[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Irving Johnson would produce three formalized plans. The first would be a large scale map of the entire design. The second would be an overhead of each hole, with the green plan and notes. The third would be the plan you are asking about -- an overhead with a cross-section view.

Did he produce three sets for Aronomink ?

Have you seen any of the Aronomink plans including Ross's detailed designs ?

Are you insisting that the sketch you posted was used by the field laborers to build every hole ?

Please don't continue to avoid the specific questions by creating tangential issues.

Thanks [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayne Morrison,

Perhaps a topo map of Aronomink would settle the issue of the visibility of the bunkers on # 3.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul & Wayne Morrison,
Perhaps a topo map of Aronomink would settle the issue of the visibility of the bunkers on # 3."

Pat:

As to whether one can see the 3rd hole from the vantage point of that Golfdom photo from behind the first tee, perhaps a topo map could help in some way but the best way to tell is to simply go out there and stand approximately where that photo was taken and look for yourself. I did that about a month ago just for this very purpose. You can barely see any of the 3rd hole simply because of the topography.

Three or so years ago you wouldn't have been able to see any of it because there were a ton of trees behind the first green that were not there in 1929. They removed most all of them in the last few years though. I've been on that spot many times in the past including recently. You can hardly see any of the third and at most in 1929 it would only have been from about 100 yards or so in front of the 3rd green and then juuust barely over the low ridge that crests to the left of the beginning of the second and the end of the third hole.

Discussing on this thread, though, why Ron Prichard and the club could not have just extrapolated from this first hole GOLFDOM photo alone that the bunkering on the course did not match Ross's plans and the Sickel drawings from 1931 is basically moot anyway, and frankly probably shows how discussions like these Aronimink threads can be very misleading sometimes as to what actually happened during the recent bunker project and the decision-making.

Why is that? Well, first of all we should not forget to ask where that Golfdom photo of the first hole came from on this thread. I never asked that on this thread until last night. I called and spoke to Tom MacWood about that and to also go over with him this chronology that I put on here so we wouldn't have to keep going over this "inconsistency" thing anymore.

It seems Tom MacWood probably put that Golfdom photo on this thread. And after he did it seems we had on and off probably a year of discussion about whether it was illogical or not to extrapolate that the rest of the 18 holes had those cluster bunkers on them as are shown in this Golfdom photo that is from 1929. From the hyperlink Tom put on this thread to a thread on this subject from almost a year ago we can see that Tom may've put that Golfdom photo on here over a year ago. Obviously one of the reasons he did that is this photo is from 1929 and very close to the opening of Aronimink. And there's no question that the number of bunkers and the shapes of them on this GOLFDOM photo exactly match the 1939 aerial photo that Ron and the club had that shows cluster bunkers all over the golf course.

But aren't we forgetting something here and didn't we completelly overlook somethng when we discussed and argued for perhaps a year or more that Ron and the club should've logicially exptrapolated that this one on-ground GOLFDOM photo of one hole from 1929 that matches the bunkers on the first hole in the 1939 aerial should've indicated that the rest of the course had cluster bunkers when it was built? I'm afraid we did ovelook something and forgot to consider something about that Golfdom photo until perhaps last night.

That is what if Ron and the club did not have that Golfdom photo??

I certainly never said on any of these Aronimink threads that they did. I never saw it when I went out there and discussed this subject with Ron Prichard and the club five or more years ago. I'll certainly be glad to ask Ron if he had that Golfdom photo back in those days of 2000-2001 or before, or even afterwards. And I do believe he found that tournament program at some point following my involvement in this in 2000-2001 because he certainly never mentioned it to me in 2000-2001. I'll be glad to ask him when he found that too the next time I speak to him.

Tom MacWood said on a post on this thread yesterday that ultimately these threads lead to a better understanding of the value of research that can certainly lead to more intelligent decision-making and more successful restoration projects in a more purist vein in the future. He's certainly right about that---I would never disagree with that and never have.

But doesn't this thread also indicate that incorrect analysis and incorrect assumptions on our part on here as we discuss and analyze what happened during various projects can lead to incorrect and certainly unfair critiquing on our part on some of these restoraton projects?

It certain seems so. Again, what if they didn't have that Golfdom photo back in 2000-2001? You can't extrapolate cluster bunkers off one hole in 1929 to the rest of the course if you ain't got the photo first.

Of course we could criticize them for not having it but that probably isn't all that realistic or fair on our part now or after the fact. Hindsight will always be the best vantage for observation but hindsight is not the way decision-making gets done.

I remember when Wayne and I told Gil Hanse that we had most all Flynn's original hole drawings for Kittansett. This was probably 3-4 years after Gil finished the Kittansett restoration where he struggled to make some restoration decisions, particularly on one or two holes, because research material of the type we had later was unavailable.

Gil said; "AAHH, now you tell me!". Where were those Flynn drawings when he did the Kittansett restoration? They were in a box in a barn in Bucks Co. with about fifty years of dust on them.

Should Gil have scoured the world to find those plans when only a few people even knew they existed back then?

I know what my answer is. What's yours?

[TEPaul]

But there is a larger question and a larger point that I discussed with Tom MacWood at length last night.

And that is that this website and some of the participants do have the ability and the capacity to come up with research material on some of these courses which is just incredible, probably ten times better than has ever been done before. We all know Tommy Nacarrato, Tom MacWood, Paul Turner, Craig Disher and a number of others can do that. There are a whole lot more people out there than most on here may realize who understand this to varying degrees. Ran realizes that--so do I and so does Pat--perhaps some others as well.

So the question is---how can we on here get that material out to these clubs or lead them to it when they're going into these projects and not after they've done them?

Some of us have spoken with Ran for years now about some better way that clubs, committees, architects et al can come on here and just discuss these things with us going into projects.

Unfortunately, that's never worked very well and in my mind the primary reason is there's virtually no one from those clubs who really wants to actually come on here and post and discuss that with any of us on this discussion section when they have to go through the rough and tumble atmosphere that is this discussion group most of the time.

Instead of continuing to wonder how we can get those out there who may even look in here and never say anything and even those who aren't aware of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com to get on here and take what we can do for them why don't we on here try a lot harder to just get to them first---to call them up and go to them first and offer any research direction and advice or research material we may be aware of?

Will they take what we may have or what we may be aware of? My experience with dealing with a number of clubs over the last 5-6 years is that they'll take it each and every time. Not just that but when someone presents this type of material to a club about their course long ago it has a fascinating way of lighting a spark in that club with someone who generally ends up getting completely motivated who can rekindle membership pride in that course that you just can't believe.

Today Wayne and I are going to see George Holland of the Creek Club. George is the perfect example of this. Just a few years ago George and some research material from the Creek ran into each other. It may've even happened behind something like an old boiler in the bowels of the Creek Club.

Today if there's something out there somewhere, even if it might be in some old attic in a mansion in Long Island with dust from the last 75 years on it George will probably find it---and in the end the Creek will be better for it and they understand that now.

[TEPaul]

"My other objection is the trend of restoring Ross courses in a prototypical manner--the typical Ross grass faced bunkers are universally empoyed, even on courses Ross never built with grass faced bunkers, like Aroninimk. If the trend continues the variety of styles Ross created will be wiped away."

Tom;

First of all, on all these Aronimink bunker threads you keep talking about the "sand flashed to the top" bunker style at Aronimink originally or even in Ross's own bunker drawings for Aronimink vs bunkers that are grassed down or partially grassed down as was the style on other Ross bunkers and is the style you seem to say Prichard does everywhere in Ross restorations. I'm not certain what you mean by that. What do you mean by 'sand flashed to the top'? To the top of what?

[TEPaul]

On the subject of sand flashing faces and grassing down faces there's obviously a few fundamental questions that need to be answered correctly first.

What is meant when some on here say 'sand flashed to the top'? To the top of what? And what is meant when some on here say "grassed down"? Grassed down FROM where?

I think we will find, for a time anyway, that different people, even including various architects or even so-called restoration architects have different ideas about what these descriptions mean. I think different architects and different people even have different opinions about what a Donald Ross, for instance, meant to say or was indicating on his bunker drawings.

Ross, in probably all his bunker drawings used a fairly common method of drawing his bunkers with various lines and denotations such as dots that clearly meant something--in other words all those dots and parallel lines and solid outside lines meant something specific. Flynn drew bunkers with apparenty the same "line" methodology in his drawing style. Solid outside lines, parallel down lines on the faces and sometimes dots for sand area. Occasionally both Flynn and Ross used solid lines below the parellel down lines that logically had to indicate where they intended the grass face to meet the sand area. We do have plenty of evidence of that in both their bunker drawings.

What did it mean? What do those "lines" mean?

I can tell you what Ron Prichard thinks they mean. He believes that on practically all Ross's bunker drawings and sketches there is a single solid line drawn around the outside of the bunker dimension. What does that mean? I believe to Ron that solid line drawn around the bunker dimension demarks what could probably be called the top of the bunker surround. We all know that basically needs to be constructed.

What do the parallel down lines mean? Ron believes they mean Ross is calling for the grassing down of the faces to some point. Wayne Morrison apparently believes on Flynn drawings those parallel down lines mean the extent of the sand flashing up to persumably the top of the surrround where the grass begins.

Personally, I feel that Ron Prichard is absolutely right, at least with Ross's drawings. The Ross drawing on page 147 of the 5th green at Oyster Harbors in Brad Klein's book would certainly seem to confirm that. We can see that solid line around the top of the bunker that probably indicates the top of the grass surround (or perhaps the entire dimension area that needs to be constructed), we can see those parallel down lines that logically indicate the grassed down face. The proof of that seems to be that below those parallel down lines are partial solid lines that would logically indicate where the grassed down face meets the sand surface. Not just that but the sand area is demarked by dots below that bottom partial solid line which we all know indicates sand (dots) on most all bunker drawings of any architect that used dots.

There's further evidence that the parallel down lines indicates some degree of grassed vertical dimension as we can see on that drawing of Oyster Harbor's 5th green that the sides of the green that drop off have those same parallel down lines.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

As Wayne noticed as did I if you take a magnifying glass and look carefully at those cluster bunkers on both the 1939 Dallin aerial and the 1927 and 1928 Dallin aerials of Aronimink you can see that many of the faces on those cluster bunkers are partially grassed down. If you take a magnifying glass and look carefully at that on ground in the GOLFDOM photo you can see the same thing on a few of them.

As I mentioned to you once before regarding that on-ground photo of the first hole at Aronimink in 1929 you may be assuming the sand faces are more flashed than they actually are because the place where that photo was taken is probably a good 50-60 feet above those bunkers about 375-425 yards away. In other words you're looking considerably down on those 1st hole bunkers, and they all are into the upslope that gradually inclines to the green.

And lastly, if one looks at the photo on p. 183 of "Golf Has Never Failed Me" of the 9th hole at Longmeadow (which Brad mentioned to me today is mislabeled and is actually the 16th hole) you can see that despite what the caption says those pot bunkers are anything but sand flashed up to the tops of those bunkers. Matter of fact they are far more grassed down to near the bottom of an upsweep commonly called the "angle of repose".

Also I very much doubt the caption in that photo is Ross's description. More logically it's probably Ron Whtten's description.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Did he produce three sets for Aronomink ?"
I don't know.

Based on their common practices and the importance of the Aronimink as commission, most likely. Of three plans Johnson made...this one would have been the least critical.
That's speculative on your part.
And, we can discard the sketch you posted as providing critical construction details.[/color]

"Have you seen any of the Aronomink plans including Ross's detailed designs ?"
Are you speeking of rough field plans and notes? Yes. I've seen them. Those plans would have been converted into formalized plans by Johnson (during that process those plans were sometimes changed).

How do you know that was done ?

Was it done at Plainfield where Gil used the detailed graphed plans for his restoration ?[/color]

"Are you insisting that the sketch you posted was used by the field laborers to build every hole ?"
I'm sure the person supervising the construction would typically use all three plans to guide the constuction. Why?

Again, that's speculative on your part.
What information would your sketch provide for construction that wasn't already provided in Ross's detailed graphed designs ?  I doubt your sketch ever made it out of the clubhouse.[/color]

We've been beating this dead horse long enough. I'll give you my whole take on this and leave it at that.

Prichard and the club had a dilemma. They had an earial from 1939 that showed a severely bunkered golf course and they had Ross rough sketches and notes from 1926-27ish that showed single bunkers. Was the course built according to the plans and later changed? Was that plan changed and the course built with clusters. Certainly a very difficult decision based on the limited information.

I wouldn't want to make that decision..you need more information. Are there any old photos in magazines or newpapers that might guide us? Are there any other historic aerials that might show the course as built?

Given the information that Aronimink had...I can't really fault the decision.

I've been saying this all along, welcome aboard.
What took you so long ?[/color]

What I fault is that they made the decision (and restored the course) without sufficient information. You can call it monday mourning quarterbacking if you like, but I don't think they searched hard enough....as it turns out there was excellent photographic documentation of what was built, just a few miles away. There was at least one photograph in a magazine that would have given them pause if they thought Ross's rough sketch had been executed and not rejected.
Tom, you, TEPaul and Wayne have searched and searched and you're no further along with discovering why and how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, THE CRITICAL issue.

Carrying out Ross's intent, and rebuilding the golf course to his detailed hole by hole plans was a prudent decision on Aronomink's part.

It's the same thing you desire at OSU Scarlet where you want MacKenzie's plans implemented, rather than restoring the golf course to the way it was built.  You can't have it both ways.[/color]

My other objection is the trend of restoring Ross courses in a prototypical manner--the typical Ross grass faced bunkers are universally empoyed, even on courses Ross never built with grass faced bunkers, like Aroninimk. If the trend continues the variety of styles Ross created will be wiped away.

Are you positive that Ross didn't design grass faced bunkers for Aronomink ?
Look at his detailed designs and READ his notes regarding bunker construction.
Ross usually designed and built his bunkers as he found them IN THE LAND.
Seminole provides a good study of both.

Which bunkers at Aronomink deviate from Ross's detailed hole by hole design ?[/color]

Now, can we get back to OSU Scarlet ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Those pictures make a very good point about the variety of Ross bunkers.  

Truly, I'm don't know of anyone practicing restoration of Ross courses who doesn't always opt for the stereotype "grassed down" front wall and I've made the point here previously that all anyone has to do to see that Ross was way more varied and artistic is to look at old pictures of his courses, in either "Golf Has Never Failed Me" or Brad's comprehensive book.  

The irony is that we talk about the Golden Age architects being so sensitive to "site specificity", yet people in the modern age will eventually think Donald Ross only knew how to create one simple, standardized bunker type.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Have you been to Seminole lately ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Have you been to Seminole lately ?

Patrick,

No, unfortunately, I've never had the pleasure.

I also think getting an invite to the Coleman is probably a long shot since word of my chipping skills has gotten around.  

I believe I read that the bunkers are more grass faced after the Silva restore than they had been previously, or historically, but I'm not sure if that's true.

What's the scoop at Seminole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

“And, we can discard the sketch you posted as providing critical construction details.”

If you were restoring a golf course, you would discard those formalized plans? I would think those plans would be quite handy.

If you think that sketch represents a formalized plan you're uninformed or delusional or both.[/color]

“How do you know that was done [Johnson formalizing the rough sketches] ?”

I suppose it is possible Johnson only created the formalized cross-section plans for Aronimink, and told Ross his ‘rudimentary’ (you words) plans were good enough...perhaps Arominimk was the exception to the rule in your increasingly bizarre scenario.

So, you don't know.
Just say so, and don't try to bluff your way through the issue.[/color]

“Was it done at Plainfield where Gil used the detailed graphed plans for his restoration ?”

Which plans does Gil have for Plainfield…Ross’s field notes or the formalized Johnson plans. Is Gil supplementing those plans with historic photographs?

Answer the question, then I'll address yours.
Your reluctance or inability to answer is creating a pattern whereby a prudent individual could conclude that you don't know what  you're talking about.[/color]

“Again, that's speculative on your part.
What information would your sketch provide for construction that wasn't already provided in Ross's detailed graphed designs ?  I doubt your sketch ever made it out of the clubhouse.”

Interesting speculation.

No, it's a prudent conclusion.
How would your sketch provide information that a labor crew could translate into work in the ground ?[/color]

“I've been saying this all along, welcome aboard.
What took you so long ?”

You’ve also been saying that its possible a renegade committeeman or greenkeeper altered the plans too.  And it appears you don’t put much weight into research or a lack of research…at least you haven't expressed it on this thread.
You choose to diminish the concept by inserting the word "renegade" to imply an out of control force.
I've seen Committee Chairman and Superintendents alter an architects work, such that the finished product differs from his plans.   Perhaps field trips from the Ivory Tower might be beneficial and provide you with a glimpse of the real world.[/color]

“Tom, you, TEPaul and Wayne have searched and searched and you're no further along with discovering why and how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, THE CRITICAL issue.”

Their dilemma at that time: Was the course constructed according to the field notes and later changed or was the course built as reflected in the 1939 aerial. That is no longer in question.

NO, that wasn't their dilema.
There dilema was, do we rebuild the golf course as Ross intended through his detailed plans, or do we build it as it appeared in early photos, and, how did the golf course get from Point A to Point B or Point C.[/color]

How ever Ross & Associates got from point A to point B or point A to point B to point C (which is mystery on most old golf courses), Aronimink (& Prichard) ultimately chose to restore a golf course that was never built. They rejected the golf course that Ross said he planned on being his masterpiece and twenty years after building it he said was better than he had realized.

How do you reconcile that with MacKenzie's plans at OSU Scarlet ?

Aronomink restored their golf course to Ross's intent, as evidenced by his detailed design plans, and not rough field notes.[/color]

“Carrying out Ross's intent, and rebuilding the golf course to his detailed hole by hole plans was a prudent decision on Aronomink's part.”

You may not trust Doanld Ross & Associates and their ability to carryout their work, but I do...I'm confident Donald Ross & Associates knew what they were doing when they built Aronimink. Ross sure seems to have liked the results.
You don't know that.
You don't know how the golf course went from Point A, Ross's hole by hole design, to a finished golf course that differed from those designs.[/color]

“It's the same thing you desire at OSU Scarlet where you want MacKenzie's plans implemented, rather than restoring the golf course to the way it was built.  You can't have it both ways.”

Have you read my OSU essay? Ohio State was designed by MacKenzie in 1928….the course was built in 1938 (four years after Dr. MacK kicked the bucket) by an agronomy professor and a team of WPA workers, sans fairway bunkers, which were later added by the golf coach according to his own plan. As far as I know Ross was alive and well, and on site, when Aronimink was constructed.

When was he on site ?
You keep making that statement as if he was living there and supervising every aspect of the construction when YOU know that's not true.

The seperation by years is irrelevant, as is the composition of those who completed the work.

Ross prepared plans for Aronomink.
MacKenzie prepared plans for OSU Scarlet.
As a purist, why wouldn't you want both golf courses restored to the original architect's intent, vis a vis the detailled plans they respectively prepared. ?

Try being consistent.[/color]

 ‘Are you positive that Ross didn't design grass faced bunkers for Aronomink ?
Look at his detailed designs and READ his notes regarding bunker construction.”

I’ve read the notes and I’ve read the notes for Seminole, Oyster Harbor and other courses, and unless your name is Hatch, McGovern or Ross it is very difficult to understand what the hell he wants constructed. All we know is what was ultimately built (at these courses) based on the photographic evidence….but if you think you know what he wanted better than McGovern or Hatch go for it.

Have you seen the detailed plans for each green and their adjacent bunkering ?  I thnk it's pretty obvious as to what he wanted.

But, perhaps you've hit on the answer.
Perhaps McGovern didn't know what he wanted so he built them his way.[/color]

“Ross usually designed and built his bunkers as he found them IN THE LAND.
Seminole provides a good study of both.”

I’ll take your word for it…you appear to be an expert on Ross and Seminole.  This what Ross said about Seminole:
"In these days of steam shovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on flat, level country. I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on level land. The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with the type of terrain. I don't say it is the best I have ever designed. Nevertheless, I like it very much."

This is why you have to be careful about giving irrefutable credibility to everything you read.

Seminole is FAR from flat, level country.

It's downright hilly for Florida, with substantial elevation changes throughout the property.

Perhaps you need to get out in the field and see these golf courses before posturing that you're an expert on them, albeit, from your view from your Ivory Tower.

By the way, tell me how you can see the greenside bunkers on # 3 at Aronomink from the 1st tee ?[/color]

"Which bunkers at Aronomink deviate from Ross's detailed hole by hole design ?"
 
Which hole by hole design? The rough sketch that he rejected or the formalized plan?

I'm glad you made that statement and asked that question.
You don't know for a FACT that ROSS rejected his own detailed design plans, the ones you refer to as rough sketches, that contain great detail, DO YOU ?

And, if he rejected them, why did he not reject them in totallity, why did he retain the greens and other features in those plans, only rejecting the bunker configuration, and not their location ?

It's okay if you admit that you don't know the answers.
Some of us are already keenly aware of that fact.[/color]

Can we get back to OSU? I don’t know, can we? You just asked me a litany of questions on Aronimink.

Lets start by asking: Have you read my essay on OSU, have you seen MacKenzie’s OSU plan or played the golf course?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It seems everyone has their own definition of what a flashed face bunker is vs a grassed down or partially grassed down face. The original bunkers of Aronimink were a combination of all of them from analyzing a series of photographs of them. Simply because sand is visible from a distance and simply because a bunker may be built into an incline that is viewed from a very high tee such as #1 Aronimink does not exactly constitute a flashed face bunker in my mind. If the grass is rolled down in any way from the top of the front of the surround that to me is a grassed down or partially grassed down face bunker.

[TEPaul]

From Pat Mucci:

"“Tom, you, TEPaul and Wayne have searched and searched and you're no further along with discovering why and how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, THE CRITICAL issue.”

Response from Tom MacWood;

"Their dilemma at that time: Was the course constructed according to the field notes and later changed or was the course built as reflected in the 1939 aerial. That is no longer in question."

That's true, whether the course was built to Ross's drawings the club had or built wth those cluster bunkers was the dilemma at the time. Matter of fact it was still a dilemma until it was proven approximately four years after the bunkers were redone that the bunkers were originally built as clusters. That was not proven until about three weeks ago.

Again, the club did not want to take a chance that those cluster bunkers were not Ross's and so they used his drawings. Prichard mentioned at the time those Aronimink drawings by Ross were some of the best drawings he'd ever seen by Ross himself. The club, not being positive back then how the bunkers were originally built, did understand that it was possible that they may be building bunkers by Ross for Aronimink that may never have been originally built. If they were changed to those cluster originally they just did not know why.

I think I remember while out there that they thought that was in fact very interesting indeed and it may've been possible that they were finally building the bunkers Ross wanted about 75 years after the fact.  

It's interesting to compare their perception of things back then to the perception of some today. The over-riding concern back then was that what they were to do really were Ross's bunkers. Since they had no evidence how those bunkers were originally built and no evidence at all if Ross wanted those cluster bunkers, they made the decision to create his bunker drawings in 2001.

In the end, it's pretty interesting to note what they did realize back then that it was possible that creating Ross's bunker drawings for Aronimink that may never have been originally built may be a restoration first. How many clubs have Ross drawings that were not built with no evidence as to why and then created decades later? It's pretty unique.

We do know those drawn bunkers were Ross. Why they were changed may never be known.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

He used the graphed detailed designs, just like the ones that Ron Prichard used.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Old photos, unless they are from opening day, don't always provide an accurate picture of what the original features looked like.  So, dependence on them, without authentication of their date, can do more harm then good.

In addition, at most courses, there aren't pictures from every angle of every feature and every inch of the property.

Old photos can help if they are from opening day or if the features haven't been altered.  The difficulty is in knowing if the feature has been altered.

I believe Gil had the benefit of some old photos.

As to graphed design plans, I would imagine, if they contain Donald Ross's comments and directions, that they would be deemed to be Donald Ross's original plans.

It's hard to imagine that Aronomink or any other course could be faulted for using Ross's original graphed designs complete with his instructions and detailed comments.

I think you've provided a valueable service in making your inquiry regarding Aronomink.  I think the discovery of the courses configuration on opening day is important.

But, I don't think Aronomink made the wrong decision in electing to restore their golf course to Donald Ross's detailed design plans, complete with his personal comments and instructions.

As to the remaining mystery of how the golf course went from Point A to Point B, that remains a fascinating mystery, especially when you consider that other details and features in Donald Ross's original design plans were carried out according to those plans, with only the bunkers being altered in form, and not location.

One would think that if Ross had a change of heart that that would be evidenced by detailed plans depicting the new configurations, either Ross's, Johnson's, McGovern's or someone else's.  Their absence to date, leads me to believe that it was a field decision rather than a planning stage decision.

It might have been as simple as a crew improperly constructing a cluster bunker, and rather than correct the error, prefering it to what was planned, and thus embarking on a systemic pattern of cluster bunkering throughout the golf course.

Until someone discovers the cause of the transition, it will remain an interesting mystery.

Aronomink made a decision at a point in time to cleanse the alterations that had been forced upon the golf course over many years.
They wanted them eradicated and the golf course built as Ross had intended.  Since his detailed plans, including instructions were available to Ron Prichard and Aronomink, I don't see how a prudent person could fault them on their endeavor.

While you voiced your opinion that they should have done more research, you have to view that pursuit in the context of timing, or the open window theory.   At clubs, the restoration window is only open so long, and clubs that miss that opportunity, are condemned to continue with their disfigured golf course.

Given reality, politics, Ross's original detailed plans and timing, Prichard and Aronomink made the right decision.

If, five or ten years from now, new revelations are made, the club can consider which path to take, or, that they already took the correct one.

But, for right now, Aronomink exists as Ross intended it to exist, as evidenced through his own hand, his original detailed plans with instructions.

Had Ohio State followed Aronomink's example, you'd be much happier with the work in progress.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Are the notes on the Plainfield plans freehand or typed?
Freehand[/color]

When was Ross on site at Plainfield (if at all)?

I'll check and try to find out, but based on the difficulty of determining when he was on site at Aronomink, and what he did when he was on site, I don't know if we'll be able to get accurate information.[/color]

Why were there no previous attempts in the last 30 years to complete OSU Scarlet to MacKenzie's plans ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

PM: “Aronomink restored their golf course to Ross's intent, as evidenced by his detailed design plans, and not rough field notes.”

TM: How did you determine Ross did not intend the course to be built with clustered bunkers? Was the course constructedin  that way against his will?

It's simple, the course was constructed contrary to his specific detailed plans and written instructions.  And, no evidence has been provided which indicates that he wanted the bunkers built other than to his detailed specifications.[/color]

When was he on site at Plainfield?
When was he on site at Scioto?
When was he on site at Seminole?
I don’t see you questioning the authenticity of those courses.

That's for two reasons.
# 1, this thread has morphed into an Aronomink thread.
If you want to start Plainfield, Scioto or Seminole threads feel free to do so.
# 2, None of those courses have been identified as courses that deviated substantively from his detailed design plans.[/color]

PM: “The seperation by years is irrelevant [at Ohio State], as is the composition of those who completed the work.”

TM: When the separation of years between the design stage and the construction stage includes the death of the designer/builder…I’d say that is fairly relevant.
Not really.
If the detailed plans exist, it doesn't matter if it was a year or ten years between the date the plans were drafted and the date the work was embarked upon.[/color]

As far as the composition of those completing the work being irrelevant, that is probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever said. There are architects who take their name off of projects because of poor or incompetent execution. Tillinghast stated one of the reasons he got out of architecture was the piss poor work of the WPA.

Do you think that Aronomink's bunkers might have been the product of poor or incompetent execution ?  Or was it just Tillinghast who had those experiences ?
With 400+ courses to his credit I'm sure Ross sub-contracted construction work to local firms.  [/color]

PM:“Ross prepared plans for Aronomink.
MacKenzie prepared plans for OSU Scarlet.”

TM: Ross & Associates executed the plans and were paid in full. MacKenzie & Co. did not execute the plans and obviously were not paid in full. Big difference.

Not necessarily.
You don't know if a local contractor was retained for the field work at Aronomink ?
And, the plans created by both men exist, in the absolute, unaltered, and they remain available to all interested parties for review.[/color]

PM: “As a purist, why wouldn't you want both golf courses restored to the original architect's intent, vis a vis the detailled plans they respectively prepared. ?”

TM: You can’t restore something that was never built. The course that Ross said that he planned on being his masterpiece (after inspecting his completed design) was not restored. A preliminary design he ultimately rejected was executed instead…

Here's where you get intellectually dishonest AGAIN.
You don't know if Ross rejected his own plans
In fact you don't know how or why the golf course was built other than to Ross's detailed design plans.
So, please stop mis-stating the facts and misrepresenting what took place.[/color]

I don’t know why a purist would be in favor of that. That would be like building (at OSU) the original 18-hole design MacKenzie ultimately rejected.

It's not even close because you don't know whether Ross embraced, modified or rejected his original plans, and it's dishonest of you to decry otherwise.[/color]

PM: “This is why you have to be careful about giving irrefutable credibility to everything you read. Seminole is FAR from flat, level country. It's downright hilly for Florida, with substantial elevation changes throughout the property.”

TM: I’m certain you know the property far better than Ross did and I’m certain you are more capable of comparing sites than Ross. What was the land like at Seminole when Ross began, is it possible that any of those undulations were created by Ross?

NO  
Let me repeat, NO

And, I"ve spent far more time on that land and am far more familiar with it than you and Ross combined.
For anyone to describe that property flat is absurd.
The elevation changes are DRAMATIC.
Just ask anyone who's familiar with the property.

This is why you can't give unquestioned credibility to everything you read, which you do, if it supports your position.

Calling Seminole FLAT is a JOKE of GIGANTIC proportions.

But, you wouldn't know that because, like so many of the golf courses you comment on with authority,  you've never seen them.[/color]

First you claim Ross was wrong to build the course with clusters. Then you claim he was disingenuous when he spoke about the course.  Now you tell him he is off the mark when talking about the site of one of his great designs. You’re like all the rest of the Ross bashers!

Typically, you've mistated the FACT.

I never said that Ross was wrong, or that HE built the course with clusters.  And, you don't know that he did or didn't, but you're too dishonest to admit it.

As to his comment, I stated, "what else do you think he would say", "that the course turned out awful ?"
And, that his remark may have been purely PR.

As to the site that Seminole sits on, I am intimately familiar with it, and can speak without fear of refutation when stating that that site isn't flat.

You on the other hand have NEVER SEEN the site, but offer up and stridently defend your arrogant opinion despite NEVER having seen the site.  IT AIN'T FLAT TOM.
And, I don't care if Ross swore on a stack of bibles, he'd be wrong in describing the site as FLAT.

And, perhaps he was also wrong when he described Aronomink.  Did that ever occur to you?[/color]



PM: Why were there no previous attempts in the last 30 years to complete OSU Scarlet to MacKenzie's plans ?

TM: Two reasons, the architectural history of the course was not common knwoledge and lack of money.

Who knew of the existance of MacKenzie's plans ?

How much money would a true restoration have cost ?[/color]

Have you read the essay?

I'm waiting for Nicklaus to give me his copy.[/color]

Have you been able to study MacKenzie's plan or play the golf course?

NO [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TM: Considering the fact that Ross was on site during construction,

When was he on site ?
What were the extent of his efforts ?[/color]

the project was overseen by his long time associate and he was obviously pleased with the result, your conjecture makes about much sense as your conjecture that the course was built according to the rough sketches and later altered by a rebel committeeman or greenkeeper.

If you think those detailed plans are rough sketches that can't be converted into golf holes in the ground you have a lot to learn about building golf courses.

First you chose the term "renegade" and now you use the term "rebel" to connote a willful disregard and deliberate attempt to deviate from Ross's plans.

Yet, you never address why the balance of his detailed plans, those rough sketches as you describe them, were built to a "T".

You continue to ponitificate that you know what happened between Point A and Point B, yet, you've yet to produce one piece of credible evidence.  The truth is, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, and you can't admit it.[/color]


PM: That's for two reasons (for not questioning the authenticity of Plainfield, Scioto and Seminole).
# 1, this thread has morphed into an Aronomink thread.
If you want to start Plainfield, Scioto or Seminole threads feel free to do so.
# 2, None of those courses have been identified as courses that deviated substantively from his detailed design plans.

TM: Did Plainfield, Scioto or Seminole deviate from the detailed design plans?

NO.[/color]

TM: Do you think anyone off the street is capable of recreating MacKenzie or Thomas or Thompson. You've got to be kidding me.

Do you mean like some purist from Ohio who thinks he's an architectural expert, who writes essays on how to do it, absent any degree of field or designing expertise ?
NO, I don't think anyone off the street is capable.
I don't think golf courses hire transients or the homeless either.[/color]

PM: Do you think that Aronomink's bunkers might have been the product of poor or incompetent execution ?  Or was it just Tillinghast who had those experiences ?
With 400+ courses to his credit I'm sure Ross sub-contracted construction work to local firms.

TM: No I don't think Aronimink was the result of poor or incompetent execution.

How do you know ?
Who was the general contractor and sub-contractors on the job ?[/color]


Do you? Was Aronimink built by the WPA? Which of Ross's most famous courses were not supervised by Ross & Associates?color=green]

Define supervised, and to the extent that each course was actively, and continuously supervised.

Do you actually think Ross spent all of his time on site supervising all of his 400+ golf courses and numerous revisions ?  You continue to live in a dream world.[/color]

TM: What are you talking about...now we've a got a deranged local conractor at Aronimink.

Why do you call local contractors, who carried out most of Ross's work, deranged ?  To better serve your lack of understanding on how golf course are constructed ?

Next, you'll have Ross himself operating scrapers, dozers and steamshovels.[/color]

TM: You can not restore something that was never built...period.

Tom, that's the exact same thing you want to do at OSU Scarlet, build the golf course to MacKenzie's plans.

Well, Aronomink built Aronomink to Ross's plans, just like he drew and described them.[/color]

The fact is the course as built was supervised by Donald Ross & Associates,

What does that mean ?
Could you provide the details of the supervison or are you speculating with respect to the scope of the work.
If you don't know, which you don't, it's okay to admit it.[/color]
Ross himself was on site

When, for how long, and what functions, if any, did he perform ?  Again, if you don't know, just say so.[/color]

and after the fact he was proud of the results.

Was he ? Or, was he being diplomatic or PC ?
He also described Seminole as FLAT so we can't view what he's alleged to have stated as gospel, can we ?[/color]


TM: We know Ross embraced the course as built...everything else is conjecture.

No, we don't.

TM: Have you seen any preconstruction photos? Surveys? Have you studied Ross plan and detailed notes?

Keep grasping at straws.
You have to be a HORSES ASS to think that Seminole was FLAT, pre or post Ross.

TM: There you go again. You Ross bashers are all alike.

You're like the radicals who, when being arrested and carted off to jail for breaking the law, cried police brutality.
I like Donald Ross's work, always have, but painting those who disagree with you as Ross Bashers shows that you've lost the battle in your own mind, and in a desperate attempt to blemish the opposition and their opinions, you  seek to demonize them.

It won't work.
Admit you don't know the answers. AND,
Admit that Aronomink undertook a prudent path when they rebuilt their golf course as Ross intended, as evidenced by his detailed design plans and his written instructions.[/color]

PM: Who knew of the existance of MacKenzie's plans ? How much money would a true restoration have cost ?

TM: Good question. How do you restore something that never existed?

It's simple, you just execute their detailed design plans and their written instructions.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TM: There is a film of him on site, if you feel it important to pinpoint exactly when he was on site, why don’t you analyze the film, perhaps look to where the sun is in the sky or measure the shadows on the ground or maybe even count the rings of a fallen tree.

That's nice, there's a film of him.  But, you didn't answer the question.  When was he on site, for how long and what did he do while on site ?  You can emphatically state that you don't know.[/color]

Try to stay with the facts as we know them and not get caught up in your wild imagination and conjecture.  Originally your theory was that the course was built according to the plan then later altered by a maverick committeeman or greenkeeper…of course you theory ignored known facts, for example the course had multiple bunkers months after the course opened and the county was in the throws of a depression. And as it turned out your theory was wrong…the course was never built according to the rough sketches....
That was NEVER my theory.
I stated that there were several possibilities as to how the golf course could have gone from Point A to Point B.  And, at the present time, you still don't know how and why it went from Point A to Point B, so stop pretending that you do.[/color]

Your theory now is a maverick long-time associate ignored Ross’s plan and carried out the design of his own…again ignoring the fact that the close associate partnered with Ross for 30+ years, that Ross was on site during construction, and Ross expressed his pleasure with the results.

Your summary is as inaccurate as most of your conclusions.

You haven't presented one thread of evidence that details how the golf course went from Ross's detailed plans to the as built.  Simply put, you don't know, but refuse to admit that you don't know, choosing instead, to make broad generalizations that have no application pertaining to the specifics at Aronomink.[/color]

PM: The truth is, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, and you can't admit it.

TM: The truth is we don’t know how Cypress Point, Seminole, NGLA or Swinley Forest got from Point A to Point B. Do we question their authorship when we have plenty of other evidence to support their involvement?

Let's not try to divert or deflect the question.
Let's stick to Aronomink.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND CAN'T ADMIT IT.[/COLOR]

TM: Do you think anyone off the street is capable of recreating MacKenzie or Thomas or Thompson. You've got to be kidding me.

PM: Do you mean like some purist from Ohio who thinks he's an architectural expert, who writes essays on how to do it, absent any degree of field or designing expertise ? NO, I don't think anyone off the street is capable. I don't think golf courses hire transients or the homeless either.

TM: What do you call WPA workmen?

Laborers.  What do you call them ?

Or, did the laborers at Aronomink have degrees from Harvard, MIT and Princeton ?[/color]
 
TM: No I don't think Aronimink was the result of poor or incompetent execution. Do you? Was Aronimink built by the WPA? Which of Ross's most famous courses were not supervised by Ross & Associates?

Do you mean golf courses Ross never set foot on, visited once, or made token appearances on ?

If Ross delegated work to subordinates do you really believe that each and every subordinate built the golf course exactly as Ross designed it ?[/color]

PM: Who was the general contractor and sub-contractors on the job.

TM: You didn’t answer my questions:
Do YOU think Aronimink was the result of poor or incompetent execution? and Which of Ross’s MOST FAMOUS designs were not supervised by Ross & Associates?

You have no idea as to the scope of the involvement by any representative of R&A on each of their 400+ designs, so please don't posture that you do.[/color]

Donald Ross & Associate was the construction arm that built many of his courses...including Aronimink.

I think you'll find that local contractors built most of his golf courses.[/color]

PM: Define supervised, and to the extent that each course was actively, and continuously supervised.

TM: Overseeing the construction. DJR&A’s senior associate was a member of the club and lived nearby.

So now you've changed your position.
Now DJR&A oversaw the construction, but, didn't perform it.
Perhaps leaving that task to local contractors, which is what I believe I stated some time ago.[/color]

TM: No. There were many courses he never stepped foot upon. I think it is amazing there is film of his actually on site at Aronimink directing the action.  

Tom, it's a random home made film, nothing more, nothing less.
[/color]

TM: 'I intended to makes this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize until today I built better than I knew.' Most rational observers would call that an embrace.

Most rational observers would call it fluff or B.S.
[/color]

PM: You have to be a HORSES ASS to think that Seminole was FLAT, pre or post Ross.

TM: I’ll take that as a ‘no’.

You’ve really got in for Ross….calling him a HORSES ASS….try to control your emotions…your Ross bashing is very disappointing.

I would call anyone who described Seminole as FLAT,
a HORSES ASS.  I doubt that Ross ever made that statement.

And, for you to blindly concur that Seminole is FLAT qualifies you as an even bigger horses ass as well.

You can look at all the pre and post construction photos you want and it won't change the inherent topography.  That site isn't FLAT.

And, I doubt that quote attributed to him in "Golf has never Failed Me" was about Seminole.
Noone, and I repeat, no sober person could describe Seminole as flat.

Just go to the terra server topo map of Juno Beach.
The one from 07-01-85.  Zoom in and you'll see for yourself the dramatic elevation changes that the golf course was built on.  Or, just ask anyone who's played to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th 13th, 14th 16th or 18th green, or teed off from the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th 7th 12th 14th, 15th 17th or 18th tee if they think the property is flat.

The Topo changes are formed by one large and another enormous ridge that run north-south through the property.

Perhaps you'll argue that Ross rebuilt the entire southeastern coast of Florida while he was building the golf course at Seminole..

You accept everything you read as the gospel, when it suits your purpose, without checking it out, yet, you claim that you're a historical researcher.

How on earth could you support and defend the statement that Seminole was built on a flat piece of land ?

Especially since you've never seen it.

Your credibility is eroding faster than the hills and ridges at Seminole.[/color]

TM: That is not a restoration. You can not restore something that never existed.

But, it did exist, on paper, just as he designed it.
You just build the golf course to the detailed design plans and written instructions that Ross penned in his own hand.

And, that's just what Ron Prichard and Aronomink did.

Too bad OSU didn't have the foresight that Aronomink's membership had.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

While the recent posts between you and Pat are not much more than a discussion or dialect, in a few cases they cite facts that have become known since the restoration and that's not the type of chronology that one can intelligently review a decsion by. Even with the inclusion of one fact that became known after the decision or the project would qualify as Monday Morning quarterbacking which is frankly what most of these Aronimink threads have been. It is only prudent to return to what was known when the decision was being made on the bunkers and to include nothing for consideration in this discussion that was not known at that time.

1. Most of the bunkers had been wiped away by redesigns.

2. Neither the club nor the architect were certain how the course had been originally constructed regarding single or cluster bunkers.

3. There were Ross drawings that were definitely enough to go to construction with originally or in a restoration or recent bunker project. You call those plans "rough sketches" but they are hardly that.They're no different W.I. Johnson drawings except they have Ross's hand written text construction instructions on them rather than Johnson's typed text.

4. The rendering you call a formal plan of 4A is an artistic rendering and not the type of drawing that a foreman or construction crew builds to.

5. There may have been W.I Johnson formal drawings but they were not available. Considering the dilemma of what was origingally built vs Ross's plans the only intillengent decsion was Ross's own plans---that is if the club wanted to create real Ross bunkers. For some reason you seem to conclude that what was built had to be Ross's bunker design and intention and that's not a conclusion you or anyone else can make that's as postively Ross as his own bunker plans. You can cite every logic you can think of but the fact is Ross's bunker plans the club had were positively Ross and the rest of the evolution of what was built there simply was just not that positive.

Frankly if you could see the golf course your opinion of what knd of bunkers fit that type of course may be quite different. 200 bunkers in little multi-sets of 2s and 3s doesn't really fit the style of  a golf course like Aronimink. I think today Ron feels that way and so does the club.

There was also a matter of expense that was weighed in the decision making. To both construct and maintain Ross's single bunkers is far more economical.

You may not care about that kind of thing but you're not a member or part of the club that needs to concern itself with that kind of thing. Unfortunately that's a reality of architecture that's generally undeniable. It's easy for a golf course analyst to deny or overlook that fact but that's not the way it works with architects and clubs in restorations. It's one thing for you to cite some type of aesthetic ideal for yourself but to intelligently criitique a club in what they do in a restoration there's always more to it than that.

 

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

That is a terrific summary and maybe now even a conclusion in this and Tommy Mac's universe  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
That is a terrific summary and maybe now even a conclusion in this and Tommy Mac's universe."

Wayne:

That's what I love about you---you're the eternal optimist.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
While you focus on what we don't know and your wacky theories and conjecture...let me list the facts, what we do know. Feel free to add any facts I leave out:

1. There exists a preliminary plan/field sketch in Ross's hand.
There exists detailed designs complete with Ross's instructions
[/color]

2. Ross's preliminary plans/field sketch were often converted into formal plans by Irving Johnson

There is no evidence that that was done at Aronomink.[/color]

3. The formal plan would often depart from the preliminary plan (see Holston Hills)

There is no evidence of that at Aronomink.[/color]

4. The golf course as built would often depart from the formal plan (see Seminole)

There is no evidence of a formal plan at Aronomink.
And, there is no evidence that Ross intended to depart from his detailed design plans and written instructions.[/color]

5. There is evidence that a formal plans was created for Aronimink (see the plans for hole 4A)...those plans appear to be lost at present.

No there isn't.  
There's a rough sketch of a hole labeled 4A
Find and produce the formal plan that you maintain the existance of.  If you can't, then you can't claim one exists.[/color]

6. The golf course was constructed by Donald J. Ross & Associates, the consturction arm of Donald Ross.
Not true, that's just the name of the firm given the contract.
You don't know which work was sub-contracted.[/color]

7. JB McGovern, long-time associate of DJR (30+ years), supervised the construction.

To what degree remains open.[/color]

8. JB McGovern was a member of Aronimink and lived nearby.

That's true.[/color]

9. Donald Ross was on site during construction...there exists a film of Ross directing work at Aronimink.

Ross visited Aronomink and a home film was made.
You don't know if it was for public relations or promotional reasons, nor do you know the scope of Ross's involvement or the amount of time he spent on site directly involved with construction.[/color]

10. The golf course was constructed with clusters of bunkers, a departure from the preliminary plan/field sketch.
That's not true.  Those weren't preliminary sketches, they were detailed design plans complete with Ross's written instructions.  You continue to be intellectually dishonest in this matter.[/color]

11. In 1948 after visiting the as built Aronimink DJR said, "I intended to makes this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew."

Twenty (20) years after the course was completed he's alleged to have made this statement.
Since the golf course had been modified since the 1928 original I wonder if he knew what part of the golf course he was talking about.

And, if it's alleged that he called Seminole FLAT, one has to question his credibility when it came to describing his work, or the sites he worked on.

Have you looked at the topo yet ?

Have you noticed the dramatic changes in elevation ?

Changes you don't find on FLAT property.[/color]

12. At the time of his death Aronimink was mentioned among Ross's 8 or 10 most important designs.

Which version of Aronomink, and by whom ?[/color]

You continue to fail to understand that Aronomink made a prudent decision to build Aronomink as Ross had intended it to be built, according to his detailed hole by hole design plans and his hole by hole, feature by feature, written instructions.

You just don't get it.
And, it's doubtful that you ever will[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE
Two corrections, the plan you refer to as an artistic rendering is called a cross-section analyses in 'Discovering Donald Ross'.

So What ?  That doesn't mean it's unimpeachable, factual information, any more than the quote in "Golf has never failed Me" that states that Seminole is flat.

That drawing isn't a PLAN, it's an artistic rendering, and that's all it is.[/color]

It would have been one part of a three part set of renderings created by Irving Johnson

You don't know if there was one, two or three plans.
And, to date, only one set of plans has been produced.
How can you state with absolute certainty that two other plans exist if neither you or anyone else has ever seen them ?

You call yourself a historical researcher ?

But, in reality, You're a fabricator[/color]

--the other two, a large scale map of the entire course and two-demesnional overhead views of each hole and each green, with the notes. Its unfortunate these formalized plans are gone...

YOU DON"T KNOW IF THEY EVER EXISTED.

You have NO proof of their existance.
So, if they never existed, how can they be gone ?[/color]

no doubt they (the full set) were used to construct the golf course as built.

More fabrication on your part.
How can you claim these sets existed if NOONE"S EVER SEEN THEM ?

You continue to make up things to support your flawed position and conclusions.[/color]

The other correction, the rough sketches do not always match the formalized plans--Holston Hills is a good example.

We're talking about Aronomink.
And those aren't rough sketches as you'd like those who read your words to believe.  You're being intellectually dishonest AGAIN.
Ross's detailed hole by hole design plans along with Ross's hand written instructions exist for all to examine.

The alleged formalized plans of Aronomink that you fabricated and referenced have never had their existance documented.

Your imagination is getting the best of you.
Deal with reality, like the topography of Seminole [/color]
 

Bob Huntley,

This one's for you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()