know if I heard that at the course's opening I might've wondered where Donald had been to say such a thing. But obviously all that is the type of INDEPENDENT RESEARCH you either don't like or don't agree with!

"At Aronimink, it appears to me, Ross was showing Philadelphia he could do the Philly style as well as anyone, in fact he could do it even more boldly they could."

It doesn't surprise me that you sit out there in Ohio and assume such a thing. Again there was nothing to suggest to Donald Ross or anyone else in that era that there actually was some kind of "Philly School" STYLE OR TYPE of architecture or bunkering or anything else of the sort. So, in my opinioin, it's sort of illogical to assume, as you seem to be doing, that Ross was try to compete against some "Philly School" type or style of bunkering at Aronimink by somehow mimicing it more boldly!

Those friends, who comprised the "Philly School of Architecture" were just golfing friends and sometime collaborators but all their styles on their courses were as different from each others as any other architect's was!

Again, you probably don't see that or know that because you don't really understand the "Philly School of Architecture" as you've never been here to see it and compare it in any comprehensive way.

The "Philly School" architects were a "school" only in the sense they were friends, golfing friends and sometime collaborators. The wealth of stylistic differences of Philadelphia architecture from those that made up the "Philly School" is notable if one compares it to other so-called "schools" regarding the many stylistic similarities of the "National School of Architecture" or the "Monterrey School of Architecture", for instance.

It may be logical for someone to assume that just because the "Philly School" has been labeled a "school" that it must have or have had very close similarities in architectural type and style.

That was simply not the case and it's one of the unique factors of the so-called "Philadelphia School of Architecture". Perhaps one of the unique reasons for it is 3-4 out of the six Philly School architects who basically made up the so-called "school" were rich and independent amateur architects who were basically creating architecture for themselves or given a complete free hand to do so. Four of the six never took a nickel for anything they did in architecture which in a few cases wasn't much (although clearly extremely notable, including different in type and style, the one from the other!).

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

How do you compare the Flynn construction era "Philadelphia School" bunkering of Philadelphia Country Club and Atlantic City Country Club?  Of Rolling Green and Shinnecock Hills?  Of Huntingdon Valley and Indian Creek?  Of The Country Club in Brookline and the Cascades?  Of Kittansett and Lancaster?  As much as you seem to imply, there never was a singular style to Flynn's bunkering that was reflective of a school of design.  Flynn's style varied from rugged edging to refined, simple clamshell shapes to elaborate outlines, deep bunkers and shallow, huge in scale to small and placement.  Why don't you do what you are uniquely capable of doing; an extremely fine gathering of construction era photographs of Flynn's courses.  If you do, you will see a very similar result as your Ross compilation.  That is there are many different styles that are site dependent and project specific.  Now, if you present them chronologically we may see some design phases but I think you will be inclined to reason that he displayed great variety.

You mentioned Tilly's Philadelphia Cricket.  What holes are pure Tillinghast and what holes are Flynn?  I guess if there is such a distinct Philly Style that it would be hard to tell the difference.

"At Aronimink, it appears to me, Ross was showing Philadelphia he could do the Philly style as well as anyone, in fact he could do it even more boldly they could."

Like Tom Paul, I would hope that you will say specifically what you mean by the "Philly style" and explain in detail how he could do it "even more boldly than they could."

"Its a shame his bold work was not preserved."

Do you mean McGovern?  I think it would be interesting to see the Ross drawings for Aronimink that were not implemented until the Prichard work was performed and an early aerial of the finished Aronimink (Hagley or Nat'l Archives) as executed by McGovern.  We can then compare the plans and decide for ourselves which we may prefer.

[TEPaul]

It's certainly possible, since Tom MacWood appears to be on such a tear to prove that too many Ross restorations are doing the grassed down bunker look and style at the expense of other Ross types and styles of bunkering, that Tom MacWood just may be one of those guys who personally prefers the sand-flashed up look in bunkering. God knows, there certainly are plenty of golfers out there who do personally prefer that look and style but that personal preference should never get in the way of objective research as to what some architect may have truly intended in his bunkering type and style for any of his golf courses!

As Wayne said, and said about Aronimink too, it's up to us who are around now and who research old classic architecture (which includes Prichard and the club) to actually try to find out what some architect really did intend for some course's bunkering style. We certainly are aware of a few that were built with types and styles that the architect of record may not have exactly intended! Aronimink may have been one of them.

Tom MacWood may find that kind of thing interesting and I for one don't blame him for that. I don't blame a club like Aronimink or Prichard either for restoring Ross bunkers on their course that Ross actually drew for their course!

They were all motivated by one thing omly--to recreate (since that old bunkering had been completely removed and wiped out by ensuing Fazio and RTJ bunkering) real Ross bunkers on their golf course!

Of course. I truly expect Tom MacWood to come back in this discussion and say that Donald Ross had to have approved those changes that J.B McGovern may have done on his own at Aronimink! Of course, Tom MacWood cannot possibly prove such a thing and in the end that's the point of what Aronimink chose to do in their recent Ross restoration--to at least go with bunkering that was drawn for their golf course by Donald Ross himself!

[Jeff_Mingay]

It's interesting that my home course (Essex: Ross, 1929) also features clusters of small bunkers in old aerial photos where the Ross paper plan shows a single, larger bunker.

I know that either Hatch or McGovern were on-site at Essex more than Ross. Based on what seems to have occured at Aromimink, I'm thinking it was probably McGovern at Essex. He may have modified Essex' bunker plan in similar fashion, which is interesting.

There are also a few bunkers you can see in the old Essex aerials that were not on Ross' drawn plans for the course. Were those bunkers added by McGovern? We'll most likely never know. Those bunkers are gone now. Should they be restored, even though they don't appear on Ross' paper plan?

That's an interesting question that I think needs to be asked on a bunker-by-bunker basis to determine what would work today at Essex, for example. Same applies elsewhere.  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

If Essex had two and three sets of bunkers where Ross's plan called for one you or someone should tell that to Ron Prichard for sure. He did say he'd never heard of that on a Ross course other than Jeffersonville and Aronimink.

I seriously doubt McGovern was in the mid-west as he was always Ross's Wynnewood (Philadelphia) office manager.

So, if what you say is true about those old two or three set bunkers at your Essex it begins to lend some credence to the fact that maybe Ross himself got into doing that kind of thing although, again, it just doesn't seem to be common at all.

Ron Prichard has been studying all things to do with Donald Ross for about 20-30 years now and very likely knows a good deal more about Donald Ross and the intricacies and nuances of his various designs and stylistic features than any of us on here do and probably anyone anywhere.

Somehow it seems Ron Prichard may have a hard time convincing Tom MacWood that he knows more about Ross than Tom thinks he knows though!  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I have told Prichard the story of Essex' bunkers in the context of his discoveries at Aronimink.

Re: drawn plans, I tease Rod Whitman about somebody finding his first routing plan for Blackhawk fifty years from now and using it to "restore" the course to its "original design". A scary thought, really.

Basically, that original rudimentary routing plan was drawn for an engineer to "jazz up" for planning approval and permitting. The holes are in the right places, but otherwise, the plan does not represent the design of the course as it sits on the ground today following three years of design evolution.

Rod drew some bunkers, here and there, on the routing plan, along with outlines for fairways and putting greens, simply to make the plan look like a golf course! But, again, the drawing is not representative of what was actually constructed.  

The [not so] funny thing is, someone might find that drawing years and years from now, and think: "Geez, look what Whitman had intended! Let's put it all back." Yikes!

Stick with the photos taken on opening day.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I know that either Hatch or McGovern were on-site at Essex more than Ross. Based on what seems to have occured at Aromimink, I'm thinking it was probably McGovern at Essex. He may have modified Essex' bunker plan in similar fashion, which is interesting.

Jeff-

Would it be Walter Hatch?  I recall reading somewhere he was either based in New England or the foreman for Ross' New England office, which was based in Massachusetts.  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Philadelphia Country Club - sand splashed
Atlantic City Country Club - sand splashed in combo with sandy/grassy waste areas
Rolling Green - sand splashed (simpler)
Shinnecock Hills - sand splashed (see ACCC)
Huntingdon Valley - I don't know
Indian Creek - sand splashed (see ACCC and Shinnecock)
The Country Club in Brookline - sand splashed more irregular/broken outline
Cascades - sand splashed (simpler outline)
Kittansett - unique, perhaps due to Hoods influence
Lancaster - sand splashed, more irregular outline (not unlike Brookline or CC in Cleveland)

Mill Road Farm, Country Club, Lehigh and Glen View are others with sand splashed bunkers.

"You mentioned Tilly's Philadelphia Cricket.  What holes are pure Tillinghast and what holes are Flynn?  I guess if there is such a distinct Philly Style that it would be hard to tell the difference."

I don't know which holes are Flynn or which holes Flynn altered at Tillinghast's Philadelphia Cricket. I do recall you saying Flynn altered a handful of holes. Whatever he did the course retained the flashed bunkers and Tilly style--would you agree?

Are you saying that Aronimink is a McGovern design? I was under the impression Ross took full credit for that golf course. In fact at the time of Ross's death it was often listed on a very short list of his most important works.

Isn't the claim that McGovern changed Ross's plan at Aronimink conjecture?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I'm not saying that Aronimink is a McGovern design.  I am saying that McGovern appeared to take great liberties in changing the plans of the final bunker work.  Unless we can find evidence that Ross changed the plan for Aronimink (the ones Ron Prichard referred to were not the final plans but rather preliminary) or gave specific directions to McGovern, it would appear that McGovern took it upon himself to make alterations to the bunker designs.  

"Mill Road Farm, Country Club, Lehigh and Glen View are others with sand splashed bunkers."

Do you have any ground photos of Mill Road Farm?  I sure would like to get copies if at all possible.  I have the routing plan and hole details but have not seen any photos of the bunkering.  Please provide if at all possible.

The Country Club in Pepper Pike has some bunkers with sand splash (on hillsides) but there were a number of bunkers, many on hillsides, that had grass faces.  I'll admit I was surprised to see them, but there they are in black and white.  I wish I could post them.  I'll try to scan and send to Tommy Naccarato.  As to the other courses you mentioned, it is far too simplistic to pass them off as similar in style by saying they had sand splash with some outline differences.  You do mention the use of sandy/grassy waste areas at ACCC (and several other places as well--Shinnecock and Indian Creek).  These courses were not universally sand splashed.  You ignore shallow bunkers behind greens that were not splashed.  You also ignore shallow fairway bunkers such as found at Kittansett (construction instructions were very specific and carried out as planned), Indian Creek, and others.

Many Flynn drawings (Denver CC, Brinton Lake (Concord), and others) called for revetted faces.  I am not so sure they were exactly the same as we see in the UK--Flynn never went over there.  Yet it seems certain that they were some sort of grassy face.

I do think it safe to generalize that Flynn often splashed sand in hillside bunkers and raised bunkers in fairways and short of greens.  Tom Paul alluded to Flynn's tendencies to have such bunkers be visible and weigh on the players' minds.  However, he was not as systematic in style (Philly or otherwise) as you seem to imply.

[T_MacWood]

TE
“They also considered that it might have been logical to also consider that perhaps Ross DIDN'T BUILD those odd two and three set bunkers in place of where Ross called for one at Aronimink! “

I suppose its possible that Ross didn’t build any golf course with atypical bunkers or features – like Seminole, Oyster Harbors, Crestmont, Palm Beach, Minikahda, Rhode Island, Broadmoor (similar clusters) and Aronimink. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve not discovered evidence Ross ever took credit for golf courses he did not design, nor any evidence he disowned any courses his associates built, or any evidence his associates were guilty of over-zealous or unauthorized redesign.

From what I understand it is not clear what Ross did at Jeffersonville--if anything. I do not believe the Tufts Archives or Ross Society lists it among his designs. If he did in fact design the golf course, the speculation is that McGovern was involved…but as far as I know it is only speculation. Compounding speculation upon further speculation might not be the best way to draw a reasonable conclusion. And I frankly don’t understand the logic that states since Jeffersonville had clusters of bunkers, we should conclude Aronimink never intended to have clusters of bunkers.

I think most people understand the so-called Philadelphia School is a modern invention. My observation is many Philadelphia courses (of that era) had sand splashed bunkers (which is logical considering many prominent architects from Philadelphia preferred that look). Ross’s predominate style was grass-faced (although we know he utilized many different styles throughout his long career). I find it interesting Aronimink—the one actually constructed--shared that flashy Philly style…unfortunately it was not preserved.

[Jeff_Mingay]

From a historical perspective, this is an interesting conversation. What did McGovern do when Ross wasn't around? I get the sense though, that Aromimink was an important commission for Ross. So, I would highly doubt that he didn't "sign off" on the dirt work before seeding.

To put things in a contemporary perspective, it's like Doak in New Zealand for example. Tom wasn't on-site everyday, and he allows his men the freedom to create. So, whereas a paper plan may illustrate a single large bunker, three smaller bunkers may be built instead because during the course of construction things evolve. It always happens. I've been a part of that type of design evolution. And, I'm sure Doak took a look at those courses before seeding, to "sign off" on the feature shaping. Just as I'm sure Ross would have at Aromimink.

Still, I can see a debate fifty years from now: "Doak had one fairway bunker drawn for the fifth (?) hole at Cape Kidnappers, but three appear in the 2005 aerial of the course. Geez,  Bruce Hepner had a lot of nerve to deviate from Doak's original plan!"

Again, I would find it very hard to believe that Ross didn't return to Aronimink prior to seeding. If he did, as I suspect, perhaps he came to prefer the clusters of bunkers over larger singular hazards. That's possible.

[TEPaul]

"I suppose its possible that Ross didn’t build any golf course with atypical bunkers or features – like Seminole, Oyster Harbors, Crestmont, Palm Beach, Minikahda, Rhode Island, Broadmoor (similar clusters) and Aronimink."

Tom:

The first thing I'd say to you is to try not to think in such black and white terms about architecture or an architect such as Donald Ross when you make a statement like that. Nobody but you seems to be saying that ANYONE on here is saying or implying Donald Ross DIDN'T build any courses with atypical bunkering. Of course he did. Ross, was a busy man, a busy architect--he had over 3,000 people at one point working for him on numerous projects in some years, particularly the 1920s.

In one year Ross had 26 courses under construction. That's a lot of courses, a lot more holes and many more bunkers than that.

A restoration architect such as Prichard has made a study of Ross's career, of his foreman and their particular unique nuances and styles at various courses Ross may have had little to do with the some of the details of such as bunkering or particular green features. Read Brad Klein's book carefully for some of those details from a foreman such as Hatch. Ross couldn't be everywhere at the same time and so he obviously couldn't possibly oversee everything going on with some of his courses.

That makes something like the odd two to three sets of bunkers at Aronimink or Jeffersonville being McGovern more than plausible in Ron Prichard's mind and mine too. There's nothing wrong with that really, and I do understand that you think that's neat or orginal or whatever.

However, Aronimink G.C. was particularly interested in restoring their course and their bunkers to what they actually knew to be Ross--eg those excellent (according to Prichard) "field" drawing of bunkering at Aronimink by Ross himself. Despite how much you may think that bunkering that's possibly McGovern may have been unique and cool, Aronimink and Prichard wanted confirmed Ross bunkers on their course and they had them in those drawings. If McGovern actually did take liberties with the bunker style at Aronimink that in no manner or means indicates Aronimink G.C was a McGovern design---of course it was Ross's design! A whole lot more goes into a golf course and its design than just an altered style of bunkering by a foreman, my friend!

"I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve not discovered evidence Ross ever took credit for golf courses he did not design, nor any evidence he disowned any courses his associates built, or any evidence his associates were guilty of over-zealous or unauthorized redesign."

See, the above again. Nobody but you is saying or implying that anyone on here is saying Ross took credit for a course he didn't design or saying he disowned anything his associates built. Some say, probably correctly, that Ross may not have even seen or set foot on a number of courses under his name so of course his associates must have done the work or even some of the design on those courses.

But those courses aren't being restored that I know of as Aronimink was and those courses don't have some of the best bunker drawings for that particular course either in Ross's own hand that Aronimink had!

There's little question in my mind and now apparently almost everyone's that Aronimink made the right decision.

You seem to be implying that there were so many sand flashed faced bunkers in and around Philadelphia or anywhere so-called "Philly School" architects worked (what you're erroneously now calling the "classic Philly School" bunker style), to be honest with you I think I'm damn glad that Aronimink did restore to that grassed down bunker face style in Ross's hand at Aronimink!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
"Ross, was a busy man, a busy architect--he had over 3,000 people at one point working for him on numerous projects in some years, particularly the 1920s.
In one year Ross had 26 courses under construction. That's a lot of courses, a lot more holes and many more bunkers than that."

Very busy, no doubt...is that the rationale we should fall back on when we decide to go another direction. No doubt the courses built by McGovern differ slightly from those built by Hatch (that was one area I wish the Ross book would have explored a little more deeply), just as Hunter's differ from Morcom's which differ from Miller's. That is one of the more interesting aspects of golf course architecture. I don't believe that phenomenon should be used to rationalize speculative redesign.

"Aronimink G.C. was particularly interested in restoring their course and their bunkers to what they actually knew to be Ross."

I'm not sure what Aronimink wanted, all I know is what they got--a Prichard redsign, not a Ross restoration. For a golf course to be restored it had to have existed at some point. The golf course which existed was discarded.

"Despite how much you may think that bunkering that's possibly McGovern may have been neat or cool. Aronimink and Prichard wanted confirmed Ross bunkers on their course and they had them in those drawings. If McGovern actually did take liberties with the bunker style at Aronimink that in no manner or means indicates Aronimink G.C was a McGovern design---of course it was Ross's design!"

But it appears you (and Prichard) are saying that golf course Ross designed and built in 1928 (and the club paid for) was actually not the genuine article...that is the reasoning for the new approach...no? How can you have it both ways: its an authentic Ross design or its McGovern redesign. I wouldn't use the words 'neat' or 'cool' to describe the bunkers at Aronimink, historically significant is what I'd call them...I don't think I'd be comfortable recommending a new direction (away from the historically significant design) based upon possibly's and if's.

(If you are interested in excellent detailed Ross plans you should check out the Tufts Archives...they have hundreds of them.)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Paul,
Would you settle this once and for all and go downstairs to the barbers area of the Aronomink clubhouse and look at the pictures on th wall and tell us what you see?

Wayne, scan those images and I'll post them.