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.


Mike_Cirba

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2005, 02:26:39 PM »
Mike Cirba,

I think all of your points are PURE speculation.

Rather than speculate, let's try to ascertain how the course went from point A to point B.

If that information is never revealed, then I pose the question.

To which iteration do you restore the golf course ?

Patrick,

ALL of my points are pure speculation??

That Ross designed all sorts of styles of bunkers??

That Aronimink had clusters from the get go??

That Ross was onsite during construction??

That Ross was well aware of PV, Merion, and other prominent Philly courses/clubs by the late 20s??

I thought all of those things were factually established?  

My only speculation was whether he decided to do them or not, and the reasons why.

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2005, 02:39:39 PM »
As far as Tom MacWood's contention that all the faces of Ross's Aronimink bunkers were supposed to be or were sand flashed all the way up, this from Ross's instruction on hole #6;

"Bunkers 1-2-3-4-finished about 4'6" deep---keep faces low"

One of Ron Prichard's notes and drawings to me explains that in his opinion the ticked lines coming down off the solid outside lines of bunker drawings from Ross indicated that grassing down was called for (the ticked lines).

Wayne seems to believe those ticked lines on Flynn's drawing indicated the slope of the sand face (I'm not sure I completely agree with that at this point). I wonder what Ron Forse feels about the significance of those kinds of ticked lines on the drawings of various architects.

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2005, 02:53:29 PM »
"We also probably know that McGovern didn't deviate to such a "creative extent" at any other Ross course he worked on, don't we?"

MikeC:

Not really. Ron Prichard who also restored Jeffersonville, said that there was ample evidence on that course of bunker schemes of 2s and 3s. It's believed that Ross may've never even seen Jeffersonville, but we do know who was responsible for that project---eg J.B. McGovern. Ron Forse (not Prichard) claims that many of the Ross courses around this region had those multiple sets (New York state etc). It's believed that McGovern was the primary foreman on those projects. But Forse also says he's seen these multi-set bunkers in Michigan where McGovern probably never worked. That's believed to be Ross foreman Walter Hatch country.


This leads Ron Forse to assume this was perhaps one of Ross's own bunker variations.

(Interestingly, in that tournament program from Aronimink in 1931 I've mentioned there is an ad for Jeffersonville G.C. that says;

"JEFFERSONVILLE GOLF CLUB was designed by Donald J. Ross Associates, nationally know planners and builders of championship courses. This course is noted for its velvety, creeping bent greens, interesttingly trapped, and its rolling, beautifully wooded fairways.")

Also, interestingly, and certainly coincidentally, was that phone call I got a few weeks ago from Bill Fazio (Marucci's caddie in the 1995 US Amateur where he just lost on the last hole of the 36 hole finals to Tiger Woods) about him meeting and speaking to J.B. McGovern's daughter recently. There was an article in the last month or so about Jeffersonville and McGovern's daughter. She's stated she thinks Jeffersonville G.C should be labeled a J.B. McGovern course, not a Ross course! I guess the reason she says that is pretty obvious. Would this be a smaller version of the Burbeck (his sons and wife's recollections) Bethpage Black situation that Ron Whitten wrote about?  ;)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 02:58:49 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2005, 02:57:32 PM »

ALL of my points are pure speculation??

That Ross designed all sorts of styles of bunkers??

That Aronimink had clusters from the get go??
[color]
You don't know if they were Ross's work or intent.
[/color]

That Ross was onsite during construction??
Was he on site and IN THE FIELD ?
What were the dates that he was on site, and in the field ?
[/color]

That Ross was well aware of PV, Merion, and other prominent Philly courses/clubs by the late 20s??

I thought all of those things were factually established?  
Not ALL of them.
[/color]

My only speculation was whether he decided to do them or not, and the reasons why.

wsmorrison

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2005, 02:58:04 PM »
"Wayne seems to believe those ticked lines on Flynn's drawing indicated the slope of the sand face (I'm not sure I completely agree with that at this point)."

Tom,

I believe the ticking on Flynn's diagrams indicate slopes and the longer the lines the longer the slope.  Flynn drew these tick lines around greens that are raised on one or more sides and on bunkers--almost exclusively the back side of bunkers, but the sides also, particularly greensides.  

This indicates to me that the bunkers were raised in the back or show the depth of bunkers below the greens.   We know Flynn liked to raise bunkers to hide landing areas (Indian Creek) and this also serves to make them more apparent and thereby weighs more heavily on the golfer).  

Flynn's bunkers were often flashed and I would think that most of these high profile bunkers had sand flashed up to the top.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2005, 02:59:53 PM »
TEPaul,

When I reviewed Ross's hole by hole drawings and notations I was impressed by the details, including bunker depth, configuration, etc., etc..

The mystery remains, how and why did Aronomink go from point A to point B.

Mike_Cirba

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2005, 03:06:38 PM »
"We also probably know that McGovern didn't deviate to such a "creative extent" at any other Ross course he worked on, don't we?"

MikeC:

Not really. Ron Prichard who also restored Jeffersonville, said that there was ample evidence on that course of bunker schemes of 2s and 3s. It's believed that Ross may've never even seen Jeffersonville, but we do know who was responsible for that project---eg J.B. McGovern. Ron Forse (not Prichard) claims that many of the Ross courses around this region had those multiple sets (New York state etc). It's believed that McGovern was the primary foreman on those projects. But Forse also says he's seen these multi-set bunkers in Michigan where McGovern probably never worked. That's believed to be Ross foreman Walter Hatch country.


This leads Ron Forse to assume this was perhaps one of Ross's own bunker variations.

Tom...thanks for the additional info.  I'm inclined to agree with Ron Forse on this one, although it's purely speculative.

(Interestingly, in that tournament program from Aronimink in 1931 I've mentioned there is an ad for Jeffersonville G.C. that says;

"JEFFERSONVILLE GOLF CLUB was designed by Donald J. Ross Associates, nationally know planners and builders of championship courses. This course is noted for its velvety, creeping bent greens, interesttingly trapped, and its rolling, beautifully wooded fairways.")

Also, interestingly, and certainly coincidentally, was that phone call I got a few weeks ago from Bill Fazio (Marucci's caddie in the 1995 US Amateur where he just lost on the last hole of the 36 hole finals to Tiger Woods) about him meeting and speaking to J.B. McGovern's daughter recently. There was an article in the last month or so about Jeffersonville and McGovern's daughter. She's stated she thinks Jeffersonville G.C should be labeled a J.B. McGovern course, not a Ross course! I guess the reason she says that is pretty obvious. Would this be a smaller version of the Burbeck (his sons and wife's recollections) Bethpage Black situation that Ron Whitten wrote about?  ;)

Tom...McGovern's daughter says it should be named a McGovern design, huh?  Ask her who her dad worked for.  How much money do you think the township would have provided for a "McGovern Restoration"?  ;)  I say you sic Connie L. on the old biddie!  ;D

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2005, 03:40:14 PM »
Pat Mucci said:

"Mike Cirba,
I think all of your points are PURE speculation.
Rather than speculate, let's try to ascertain how the course went from point A to point B.
If that information is never revealed, then I pose the question.
To which iteration do you restore the golf course ?"

Pat;

In a sense what you said there takes me all the way back to where this entire Aronimink bunker issue and discussion began for me in the first place. That was probably five years ago.

Ron Prichard called me and asked me if I thought it was reasonable to believe that Aronimink's bunkers could've been redesigned (into multi-sets) in the mid 1930s from the way they were originally built which at that time Ron assumed to be the way they were drawn on Ross's sketches.

I remember saying that I didn't think it was that reasonable to believe a club like Aronimink would do that or do it so soon after being built and in the heart of the Depression to boot. But at that point I'd never seen Ross's sketches nor the 1939 aerial.

At that point neither Ron nor the club had seen the earlier 1929 aerial. If the club had it then or has it now I am not aware of it. It's possible that Aronimink and Ron Prichard may not have been aware of any earlier aerials until last week when I called the Hagley and Wayne went to the Hagley and looked at them.

I can remember the discussion out there in the field between the project chairman from the club, the super and Ron. They were looking at Ross's drawings and they had no aerial other than 1939. They assumed that either the bunkers were changed in the 1930s or else project foreman McGovern had perhaps taken some liberties with Ross's plans (this was certainly a logical thing to assume at that point, I guess).

And then later Ron found that 1931 tournament hole by hole drawings by artist Sickels which almost completely matched Ross's field sketch bunkers. To Ron at that point with nothing else to go on that was pretty conclusive.

But then the possibility always did occur to them that the bunkers may've been built differently by McGovern or someone else originally.

But no one could really answer what happened and so Ron and the club decided rather than just speculating on what Ross might've called for that at least they did have his actual Aronimink hole drawings which showed those single bunkers and not multi-sets of 2s and 3s. I remember the club and the green chairman saying; "We want to restore this course to the way Ross designed it, not some project foreman."

And so that's why they made the decision to go with those drawings that are very detailed from Ross.

At that point I didn't know about those tournament program drawings that looked the same as Ross's. So, at that point I realized the club may be restoring their bunkers to something that may never have been built in the first place although they surely were Ross's. I thought that was pretty interesting actually---and certainly a unique situation---that a club would recreate a bunker design from an architect that for whatever odd reason may not have ever been actually built in the first place.

This was all made harder by the fact that the way the bunkers were in 1939 had all been pretty much wiped off the ground by redesigns in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

It was not until yesterday when I called him from the North Platte airport that Ron finally realized that those muliti-sets actually had been built originally. He always thought they'd been done to Ross's plans and then changed---and he sure had quite a lot to go on to conclude that.

We did discuss last week or so that Sickel's drawings in 1931 (three years after the course opened) were not as conclusive as an aerial. At that point while calling the Hagley about aerials for Harrisburg G.C. I just happened to ask Barb Hall (Dallin aerial curator) if they had any earlier Aronimink aerials and she told me about the 6-7 of them between 1926 and 1929.

At that point I knew that this issue could finally be positively determined and proven and said so on here before I left for Nebraska. And now it has been.

If they'd known back then what they know now---what would Ron and the club have decided to do? My bet is, for a variety of reasons, they would've decided to do exactly what they did do. Why? Because they all know those drawings really are Ross's and the question of whether or not Ross made those changes is still speculation (there's nothing anyone has at this point to prove he did that). Tom MacWood or anyone else can say whatever they think about who made those decisions back then but the point is, as you say, it's still speculation!

The question now would probably have been if Ross had gone to all that trouble to make those drawings and text construction instructions in 1927 or 1928 why would he have bothered to change them so much a few months later? And without some evidence from him with drawings of those changes no one knows at this point if Ross wanted to do that or was even aware of it. Again, Tom MacWood, or anyone else can say it couldn't be otherwise but the point is they really don't know---it's still speculation. Those Ross drawings are not speculation---that's for sure.

And you're right---the fact is that all of this is pure speculation. But what we all do know is those drawings, including those bunkers on them really are Donald Ross's own.



 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 03:50:19 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2005, 03:50:22 PM »
TEPaul,

Given the choice between Ross's certified, detailed drawings and the golf course on opening day, which differed from those drawings and absent concrete evidence that Ross made those changes, I think a prudent decision is to restore the golf course to Ross's design drawings.

To me the mystery is: how and why was there such a substantive deviation from the detailed drawings and accompanying notes on those drawings ?

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2005, 03:59:16 PM »
"The mystery remains, how and why did Aronomink go from point A to point B."

Pat:

That may always be a mystery and my feeling is the same as what it was back five years ago----that Aronimink may've actually created something that is not technically a restoration because the bunkers were apparently never built to the way Ross drew them---and that is pretty unusual---there may be no club on earth that actually created something 75 years later from the original architect that was not done originally.

But still the only thing anyone is really sure of is that those drawings and those bunkers are what Ross called for in 1927 or 1928 and if he went to all that trouble then why assume he had some big change of heart about what to do within a matter of months? I have to think if Ross could see what was done in the recent bunker restoration (or original drawing creation) he probably would've been fine with it.

He may even spin over in his grave and say;

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

:)

But who really knows. He might even say;

"I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I designed better than that sumabitch "liberty-taking" foreman of mine, McGovern, built. On second thought, William Flynn, was right, the guy was a poor architect who selfishly didn't do what I asked him to do by not following my plans. If I had Aronimink to do over again I would've fired that McGovern and stolen Flynn's primary foreman William Gordon who at least did what Bill Flynn told him to do by following his design plans!".  
 
 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 04:08:35 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2005, 05:48:17 PM »
"Given the choice between Ross's certified, detailed drawings and the golf course on opening day, which differed from those drawings and absent concrete evidence that Ross made those changes, I think a prudent decision is to restore the golf course to Ross's design drawings."

Pat
How do you restore something that was never built?



TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2005, 05:57:22 PM »
"Pat
How do you restore something that was never built?"

That post is part of the problem with a lot of what goes on on here.

Tom MacWood:

It's real simple actually. Firstly, you don't call it "restoration" and get all hung up and doctrinaire on that term. You call it what it actually is---eg something pretty unusual and unique---eg creating an architect's design plan that for whatever mysterious reason never was built in the first place. Are you even remotely capable of getting your mind around the fact that if an architect of the calibre of Donald Ross in 1927 or 1928 took the time and effort to design, draw and textually explain what he did on those hole by hole drawings it probably wasn't all bad or something that should be considered a mistake to create today?

I guess not.

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #62 on: June 29, 2005, 06:31:57 PM »
If I were the king of Aronimink and it was my decision...I wouldn't have established/completed a design ultimately rejected....and conversely I would have opted to restore the golf course (with the atypical "Ross bunkers") Ross Associates built and Ross was obviously proud of. I'm not a big fan of conjectural restorations...most conjectural restorations are redesigns in restoration clothing.

I don't think anyone would argue its unfortunate the club didn't have all the info we have now have when making their decision.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 06:34:59 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #63 on: June 29, 2005, 07:06:29 PM »
"Given the choice between Ross's certified, detailed drawings and the golf course on opening day, which differed from those drawings and absent concrete evidence that Ross made those changes, I think a prudent decision is to restore the golf course to Ross's design drawings."

Pat
How do you restore something that was never built?
It's quite simple.

If you have the detailed plans you merely carry them through to fruition.

If it was discovered that an individual, be it the club President, Superintendent, construction chief, project manager or job foreman altered the original plans and built the golf course to his liking, would you restore it to the fraud that it represents, or to the true plans of the original designer ?

I think most, ESPECIALLY you, with your self acknowledged purist views would rebuild the golf course as reflected in Ross's certified design plans, and not some intelopers interpretation.

Or, have you changed your position ?
[/color]




Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #64 on: June 29, 2005, 07:14:33 PM »
If I were the king of Aronimink and it was my decision...I wouldn't have established/completed a design ultimately rejected....

That's baloney, and that's contrary to what you've stated over and over again.

As you read this at this point in time, YOU don't know that ROSS rejected that design do you.  So why imply that he did ?
You just don't know and are being speculative.

And, you've said, time after time, in your purist views, that alterations to courses should be disregarded.
If it's revealed that a third part undertook this revision, how can you possilby not vote to restore the golf course as Ross intended ?

There's only one way, and that would be if you were intellectually disengenuous.
[/color]

and conversely I would have opted to restore the golf course (with the atypical "Ross bunkers") Ross Associates built and Ross was obviously proud of. I'm not a big fan of conjectural restorations...most conjectural restorations are redesigns in restoration clothing.

That's no better a view than the ones you rail against.
Until you know all of the substantive facts, you can't HONESTLY say in what direction or form the restoration should have come in.
[/color]

I don't think anyone would argue its unfortunate the club didn't have all the info we have now have when making their decision.

I think everyone would agree with that, but, it still isn't enough information upon which to relly on in order to make an exclusive prudent decision.

Absent that information, no one can fault Ron Prichard or Aronomink for restoring the course to Ross's certified design schematics and notes.
[/color]

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2005, 07:30:30 PM »
"If you have the detailed plans you merely carry them through to fruition."

When faced with the option: preliminary field drawings/notes vs the golf course as built by Ross, I'd opt for the golf course as built by Ross.  :)

"If it was discovered that an individual, be it the club President, Superintendent, construction chief, project manager or job foreman altered the original plans and built the golf course to his liking, would you restore it to the fraud that it represents, or to the true plans of the original designer ?"

....or if a Ross impersonater had kidnapped the old man and supervised all the changes....

Yours is an example of why conjectural restoration is normally a bad idea, you get someone with a vivid imagination making decisions based upon misguided speculation later shown to be erroneous.

Unless you have documentation of some strange circumstance, you have to go with as built rather than as planned....especially when the as planned is not the formalized plan and the architect was on site during construction.  

« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 07:32:38 PM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #66 on: June 29, 2005, 07:47:48 PM »
"don't know that ROSS rejected that design do you.  So why imply that he did ?"

Was that preliminary plan built?

"And, you've said, time after time, in your purist views, that alterations to courses should be disregarded."

I've said that? Did I say that with Travis's changes at GCGC? With Hunter/Egans/MacKenzie's changes to Pebble Beach? With Fowler's changes to Westward Ho? Simpson's changes to New Zealand? Alison's changes to PVGV? Colt's changes at Sunningdale? etc etc ect. I don't think so.  I've always said each case should be judged based upon its unique circumstances. You seem to be grasping for straws...I think it is about time this Aronimink debate be retired.

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #67 on: June 29, 2005, 08:16:20 PM »
Tom MacWood said:

"If I were the king of Aronimink and it was my decision...I wouldn't have established/completed a design ultimately rejected....and conversely I would have opted to restore the golf course (with the atypical "Ross bunkers") Ross Associates built and Ross was obviously proud of. I'm not a big fan of conjectural restorations...most conjectural restorations are redesigns in restoration clothing.

I don't think anyone would argue its unfortunate the club didn't have all the info we have now have when making their decision."

Tom:

I'm a firm believer that any club should have as much info as they can have about their evolution. However, would what we now know have altered their decision in this recent restoration? I doubt it would. Obviously, this is a subject and an issue you're never going to let go of. That's your perogative but in the end it really doesn't matter much. You are not the King of Aronimink and never having been and so  that's sort of a trite thing to say anyway at this point or at any time.

You never bothered to even answer my question about why exactly you think that 2 to 3 bunkers in almost the same places as one bigger single one is so special anyway to make you say that course was remarkable for it and what they've done now by creating Ross's own design plans is a mistake, even if they weren't originally built that way.

How quickly you seem to forget or perhaps overlook the fact that the design that was essentially created bunker-wise recently was that of the hand and mind of a man called Donald Ross.

For you to think he offered that design one month or one year and that it was of no real worth the next month or year or 75 years later shows as certain intransigience on your part or just blind arrogance.

I could see you saying this if that hole by hole design and text instruction was someone other than Donald Ross's but that fact is that's the one thing that they can establish with certainty. Everything else that happened is prone to speculation, including yours, despite how hard you seem to want to push your piont that a mistake was made.

It wouldn't be hard to find out now what Ron Prichard and the club would do if all the information we know now was available to them back then when they made their decision. All I need to do is ask Ron and the president of the club, John Trickett, those that ran the project, the committee members and others over there, most all of which I've known for years.

This issue of what happened when back back in those days has now been answered with certainty---finally. The why of it will probably never be known with any certainty. It's probably time to go on to some other architectural issue now. You aren't the King of Aronimink, and because you aren't I doubt many care much about this objection of yours anymore.

The bunker restoration and the rest of the restoration is a success with those who care about, pay for and play the course here. Cost definitely is an issue too as it generally always is. But even though you're not the King of Aronimink, and you never will be, when I ask Ron and the club if they'd consider restoring now with this new info those app 200 bunkers would you like me to tell them as well that you'd like to act like The King of Aronimink by paying for the upkeep and maintenance of 200 bunkers as opposed to Ross's app 80-90?


TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2005, 08:39:32 PM »
“Unless you have documentation of some strange circumstance, you have to go with as built rather than as planned....especially when the as planned is not the formalized plan and the architect was on site during construction.

"don't know that ROSS rejected that design do you.  So why imply that he did ?"

Was that preliminary plan built?”

This is precisely why I’m quite sure any golf club would much rather have a Ron Prichard advising them on all aspects of old courses and old architects  than some Tom MacWood. The fact is he simply has a much better understanding of the realities of that old architecture and those old architects and what went on out there in those days.

William Flynn had Shinnecock altered by one of his associates on site and it infuriated him. It forced him to go back and make the changes Dick Wilson took liberties with on site. If a Tom MacWood thinks that was the only time and place that ever happened then I seriously doubt he has even a modicum of understanding about old architects and architecture and the realities of those times that Ron Prichard has. Did this happen to Ross at Aronimink? We really don’t know and either does Tom MacWood. If he tries to act as if it wasn’t a possibility at Aronimink with Ross than it only proves to me that Tom MacWood is a dreamer, doesn’t understand the realities of any time in architecture or is just being unnecessarily obdurate hoping to believe that someone will support or agree with his point. The point here is that Aronimink wanted bunkers built to Ross’s plans---they didn’t want to take a chance on bunkers that may not have been his design. They got Ross, his plans and his Aronimink bunkers. They are sitting right in front of me, and there basically out there on the ground three miles away.

As they say, that’s what they pay Ron Prichard the big bucks for and why they don’t pay the Tom MacWoods the big bucks.   ;)


« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 08:46:22 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #69 on: June 29, 2005, 08:57:31 PM »
TE
If you and Pat or anyone else feels the club made the right decision from a historical or architectural perspective, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree, but then again I'm a big fan of Ross and preserving his best, most interesting work.

I've always contended that the speculation which the decision was based upon was weak and illogical, and I discovered evidence that when studied logically IMO proved the specualtion was wrong. Unfortunately many had a emotional investment in the project and those involved in the project, and couldn't look at it logically, perferring to hang on to specualtive illogical story. And as it turns out the speculation was wrong.

I hope Ron Prichard does tell us what he would have done had he the info at the time. It might assist future clubs who are trying decide who to hire when restoring or remodeling their golf course, and debating if it is important to conduct thorough research and how thorough research may or may not effect a particular architect's decision making.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 08:59:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2005, 09:35:50 PM »
I think some of us enjoy the discovery process and illuminating the architectural evolution at interesting golf courses.  I think it another matter entirely when we put professionals on the spot and take them to task for their efforts on this site or other public forums.  It has to be a disservice and not a constructive path to take.  

I cannot help but consider that architects and the clubs themselves have the responsibility to conduct a thorough research effort and gather as much information to make informed decisions as possible.  Practically, this is not always possible as resources, both financial and informational may not be on hand in the time frame necessary to make use of.

Rather we historians and fact finders should offer our assistance in some informal or formal capacity as circumstances allow.  I know Tom MacWood, Tom Paul and others have made findings available to clubs.  

Just as Craig Disher, who has gained a well deserved reputation for his aerial photography investigations, is often contacted and available to clubs and architects alike, so should other archival sleuths.  There are many instances where Tom Paul and I have been helpful to clubs and architects.  In the course of our research on the Flynn book we have made many discoveries and archival findings that benefit restoration and redesign efforts.  Some of the work turns out to be exceedingly comprehensive and we understand well considered.

Tom's concepts on maintenance practices melded to the course specific architecture brings him into contact with clubs in America and even across the northern border.

I've maintained for some time now that historians can be valuable assets to the team of design and construction professionals along with club committees responsible to their memberships in restoration projects.  We have to be careful not to advocate for individuals or our own ideas but to present information to be used to make informed decisions.

Let's keep a positive perspective on how to help rather than promote a negative approach that is bound to be perceived as adversarial.  The bar should be raised in the practical use of architectural histories but in a diplomatic way without finger pointing.

My last comments on Aronimink is this.  There really isn't a single answer on what should have been done, even if all the information was available at the time the decisions were made.  There would have remained room for interpretation.  I am honestly satisfied with the work and feel it is of Ross design even if not as built.  The multiple bunkers at construction are strategically the same as the single bunkers in the Ross drawings if the locations and overall size were retained but with divisions put in.  The real question that is brought up is one of style and aesthetics.  Important?  Yes, but not to everyone and not as critical as wholesale design changes.  The fact is the club is happy with the work and it is a dramatic improvement to what was on the ground before the recent work was completed.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 09:46:27 PM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2005, 10:14:34 PM »
Tom MacWood said:

TE
If you and Pat or anyone else feels the club made the right decision from a historical or architectural perspective, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree, but then again I'm a big fan of Ross and preserving his best, most interesting work."

Tom:

I knew a post like this would be coming from you and I even told those at the North Platte airport that yesterday after I called Wayne Morrison to find out what he found from those earlier aerials of Aronimink that he went down to Wilmington to see. If you don't believe me ask Ran Morrissett and Pat Mucci what I said to them after I hung up with Ron from North Platte.

The thing that for whatever reason you can't seem to understand or appreciate is the best available info, even after proving what was originally built at Aronimink as far as being true Ross in design IS THOSE HOLE DRAWINGS BY ROSS HIMSELF! You can go on and on about how what got built had to be Ross's own design but the fact is you just don't know that, as none of us do, and to continue to act as if you do is so apparently motivated by intransigence or something other than clear thinking as to be a joke.

"I've always contended that the speculation which the decision was based upon was weak and illogical, and I discovered evidence that when studied logically IMO proved the specualtion was wrong. Unfortunately many had a emotional investment in the project and those involved in the project, and couldn't look at it logically, perferring to hang on to specualtive illogical story. And as it turns out the speculation was wrong."

Oh, have you now, Tom MacWood? If I were a club such as Aronimink, and you tried to convince me that the bunkers on that course were originally all built as multi-set 2s and 3s off a single on-ground photo of the first hole, I think I would have told you to get on down the road. First of all, you said it showed the same thing on the 3rd hole which anyone who’s been to Aronimink knows really can't be seen that well from the first tee and certainly not in a photo from the first tee.

An emotional investment in the project? What the hell does a remark like that from you mean? What that club and Prichard  wanted for Aronimink is as much certainty as they could possible find that what they were about to do really was Donald Ross's own design. In my book, in Ron's, and in those out there at Aronimink that certainty was pretty much in Ron Prichard's hand in the way of Ross's own really excellent hole by hole detailed drawings and textual construction instructions.

"I hope Ron Prichard does tell us what he would have done had he the info at the time. It might assist future clubs who are trying decide who to hire when restoring or remodeling their golf course, and debating if it is important to conduct thorough research and how thorough research may or may not effect a particular architect's decision making."

I'll tell you what Ron said when I called him and told him about Wayne going down there and looking at that 1929 Aronimink aerial and finding that they showed basically the same bunker scheme as the 1939 aerial; Ron said;

"Well, I guess we lost this round with Tom MacWood."

But the point is, in my opinion, and in his and Wayne's too you didn't prove a damn thing about how those bunkers were originally built. We proved how they were originally built and whose decision it was or what Ross felt about it is as much speculation today as it's ever been although getting you to understand that is about the same thing as beating one's head against a brick wall. All you did is get lucky off total speculation from a single on-ground photo of one hole in 18. Is that what you think is comprehensive research of the way a golf course was originally built? I don't, I doubt Ron Prichard or Aronimik does, and I can't imagine who would.

Ron Prichard with his Sickel hole drawings in 1931 would've been a lot more convincing to anyone I can think of back then even if they were proven to be wrong info (not by you but by us). But I wouldn't expect you to understand that or acknowledge it now.

So you say you think what Ron Prichard says now about all that's happened here with the Aronimink restoration and what his decision would be now if the decision could be made now with the present information should effect what clubs think and who they hire?

Well, then I'll tell you the blunt truth Tom MacWood--both me and probably a number of others will be keeping you on your toes about anything you ever say on here or anywhere else we're aware of. I don't think you're a friend or ally of real restoration, I think you're an obstructionist to it simply because of your own egoistic agenda---whatever that really is, other than promoting yourself as some ‘expert researcher’ whose conclusions should be taken seriously.

As far as I can see the only person who ever made much of an issue over those multi-set bunkers being restored is Ron and the club before the decision was made. For everyone else, they seem to be happy with what was decided on and what was done.

You, and no one else I'm aware of made a huge issue of this and after the fact. You are the only one I've ever heard of who keeps chirping the fact on here this was a mistake.

As far as I'm concerned, all the truth that will probably ever be known or needs to be know about this issue is now known, except for the question of what Ross's own part was in the alterations from his plans, and you Tom MacWood have really burned some bridges over all this around here, in my opinion.  



« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 10:04:40 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2005, 10:26:42 PM »
"Well, I guess we lost this round with Tom MacWood."

I don't see it that way...IMO Donald Ross lost this round.


« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 10:27:54 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2005, 10:40:15 PM »
TE
If you and Pat or anyone else feels the club made the right decision from a historical or architectural perspective, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree, but then again I'm a big fan of Ross and preserving his best, most interesting work.
The only problem is, you don't know what Ross's work was at Aronomink.
[/color]

And as it turns out the speculation was wrong.
Yours as well as others
[/color]

I hope Ron Prichard does tell us what he would have done had he the info at the time. It might assist future clubs who are trying decide who to hire when restoring or remodeling their golf course, and debating if it is important to conduct thorough research and how thorough research may or may not effect a particular architect's decision making.
The dilema would still exist.

To restore to what Ross's detailed plan and notes indicate, or to the "as built", and that would have been the club's decision, not Ron Prichard's.
[/color]

TEPaul

Re:JB McGovern
« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2005, 10:41:19 PM »
"I don't see it that way...IMO Donald Ross lost this round."

Right. I, like everyone else around here, looks at it differently. Ross and his plans finally got done at Aronimink the way he drew them and explained them. The fact that it actually took about 75 years for that to happen makes the Aronimink bunker project one of the most interesting ones I've ever heard about---and I hope that lore continues into the future, as it should.

In the meantime, some pompous, back patting, self-serving researcher denigrated a fine restoration architect and a lot of others in this town, including a pretty well known club.

But in the broad scheme of things, who the hell really cares about something like that? I think all the questions that could possibly be asked or answered about the history and evolution of the bunkers of Aronimink have bee---one could certainly say, as they often do, that's what we on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com do---and now this is the end of this Aronimink bunker restoration discussion on my part.

That is until some other truly interesting info surfaces which I doubt it will---that is unless and until I have the chance to go three miles down the road to that golf club or Tom MacWood has the chance of atttempting to reinterpret history to some agenda of his own.  ;)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 10:46:42 PM by TEPaul »