OSU Scarlet restoration

[TEPaul]

So as to include the last bits of information (that I was heretofore not aware of) on the Aronimink Ross single bunkers vs the cluster bunkers that were originally built and how the recent bunker project played out I should report I spoke to Ron Prichard the other day and he did have that 1931 Pa Amateur Championship tournament program from the Delaware Valley Times well before the bunker project was begun.

To reiterate, that 1931 (3-5 years after the bunkers were built) program shows on some really beautiful hole by hole drawings by artist William Sickels the Ross single bunker plan almost exactly. (there is no cluster bunkering at all on Sickels hole by hole drawings).

However, back then (when the decison was being considered of what to create in the recent bunker restoration project) there were no aerials available showing the course in the late 1920s (1939 was the only aerial available). Those late 1920s aerials were found at the Hagley within the last month.

And so, Prichard and the club assumed that the bunkering was built as per Ross's drawings and the bunkering was later changed to clusters. (the fact that the cluster bunkers are all in the same places as the Ross plan's single bunkers lead Ron to conclude at some point in the 1930s Ross's single bunkers were simply divided into 2s and 3s).

Did it occur to Ron and the club before the bunker project that those very detailed artistic drawings of the course and its bunkering in 1931 are not as conclusive as an aerial photograph of 1931 or before? Perhaps not. Did it occur to them then that Sickels may've copied Ross's late 1920s drawings in 1931 instead of going out and drawing the bunkers on the golf course hole by hole? No it did not. It may not have occured to anyone that that happened until it occured to me in the last month.

It gets a bit stranger too. While the Sickels bunker drawings in 1931 almost exactly match Ross's bunker drawings (assuming Sickels did actually copy Ross's drawings) nevertheless there are a few minor variations (additions and subtractions) between the Ross drawings and the Sickels drawings (perhaps a good half dozen variations)? Why would that have been if Sickels copied Ross's drawings? Perhaps Ross submitted a few minor single bunker variation drawings following the Ross single bunker drawings we do have. If Ross did that they have not been found.

Is there a distinct similarity between the cluster bunkers that were built at Aronimink and the cluster bunkers that were built previously at nearby Jeffersonville G.C. (a course that it's been pretty much concluded by all that McGovern did under the Ross company but with little or no input from Donald Ross)? There most certainly is a distinct similarity. Not only is there a distinct similarity with those cluster bunkers of Jeffersonville and Aronimink but there is also a very interesting mention in that same 1931 PA Amateur Championship tournamement program in an advertisement for Jeffersonville G.C. that mentions the courses's 'unusual traps'.

Did the club, Ross, McGovern or anyone else make a big deal over the fact that Aronimink was built with cluster bunkers but the Sickels drawings in 1931 showed Ross's single bunkers? Apparently not. At least not anywhere near the extent that Tom MacWood has made of the difference---eg calling the recent bunker project of Ross's single bunker drawings a mistake that departed from what Tom MacW called a remarkable course (apparently only meaning the fact of the cluster bunkers!).

Is there any evidence that Ross himself changed those Aronimink bunkers to clusters from his previously drawn singles? No there is not. Could Ross have changed them himself? Of course. Could it be possible that he did not change them himself? Of course. Could it be that he simply gave his foreman J.B. McGovern some artistic license in this way? Of course! Did Ross's apparent surprise that seems evident in his famous statement years later that the course was built better than he knew have anything to do with that bunker change? Perhaps, but which of those scenarios really was the case we may never know.

If anyone back in 1931 made a big deal of the difference one would certainly wonder why Ross Aronimink foreman and Aronimink member J.B. McGovern and club member Walter Maxwell never mentioned anything about the difference when they did their hole by hole textual commentary in that 1931 PA Amateur Championship tournament program in the Delaware County Times.

Probably the logical answer to all that which I was discussing the other day with Ron Prichard is that we on here about 75 years after the fact make very large mountains out of very small molehills compared to the way those involved back then looked at the same things we look at today!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

First of all, you don't know the FACTS at Aronomink.
You have no clue as to how the golf course, specifically the bunkers, transitioned from Point A to Point B.

All of you conclusions are speculative.
As are mine and everyone else's.

But, in view of the bunker configuration at Jeffersonville .....

With respect to Seminole,
Would you pinpoint the exact spots where Seminole, as built, differs, systemically, from Ross's detailed design plans ?

TEPaul,

There are mounds dividing the 15th fairway.
Bunkers are interspersed with them.

Kevin Reilly,

You have to understand something.

Tom MacWood cannot admit when he's wrong.

He cannot admit that his research is flawed and that his conclusions are erroneous.  

It's a shortcoming that casts doubt on his credibility as a intellectually honest historical researcher.
It undermines the value of his efforts.

But, in the spirit of "fairness", the betting window will remain perpetually open for him.

I missed Shivas's post, what thread was it on ?

[Lou_Duran]

OK boys.  I'll settle the dispute.  Have Mr. Paul set up a round at Seminole for me this fall and I'll render the final word.  BTW, what is more undulating/hillier, a site with 50' of elevation change on the mostly flat eastern coast of FL, or 500' in the mountain regions of CO or WV?

It does take some balls to question TMac's scholarship.  Messrs. Mucci and Paul, are you published?  Do you have the educational credentials to pursue such an aggressive challenge?

Let's get back to the OSU restoration and examine how Jack Nicklaus can take a course which has only minimal MacKenzian characteristics from the outset and "restore" it to one that does.  Which of the par 3s should be shortened?  Where do we get the gamy short 4s?  How does Nicklaus achieve the deep, large bunkering style on a relatively flat site (some exceptions on the back side)?  How do you restrict play to allow building a variety of small, medium, and large greens?  Given the clientele, how do you build MacKenzie or Maxwell greens with considerable internal contouring and significant slope even running under 10'?

   

[Kirk Gill]

prudent people must look at his conclusion with ENLIGHTENED SUSPICION.

Now that's a concept I can wrap my mind around, regardless of who you're talking about !

And you're right about my statements, they were interpretations, nothing more. I admitted to not having played the course.

Also, Mr. Paul, my use of the term "dune" was taken from the article on Seminole found on this site and quoted in my previous post. Needless to say, I defer to your long-standing familiarity with the course.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
There are mounds dividing the 15th fairway.
Bunkers are interspersed with them."

Pat:

Right. What I was saying is there were no bunkers amongst those mounds on Ross's plan but they were built with the course. There was no diagonal bunker scheme built across the beginning of #16th fairway as was called for on the plan. Those two minor exceptions are definitely not what I would call 'departing from the plan as built'.

[TEPaul]

"It does take some balls to question TMac's scholarship."

Lou:

You're joking right? Please say you're joking. It doesn't take balls at all. All it takes is a half-way decent set of eyes which both Pat and I have when it comes to Seminole golf course and whether it's flat or not or ever was. Forget that MacWood scholarship crap----the fact that Seminole is not a flat site is undeniable. It's flat in the center of the property between those two ridgelines that are definitely not flat. The western ridgeline and its elevation is not that common in that part of Florida. I don't believe Tom MacWood ever actually said Seminole's site is entirely flat but if he did then anyone should just throw his "scholarship" in the shitter and tell him as we've been doing for years now to just get on a plane and go see the place for himself. At that point he would learn something, not the least of which is neither Pat or I are bashing Donald Ross.  

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

 

Obviously, you didn't attend one of those fine land grant schools where they teach you all that is relevant, basic, and wholesome in the world.  I can only surmise from the considerable record you've established here, that you were trained in the northeast, quite possibly at one of those Ivy League schools of relativism and political correctness.

Admitedly I lack the pedigree to set foot on the hallowed, hilly grounds of Seminole.   However I would make a small wager well within my means and state in life, say a light domestic beer, that most experienced golfers would place the Seminole site on the flat side of a flat to hilly continium.  Of course, I could be totally wrong.  Whatever work I've had published was done so under the name of the professors and corporate officers I worked for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEP,

 

Obviously, you didn't attend one of those fine land grant schools where they teach you all that is relevant, basic, and wholesome in the world.  I can only surmise from the considerable record you've established here, that you were trained in the northeast, quite possibly at one of those Ivy League schools of relativism and political correctness.
Lou,

TEPaul served in the Marine Corps, so you can forget all about the refined, frilly nonsense you posted above.[/color]

Admitedly I lack the pedigree to set foot on the hallowed, hilly grounds of Seminole.   However I would make a small wager well within my means and state in life, say a light domestic beer, that most experienced golfers would place the Seminole site on the flat side of a flat to hilly continium.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.  

You are.

Do I get a beer too ?[/color]

Whatever work I've had published was done so under the name of the professors and corporate officers I worked for.

[Lou_Duran]

P. Mucci,

After I've played the course, and if I deem that I was mistaken, I'll buy you pitcher.

Surely you've heard the story about Seve's ex-father-in-law commenting in public something to the effect that you can take the boy out of the caddie shack but not the caddie shack out of the boy.

I am just trying to have a bit of fun with you guys, much as you are with Tom (I hope).  This is just another of many examples of how intelligent people can look at the same thing (object, set of facts, etc.) and come up with such disparate conclusions.  It does make life interesting (as if it is not challenging enough the way it is).

[Patrick_Mucci]

After I've played the course, and if I deem that I was mistaken, I'll buy you pitcher.

Glad to see that you're joining Tom MacWood in assessing the golf course without ever having seen it[/color]

Surely you've heard the story about Seve's ex-father-in-law commenting in public something to the effect that you can take the boy out of the caddie shack but not the caddie shack out of the boy.

Seve's ex-father-in-law is a Johnny come lately.
That's an old phrase that referenced Brooklyn.
"You can take the boy out of Brooklyn, but, you can't take Brooklyn out of the boy"[/color]

I am just trying to have a bit of fun with you guys, much as you are with Tom (I hope).  

This is just another of many examples of how intelligent people can look at the same thing (object, set of facts, etc.) and come up with such disparate conclusions.  
No, it's not that at all.
Tom MacWood has never seen Seminole
TEPaul has seen it about 1,000 times and I've seen it about 100.  In spite of Tom MacWood's never having seen the golf course, he offers his view as the ONLY correct view, which it isn't.[/color]

It does make life interesting (as if it is not challenging enough the way it is).

"Interesting" would be if TEPaul, who has seen the golf course 1,000 times took a position regarding Seminole, offering his concept or theory that we subsequently discuss or debate.

"Stupidity" is posturing your infallibility about a golf courses characteristics, its topography, when you've never seen it.

There is a substantive difference.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"However I would make a small wager well within my means and state in life, say a light domestic beer, that most experienced golfers would place the Seminole site on the flat side of a flat to hilly continium."

The flat side of the flat to hilly continuum???

Come on Lou, what kind of bull is that?

It's pretty simple really with Seminole that not only any experienced golfer can see but any golfer can see, anyone at all who can see frankly can tell in about five minutes that Seminole is flat in the middle, with a dune ridge-line all along its eastern border probably 20 or more feet high, about a 40 foot ridgeline all along its western border.

Call that the flat side of a flat to hilly continuum if you want. Call it eastern establishment, call it political correctness, call it an ice cream cone or call it Elle McPherson if you want, I don't care. It just is what it is as Pat and I have explained---which is the entire site just ain't flat, no way no how.  

[TEPaul]

"This is just another of many examples of how intelligent people can look at the same thing (object, set of facts, etc.) and come up with such disparate conclusions."

Lou:

I will absolutely gurarntee you if Pat, Tom MacWood and I go to Seminole together and look at it together and Tom MacWood comes to a vastly different and disparate conclusion about the topography of the entire site of Seminole than Pat and I then Tom MacWood has a major league problem with either his eyes or his mind!

 

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Paul,

In TMac's place, I'll join you and Pat at Seminole.  Just let me know when you want the balls in the air.

BTW, I am not convinced that Tom MacWood exists.  I was a regular at Scarlet in the 1970s and never met him.  The asst. pro I talked to knows him from the article but has never met him either.  Are you sure he is not Pat Mucci talking to himself?

[HamiltonBHearst]

This I will pay to see.  Macwood against Mucci at Seminole.  I have an idea though, Macwood only gets to play the flat holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

HBH,

Now that would be a just torture.  

[TEPaul]

"BTW, I am not convinced that Tom MacWood exists.  I was a regular at Scarlet in the 1970s and never met him."

Lou;

This is 2005 you know. Obviously it hasn't occured to you that you may not have met Tom MacWood at the Scarlet in the 1970s because he may've been in diapers then. The man is a callow youth. Pat Mucci and I are probably twice his age and consequently twice as smart and at least four times more knowledgeable than the wet behind the ears little wiper-snapper. It's common for these callow youths to think they know it all. But as the ages have proven they should just shut up and listen to their elders.

[T_MacWood]

"First you said that Seminole was FLAT."

Pat
I know its esay to ignore my short little question, especially when you and TE are having so much fun mocking yours truly, but where did I say Seminole was FLAT?

[T_MacWood]

If you need help lookinh for my exact words....here a synopsis of how your Ross/Seminole tirade became...a question regarding how Ross built Seminole and bunker placement:

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

TM: 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."

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.

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.

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?

PM: 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….Typically, you've mistated the FACT.
 
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.

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

PM: Keep grasping at straws.
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.

PM: 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.

PM: Tom MacWood,

Desperate men do desperate things.

And now that you're trapped like a rat, you attempt to divert the focus from your colossal BLUNDER.

Your claim that Seminole is FLAT.

It shows how flawed your research is.
It shows how willing you are to cling to something you've read, as the gospel, in spite of how incorrect the statement is.
And, it reveals that you're unwilling to accept irrefutable facts when they dispute and refute your position….

Not at Seminole and not at Jupiter Hills Tommy boy.

I asked you to look at the topos that show the dramatic changes in elevations at Seminole and you continue to fail to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking aobut.

Why can't you admit that you screwed up ?
That you accepted an alleged quote as fact, when it wasn't.

You are a HORSES ASS! Florida is not flat,
Correct, you are a horses ass.
Seminole is not FLAT as you claimed.

You're also a fraud, an intellectually dishonest one at that.
You've lost the issue about Seminole being FLAT and you can't admit that you were DEAD WRONG, and that the quote you cited was flawed, so you try to shift the focus to the State of Florida, which has nothing to do with the site specific topic we were discussing, SEMINOLE.
That's being intellectually dishonest, and you know it, so do I, and so does everybody else….You're a fraud Tommy boy.
You won't acknowledge the topo map of Seminole and the dramatic changes in elevation ?  You put all of your faith and credibility in an erroneous statement and never bothered to RESEARCH the facts.  And, what's even more amazing is that you continue to cling to that position, the wild notion that Seminole is FLAT.

The quote you cited is incorrect.
Seminole is not FLAT.
And, the fact that you continue to defend the quote as being an accurate depiction of the land, in the face of topos showing just the opposite, as well as accounts from others stating that Seminole isn't FLAT, shows that you can't admit when you've screwed up.  That you're research is flawed, and your credibility compromised.

That you put all of your faith and credibility in a FICTIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE SITE, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary indicates that you can't draw intelligent conclusions and ADMIT WHEN YOU'RE DEAD WRONG and that  your research is flawed.

Desperate men do desperate things.

You're efforts to divert the focus from your obvious and enormous BLUNDER won't work, you've been had.

TM:
Pat
I believe you have me confused with Donald Ross...I'll take that as compliment. Thank you.

PM: False in one, false in many.

Your die hard allegiance to a highly inaccurate statement, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is indicative of faulty research and a failure to verify the FACTS on your part.

That you can't admit that you're wrong indicates that you won't accept factual documentation that proves your position to be incorrect, and it undermines what little credibility you had left.

Your insistance that Seminole is FLAT, based on an alleged quote by DJR leads one to view anything you cite with enlightened suspicion.

You can make light of your enormous blunder all you want, you tried to promote and perptetuate a fraud and can't admit that you made a colossal mistake.

That's intellectually dishonest and undermines your credibility

But, I"m sure that you already knew that..

TM: Pat
May I suggest more roughage in your diet.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

From post #323;

"I don't believe Tom MacWood ever actually said Seminole's site is entirely flat....."

How about telling me why you think Seminole "as built" departed so much from Ross's plan?

[TEPaul]

"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?"

Tom MacW:

Obviously continuous questions like that lead Pat Mucci to keep saying the things he has about you in this ridiculous "Seminole flat" on-going thread. What is your purpose in asking a question like that? Are you actually questioning if the eastern and western ridgelines were there before Ross worked on that course? Are you suggesting you think it may be possible that Ross actually created those two significant elevation change ridgelines?

I think this days old nutty debate can end right here and now if you just answer those questions once and for all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your support of Ross's alleged quote that Seminole is Flat is sufficient evidence that you believe every word of his quote to be true and accurate, despite the fact that it isn't.

For you to posture that Ross created the elevation changes is mind bogglingly absurd and further proof of your desperate attempt to defend your non-existant research and erroneous conclusions regarding the golf course at Seminole.

That you don't see the danger in accepting alleged quotes as The Gospel is likewise mind boggling, especially for such a self proclaimed, expert, historical researcher such as yourself.

But, you can't accept Ross's obvious error in describing Seminole as FLAT, because it undermines your position regarding Aronomink.  

For if Ross erred, or the quote is inaccurate regarding Seminole, the same is possible regarding Aronomink, and that just might shoot holes in your argument.

You might also recall that you changed your position and declared that Seminole was 75 % FLAT, which is WRONG.

The fact is, you've NEVER seen Seminole.
And, you never saw a topo of Seminole until my expert research abilities produced one for you.
The FACT is, you don't know what you're talking about, but, typically, you've doubled your efforts.

And, you've been intellectually dishonest.

By the way, the betting window remains open on the 25 foot maximum elevation differential you claimed.

I'll let you combo it with the Hamilton B Hearst/LIRR/Patrick Mucci bet.  That way one of us will hit the daily double.

Remember Tom, false in one, false in many.

Don't pontificate and claim infallibility on a topic you know nothing about, Seminole.

TEPaul,

He's been exposed for the fraud he is.

Trying to pawn himself off as an expert on many things that he's totally unfamiliar with.

What credible historical researcher would blindly accept an alleged quote by Ross about Seminole being FLAT without seeing the property or obtaining a topo prior to offering his opinion as an expert opinion, beyond challenge.

Tom MacWood,

Just admit you were wrong with respect to your belief and blind support of Ross's erroneous statement or misquote.

Are you afraid that others will now think, false in one, false in many ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

First lets wait to see if Tom MacWood really is suggeting Ross may've created those two ridge-lines on a site that he thinks was entirely flat before Ross got there.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm up late and just noticed that this thread was about to fall off the first page (and therefore into certain oblivion) and I think I'm speaking for every member of GCA when I say that I can't conscientiously permit that to happen.  

Therefore, I'm bringing this back to the top.  

For those of you (I can't imagine who you are?) who haven't yet done so, please go back to page #1 and read the whole thing.

Then, I'm sure you can just thank me for my selfless act in returning this thread to its due prominence.  (Hint...just send money).  

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

If Tom MacWood supplies a couple of straight-forward answers to the 2-3 questions on post #337 I can't imagine why this debate on whether or not Seminole's entire site is flat or was flat before Ross got there would continue.

It also occurs to me that what Ross may've been referring to when he mentioned flat sites and Seminole may not necessarily be the architectural features he designed and shaped there but the rather unique water control design and system Ross created on that course and site. One of the key evidences of that sophisticated water control system at Semnole is that rather odd looking berm in the tree-line all along the right side of the 9th hole (the south side of the golf course).

[paul cowley]

....being a first hand witness to the site in question [some would even consider me an expert witness], and after a thorough examination of the site, I find that, although there are flattish areas in the middle of the of property,the presense of two major NATURAL landforms to the east and west would disqualify the site from being considered flat.

.....unless , and one should never rule out ANY possibility , it was discovered that the site in question was a construction endeavor that would have been considered the Shadow Creek of its day , with no one around to chronicle its fabrication.