"You don't see the inconsistancies?"
Tom MacWood:
I certainly do not, because there aren't any.
“Version 1: The course was probably built with clusters, but for all we know the course was redesigned right after the opening. Prichard says Jeffersonville and Aronimink the only Ross courses he was aware of with mulitbunker scheme (later corrected by Forse and others).”
I was explaining to you that that was my belief of what Prichard and the club felt perhaps 4-5 years ago when he first called me and I first went over there. At that point it was that no one was completely sure when those bunkers were built. That’s why he called me in the first place---eg to ask what I thought about that. That was the poser---the question---that was the question on which a decision needed to be made as to what to do in the bunker project.
“Version 2: The course built with clusters and unlikely changed after construction, the clusters are probably McGovern's fault.”
That was certainly part of the thought process back then. That was a real possibility to all of us. That was part of the question of who was responsible for those bunkers.
“Version 3: Prichard never believed the course was built with clusters, it was remodeled during the Depression, and he has the proof (the program).”
This is the correction I made in this entire series of posts you’ve quoted from around 9/5/04 to about 9/8/04. The reason I made that correction was because of the discussion we were having in that thread you took these quotes from. Simply to check what I was reporting on here of the chronology of all this at that point, Sept ’04, I called Prichard and asked him again about this chronology and his researching. At that point he either first told me or first explained to me that he had that tournament program. If he mentioned it to me before that I did not remember it. I’d never seen that tournament program until about three weeks ago. It was in a file in Texas and it took him a good deal of time to find it again. Why did he look for it again? Because of these discussions on here, that’s why. As I’ve told you a number of times on here I was not aware of that tournament program 4-5 years ago. And because I wasn’t I did not realize until Sept ’04 the significance of it to him in what he felt about when those bunkers were done. I can’t remember now when I first became aware of that tournament program other than definitely around Sept ’04. And I’ve also told you a number of times, still today I do not know when Ron Prichard first became aware of it.
“Version 4: Prichard and the club believed the course was originally constucted with clusters which are in McGovern's style (similar to version 2).”
Version 4 is from about a week ago after we finally discovered the Dallin aerials from 1929 and before that showed the course built with those cluster bunkers. This is the first time that was finally proven, or are you unaware of that? This is not a new version of the facts back 4-5 years ago or even in Sept ’04 from which you quoted those other three versions. This is new information that was discovered about a week ago. Are you really so stupid or so intransigent that you can’t see the significance of that at this point? I suppose not as you include this fourth version as me changing the story. What I reported on 7/1/05, I did not know in Sept ’04 No one knew who was part of this project there were Dallin aerials at the Hagley from 1929 and before and certainly not you
"And these version all come after the fact, long after the 'restoration' took place (three of these versions are given just days a part)....its not like it was a case of evolving verions during the process of researching, digesting and analyzing the facts."
Again, those versions are given days apart Sept '04 for the reasons given above. We were discussing this on here and to find answers to the questions during that discussion I called Ron Prichard again in Sept of '04. That is probably when he began searching again for that tournament program in files in both Pa and Texas.
“Version 4 comes after Wayne (and you) found the photos at the Hagley that show the course was built with the clusters.”
It certainly does. It’s called new facts that were discovered. Is that too complicated for you to understand somehow?
“Which version is the accurate one?”
The lastest one is the most accurate version of what happened in this chronology as I’ve known it from 4-5 years ago until today. Will there be other or more accurate versions in the future? That’s certainly possible, don’t you think? Or do you have some aversion to new information? You very well might if one looks at the things you say and the logic you tend to use sometime. I remember well when you tried to claim or even prove that Crump could not have wanted his holes separated by trees unless I could actually produce something in writing from him to that effect!! Is it possible, Tom MacWood, that you actually assume and conclude that if someone can't produce something in writing from someone that it could not have happened. When it seems convenient to your opinion it seems you actually say that. When it seems convenient to your opinion it also appears you don't. This idea of yours that Ross must have intended and approved those cluster bunker is a case in point. There's no proof of that--nothing written anywhere that you or anyone else is aware of at this point. But still even without it you're trying to claim proof somehow!
What if documented written material turns up proving McGovern decided to design and build those bunkers on his own? And what if documented written material turns up that Ross designed those alterations? Is there some reason you think that’s the same thing? But at this point, right now, as I type, as far as I know no one knows the answer to that question----and least of all you. There is no proof at this point---only opinions. These are the questions one needs to deal with when assembling and analyzing research material at any particular time while working in the field on restoration projects and when attempting to make a decision on a difficult question.
The decision back then before going into construction revolved mostly around doing bunkers that the club could be sure really were Ross’s. This whole fixation on “as builts” without any real proof of who did them (the clusters) was something that you inserted into this entire discussion. The primary point back then was to be sure the bunkers to be built were Ross’s. They had that proof with his plans. They did not with the “as builts”.
In my opinion, today they made the right decision. That opinion seems to be shared by most everyone. You’re an exception and perhaps John Goesslin is too although he certainly did say he understands the decision made and does not disagree with it as you do. At least he has the benefit of knowing the golf course which even to date you don’t.