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.


Pat_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #100 on: July 01, 2005, 08:19:40 AM »
TEPaul,

Restoring Aronomink's bunkers to Ross's detailed plans can never be viewed as a mistake.

Given what information was available at the time of restoration they didn't err.

And, had the information that is available today, been available to them prior to the project, restoring them to Ross's detailed plans still can't be viewed as a mistake.

What remains the mystery is, how did the bunkers go from Point A to Point B ?

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #101 on: July 01, 2005, 08:44:12 AM »
TE
You're free to automatically take the opposite position from mine on every claim I make or opinion I have...afterall this is a discusion group, but I really don't think it is doing your reputation much good. On the other hand there has been a positive result from all this.

We now know for certain how Crump died, we now know that Aronimink was original constructed with multiple bunkers, we now know why Ross did not claim the Grove Park Inn, we now know that William Gordon thought McGovern was a very good architect, and most importantly we now know the importance of research over educated guessing.

Pat
You were the first to interject Plainfield into the Aronimink discussion...remember? Who drew the Plainfield plans Ross or Johnson?

I know how you opperate Pat. I've been in enough pissing contests with you to know that when ever you are presented with information that conflicts with your theory or arguement, you request for even more obscure fact be found, the absence of which proves your point.  :)

Face it, research and finding information is not your strength.


T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #102 on: July 01, 2005, 08:48:17 AM »
"Restoring Aronomink's bunkers to Ross's detailed plans can never be viewed as a mistake."

Pat
How do you restore something that never existed?

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #103 on: July 01, 2005, 08:50:57 AM »
Tom MacWood said:

"In the process of creating this hypothetical chain events based upon erroneous guessing, unfortunately JB McGovern was dragged through the mud….he was made more or less the scape goat to make the story work."

Tom MacWood:

This is another example of your attempts to turn some opinion of yours into a fact. That doesn't fly on here and I'll always be here to challenge you.

You started this thread on J.B. McGovern. If one reads your initial post starting this thread it appears you were attemtping to find out what the general opinion was of J.B. McGovern from those who live in the city he lived and worked out of.  

I’m not sure how it is or why it is that you turn remarks from Philadelphia that he was considered a grade C or B architect and that some of his work around here including his sole design has never been very well respected into the fact that his reputation is being dragged through the mud and he’s being made a ‘scapegoat’ of. What were you hoping to hear about McGovern----that he’s considered a great and talented architect simply because he was an associate of Ross for 28 years? Did you have that preconceived notion before you started this thread? Apparently so, and if you did, I’d advise you to let those who really do know McGovern’s work and McGovern better than you do to disabuse you of that notion. Pardon me for asking again, but you’ve never been to Philadelphia, have you? You’ve really never seen anything from J.B. McGovern have you?

If that is so, and it seems it is, then why don’t you just let those who know his architecture a whole lot better than you do answer your question? Some of those are the opinions of local architects such as Hanse and Prichard who know this subject a whole lot better than you do. The way you characterize the responses you get to some of your questions and opinions really astounds me. I don’t know whether it’s pomposity, arrogance, obduracy or what it is but it sure is odd.

Even the story of what William Flynn thought of McGovern you slough off as irrelevant competitiveness or some other bullshit. We think Flynn’s opinion of McGovern is interesting and relevant particularly consider he appears to be the only architect Flynn was know to be critical of.

That’s what we do on here---we try to present historical information as accurately as we can. You, on the other hand, try to pass yourself off as virtually the only one who defends and tries to preserve the work of the “Dead Guys”. You’ve actually made that very statement on here a number of times. Criticizing others who know some of these architects’ work better than you do when they honestly answer your questions is either obduracy, pomposity or the furtherance of some kind of odd agenda. Frankly, it’s probably all of those things.  

wsmorrison

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #104 on: July 01, 2005, 09:05:44 AM »
Tom MacWood,

In order to be logically consistant, if you credit David Gordon telling you that his father thought McGovern was a very good architect,

"I spoke to David Gordon, whose father worked with both Flynn and JB, and he told me his father felt McGovern was a very good architect."

then lets consider that Gordon worked for Ross and McGovern building a number of courses as construction foreman before he went out on his own as an architect.

Flynn's daughter simply responded to Tom Paul's question if there was an architect that Flynn did not respect or there was somebody he did not like.  According to Connie Lagerman, Flynn had little regard for McGovern's talents as an architect and he didn't like him as a person either.  We think this is important in that Flynn's disregard for McGovern is singular in nature.  Connie Lagerman had no vested interest in McGovern and you can't say that about the Gordon's who were employed by the man you questioned David about.  I'm not saying David lied or hid anything but their interactions had a different basis than Flynn and McGovern.

Let's not discount the fact that it is possible that Ross and McGovern were disappointed and even the envious ones as Flynn got the best commissions and land in Philadelphia and significantly remodeled seven of their courses within a few short years of their opening and Ross/McGovern remodeled one green and one tee of Flynn after his death.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 09:07:10 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #105 on: July 01, 2005, 09:49:50 AM »
"We now know for certain how Crump died,"

Tom MacWood:

That's true we now do know that Crump committed suicide. You proved that fact and you wrote an interesting and compassionate article on his life and death that many or most had never heard or considered. That is a good and valuable thing, I feel that way, apparently the club does too and I'm sure many members and others who care about Pine Valley will too. Your article may become a valuable part of PVGC history and lore, and that's a good thing.

"we now know that Aronimink was original constructed with multiple bunkers,"

That's true we now do know that—calling the Hagley the other day and finding that they have it and going down there to look at the 1929 aerial at the Hagley the other day proved that, but what does that mean? Does it mean that's the way Ross wanted Aronimink’s bunkers to be? Noone can be sure of that, certainly not you despite what you say to the contrary. If that’s what he wanted one should logically wonder why he bothered to draw and explain the construction of them differently perhaps within months of them being constructed. Does it mean that the club made an incorrect decision regarding what to do bunker-wise in their recent project? No, it doesn't, despite what you say to the contrary--an opinion, by the way, that seems to be held by few or perhaps only you.

"we now know why Ross did not claim the Grove Park Inn,"

That's true too. I suppose that means the GPI and the DRS got overzealous in attribution and need to be more careful and more research-oriented in the things they claim and that's valuable to know.

"we now know that William Gordon thought McGovern was a very good architect,"

That's interesting to know too and frankly I've never heard that before. Perhaps "birds of a feather" think alike, particularly since William Flynn's long-time construction foreman and associate, William Gordon, is considered as an architect in the town in which he lived and from which operated, to be in about the same class as Ross's long-time construction foreman (Wynnewood office manager) and associate, J.B. McGovern. However, it may be more interesting and certainly more revealing in an architectural sense to consider what a far more respected architect, William Flynn, thought of J.B. McGovern, despite your protestations that revealing Flynn's opinion of McGovern, the architect, is dragging the man and his reputation through the mud.

"and most importantly we now know the importance of research over educated guessing."

That's very true too. But perhaps in the end it will be more valuable in an architectural sense and certainly to the clubs involved to have proven not that Crump shot himself (again, the rumor of his suicide had been extant for decades and for whatever reason noone thought it significant enough or perhaps appropriate enough to go through the obvious procedure of petitioning the state for his death certificate) but what Crump really did do at PVGC, what Colt really did do at PVGC, what Hugh Alison really did do at PVGC, what Flynn and the Wilsons of Merion really did do there, (in what sense does proving Crump's suicide lend awareness to what happened at PVGC during it's long and interesting years of construction? In no sense I can think of. Is the revelatoin and proof that Crump did commit suicide important, all things considered? I for one, certainly think it is).

That Concord G.C. really was designed by Flynn and not Donald Ross, that Kittansett really was designed by William Flynn (Wilson) and not be Frederick Hood, what the real contributions were by about 6-7 archiects at GMGC, that Dick Wilson did not design Shinnecock as the club thought he might have etc, etc.

And finally, and apropos of this particular thread, that the correct decision was made at Aronimink in their bunker project to create bunkers to Donald Ross’s own detailed plans and to not indulge in speculation and guess-work with documentary evidence and information about why they were constructed differently. The payoff is that in the last few years since the work was done consensus opinion approves of the decision and the bunker project, despite a lone opinion to the contrary by a self-serving, self-flattering, so-called “research expert” from Ohio who has never seen the golf course!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 10:13:17 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #106 on: July 01, 2005, 09:53:35 AM »
 
 “To point out you may be the only one to feel a mistake was made in their decisoin-making and in the project leading them somehow to denigrate or fail to respresent Ross's architecture is pertinent too.”

Its difficult to say if I’m the only one, I suspect there are others who question some of the decisions made at Aronimink and some of the ‘restoration’ practices in general with Ross courses. But I don’t think it matters if I was the only one or not. Some of the key assumptions that guided the decision making and the restoration direction turned out to be wrong, as I said two plus years ago.

“I will question and challenge you on that given the reasons you've presented which I believe are poor reasons, poor assumptions and poor conclusions----three things I believe you are not infrequently prone to.”  

I know you are glad to say this often to and about me, but IMO my fact finding, reasoning, assumptions and conclusions have proven to be pretty good. Its fairly easy to label a man or to make blanket statements about a person…its another thing to actually document it.

“ I simply believe you are wrong in what you say on those subjects, and I believe your motivations in saying those thngs are self-serving, and I feel the contributors and those who read this website should know that.”

Again a lot of accusations and personal comments, but no substance.

“Do you think if you say something enough times on here it's eventually going to be seen as fact? Apparently you do. We now know that those multi-set bunkers were built originally at Aronimink but we do not know that Ross was involved in the alteration of Aronimink's bunker scheme from his plans no matter if they were originally built that way. “

We KNOW that Ross proud of the course as built, we KNOW Ross was on site during construction, we KNOW one of his oldest, most trusted associates was in charge of the construction. What possibly could have happened in your view other than Ross changing the plan and what facts lead you to this conclusion?

“You now apparently are trying to float the theory that if something is originally built or what you call "as built" that must mean that's precisely what the architect of recorded wanted built. I don't care who you think you are Tom MacWood, research-wise or otherwise, that is simply a false statement to make on here or anywhere else. But pointing that out and supplying extremely credible reasons why that may not be true does not seem to phase you and your point in the slightest, and that to me is either nonsense, obduracy or idiocy.”

When Ross was on site during construction and Ross’s oldest associate was in charge of the construction….questioning if the course-as-built was what they intended is pretty goofy if you ask me, especially when Ross himself was proud of the final result.

“Why don't you try at least acknowledging the example we gave you of Shinnecock and Dick Wilson and the change he made to Flynn's plans on that course---a change that had to be altered back to plan to the consternation of Toomey and Flynn and William Gordon? Apparently you don't choose to answer that example and that point because it doesn't fit in very well with your assumptions and conclusions on this Aronimink bunker project thread and McGovern thread.”

Comparing Dick Wilson to JB McGovern is like  comparing apples and oranges. By your own description Dick Wilson was a young loose canon. I don’t believe he was in charge of the construction, he worked under a construction superintendent and Flynn.

McGovern was a mature long-time associate of Ross’s…I’ve never read, heard or seen any evidence that McGovern was a  maverick or rogue. No evidence of him making wholesale changes anywhere….and God knows, with the number of jobs they had, he would have had plenty of opportunities.


 “When are you going to give up this ridiculous mission of yours to prove Prichard and Aronimink wrong in their research, their decision-making and their bunker project? When are you going to stop doing things on here like trying to float and prove some wacko theory that what gets built on a golf course has to be what was intended by the architect of record?”

There is no mission…I have nothing against Prichard or the club. In fact if there is anyone to blame for the Aronimink discussion blowing up, you need only look in the mirror. You have tendency to jump off the deep end when I express even the most innocent opinion. From the beginning I tried to avoid even using Prichard’s name (see that old thread)…but it was kind of hard with you constantly bringing his name into the discussion.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 10:01:21 AM by Snowman MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #107 on: July 01, 2005, 10:27:07 AM »
The photographs that proved Aronimink was built with multiple bunker sets and the ones that I copied are dated Sept. 27, 1927 (during construction) and June 1, 1928 (completion) which shows at least 188 bunkers.

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #108 on: July 01, 2005, 10:54:59 AM »
Tom MacWood said:

"Its difficult to say if I’m the only one, I suspect there are others who question some of the decisions made at Aronimink and some of the ‘restoration’ practices in general with Ross courses. But I don’t think it matters if I was the only one or not. Some of the key assumptions that guided the decision making and the restoration direction turned out to be wrong, as I said two plus years ago."

Tom MacWood:

Actually that statement of yours is not true either. You may think you discovered something about this chronology or decision-making process or how those bunkers were originally built but I doubt that.

My recollection having been involved in at least a few questions in the research over the bunker project for perhaps 4-5 years now is that at first Prichard and the club did believe that the bunkers of Aronimink were constructed to those multi-sets of 2s and 3s. I have mentioned that on here recently but obviously you missed it.

I can always check this with Ron Prichard but my recollection is he called me perhaps 4-5 years ago and well before they got underway with their bunker project. I’m quite certain this was before someone like you was even aware they were doing a restoration at Aronimink. Obviously he was doing the best he could researching and he was reaching out for opinions and perhaps leads to work through.

My recollection is he called me perhaps 4-5 years ago and asked me if I thought it was reasonable to assume that the bunkers had been changed in the depression from Ross's design plan which I assume Ron has had for years. I recall telling Ron I did not think it was all that reasonable to assume that they had been dramatically changed in the depression and I gave him many of the same reasons and opinions you have on here.  

At that point four or so years ago it’s my recollection that Ron assumed Aronimink may’ve been built with those multi-sets and since Ron had already done the restoration on Jeffersonville that really is McGovern and he’d seen those multi-sets there he assumed this was some McGovern style.

What I do not know but can certainly ask him is at what point he came upon that tournament program from July 1931 that shows the artist William Herbert Sickels extremely beautiful and detailed hole by hole drawings including bunkers that are virtually identical to Ross's own design plan. This same program has J.B. McGovern and Norman Maxwell's textual hole descriptions in it (it's ironic that at least McGovern never mentioned in that 1931 program that the bunkering in Sickels's detailed drawings was not the same as what was on the course but was virtually identical to Ross's plans--eg obviously Sickels must have copied Ross's plans. This would also seem to indicate that the difference was not nearly of the importance to Aronimink then or now as you seem to be making it! ;) ).

In any case, whenever it was Ron came upon that tournament program he then assumed for obvious reasons that the bunkers were originally built to Ross’s plans and then changed later. The fact that this was not the case was never proven (by you or anyone else) until Wayne went to the Hagley last week and looked at the 1929 aerial of Aronimink.

This is the chronology of the research and decision-making and you had nothing to do with it. You didn’t discover that the bunkers were built to those multi-sets either. That was the reason for Ron’s call to me years ago and that was his assumption then as I’ve just shown. There were many possible scenarios of what may’ve happened with the bunkers, as I’ve just shown. They were all discussed, but still the only thing they were sure of then as now is that those drawings of Ross’s bunkers really were Donald Ross’s.

The rest of what happened is still speculation and guess-work despite what you’ve ever said about this and despite what you’re saying now.

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #109 on: July 01, 2005, 11:00:57 AM »
At the risk of jeopardizing any future employment in the Philadelphia area I need to make a couple of comments. There are a few of us in the golf maintenance business in the Philadelphia area that are not necessarily disappointed in the new bunkers at Aronomink, but were all hoping they would have taken the more radical or in my opinion the less defendable route in the bunker rebuild. Meaning they would have opted to go back to 1928 when it opened and put all those bunker clusters back in and in conjunction with that removed enough trees to widen out the fairways as much as possible back to original.

In rebuilding the bunkers it would have also been appropriate to not just rebuild as in the photos or drawings, but to build them as they would have looked after 75 years of sand splashes, weather, and different maintenance practices.  Just like mature primary tree lines an aged bunker is one of things that separate the great old golf courses of Philadelphia from the rest. Aronomink and many other courses should be treated more like a fine antique and to totally restore or to restore back to look new takes away value and character.  

How unique would Aronomink be today, in the Ross portfolio, if they opted to ignore the Ross self proclaimed experts and went the more radical route?  Their only defense for what they would have done would have been the original photos and the belief that Ross did not treat Aronomink as just another job, but as something special. What would Seminole be with a “typical Ross bunker”? Just for the record I don’t think there are typical Ross bunkers. I have to believe he adapted to the landscapes and every bunker is unique. Sure there are different styles, but Pinehurst #2 is not his only style.

One comment about the photos of the bunker clusters and whether they were available or considered in this latest rebuild. In 1987 I was an assistant superintendent at Aronomink at the time the bunkers were being rebuilt/redesigned by RTJ. We, the maintenance staff, were constantly comparing what RTJ was putting in and what was there originally by looking at photos from soon after the course opened.  At that time the Superintendent was adamantly opposed the bunker work being done, not that they didn’t need to be rebuilt, but on the premise that they didn’t need to be redesigned. In his opinion Aronomink already had a capable architect (Ross) and didn’t need another one wiping out what work of his was left. We had many conversations about going back to the 1928 photos and do a restoration and how unique that would have been. There were plenty of pictures available at that time (1987) as I am sure there were before this latest rebuild.

In the end I think the membership did a great job considering what must have been a political nightmare. Considering the amount of money they must have spent on bunkers since 1987 on rebuilding newly rebuilt bunkers. The save route was to go right of the drawings by Ross and bring in a Ross restoration expert. How could anyone argue with that?


Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #110 on: July 01, 2005, 11:01:38 AM »
"I know you are glad to say this often to and about me, but IMO my fact finding, reasoning, assumptions and conclusions have proven to be pretty good. Its fairly easy to label a man or to make blanket statements about a person…its another thing to actually document it."

Tom MacWood:

My God is that an example of the pot calling the kettle black seeing as all you've been saying for the last few years about Ron Prichard and his Aronimink bunker project as poor research, poor decision-making and a project mistake. The fact is you still haven't even figured out the chronology of what evolved in the last 4-5 years!  ;)

Which only indicates one thing to me, Tom---eg you truly are either remarkably pompous, obdurate, self-serving, or perhaps all of them.

You seem to be trying to take credit for something involving Aronimink with no real idea how it all evolved!

And that seems pretty typical of the way you assume and conclude a lot of things on here.

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #111 on: July 01, 2005, 11:04:17 AM »
At the risk of jeopardizing any future employment in the Philadelphia area I need to make a couple of comments. There are a few of us in the golf maintenance business in the Philadelphia area that are not necessarily disappointed in the new bunkers at Aronomink, but were all hoping they would have taken the more radical or in my opinion the less defendable route in the bunker rebuild. Meaning they would have opted to go back to 1928 when it opened and put all those bunker clusters back in and in conjunction with that removed enough trees to widen out the fairways as much as possible back to original.

In rebuilding the bunkers it would have also been appropriate to not just rebuild as in the photos or drawings, but to build them as they would have looked after 75 years of sand splashes, weather, and different maintenance practices.  Just like mature primary tree lines an aged bunker is one of things that separate the great old golf courses of Philadelphia from the rest. Aronomink and many other courses should be treated more like a fine antique and to totally restore or to restore back to look new takes away value and character.  

How unique would Aronomink be today, in the Ross portfolio, if they opted to ignore the Ross self proclaimed experts and went the more radical route?  Their only defense for what they would have done would have been the original photos and the belief that Ross did not treat Aronomink as just another job, but as something special. What would Seminole be with a “typical Ross bunker”? Just for the record I don’t think there are typical Ross bunkers. I have to believe he adapted to the landscapes and every bunker is unique. Sure there are different styles, but Pinehurst #2 is not his only style.

One comment about the photos of the bunker clusters and whether they were available or considered in this latest rebuild. In 1987 I was an assistant superintendent at Aronomink at the time the bunkers were being rebuilt/redesigned by RTJ. We, the maintenance staff, were constantly comparing what RTJ was putting in and what was there originally by looking at photos from soon after the course opened.  At that time the Superintendent was adamantly opposed the bunker work being done, not that they didn’t need to be rebuilt, but on the premise that they didn’t need to be redesigned. In his opinion Aronomink already had a capable architect (Ross) and didn’t need another one wiping out what work of his was left. We had many conversations about going back to the 1928 photos and do a restoration and how unique that would have been. There were plenty of pictures available at that time (1987) as I am sure there were before this latest rebuild.

In the end I think the membership did a great job considering what must have been a political nightmare. Considering the amount of money they must have spent on bunkers since 1987 on rebuilding newly rebuilt bunkers. The save route was to go right of the drawings by Ross and bring in a Ross restoration expert. How could anyone argue with that?


Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #112 on: July 01, 2005, 11:15:04 AM »
"We KNOW that Ross proud of the course as built, we KNOW Ross was on site during construction, we KNOW one of his oldest, most trusted associates was in charge of the construction. What possibly could have happened in your view other than Ross changing the plan and what facts lead you to this conclusion?"

We do? How do we know that? Maybe you think you do, but that doesn't seem to mean much.

"I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew."

MacWood, that remark of Ross's around here has always been something of an inside joke, but I'm sure you never knew that. Read it again, and then one more time if you have to. Does that remark look like perhaps a revelation of something or perhaps an incredible public relations gaff to you? It sure always has to a helluva lot around here who've known of it and that course for years. One listening to Ross say that at Aronimink back then or reading it back then or today could surely wonder----Well where the hell have you been Donald if that just occured to you today?

I hate to tell you this, Tom, if you never suspected it but there's little question Ross was a super-saleman and definitely prone to making semi-outrageous self-promoting statements despite his otherwise avuncular style and look. I do realize that even the thought of a possibility like that would totally fracture your inclination to glorify these guys, including Ross, and now perhaps even hilariously J.B. McGovern. ;)

This from Ross and GMGC;

"Donald Ross , the preeminent golf course architect of his time, was contracted by the Organizers to build what he promised to be ".....one of the best inland courses in thie country and that it will undoubtedly be a much superior course to any around Philadlephia."

Yeah, right, Donald. That was in 1916 and somehow I guess he must have forgotten about PVGC and Merion East within miles of GMGC, or perhaps he just thought he'd slip that in anyway assuming no one would notice how grandeous it was.   ;)  

Just keep dreaming Tom. If you can continue to do that what difference does reality make?   ;)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 11:20:34 AM by TEPaul »

ForkaB

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #113 on: July 01, 2005, 11:25:20 AM »
John G

Great post(s)

Keep trying and you might get Tom I and Tom III to actually read something in the middle of their pissing contest!

As an outsider I actually think I learned something from your post.  Thanks.

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #114 on: July 01, 2005, 11:40:27 AM »
John Gosselin:

It's interesting that you mention that many photographs of original Aronimink are around the club or were around maintenance when you were there in 1987. I think I might just go over there and see for myself. The club is only three miles away.

Have you ever seen those drawings of Ross's of Aronimink, John? Since many of those old bunkers had been wiped away by RTJ and a few series of redesigns and no longer existed what do you suppose would be easier to recreate properly---bunkers off existing photos of those old bunkers or bunkers off Ross's actual drawings?

Again, have you ever seen those Ross drawings.

But in fairness to Ron Prichard if they'd asked him to restore those app 200 bunkers he would have done so. Restoring them or restoring the Ross drawing bunkers was the tough topic that was discussed there, and apparently for some time. It was discussed a lot and he mentioned that to me the other day. Perhaps even Ron brought the two scensarios and the choice up to them and the significance of one or the other. Not to mention the fact I was actually out there back then when it was discussed and heard the green committeeman overseeing the project, the super, and Ron.

My recollection is the club said restoring 200 bunkers was too much and too expensive to do and to maintain and that they wanted to be sure that the bunkers they created really were Donald Ross's. When Ron had Ross's plans right in his hands as he always did when I went over there one should be able to understand better what they were trying to accomplish.

They really wanted Ross and the supreme irony on this site and in this discussion is somebody from Ohio and perhaps even a former asst super at Aronimink is telling them all now that what they did really isn't Ross?! If these drawings I have on my desk of Aronimink's that say Donald Ross on them are not Ross then what the hell do you guys think they are?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 12:07:40 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #115 on: July 01, 2005, 12:24:36 PM »
"What remains the mystery is, how did the bunkers go from Point A to Point B ?"

Pat:

If Point A is the detailed hole by hole plans and textual construction instructions from Ross I have on my desk and Point B is the multi-set bunkers that originally got built, you're right, it is a mystery how they went from Point A to Point B.

I don't care what Ron, the club, Tom MacWood, you, me or anyone else says or speculates about, it still is a mystery.

The only way to solve the mystery of whether or not that's what Ross intended to do there is to have something from him or W.I. Johnson calling for the changes or something from Ross directing someone like foreman J.B. McGovern to change them.

It's certainly possible that Ross himself was right there and directed them to just put some divisions in the singles he drew and it's certainly possible that he never was there and someone like McGovern just did it anyway.

But you're riight it is a mystery no matter what anyone speculated back when the decision was being made or now. I was standing right there. The club didn't want to speculate--they didn't want to guess if what they were going to do was Ross. They wanted Ross and that's why they used his plans.

I always knew they were taking a change that they may be creating Ross bunkers that were never actually built at Aronimnk. Given all the mystery around what they thought 4-5 years ago about what was originally built, which was those multi-sets, I thought it was frankly real interesting that a golf course would create something from it's original architect that for whatever mysterious reason may not have originally been done.

If a guy like MacWood is into "uniqueness" as he says he is, frankly it doesn't get much more unique than what Aronimink did wiht their Ross bunkers.  

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #116 on: July 01, 2005, 12:47:43 PM »
Tom, the photos I was referring to were not in the clubhouse they were in the maintenance facility. As part of the maintenance team I was not allowed in the clubhouse unless I was picking up paychecks for the staff on Friday afternoons. So I don’t have any recollection of what is in the clubhouse at that time.

The only Ross drawings I have seen of Aronomink are ones I saw hanging in the Men's grill, and maybe locker room, a few years ago while I was playing there in a one day Member/Guest. They were very interesting and I am sure worth their weight in gold pre and post renovation.


"Since many of those old bunkers had been wiped away by RTJ and a few series of redesigns and no longer existed what do you suppose would be easier to recreate properly---bunkers off existing photos of those old bunkers or bunkers off Ross's actual drawings?"

Obviously to recreate something from a detailed drawing would be easier, but you might note be recreating anything, but rather creating something new or something that has never been built before. The photos don't lie that is what was out their whether that was what Ross wanted or not. My preference has always been photos and exploratory digging.

As I said in my first post I think the membership did a great job. And further more I think what was built from the drawings was a smart decision. My point is how cool it would have been to put what was originally built back paying attention to how things/features age considering how unique it was. I also said it would have been radical, because of the existing Ross drawings.

Tom, I am not taking sides or disagreeing, just always thought Aronomink got a bad rap for being a big long boring golf course. It drives me crazy when I hear that especially knowing what was out there originally.
Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #117 on: July 01, 2005, 01:17:41 PM »
JohnG:

Very interesting. If there are photos of the old course over there somewhere, be it in the clubhouse or maintenance area, it would be tragic if they were never used or considered. Tom Elliot and Tom Rozmus who were the green chairmen are friends of mine and I watched them trying to make the decision of what to do with Ron Prichard. If those photos are over there though, I'll find them.

Would the course be better now if those multi-sets were restored rather than the bunkers on Ross's plan being created recently (and obviously for the first time since it looks like we've proved the multi-sets were originally built)?

That's a good question and obviously one where people have different preferences. Obviously Tom MacWood thinks they would be because that's what was originally built and he seems to think the total number of bunkers on a golf course is what makes a course remarkable or whatever despite the fact those sets of 2s and 3s were basically in the same placements as Ross's singles. I guess MacWood thinks the higher total number of bunkers a course has is what you judge a course like Aronimink by. ;) One can see they're all basically in the same places by comparing the aerials with Ross's plan or Sickels 1931 drawings.

I was talking to Wayne today about what the course would look like with 200 bunkers and sets of 2s and 3s in the same total area as Ross's bigger singles. Ron Prichard said the other day the big singles would seem more fearsome.

I think I agree with that and as I told Wayne, Aronimink is a big brassy golf course, pretty big in scale architecturally all around and I feel all those little dainty sets of 2s and 3s in place of Ross's bigger scale singles might seem just that----sort of dainty.

But who knows, it's obviously just preference like most in golf. The good news is the bunker project has been really well recieved by people who know and use the course.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 01:20:48 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #118 on: July 01, 2005, 01:48:23 PM »
I think I agree with that and as I told Wayne, Aronimink is a big brassy golf course, pretty big in scale architecturally all around and I feel all those little dainty sets of 2s and 3s in place of Ross's bigger scale singles might seem just that----sort of dainty.


Tom,

Are you somehow trying to implicate Dev Emmett in this?  ;D

Seriously...

My own personal preference is that they had been restored to their "as built" clusters because I think they look very cool and actually remind me of Shinnecock.  

I also believe the current bunkers show less sand than what was there originally, as John Gosselin's original post points out.

However, I also believe that Ron Prichard and the club had to go with the information they had and based on what was known at that time, I feel they made a prudent decision and the result was/is well received, almost universally, as many have pointed out.

Still, a big part of me is a stickler for historical detail, and if I had the opportunity to do it all over again, knowing what is now known through you and Wayne's and MacWood's effort,  I'd opt for the "as built".  
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 01:55:59 PM by Wedge Impressario Cirba »

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #119 on: July 01, 2005, 02:17:30 PM »
MikeC:

Are you running for office?  ;)

You know if you really look at this issue objectively anyone experienced in architectural analysis can see that architecturally this is not a very big issue. So small, in fact that it appears that J.B. McGovern who obviously knew a lot more about what went on out there than anyone else or all the rest of us put together didn't seem to pick up on it in that Tournament program in July 1931.

So what is this about and why has it gone on so long?

Probably just because that self proclaimed "expert researcher" from the Ivory Tower in Ohio has tried to make a name for himself by saying the kinds of things he has on here about Prichard and club who was just trying to make the most logical decision they could to put Ross bunkers back on their course----and I fell for even questioning his objections. I guess I should've just said nothing to him about two years ago. He tries to make issues out of some things where not much of an issue exists anyway. This Aronimink bunker thing is probably one of those. I just don't like to see a person like Tom MacWood say the kinds of things he has about Ron Prichard without really knowing what he's talking about and particularly about a club and course he's never even seen and knows little about. He asked me how many times I'm going to keep mentioning that. The answer is probably an inestimable amount of times ;)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 02:19:09 PM by TEPaul »

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #120 on: July 01, 2005, 02:25:10 PM »
Tom, look on Rick Holanda's wall in his office immediately to the right when you walk in. That is the last time I saw a one of the photos I remember, of the bunker clusters, and that was shortly after Rick was hired. I also have seen the ones at Hagley (my office is about 2 miles away).

Funny you should mention Mr. Elliot. The last time I was fortunate enough to play Aronomink Mr. Elliot was in my foursome. It was shortly after the renovation and as I remember everyone was thrilled about the outcome. Me included, although I thought the piled up soil with grass on it to the right of the tenth fairway was out of character. It looked like someone saw a pile of debris waiting to be removed in an old photograph and pronounced as a Ross architectural feature and restored it. I bet it holds up play when players miss a fairway by a couple feet and have a lost ball. The only other thing I didn't like was the new chipping area around some of the greens. They really aren't chipping areas if no balls are ever chipped from them. Meaning the slope is such that balls just roll off and rest up against high grass every time than they are just shaved down spots on the green surrounds.

You asked if the course would be a better course if the bunkers were broken up into clusters. I don't think it would be better I was just saying it would have been radical or cool to do something that would have been controversial considering the drawings in hand.

Oh by the way. I am from the school that thinks drawings are for permitting, member consensus building, budgeting, and securing funds, but once you break ground they should be thrown in the trash or at most are looked at as a guide only. Drawings are great for landscape designs around a building or in other words engineering based designs. I am hanging on to the notion that there is still a lot of art in golf course design. That is probable naive on my part.
Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

Mike_Cirba

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #121 on: July 01, 2005, 02:28:29 PM »
MikeC:

Are you running for office?  ;)


Tom,

I understand your defense of the club and of Ron Prichard's work there.  

I also understand that MacWood would rather the club had restored to what was originally on the ground and with the knowledge gained with this thread, I'd concur.  

There are pros and cons to each and at some point the club had to make an educated guess and so did Prichard.  I think Tom MacWood has a right to question their assessment, however.

Is my response appropriately Clintonian?  If I don't get off that Eminent Domain thread I may as well run for office!  ;D
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 02:30:19 PM by Wedge Impressario Cirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #122 on: July 01, 2005, 02:33:05 PM »
Tom,

The only reason I was on that "Emminent Domain" thread in the first place is because when I quickly saw the title, I thought it was another one talking about (kicking around) that little dandy of early American architecture.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 02:33:32 PM by Wedge Impressario Cirba »

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #123 on: July 01, 2005, 04:54:59 PM »
MikeC:

You may be onto something here. Everyone else is speculating on how those multi-set bunkers got done originally at Aronimink when shortly before that Ross seemed to have a great set of bunker plans ready to go.

Those multi-set bunkers were probably sort of dainty looking so it only goes to reason that the little dandy from NY, Devie Emmet, slipped into Philly one night for some kind of secret and mysterious collaborative effort with avuncular Donald Ross. You never can tell about some people, they're never really what they seem to be.

So Aroninmink got some dainty, dandy little bunkers. That's obvously the way the bunker situation got from Point A to Point B. You are one helluva "expert researcher" MikeC. Good show!

If you put it that way maybe they should be restored now. I'll go over to Aronimink and propose to them the uniqueness of restoring "Devie/Donnie/dandy/dainty" bunkers. Gotta love the illiteration too! How could they not go for that?

Talk about unique. Even MacWood may be satisfied but probably not if Ron Prichard has anything to do wiith it.

Pat_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #124 on: July 01, 2005, 05:22:55 PM »
Tom MacWood,

The FACT remains, you don't know when Ross was on site and what he did when he was on site, and you DON"T know how the bunkers evolved from Point A to Point B.

I don't have to research very far to know when you DON"T know what happened, or when you draw flawed conclusions, refuse to answer pertinent questions and try to bluff your way through the critical issues.

You relied on a photo from 1939, eleven years after the golf course opened and based your entire premise on that photo and one other photo of a single hole.  You drew a conclusion absent a substantive amount of the material facts, and you cling to that conclusion despite the continued absence of those facts.

I've stated all along, that alll of the material facts need to be ascertained prior to drawing a prudent conclusion.

I was the one who stated that we needed to obtain photos from opening day and earlier before drawing rash conclusions.

TEPaul and Wayne Morrison found those photos.

Now, as always, we need to know how the golf course got from point A to point B.  And when we know that, and only then, can prudent conclusions be drawn.

And, if that information is never discovered, then
Aronomink's decision to restore their golf course to Ross's detailed designs is a prudent one.

I sense that you have a mission, one that deals with Ron Prichard, and that of a woman scorned.