The Robert Trent Jones man

[T_MacWood]

Bob
That is an interesting description of Peachtree. We have a Trent Jones course of that same era in Columbus...it is also a dead ringer for Thompson, but it doesn't have the water features like P'tree. Great use of the land & very sporty.

TE
We've gone over the Arominink dilemma more than once...I'm not interested in rehashing the theories behind the decisions. My interest is in determining what from a research point of view separates Prichard (in your view) from the others.

Frankly I'm surprised you gave Aronimink as your prime example since it was based largely upon speculation more than solid fact finding (speculation that now appears to have been mistaken). Are there any other examples of interesting research...perhaps another course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom MacWood,

What's the name of the RTJ course in Columbus?

Just curious,

[TEPaul]

"TE
We've gone over the Arominink dilemma more than once...I'm not interested in rehashing the theories behind the decisions. My interest is in determining what from a research point of view separates Prichard (in your view) from the others."

Tom:

I believe that Ron Prichard separates himself from the other so-called "restoration" architects or other architects who've done restorations simply be the extreme interest he seems to have in doing research and has done for a long time. That's my feeling having known him for the last six or so years as well as some of the others he competes with.

"Frankly I'm surprised you gave Aronimink as your prime example since it was based largely upon speculation more than solid fact finding (speculation that now appears to have been mistaken). Are there any other examples of interesting research...perhaps another course."

In my opinion, and I believe in Ron Prichard's opinion Aronimink was a most interesting restoration to research due to the very interesting evolution of the fairway bunkers on that course particularly in that they were removed in the last few decades (so there was little vestige of them going into the restoration) and the fact of the Ross field drawings and the fact that McGovern seemed to be the only Ross foreman who appears to have done those multi-set bunkers. So speculation as whether they were Ross or as how Ross intended at Aronimink was always going to be present. It was not possible to pin down the architectural decsion of how those bunkers came to be at Aronimink no matter whether you think it was based on speculation that was a mistake. Another way of saying it is you have no more idea of whose decision it was to build those multi-set bunkers at Aronimnk than Prichard or the club or me. You may think you do but from everything you've said or produced to date I see nothing new that was not known before the decision of what to do for the restoration was made. And most importantly the decision that was made for the restoration to build Ross's field drawing fairway bunkers has been well received by all that we're aware of who play and have played the course since the restoration. Not to mention the fact that the club would prefer to maintain  approximately half as many bunkers on the Ross field drawings (one in the place of 2-3 in the multi-set scheme). I realize that may not make any differnce to you out in Ohio because you don't have play the course or pay for them as the membership of the club does.

So again, as to thinking a mistake was made you seem to be the only one who thinks that's so. Everyone else appears to think the correct decsion was made---and it is a fact that those drawings really are Donald Ross's own. But as they always say in golf architecture eveyone is entitled to their opinion.  

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
The course is called Champions golf course today, but it was originally the Winding Hollow CC.

"I believe that Ron Prichard separates himself from the other so-called "restoration" architects or other architects who've done restorations simply be the extreme interest he seems to have in doing research and has done for a long time."

What are some good examples of his extreme interest in doing research?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  Here's one:

As many know we have been consulting at Holston Hills in Knoxville for some time.  I think it's one of the best-preserved Donald Ross courses I've seen, in part because the club has suffered from being on "the wrong side of town" and the members never had the money to mess with the golf course.

The club had some drainage problems in the bunkers during a USGA event last year, and got the bug to rebuild their bunkers.  We suggested that they simply install drainage and NOT redo the faces which to the best of my knowledge are mostly untouched since the course was built.

Well, that wasn't good enough for Mr. Prichard.  He went to the club this past winter and proposed that they rebuild all of the bunkers to Ross's precise plan ... because apparently there are some which weren't built exactly to plan.  (He may also just have been looking for work.)

I guess you could call that "research," but I'm inclined to prefer the golf course which was finished by Mr. Ross's associates to Ron Prichard's interpretation of his plans.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Post #54 is not going to go over very well with Ron Prichard, nor should it in my opinion. That looks pretty close to a true competitive cheap shot but what the Hell, on this website everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter what it may be.

[TEPaul]

"It's interesting that Prichard approaches all of the Ross courses he consults the same way. That is, to restore the course to Ross' original paper plans; and, in general, to an aesthetic consistent with what he considers to be the look of Ross' courses during his heyday (mid 1920s, I think), not necessarily the look they had originally."

Jeff:

I'd say from talking to him a about these things that the first part is definitely not true and the second part may not be either. The first part is not true simply because Ron is the first to tell anyone who wants to discuss these things with him that he does not believe that Ross's paper plans (bunkering) always fit into the topography the way he may've drawn them on paper. If the second part is true I've certainly never heard him say that. I think he's probably as aware of the different bunker styles on Ross courses as well or better than anyone on this website.

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. Tom Paul:

I don't know why you would characterize the truth as a "true competitive cheap shot."

I'm not really competing with Mr. Prichard for anything ... we aren't trying to get any more consulting work.  

However, I did take offense that he tried to take away a project we had been working on for several years.  I've held my tongue about it for several months, but I just got tired of hearing you make pronouncements about what a great guy he is.  He may have done some great restoration work, but the Holston Hills story seems to indicate that he'll do whatever he thinks is right to create work for himself.

[TEPaul]

“Mr. Tom Paul:
I don't know why you would characterize the truth as a "true competitive cheap shot."

TomD:

You’ve got a good point there. Why would I characterize that post of yours about Ron Prichard and Holstein Hills ‘a real competitive cheap shot’? I guess I did because that type of thing, when I wrote that post, seemed so unusual to me between professional architects, even on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. But hey, on reflection, so what? So, if I’m honest, and I’m going to be, about the way I really feel about some blunt give and take amongst architects, I should just retract my remark about your post being a ‘competitive cheap shot’----and I do retract it. Not the least reason being I’m all for dynamics on here or in writing anywhere amongst architects. I think it’s more honest and out-front and if it’s on here all of us on this website can have the benefit of seeing what the true feelings are out there in the real world of competitive golf course architecture, and personally, I see nothing at all wrong with that—never did. Anyone who says, on here, that they don’t want to hear about that stuff would be lying, in my opinion. Furthermore, I believe I’ve even heard that a professional golf course architects organization such as the ASGCA seriously discourages professional architects (who are members?) from saying harsh things about each other or each other’s work in public. What’s that about---professional courtesy? Professional insulation of bad blood that any fool likely knows has to go on out there? If so, I’m not for putting a gag-order on it. I’d prefer to see real feeling, even bad blood get out there or on here. Nobody is going to die over it and we all can get a clearer picture of the real world of golf course architecture----something I’m always the first to advocate. I believe I’ve heard you are not a member of the ASGCA---and frankly, I think that’s a good thing---I admire you for that---I hope you stay out there independent from the organization because if you don’t they, or even their by-laws, might try and shut you and your honest feelings up.

”I'm not really competing with Mr. Prichard for anything ... we aren't trying to get any more consulting work.”

Well, then you aren’t---I’m not sure I said that but if so, my mistake.  

”However, I did take offense that he tried to take away a project we had been working on for several years.  I've held my tongue about it for several months, but I just got tired of hearing you make pronouncements about what a great guy he is.  He may have done some great restoration work, but the Holston Hills story seems to indicate that he'll do whatever he thinks is right to create work for himself.”

Now that’s the part I really like. That’s honest—maybe too honest for some or even some on here but not for me. Sounds like you must have felt he was competing against you at that point over Holstein Hills, though. It sounds like you felt that, or maybe you felt he was bad-mouthing you or perhaps your opinions of the right thing to do with Holstein Hills’s bunkers And I can understand how me making pronouncements about what a great guy he is might have disturbed you. Ron Prichard is a great guy, though, at least I’ve always thought so. But that’s not exactly about architecture. That’s not about restoration or bunkers either.

But your apparent disagreement with him about how to handle those Holstein Hills bunkers in a restoration is really the interesting part here. That’s what we should talk about. That’s about architecture and restoration and it’s a good and interesting subject, in my opinion. That’s not any different from what happened at Merion East, something I got sort of involved in with a couple of architects and the club too. That’s what we should talk about now. Hope you don’t mind. I don’t see why you would since it’s just your architectural opinion, and I happen to agree with it----although I am aware what Ron Prichard was saying because we’ve talked about his point of view on that very thing a good deal over the last five or so years.

[ian]

I began to write a long explaination of what can be summed up in a few words.

Restoration is far harder than anyone realizes. Since you are not bearing your architectural sole, but trying to recreate someone elses, you'll always lose something in the inturpretation. You are going to get elements wrong (as hard as you try) sometimes because of missing information, sometimes through the inability to get what you are trying to replicate.

You will face many tough decisions that are based upon opinion. Restoration is the great grey muddy world without a sure answer. Often information in the plans and features on the ground do not match. This causes decisions to be made. We all have our personal way to make decisions, and we all have our reasons. Whether you choose plans over features or features over plans, you are still inturpreting your version of what is right.

My big flaw to sum is that I am an evolutionist. If I think that sand splashing or erosion has exceeeded the origional work, it will remain. To many this is not right, but again, we all make personal decisions.

Here are some where you will always be wrong to somebody:

Gulph Mills - keep or remove the Maxwell holes
Merion - restore to what point, which date, which style?
Pine Valley - a course that has changed almost every day of its existance

...and that's just Philly!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said above;

"TE
We've gone over the Aronimink dilemma more than once...I'm not interested in rehashing the theories behind the decisions. My interest is in determining what from a research point of view separates Prichard (in your view) from the others.
Frankly I'm surprised you gave Aronimink as your prime example since it was based largely upon speculation more than solid fact finding (speculation that now appears to have been mistaken)."

Tom:

If your interest is in determining what it is from a research point of view that separates Prichard (in my view) from others in research dedication I will tell you since I had some good corresponedence with him today about the restoration of Aronimink's bunkering and why decisions were made as they were.

First of all, it's my mistake, I believe, to have said all this time on here that the bunkering of Aronimink was originally built in those bunker schemes of multi-sets of 2s and 3s in place of where Ross and his own original field bunker drawings had called for a single larger bunker. If it was from me that you thought that to be true then I’m sorry---that was definitely my mistake and my misinformation. If it was from your own research that you believe that to be true then you’re very likely just wrong which of course at this point doesn’t surprise me at all.

That's what I always understood from Ron but I think I just misunderstood what he was saying and about which time. That and the fact that maybe a year or perhaps more before they did the bunker restoration at Aronimink (or made the decision of what to do) he called me and asked me what I thought of the aerial of Aronimink in 1938 that showed those multi-set bunkers. I can only remember saying that it seemed unlikely to me that Aronimink would consider and do a redesign of their bunkering from approximately 80 something to almost 200 in the midst of the depression. I had nothing to base that answer on except a feeling that not much went on in architecture during the depression years---definitely a mistaken impression on my part. (more on that later from Ron Prichard)

It seems Ron Prichard found that 1938 aerial on his own (it’s from the Dallin Collection). But he also found a tournament program from Aronimink in 1931 which in his words shows a quite professional detailed hole or course drawing of Aronimink in 1931 that shows the bunker scheme at that time matches the original Ross field bunker drawings I’ve always mentioned on here that he carried with him during the Aronimink bunker restoration. These are the bunker drawings that you and I and probably most others on here think never were originally built. These are the Ross single bunkers in place of where the later 1938 aerial (and probably the same aerial in GeoffShac’s “Golden Age of Golf Design”) show the multi-set bunker scheme numbering nearly 200. The same bunkering scheme and number you on here a number of times have referred to as ‘bold and unique and original’ (in your opinion).

Well, they were not original, and that’s where I apparently misunderstood Ron Prichard, and where you have just been wrong because of my own information or you own. What was the mystery to Ron is why those multi-set bunker schemes were changed from Ross’s original single bunker drawings that WERE built at Aronimink originally and at the time Ross made that famous remark on opening day; “I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built”.

So what do you say now Tom MacWood? Are you still going to say that the multi-set bunker schemes of app 200 bunkers in place of where Ross had designed singles which you thought WERE originally built at Aronimink are still ‘bold and unique” (your words)? Or are you going to admit, like I am, that we made a mistake and that the documentation and research material that Ron Prichard had and made his decision on was the right way to go?

The fact is Aronimink WAS originally built to those single bunkers of Ross’s own field drawings—AND Ron Prichard restored them a few years ago.

The question now is why those bunkers were redesigned into multi-set sometime between 1928 and 1938? That’s the mystery to Ron that I misunderstood. He feels it was perhaps, McGovern, a member of Aronimink who was responsible for breaking up those single Ross designed bunkers that were originally built by “shouldering” them (splitting them) into multi-sets or 2s and 3s where there had originally been only a larger single Ross bunker.

I feel I owe Ron Prichard an apology for saying something on here for so long which was a misunderstanding on my part, but if anyone owes him an apology (in my opinion), it’s you.

Ron can be a humorous guy and tonight at the end of our conversation he did say;

“Maybe J.B. McGovern was a huge advocate of the “arts and crafts” movement.  

[TEPaul]

I hope Tom MacW doesn't think I'm coming at him from too many directionns at once (I promise I wouldn't want that ) but there are some interesting things coming up on this Aronimink situation that are sure worth taliing about. I'd like to see Tom MacWood answer some of the stuff I posted on post #60 after talking on the phone with and emailing some with Ron Prichard yesterday.

And on another note I got another email from Ron today that had this little cryptic remark at the end. No details but pretty interesting and obviously a big compliment to TommyN. I don't think RonP would mind if I cut and paste it on here;

" I must say,when I have a few moments, and can plug into this pulp, it really sends me away smiling. I hope to meet Tony Naccarato one of these days. I want him on my team!
 
                                                                                                     Thanks, Ron

[T_MacWood]

TE
You've mentioned the tournament program in the past. You said you were going to have a look at it. Have you seen it?  

I know you've seen the photo I posted of the 1st hole circa 1928-29 with mulitple bunkers.

[TEPaul]

I have not seen those 1931 tournament program drawings. Ron Prichard has it at his ranch in Texas. Maybe he will bring it back up. I'm sure we'd both like to see you either satisfied with that bunker project or at least understand it although I don't know how much trouble anyone is willing to go to just for your benefit as you seem to be the only one anywhere who has questioned that bunker project and labeled it a mistake.

The photo above is the way the course was built to those Ross bunker drawings we've talked about. The bunkers behind that green are no longer there, I don't believe, perhaps gone due to tee lengthening on #2 or something---I'm not sure.

The point I'm trying to make to you is Ron Prichard restored the bunkering to the way the course was bunkered in Ross's field drawings and the way it was originally built. Of course many of the Ross's bunkers were wiped away in the redesign phases by Wilson, Fazios and RTJ. So they were restored in the recent restoration project with some adjustments for length and strategy.

The multi-set bunkering (numbering over 200) were done sometime probably in the mid 1930s and probably by McGovern.

[T_MacWood]

"The photo above is the way the course was built to those Ross bunker drawings we've talked about."

TE
Wrong again.

[TEPaul]

Regarding that 1929 Golfdom photo of Aronimink's 1st hole, I did not know that Robert Trent Jones was designing that early. I'll see if Ron Prichard will bring those hole drawings in that 1931 tournament program back from Texas and you two can go over how it compares to any other photos you may have of Aronimink in 1929. You can also compare the bunkering in that 1931 program with the aerial of 1938 that shows approximately 200 bunkers on the course at that time. Perhaps you can also count up all the bunkers on the course in Ross's field drawings, all the bunkers in that 1931 program and all the bunkers in the 1938 aerial and come to some conclusion about what the disparaties are in the number of bunkers between the one, and the other and the last. I'll also stop by the 1st hole at Aronimink on my way home and count the bunkers and their placement today.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
We'll be waiting with bated breath...we've waited about two year already, I reckon we can wait another two years (or longer) if necessary. At this point there's no rush.

That drawing above was obviously a preliminary sketch...at some point a finished design/plan would have likely been produced by Walter Johnson. Its too bad those finished drawings or plans have never been found...I supect they looked like the course in 1929 and 1938.

What happened prior to 1931...did some rogue helper redesign the course, before it was put back again prior to 1938. That is a hell of a lot of activity during the Depression.

[wsmorrison]

How does the large Donald Ross routing map in the Aronimink clubhouse corridor correspond to the individual Ross hole drawings that were used by Ron Prichard (are these different than the Ross field sketches such as the one posted by Tom MacWood?), the way the course was built and the way it is today?

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Is the large plan in the clubhouse Ross's?

[RBlair]

In reading over this thread I could not keep quite without a response.  It seems that Ron was hit with a rather cheap shot that he did not deserve.  The truth of matter is this.
Research?

not much research with into this thread.

I am the Superintendent here at Holston Hills and I asked Ron as a personal favor to come and visit and give me his thouhgts on our bunkers. I knew he was often in town (Knoxville), to continue development of some restoration drawings for Cherokee Country Club. This is where I first met Ron at Cherokee Country Club prior to taking the postion as Golf Course Superintendent at Holston Hills. I called Ron one day and asked him if he would like to come out and visit with me at Holston Hills when he was in town.  He agreed, (but with some reluctance), for he was well aware that Tom Doak had been working with Holston Hills several years prior to accepting my position at the club.  In that initial conversation, Ron expressed his admiration for the way Doak had conducted himself over the last several years. In a letter I recevied from Ron sometime after his visit he even stated, “Over time I have developed considerable respect for the architectural efforts and integrity of Tom Doak, his associate Bruce Hepner and Renaissance Golf. In the past six or seven years Tom and his work have matured considerable and his company is creating some important, honest golf courses. He is carving some lasting work and a respected place in the profession of golf architecture. On one or two occasions I have also heard that Renaissance Golf has recommended me for work they have been interviewed for, and I appreciate those words. Golf Architecture is a better profession when men can speak well of one another.”  
 
Ron agreed, as a friend, to visit with me and made the point of stressing he was exceptionally busy, and would only comment on the Holston Hills golf course so that I might better understand the grounds I was maintaining.  (in order to maintain a classical course I feel you need to gain knowledge on the past and how the game has changed over the years) I enjoyed seeing Ron again and always look forward to hearing other view points on the course.  Ron mentioned that although he had visited Holston Hills twice before, he had never carefully “studied” the golf course, and would enjoy the opportunity just spending half a day looking around the course and talking with an old friend.
 
During our visit Ron never suggested that we should “rebuild” all of the bunkers to Ross’ precise plan. Although he spent considerable time with me, We did not have time to view the entire golf course, and he made no such suggestion.
 
As I mentioned above, Ron did not visit Holston Hills with any intent of “doing whatever he thinks is right to create more work for himself.” While he was here we discussed portions of the golf course at length and Ron developed a couple of sketches to help me better understand the purpose of Ross. This was done as a favor to me and to help me better understand some of his design principles.  I am by no means a golf architect but I do really enjoy studying the work of the classic architects and learning as much as I can on the subject.  That was the idea behind having Ron coming over to visit me one day while he was in town.  I just wanted to spend time with a friend and see what was going on in his life.  Ron is a gentleman who has chosen to live his life in a rather private fashion. He states, he has no stomach for self-promotion. It is always a distinct pleasure to spend time with him, for he conducts himself with exceptional class, minimal ego, and constant good humor.

During our tour of portions of the golf course Ron made some observations and sugestions that I had never thought of before.  He also pointed out some items that have been discussed in the past. To me that is the beauty of architecture.  It seems everyone sees things in a different light and when it comes right down to, no one knows what Donald Ross was thinking or built other than Donald Ross.  Ron is of course well aware that most Donald Ross golf courses were constructed with a minimum of his, (Ross’) personal supervision, but he felt that when/if the opportunity arises, a restorer should get it right when he has the chance.  Ron commented, he was not advocating the use of Ross drawings above all else, but his point was they should play a part in the restoration. Ignoring them is an act of omission, just as it would be a failure of recognition to recommend restoration of all features precisely as the Ross field sketches indicated. Sometimes they do not quite “fit” the land.

To me It is just fun and exciting to me to hear all the different view points and to hear what different experts in the field have to say.  It might not always be exactly the same but it is normally pretty darn close.

I just had to stick on this post because I feel like Ron got some bad PR for just helping out an old friend.  He has not spoken to anyone here at the Club and has never even met anyone on the greens committee much less the Board. He didnt send any long report or proposal anything to the Club.

I guess this subject somehow got blown out of proportion and I am sorry for that.  I have spoken with both Bruce Heppner and Ron on the subject and they both now understand the situation.  Of course as I stated I am the Superintendent here and do not have a vote on when or if the bunkers will every be redone, much less on who would oversee the project.

 I just wanted to state that in my opinion Ron Prichard’s understanding of Donald Ross is unmatched, and it does not elevate any one to comment on his efforts when they don’t understand the depth of his knowledge and the wisdom of his methods.  

 

[T_MacWood]

RBlair
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Do you know who built Holston Hills for Ross?

[TEPaul]

"Its too bad those finished drawings or plans have never been found...I supect they looked like the course in 1929 and 1938."

Yes, it is too bad Walter Irving Johnson's drawings weren't found, isn't it? If they had those drawings they probably never would've had a decision to make.

"What happened prior to 1931...did some rogue helper redesign the course, before it was put back again prior to 1938. That is a hell of a lot of activity during the Depression."

I'm not too sure I understand what you mean there. You seem to be under the impression that the course's bunkering was the same in 1938 as the way it was built originally. Why exactly do you say that? Prichard says he has a tournament program that has rather professional hole by hole drawings that shows the bunkering different and far less of them than the course shows in the 1938 aerial. Ron thinks he knows why that is. He also says that tournament hole by hole's drawings is quite similar to Ross's field bunker drawings which he always had during that restoration.

By the way--today the first hole has three large bunkers on it---one short of the green right in the same place that appears to be 2-3 on that 1929 "on-ground" photo of yours. The right greenside is still there--the first left greenside is still there and the second greenside left is not there. Those two rear framing bunkers aren't either.

Do you have on-ground photos of all the holes or just that one?

That's a hell of a lot of activity during the depression??

One would assume something like that, I'm sure, as one generally assumes no club had much money during the depression. However, Ron Prichard's always excellent research and interest in research shows perhaps another story about redesigning during the depression years of the 1930s. It surely was true at my club. Do you think perhaps you or your voluminous research might determine why that may have been, Tom?

Let me first give you a hint. It has nothing really to do with your Tillinghast/PGA "selling out his architectural principles" conspiracy theory!  



 

[TEPaul]

RBlair:

That was such a good post---really good. To me that couldn't be a better description of Ron Prichard and his dedication to architecture and the researching of it.

It occurs to me that so many clubs that Prichard has worked on and restored are successful restoration in the sense that so many memberships seem to be rejuvenated and content by them and their interest and respect for Ross too has increased with it.

I've frankly heard of few to no complaints architecturally from members of those courses of the projects Ron has done . It doesn't seem to be an secret at all who it is who seems to constantly complain about Prichard's projects, particularly bunkering restorations for being either too generic or something less than a pure representation of the way the course was originally built, even if Ross may not have been around much.

And so, I think this response to your really good and obviously heart-felt post, RBlair, is pretty disappointing;

"RBlair
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Do you know who built Holston Hills for Ross?"

What is it that makes Tom MacWood so curious about who actually built the course for Ross rather than responding to some of what you said?  I believe it's because he believes that it's far more interesting and certainly more pure to restore the work of regional crews and perhaps design decisions from foremen who may have built at some variance to Ross, than to Ross himself.

Why does Tom MacWood feel so strongly about that? Isn't it obvious, by now? That's the singular global philosophy of this "Arts and Crafts" movement! Its entire theme is built around regional differences.

I'm not saying that is not interesting and that Tom MacWood does not have a point this way, and perhaps even a very good point. But if he feels he's such a good researcher and wants to continue to insist on this restoration theme then let him first do the research on each and every club, the way Ron Prichard does that he works on, to be sure that this is also what Donald Ross himself may've wanted on any particular project.  

Clubs today of Ross who are intersted and into Ross restoration projects in almost every case want Ross restorations and not restorations to some interpretative crewman or foreman.

If some club has Ross plans in hand and little else to go on as to how a course was originally built they should logically go with Ross's plans (and if they have a hole by hole drawing two years hence that basically matches Ross's drawings, so much the better).

If it does not appear that Ross himself was interested in designing any course into regional styles why would any club be interested in restoring them today?

(Other than the fact that it fits into the "Arts and Crafts" movement philosophy which no one ever seemed to be that aware of in golf course architecture itself)        

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Is there anything you think you might want to add or subtract from your posts #54 or #57?

Tom Doak said on post #54:

Here's one:

As many know we have been consulting at Holston Hills in Knoxville for some time.  I think it's one of the best-preserved Donald Ross courses I've seen, in part because the club has suffered from being on "the wrong side of town" and the members never had the money to mess with the golf course.

The club had some drainage problems in the bunkers during a USGA event last year, and got the bug to rebuild their bunkers.  We suggested that they simply install drainage and NOT redo the faces which to the best of my knowledge are mostly untouched since the course was built.

Well, that wasn't good enough for Mr. Prichard.  He went to the club this past winter and proposed that they rebuild all of the bunkers to Ross's precise plan ... because apparently there are some which weren't built exactly to plan.  (He may also just have been looking for work.)

I guess you could call that "research," but I'm inclined to prefer the golf course which was finished by Mr. Ross's associates to Ron Prichard's interpretation of his plans.

Tom Paul said:

TomD:

Post #54 is not going to go over very well with Ron Prichard, nor should it in my opinion. That looks pretty close to a true competitive cheap shot but what the Hell, on this website everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter what it may be.
 
Tom Doak said on post #57;

Mr. Tom Paul:

I don't know why you would characterize the truth as a "true competitive cheap shot."

I'm not really competing with Mr. Prichard for anything ... we aren't trying to get any more consulting work.  

However, I did take offense that he tried to take away a project we had been working on for several years.  I've held my tongue about it for several months, but I just got tired of hearing you make pronouncements about what a great guy he is.  He may have done some great restoration work, but the Holston Hills story seems to indicate that he'll do whatever he thinks is right to create work for himself

Tom Paul responded with post #58;

RBlair, the Holstein Hills superintendent responded with post #69.

[Mike_Young]

TE,
Looks like you guys are trying to pit RP and TD against each other here.  Looks to me like the supt created a problem when he invited RP to stop by.  I have seen supts go crazy when they find another supt  has been on their course or played their course without letting them know.  I think it is a common courtesy to do so.  And I think the same can be said for architects.  Therefore if the supt knew TD was consulting for the club, the club should have been made aware that another was coming out for a visit.  Same goes for golf pros or anyother in the golf business.  I am sure no harm was intended but it would irritate me also, as it would you.   Supt should have asked the club.