News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2004, 05:53:55 PM »
I can't comment on this ongoing Ross bunkering style debate but I will say from seeing the before, during (I ram into Ron onsite one time during the restoration) and after that Ron Prichard did a terrific restoration job at Minikahda, restoring the greens to their original size, clearing a multitude of trees and rebuilding and adding bunkers that had been lost over time.

I've also seen Wilmington NC Municipal and it's really well done too.

Best,
Twitter: @Deneuchre

A_Clay_Man

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2004, 10:58:45 PM »
I've only scanned this thread, but Doug Wright brings up a point I was searching for in my skimming. That's the green sizes.

Ari- In your posts you didn't mention any recapturing of the fill pads. Is that also part of the resto? Please say yes, as it would seem a shame if the job was only partially done.


TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2004, 04:50:10 AM »
"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 the wall and tell us what you see?"

TommyN:

What is it you think should be settled? If you're speaking about the old aerials and on ground photos after Aronimink opened I've seen them all both recently and quite some time ago. At one time or another I believe I’ve looked at all the old photographic and other Ross evidence in and around Aronimink. It’s really not a matter of what I’ve seen or could see there that pertains to the restoration done recently. The club and Ron Prichard I can guarantee you used all the  photographic and other Ross evidence available to them. The reason I believe that is I know the men who took the club through the restoration and I know Ron Prichard too and was over there with them a number of times during the restoration. I live about five miles down the road from Aronimink. Aronimink had a decision to make about what to restore to with their bunkers, I think they made the right decision, the club seems to think so, Ron does, everyone I’ve spoken to whose seen and played the course seems to etc. The only one I’ve heard of who seems to think they made some kind of mistake with their bunkers appears to be Tom MacWood, and I don’t believe Tom’s particularly familiar with the evolution of Aronimink before, during or after it’s recent restoration. I don’t see there’s anything to settle here. It seems to just be a matter of different opinions.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 04:58:49 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2004, 04:52:49 AM »
Adam:

Fortunately, through a number of redesign projects in the last few decades the greens of Aronimink were never really touched. Like most all old greens they did shrink and in the lastest Prichard restoration they were expanded back to their original Ross sizes. Aronimink's greens are and always have been really good.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2004, 05:11:48 AM »
Tom, I merely am suggesting to find out WHAT the bunkers looked like when the course opened. We have visted this thing so many times before, and I'm sure we will visit it again and again.

As far as that bunkering--there isn't one doubt in my mind Ron Pritchard made Aronomink a better course then it was when I visited there. Was it a faithful Donald Ross restoration?

Describe "Faithful."

I also think Ron is following the mandate set out for him amongst the cognescenti of Aronomink. Still, I have no problem from what I have seen. Ron Prichard seems to do what I feel is very good restoration work. Is it great?

Describe "Great."

I think this is what TOm Mac is hitting on, and while it is a differing opinion then most, Tom's eyes is certainly worthy of a view.

But mostly, I think if you just went over there to the club, took the pictures off of the wall and told them you would be back in an hour, nobody would miss anything by the time you got back from Kinkos having them scanned!  What are they going to say? "I know what your doing with those Tom Paul!"

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2004, 05:35:05 AM »
"Tom, I merely am suggesting to find out WHAT the bunkers looked like when the course opened. We have visted this thing so many times before, and I'm sure we will visit it again and again."

TommyN:

I know what the bunkers looked like when the course opened. I've known what they looked like when it opened for years now. I know that because I either have or have seen the Dallin aerial collection of most all the courses in this general area. Dallin started photographing aerially about 1923 and didn't stop until around 1940.

Before the bunker restoration Ron Prichard actually called me and asked me what I thought had happened at Aronimink in the early 1930s that the course would have all those sets of two and three bunkers where Ross's drawings called for one. I went over to Aronimink and met Ron and Tommy Elliot. They had the Dallin aerial of Aronimink in the early 1930s that showed those sets of two and three bunkers where Ross's plans (which Ron had in his hand) showed one.

I wrote all this in previous posts. Ron said he'd never seen Ross bunkers in little two and three sets other than at Jeffersonville that'd he already restored to a Ross bunker look. It's pretty clear that Ross really never had anything personally to do with Jeffersonville. The course is attributed to him, and it has been documented by pay records to his company that it was a Ross course but pretty obviously was the work of his Wynnewood office manager J.B. McGovern, who also happened to be his foreman on Aronimink.

I said I didn't think it likely at all that Aronimink would've redesigned most all their bunkering within only a few years of opening particularly as that was in the depression. So the assumption was made that perhaps those bunkers were merely the work of foreman J.B McGovern.

Aronimink really did want to restore their bunkers to Donald Ross and since all Aronimink's bunkers had been redesigned in ensuing decades by architects such as RTJ and the Fazios the old bunkering no longer existed on the ground to provide an "on ground" guide for restoration.

So the decision was made, since again the club really did want Ross bunkering, to recreate the really excellent Ross bunker drawings the club and Prichard had in hand.

That's the story. They had a bit of a dilemma over what happened back then with the course's bunkering, they wanted true Ross bunkers so they decided to recreate his own plans.

As I mentioned above Tom MacWood doesn't appear to agree with that---he thinks they should've recreated those two to three set bunkers where Ross's drawings only called for one.

This is simply a difference of opinion, but thankfully the good news is almost to a man everyone else who's seen and played the golf course since the project seems to feel Aronimink and Prichard made the correct decision on the bunker project.

Tom MacWood may visit this subject again and again, but that's the story above.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 05:43:40 AM by TEPaul »

A_Clay_Man

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2004, 08:03:35 AM »
TomP- I was curious about the green sizes because of what I consider to be a possible mis-understanding "out there" about how much more challenging a smaller green really is. Sure, a hole like "bad boy" at Jasper Pk. or the greens at Pebble Beach can be sited as being tough tough tough. But in most cases this minimizing of the sizes of ALL the greens is a great example of lazy thinking. And if it isn't lazy it's the better players building in their advantage. Heaven help the superior player when some inferior player, rolls in 40 footers all day :D

On the issue of bunker looks at inception, or openings, both you and Tommy would've been impressed with Mr. Cooper's presentation that evening in Alberta. With a plethora of photographic evidence, one could easily see how Thompson changed his bunkers over time.

With Ross (and likely others) it seems impossible to replcate everything, but in the few moments I was able to talk with Mr. Prichard he exuded the intellectual pursuit of principles, over exact replicas.

It sure as shift makes sense to me to follow principles, rather than adhering to past realities. Otherwise, there would be nowhere to take all the subsequent learning, that I assume goes-on, outside of this site. ;)

T_MacWood

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2004, 08:09:22 AM »
Tommy
I'm not sure TE answered your question, but here is a old photo from the 1st tee in 1929. If I'm not mistaken at the time the restoration/redesign options were being weighed there was a belief Aronimink was redesigned two years after the course opened (into the sand-flashed multi bunker set)...in other words there were some who thought the plans they'd discovered had been executed....obviously this picture (which was on the cover of Golfdom) would have cleared up that misconception.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 08:59:08 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2004, 10:09:08 AM »
"If I'm not mistaken at the time the restoration/redesign options were being weighed there was a belief Aronimink was redesigned two years after the course opened (into the sand-flashed multi bunker set)...in other words there were some who thought the plans they'd discovered had been executed....obviously this picture (which was on the cover of Golfdom) would have cleared up that misconception."

Tom:

Yes, initially some may have thought that. I'm quite certain you got that information on GOLFCLUBATLAS from me because that's what I reported on here a year or two ago and I can't imagine how else you'd have known that. Some may have at first wondered if the course's bunkers were redesigned a few years after the course opened (see my post above about when Ron Prichard called me on the phone to get my impression of that).

As far as I could tell when they decided what to do that belief that the bunkers had been redesigned a few years after the course opened was not taken seriously by anyone and not by those who were making the decision of what to recreate. Before they went forward with the decision to recreate Ross’s bunker drawings Ron and the club seemed certain the course was built and opened as it appears on the 1939 and earlier Dallin aerials and in that photo of #1 you just posted. So they did know the course opened that way and I might add this question before they went forward was not immediate but over a few years. Ron Prichard is a pretty good researcher and perhaps he or the club did come up with that photo you posted or others like it that proved the course opened with those two to three sets of bunkering.


« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 10:14:11 AM by TEPaul »

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2004, 11:32:11 PM »
Did Donald Ross ever design a course without using grass faced bunkering?
Has Ron Prichard ever restored a Ross course without using grass faced bunkers?


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2004, 08:18:55 AM »
Shooter,

Ross designed the bunkers at my home course, Essex in Windsor, Ontario (1928-29), to feature flashed sand and a "turf ribbon" lip. That's one example.

As for your second question... I don't know.  
jeffmingay.com

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2004, 08:45:32 AM »
Shooter:

Unfortunately, this thread and other subjects like it has become a vitual fixation about Ross "grassed down faced" bunkers vs Ross "sand flashed up faced" bunkers mostly precipitated apparently by Tom MacWood's fixation on this specific subject, particularly with the recent restoration of Aronimink's bunkers. Tom MacWood has even stated in some of these thread that he thinks the entire "Philadelphia School" style of bunker architecture is about sand flashed up faced bunkers and Ross in his attempt to top that "Philly School" bunker style really went to town at Aronimink with a sand flashed up face bunker style!

I submit the real story of the Aronimink bunker restoration  isn't about the "grassed down faced" bunkers style vs "sand flashed up faced" bunker style it's far more about the number of bunkers restored at Aronimink and the arrangement of those bunkers compared to the way the course was originally constructed and what appears on early aerials compared to the way the bunkers are now (Ross's original Aronimink drawings).

Tom MacWood apparently posted that early photo of Aronimink's 1st hole to show the original bunkers were "sand flashed up" faces vs the present "grassed down" faces and that fact proves Aronimink made a poor decision in their bunker style in the recent restoration.

If that's what Tom MacWood is doing here, and it appears he is, in my opinion, and probably Ron Prichard's and the club's as well, what Tom MacWood is fixating on is largely a fallacy anyway. The reason it's largely a fallacy and one Tom MacWood may not be particularly aware of is simply because he's never actually seen Aronimink, and he probably hasn't done that adequate a job of closely analyzing the photo he posted of Aronimink's 1st hole and the bunkering on it. Again, it sort of takes knowing the course and to know the course you pretty much have to go to the course and look at it carefully.

Firstly, that 1st hole and the tee on it from which that early photo was taken is a very high tee. Secondly, if one knows that green and the approach to it well (upslopes) and one looks closely at those distant bunkers one can see that those bunkers have  partially sand flashed up and partially grassed down faces which is very much like the look of them now.

Furthermore, Tom MacWood may have been looking at some of the early aerails (Victor Dallin aerials) of the course when those 2-3 set bunkers existed. Anyone sophisticated in architectural aerial analysis knows that basically only length and width is what's apparent on aerials. The dimension of vertical measurement or height is almost invisible on aerials. As such it's virtually impossible to tell from those early aerials if the faces of those early bunkers were sand flashed up or grassed down.

So the real story here isn't about the bunker faces then vs now it's about the fact that Ross's original Aronimink drawings called for a single bunker where sets of 2 or 3 bunkers were built.

This Aronimink bunker subject, that Tom MacWood has been harping on and criticizing for a few years now is really not about vast differences in the bunker face look then vs now or it shouldn't be if one does an accurate analysis of them.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 08:47:26 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2004, 08:46:48 AM »
Come to think of it, Ross' Detroit area courses I'm most familiar with all featured flashed sand bunkers originally:

*Essex
*Oakland Hills
*Roseland

I'm not absolutely sure about Franklin Hills and Detroit GC though. But I suspect the bunkers there, too, didn't originally feature steep grass faces.  
jeffmingay.com

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2004, 11:46:30 AM »
Ari,

I had the pleasure of working with Ron on the restoration at Charles River. I couldn't endorse the man and his work more highly. He was a pleasure to work with and the results are exceptional. The Master Plan continues to guide us today 7 years later. Not to worry, Mr. Prichard is, in my opinion, the best.

It was my pleasure to work with Ed on the project with Ron Prichard.  His work was outstanding.  Also having had the opportunity to meet Ron on several more occasions and to see some of his later work it is my opinion that his work has continued to evolve favorably.  Nothing but kudos from the Charles River guys.
Best
Dave

JNagle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2004, 01:46:22 PM »
Tom Paul,

Ron and I have been peaking it at this topic as we do others but rarely respond because of time.  However this topic has kept our interest.  Penobscot Valley, Orono, ME; Brook-Lea Country Club, Rochester, NY; Springfield C.C., Springfield, OH are just a few courses that come to mind where Ross plans clearly show duo's and a few triplets of bunkers that were implemented in the field.  Often it appears as though the bunker could have simply been one large bunker with a berm added through the middle or offset to one side or the other.  One thing we always keep in mind is that what shows up on Ross plans is not always what appeared on-site.  If time permits we will researdh other plans and photos here in the office.
It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or the doer of deeds could have done better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; .....  "The Critic"

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2004, 02:20:27 PM »
Jim:

That's excellent information, nothing less than I'd expect from you! If you find that 2-3 set bunkering on Ross courses in place of where Ross himself drew one is more common than any of us thought I suggest you also pass it along to this guy Tom MacWood who thinks he knows more about architectural research than anyone else in the world. I just can't imagine how he could have missed such a thing! And I also suggest you pass that info on to Ron Prichard for his future Ross restoration reference. Or else I will.

I know Ron Prichard would definitely like to know that because my strong recollection on the site of the Aronimink restoration (actually the phone call that preceded it) was that he was not aware of that type of 2-3 set Ross bunkering as shows up on that early Aronimink aerial on anything other than Jeffersonville.

Persoanlly, this is no great shakes to me as Ron Prichard and the club was only trying to figure out which way to go with those bunkers that most represented Ross at Aronimink anyway and their decision was simply to go with what they truly did know to be Ross himself. And the point is what they decided to do and then did has been roundly popular and successful as a Ross restoration.

But now that you're in on this thread let me ask you and Ron Forse something. If you were Ron Prichard with Ross's plans in hand and you didn't know there were those courses you just mentioned that had those 2-3 set bunkers and the club wanted to go with those Ross drawings for Aronimink anyway would you have done as Ron Prichard did or would you have walked away?

And what if you were out there now at Aronimink about to redo the bunkers from what they used to be as Ron Prichard was and you had Ross's drawing of the course's bunkers in hand but you also knew then what you know now that perhaps Ross himself did change all the time and altered to 2-3 set bunkers in the place of a single but Aronimink still wanted those single bunkers on Ross's drawings would you build them as Ron Prichard did or would you walk away?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 02:21:29 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2004, 03:49:27 PM »
"...I suggest you also pass it along to this guy Tom MacWood who thinks he knows more about architectural research than anyone else in the world."

Huh?

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2004, 04:19:39 PM »
""...I suggest you also pass it along to this guy Tom MacWood who thinks he knows more about architectural research than anyone else in the world."

Huh?"

Ok, then. let me rephrase that so perhaps you might understand it better.

"...I suggest you also pass it along to this guy Tom MacWood who acts like he thinks he knows more about architectural research than anyone else in the world."

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2004, 10:47:29 AM »
Jim Nagle (of Forse Design) said above;

"Tom Paul,

Ron (Forse) and I have been peaking it at this topic as we do others but rarely respond because of time.  However this topic has kept our interest.  Penobscot Valley, Orono, ME; Brook-Lea Country Club, Rochester, NY; Springfield C.C., Springfield, OH are just a few courses that come to mind where Ross plans clearly show duo's and a few triplets of bunkers that were implemented in the field.  Often it appears as though the bunker could have simply been one large bunker with a berm added through the middle or offset to one side or the other.  One thing we always keep in mind is that what shows up on Ross plans is not always what appeared on-site.  If time permits we will researdh other plans and photos here in the office."

This is very interesting stuff (perhaps not to some on here but clearly to such as Tom MacWood and me (and obviously Forse Design and architect Ron Prichard) who have had an on-going discussion on some specific details of bunkering vis-a-vis restoration--Tom MacW generally views this subject as "architectural accuracy").

I mentioned to Jim Nagle that he should definitely be in touch with Ron Prichard about those Ross courses mentioned above that may have had those 2-3 set bunkers that Ron Prichard may not have been aware of when he did the restoration of Aronimink a few years ago. (Ron Prichard believed at that time that little Nearby Jeffersonville was the only Ross course he was aware of the had those unusual (for Ross) 2-3 set bunkers).

I just spoke to Ron Prichard (he was at Ross's Idlehour G.C in Lexington Ky.). He said something to me that leads me to correct something I had previously reported on here about the thinking by Ron and Aronimink before the bunker restoration took place.

I said I thought Ron and the club believed that Aronimink was originally constructed with those 2-3 set bunkers in place of the single bunker placement Ross called for in his "field" drawings. And that in effect, they, in the recent restoration were recreating bunkers from Ross's own drawing that may never have originally been built at Aronimink.

The correction is that Ron Prichard never did think that and he says he has the evidence to prove it. He's certain Aronimink was originally built with those single placement bunkers from Ross's plans and the bunkering was changed at some point in the ensuing 5-7 years.

Who does Ron Prichard suspect changed the bunkers into 2-3 bunker sets (mostly fairway bunkering)? He suspects it was probably J.B. McGovern! He also said that we should not always think in a one dimensional absolute way that very little work was done to change courses and existing architecture throughout the depression era. He said we should understand that both architects and particularly laborers were willing to work for almost nothing in that era rather than not work at all and in fact a good deal of redesign of this type took place in the depression years of the 1930s (that was certainly true of my course, nearby GMGC, that had Perry Maxwell come through on three separate occasions in the 1930s to redesign five of our Ross holes). J.B McGovern was also a long time member of Aronimink G.C. both at their former course and the present one.

I think this gets even more impressive and interesting as to the extent of research and and a search for historical understanding and accuracy some of these restoration architects go through in an attempt to get restoration architecture correct and accurate to what it really once was. It gets more impressive because apparently Ron Prichard (and perhaps Forse Design) has actually done earth work analysis to determine exactly how those old bunkers may have been built a singles and later broken up into sets or 2-3s. They believe a form of architectural archaeology exploration proves how those single bunkers were latter separated. Here from Jim Nagle is an example of that;

"Often it appears as though the bunker could have simply been one large bunker with a berm added through the middle or offset to one side or the other."

So this is all good stuff and just goes to disprove some of MacWood's point that some of these restoration architects (MacW thought Prichard and Aronimink made the wrong bunker decision at Aronimink by not restoring to those 2-3 set bunkers) may not be doing comprehensive enough research when they restore some of these early courses, particularly their bunkering. It looks to me as if Forse & Co and Ron Prichard are doing and have done a ton of research and they appear to have applied it with some real historic-oriented logic!

Maybe there are some poor restorations going on out there but there're also plenty of good and architecturally accurate ones, which has been my point on restoration all along, and despite the claim made by Tom MacWood that Aronimink may have made an incorrect or inaccurate decision with their recent bunker project it appears historically quite certain now they didn't make a mistake at all in original architectural accuracy. At it also appears one of the primary reason they made an accurate architectural decisions was due to some really comprehensive and very logical RESEARCH!

Furthermore, I think this is one of the reasons GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is so neat. Most probably wouldn't care or notice about this type of architectural detail or historical accuracy but for those who do care, and some really DO care, you have a pretty good chance of finding on here or finding a way to get it found through here.   ;)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 11:07:05 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2004, 05:59:30 PM »
From Tom MacWood to TommyN:

"Tommy"

"I'm not sure TE answered your question, but here is a old photo from the 1st tee in 1929. If I'm not mistaken at the time the restoration/redesign options were being weighed there was a belief Aronimink was redesigned two years after the course opened (into the sand-flashed multi bunker set)...in other words there were some who thought the plans they'd discovered had been executed....obviously this picture (which was on the cover of Golfdom) would have cleared up that misconception.

TommyN & Tom MacW;

I spoke at length about this to Ron Prichard today and he said he's certain the course was built in 1928 with single placement bunkering to Ross's drawings that he had in hand, and that at some point in perhaps the next 2-7 years some of those single placement bunkers were broken up into 2-3 bunker sets. He's says he has the physical evidence of this in his possession. So it seems the  course opened with Ross's single placement bunkers from his drawings and was recently restored by him back to the way it was on opening. His dilemma was just whether to restore it to the way it was bunker-wise when it opened or to an aerial that's probably the one in GeoffShac's book on page 123.

T_MacWood

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2004, 06:47:21 PM »

Summer of 1929


Aerial 1939 (#1 runs across the top of the image)


Ross's working sketch of the same hole -- circa 1927 (the restoration was based upon these working drawings)

TE
The course opened in the summer of 1928, what is the evidence the course was completely overhauled months after opened? I would think replacing the relatively few bunkers in the rough drawing with the 200+ bunkers found in 1929 (many occupying the same approximate location) would require a significant construction project.

Converting multiple bunkers into a single large bunker is not that uncommon, converting a single large bunker into multiple bunkers is very rare (and physically complicated).
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 07:59:06 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2004, 07:00:39 PM »
I have no intention of getting into this discussion but I will say one thing, large single bunkers are often converted into smaller bunkers for many reasons including to facilite walking, ease of raking, entering/exiting greensites,...and so on.  

wsmorrison

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2004, 07:06:20 PM »
Mark replied as I was going to weigh in.  I agree with him, on Flynn courses in any event, large bunkers were often divided into 2 and 3 bunkers for the reasons suggested.  Philadelphia Country Club is a great example of the return to scale of the bunkering as drawn and built by Flynn.  Many of the same scale bunkers built 1 year prior to PCC at Rolling Green were converted into multiple sets and they remain to this day as multiple bunkers.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 07:06:50 PM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2004, 07:22:05 PM »
Mark
"...large single bunkers are often converted into smaller bunkers for many reasons including to facilite walking, ease of raking, entering/exiting greensites,...and so on."

Is that your professional opinion of what happened...the rationale for Aronimink's multi-bunkers?

Does it appear the multiple bunkers at Aronimink were designed to create walking paths? Does the aerial of 1939 look like a golf course designed (or redesigned) to ease raking? How about entering and exiting green sites...does it look like that was the rationale for the dozens multi-bunkers?

Wayne
How often did Flynn build a golf course with larger bunkers and then rebuild it a year or so later with mulit-bunkers?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 07:53:52 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ron Prichard Restoration work
« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2004, 07:58:08 PM »
Tom,
I didn't even look at that aerial so I don't have an opinion on it.  I was just saying that often times large single bunkers are converted to multiple smaller ones.  This happens on many courses regardless of who the original architect was.  
Mark

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back