News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2005, 07:33:59 PM »
Tom MacWood:

Basically on the bunker restoration project and the sequence of it you know very little and have not yet even managed to figure out how it's been reported by me on here, and generally all for your benefit since no one else out there seems to agree with you or care about it. Does that tell you anything?

As for John Gosselin, nice try but try again. He explained in his post on some of these threads that he was long gone from Aronimink by the time this bunker project got started. He certainly knows the golf course but not the restoration project. Perhaps he did prefer to see that multi-set bunker look restored. I did too about 5-6 years ago when Tom Elliott explained it to me. But since then the question of whether they were Ross's arose as did those Ross drawings. The point is the club wanted to be sure they were doing Ross's bunkers and not someone else's.

Your insistence that Ross had to have approved or even been aware those 2s and 3s were being built in place of his singles has become comical. Of course he may have been aware of it as easily as he may not have but the fact that you still can't figure that out just goes to prove how totally full of shit your assumptions, conclusions, opinions and criticisms really can be.

One more time---tell me how you can prove Ross was aware of that bunker change other than your own obdurate opinion? Or is it your opinion that is now passing as proof and "expert research"? I guess so and that's more comical than anything else from you has been to date.

As for that tournament program and Ross's hole by hole drawings, I have them right here on my desk and may give them to Wayne but on the other hand I may not. What's the point really? Even in plain view on here there's little doubt in my mind you'd find some way to totally misunderstand them and their significance in the decision making in that project.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2005, 07:39:22 PM »
""Tom MacW:
If that's what you call a restoration, no wonder you don't like restorations! Who redesigned that hole, Michael Hurzdan?"

Tom MacWood;

What problem do you have with that remark? I don't care who did them--Hurzdan, Prichard, me or even you. I just call it how I see it. For some odd reason it seems to be you that thinks Pat Mucci and I endorse every single thing Ron Prichard and Rees Jones has done. Neither one of us ever said anything like that on here or anywhere else although you seem to have said that about us a number of times. And in your odd sequence of logic after you've said that a few times it seems to become a fact in your mind.  :)

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2005, 07:43:46 PM »
Another funny thing about those bunker clusters at Aronimink is I seriously doubt they were as sand flashed up as you seem to think they were. Of course that's not easy to tell from a photo from the tee in 1929 of bunkers about 375 yards and more away or from an overhead aerial from 6,000 ft but I sure wouldn't expect you to understand that.  ;)

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2005, 08:18:10 PM »
"Which version of the project and the sequence? Your first version? Second? Third? Fourth?"

What are you talking about now?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2005, 08:50:18 PM »

You are really sold on the need to go to the university president and the board.

YES, I am.
It certainly couldn't hurt, and it might have shed the necessary light on the issue that would have caused them to re-evaluate their intentions.

And, even if nothing came of it, at least you could feel comfortable knowing that you did everything you could to influence the outcome of the project.  Now, you'll always be disappointed and question your token effort.
[/color]

Do you think that would done the trick at Yale?
I don't know, but again, it couldn't have hurt.
[/color]

Did you tell George or Geoff Childs they should take that route?

I did suggest that Geoff take the issue to the highest authorities at Yale.
[/color]

At OSUGC an intelligent analysis of the situation, including how the project was financed (a $10 million private donation), would have drawn the conclusion that the president/board approach was a non starter.

You have to state that in order to assuage your failure to act to save your beloved golf course.
[/color]

Based upon ANGC's systematic removal of all signs of MacKenzie and Jones, I see no evidence they understood/understand their courses architectural history. And your consistent defense of their actions puts you in serious doubt as well.

That's typical of you.
ANGC hasn't systematically removed all signs of MacKenzie and Jones.  Only a moron or someone who's never seen ANGC, or both, would say that.

Ask anyone whether they feel that the current 10th and 16th holes aren't far better than the originals.
[/color]

Rees added his own handiwork at 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Are we going to over this again? I think there might be a past thread which would give you more details if you desire them.   :)

Yes, I would like to go over them.
And, let's deal with reality, let's deal with what existed on the golf course the week before Rees arrived, not what was there 80 years prior, that was destroyed over time by the membership, and let's go over the mandate of the membership to NOT restore the golf course.

Get your facts right before you make bold, absurd pronouncements.
[/color]

Ross did not design and build Aronimink? Who did?

Ross's detailed designs, hole by hole, feature by feature, green by green exist.  I've seen them.  Ron Prichard returned Aronomink to how Ross clearly designed and depicted it, based on those detailed designs.

Do you know by whom, how and why the bunkers at Aronomink were built differently than as depicted in Ross's detailed plans ?

If you don't, just admit that YOU DON"T KNOW.

It won't be the first time that you've drawn an erroneous conclusion
[/color]




TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2005, 09:34:34 PM »
"The thread linked below had at least two versions of the sequence and thought process. The McGovern thread has another version...maybe two. You are constantly changing the story....what is the story today? Did Prichard believe the course was built with clustered bunkers or followed the rough sketches?"

There are no multiple versions of the story I've presented on here. If you read what I said it's my understanding (and from Ron Prichard) that at first he and the club believed those bunkers may've originally been built in clusters but they weren't sure about that. That's the first I ever heard about it from Ron Prichard. As I've said many times on here he called me up and asked me if I thought it was possible that they may've been changed in the 1930s. I remember saying that didn't seemed that likely to me.

I'm not certain of it but I believe Prichard had Ross's hole by hole sketches from the very beginning of the Aroninmink restoration which preceded the bunker project by a few years. The question of why those clusters were so different from Ross's plans was the poser.

This was complicated by the fact that at Jeffersonville which Prichard had worked on previously there were some of the same bunker clusters. This is even implied in an ad for Jeffersonville in that tournament program I've mentioned. There's not much question that Jeffersonville was a McGovern project for the Ross company. It's always been felt by Jeffersonville (who did extensive research to determine if they really were Ross) that Ross probably never even saw that course, and may not have designed it. Clearly this led Ron Prichard to wonder if it was McGovern and not Ross who was responsible for those cluster bunkers at Aronimink.

What I did not know until relatively recently was when Ron Prichard came upon that tournament program for the Pennsylvania Amateur Championship in July 1931 from the Delaware County Times that depicts by artist William Herbert Sickels those bunkers as the same singles that almost exactly match Ross's hole by hole drawings that I believe Ron feels were done in 1927 or 1928. There are no clusters of bunkers at all in those hole by hole Sickel drawings of Aronimink in July 1931.

If you cannot understand at this point why that created an additional mystery about whether or not those clusters were built originally or the singles that may've been built originally were changed to clusters in the 1930s by basically creating divisions in those singles than you have to be pretty dense.

And if you cannot understand how much Aronimink really wanted bunkering definitely designed by Ross than I think you're pretty dense. They did not want to take the chance that the bunkers they were going to do were McGovern's. Despite what you may assume about McGovern being some great architect because he worked for Ross for 28 years the feeling has never been the same around here where we've had McGovern work to evaluate for years. How in the world you think you're able to evaluate McGovern work which you've never even seen better than we do around here is beyond me but nothing you come up with can surprise me anymore.

Until about two weeks ago when I called the Hagley and Wayne went down there neither I nor Prichard nor the club as far as I know was sure if the bunkers had been built as singles or clusters originally. That finally proved they were originally built as clusters.

Ron Prichard says he went to the Hagley but all they could find on Aronimink was the 1939 aerial that he originally had when he first called me about 4-5 years ago to ask if I thought it was reasonable that the bunkers may've been changed from singles to clusters in the 1930s.

There are no multiple versions of this story. The only change in any version I've presented on here is I've never been sure when Ron came upon that tournament program and I said that on here quite some time ago (that I was not sure or aware of that program until the last year or so) but that did apparently change his thinking that the bunkers probably were built as singles and changed in the 1930s to clusters. I very much doubt he had that program when he originally called me about 4-5 years ago.

But the thing you can't seem to appreciate or understand is just how much the club wanted Ross bunkers and how much they did not want to take the chance that they were some other iteration that may've been his foreman's. And personally I can see nothing remotely wrong with a club dedicatedly wanting to restore or create bunkers on their course that were defiinitely designed by Donald Ross. Not just designed by him but also some of the best and most comprehensive drawings by Ross himself Prichard says he's ever seen!

At that point I think many of us felt that it was actually extremely interesting that the club may be creating bunkers of Ross's own Aronimink design that may not have been originally built for whatever reason. Some felt that fact alone was extremely interesting and unique.

Whoever it was who was responsible for those clusters built originally, whether it was Ross or McGovern without Ross, the fact still remains that no one knows if Ross approved that change so soon after he designed, drew and text explained the single bunkers on his plans. And least of all you!

Just keep telling me that it's your opinion that can and has proved that those cluster bunkers had to be Ross's---I love a good laugh.  

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2005, 09:42:46 PM »
Pat:

Tom MacWood has accused us of saying some of the things we have on here out of some sort of frustration over what he says he's proven or something on here.

I think you hit the nail on the head, though. Tom MacWood probably says many of the things he does on this website because basically he's frustrated that he's never had much of any influence on any architectural or restoration project. For a man who understands as little as he does about how and why things get done successfully at golf clubs, is it any wonder?

wsmorrison

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2005, 09:54:43 PM »
"Another funny thing about those bunker clusters at Aronimink is I seriously doubt they were as sand flashed up as you seem to think they were. Of course that's not easy to tell from a photo from the tee in 1929 of bunkers about 375 yards and more away or from an overhead aerial from 6,000 ft but I sure wouldn't expect you to understand that."

One advantage the Victor Dallin collection has over the National Archives is that many of the photographs are on oblique angles, which helps to show depth better than direct overheads.  

The 1927 and 1928 photographs, although they are from a few thousand feet in elevation, show that quite a number, though not all, of the bunkers do have grassed faces.  

I'll show these to Tom Paul next time we get together, whether or not he shows me the Ross drawings  ;)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2005, 09:57:01 PM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2005, 05:15:17 AM »
TE
Prichard's 1939 aerial was not a Dallin photograph and did not come from the Hagley Collection, it was from the National Archives."

Tom MacWood:

I don't know where the 1939 aerial of Aronimink Ron used came from, whether it was the Dallin Collection or the National Archives. Not that it really matters though. If it's of some interest to you though I can probably find out today where it came from. All I need to do is call the Hagley and compare the Dallin 1939 aerial date to the date of this aerial.

In any case, the aerial photograph he probably used most, at least initially, is the very same aerial photo that is in GeoffShac's book "The Golden Age of Golf Design". I have the actual aerial Ron used on my desk right now. It's from 10/15/39. It's from app 6,000 ft which is pretty high for a course aerial. Despite that, it's a good one because it is from right on top of the golf course and there's very little oblique angle to it. I prefer aerials that are right on top of the course because it's a bit easier to nail length and width of course features. Of course comparing almost dead vertical aerials to oblique angle aerials of a course is interesting too and can sometimes help with height dimensions on the course and such things as bunker faces. Dead vertical aerials aren't very good for that for obvious reasons.

Ron also seems to have this aerial scaled to actual course dimension with a "block-out frame" overlay on the actual aerial with a scale in inches to dots that may be an actual course dimension. The aerial I have takes in more of the surrounding land than the one in GeoffShac's book that's obviously been cropped. On the back of this 10/15/39 aerial is the label of a camera shop in Landsdale, Pa (that's where Ron Prichard lives). I suppose Ron had this developed off the old negative or perhaps reprinted by this camera shop off an old postive.


TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2005, 06:24:57 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Obviously you took quite a bit of time finding what I wrote about ten months ago on here, and so I don't mind taking the time to respond. You call all those "different versions" but where are any inconsistencies?

All I've ever done on here with this Aronimink bunker project discussion that's probably been going on for a couple of years is try to chronicle it and if there were questions from anyone such as yourself I've called Ron Prichard and asked him about the facts and the chronology of his research and the project.

I did get involved in some way perhaps up to four years ago before the bunker project got under way. At that point Ron and the club were obviously trying to decide what exactly to do with the bunker project. The question at that point was why were the bunkers on this 1939 aerial so different from Ross's drawings from, I believe, 1927 or 1928? That's the only question Ron asked me on the phone about 4-5 years ago. I tried to answer that question. I did not get into some type of federal investigation of his research and his and the club's decision-making as you are now after the fact of the bunker project.

What I did not know back then, and frankly still don't know now is if he had that tournament program back then when he first called me on the phone. If he did I don't remember him mentioning it and I don’t remember seeing it the times I went over there on the project with Ron, Tom Elliott and the superintendent and occasionally some others from the club and the project. I do remember seeing Ross's drawings because Ron always had them with him. I do remember seeing the aerial that he used that I have on my desk now.

The primary question back then was not so much when those cluster bunkers were built (originally or later) but if they were Ross's. That question was a good one because they were different enough from Ross's own drawings that apparently had been done by Ross quite close to construction.

The club definitely wanted bunkering that they were sure were Donald Ross's, and everyone was sure those drawings were Ross's. They weren't sure those clusters were Ross or even if they were done originally, at least that's my recollection of it in the beginning---again because I don't know when Ron found that tournament program that really did lead him to assume those clusters were not built originally.

Anyone who's involved in these projects knows that as you keep analyzing research information assumptions and conclusions can and do change. New info comes in, someone finds something different in existing info and the assumptions and conclusions logically shift and change. No one understands that better, in my opinion, than someone like Geoff Shackelford. We've talked for years now about the value of analyzing material, putting it aside, going back to it sometimes numerous times with another perspective as one looks for different things on such as aerials to find meaning or even chronologies.

When someone like you comes in after the fact, after the project is done, and gratuitously criticizes the decision-making of those involved who worked to make those decisions it does get pretty maddening, I must say. It gets even more maddening when you start implying that someone like you who's never even been there and did not have any more information at that time than anyone else says they could've done it better or made better decisions.

This is precisely why I've always said you need to get out there in the field and get involved with some of these projects, even if it's in a research and decision-making capacity. Until you do that you can't know what it's like. And you certainly need to do that if you're going to be as critical after the fact as you have been with something like this Aronimink bunker project.

Anyone, such as yourself, can come in after the fact, after the project is done, and criticize people when facts are known later that may not have been available at some point along the way when the decision making was being done.

Get out there and get involved in the raw decision-making as facts and information are being assembled and analyzed before decisions are made and projects get underway or are completed. Get out there and put your research and decision-making and your reputation for success or failure on the line before the fact, not afterwards when anyone can do it with ease.

It's easy to criticize these things after the fact which seems to be your total modus operandi. It's also leads to a whole lot less credibility on your part, in my opinion. Perhaps you just can't take the prospect of making a mistake. It's certainly a lot easier to not get involved, to wait, and criticize others after the fact, when you have information, generally that they who were involved gave you later, that neither you nor they may've had along the way.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2005, 09:07:54 AM »
"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.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 09:23:34 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2005, 09:31:00 AM »
Tom MacWood:

You're the one who constructed these "versions".What is it exactly about this entire chronology as I've presented it on here from a couple of years ago until today that you can't understand.

"Version 4 (7/1/05)
“Actually that statement of yours is not true either. You may think you discovered something about this chronology or decision-making process or how those bunkers were originally built but I doubt that.

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

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

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

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


Tom MacWood:

On that version I see the date 7/1/05. I did not know in Sept '04 what I knew on 7/1/05--eg that Dallin aerials of 1929 and before were in the Hagley.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2005, 09:36:50 AM »
Furthermore, what I'm trying to do on here and have been for about two years now is explain to you how the decision of what to do on that bunker project was arrived at and why as far as I knew. What I may not have known or when legitimate questions have come up I've called Ron Prichard and talked to him about it. If you don't like my recollections ro my chronology and if you believe there are all kinds of inconsistencies and "versions" in it why don't you call up Ron Prichard and Aronimink golf club and go over the entire last 4-5 years yourself? Maybe then you can come up with your own "version"---something it certainly appears you have done.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2005, 09:48:59 AM »
Dub O'Neil, Tom MacWood & Larry Kellto,

When did OSU first announce or indicate that the golf course would be involved in a project ?

Tom MacWood,

Prior to that announcement had you made any efforts to have the golf course built to MacKenzie's plans ?

In what form and to whom did you make those efforts ?

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2005, 09:53:57 AM »
"TE
Did you revise your memory (on 7/1/05) of what occured 4 or 5 years ago as you uncovered new information? If you find new information tommorrow will you revise your memory again?"

Why don't you tell me how you think I revised my memory?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2005, 09:58:15 AM »
Tom MacWood & TEPaul,

You''re both missing the point.

Aronomink decided that they wanted to undue all of the work done to the golf course over the years and return it to Ross's vision.

The critical issue is why and how did the bunkers go from point A to point B ?

Since Aronomink wanted to go forward with the project, absent concrete information explaining the transition from Point A to Point B they did the logical thing, they rebuilt the golf course to Ross's detailed design plans.

If it is discovered why and how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, Aronomink can elect to ignore the transition or replicate the transition, depending upon the revelation of the facts surrounding the transition.

In the meantime, members and guests are enjoying playing the golf course as Ross designed it.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #66 on: July 08, 2005, 11:06:50 AM »
Pat:

Regarding you post #85 of course that's the point. I'm not missing it at all. Tom MacWood certainly has though.

As I've said on here a couple of times if your Point A is Ross's plans and your Point B is those cluster bunkers (no matter when they were built) of course the question of how it went from Point A to Point B was always the primary poser and with regard to restoring bunkers to what was postively Ross that was always the primary point. It still is a real poser.

Tom MacWood does not want to hear that though, and obvously he doesn't since he still apparently fails to understand or to admit that there is no proof at all of how those bunkers went from Point A to Point B. If there is proof of it somewhere no one has found it yet.

All he wants to do now is argue with me over my chronology of the events as I recall them in the last 4-5 years. All he wants to do is somehow try to make himself look like a competent researcher by proving architects, clubs and others wrong after the fact about some decisions they made. And can you believe, all this, without ever even having set foot anywhere near an Aronimink.

I've often told Tom MacWood he should spend more time on restoration sites with restoration architects and clubs, I think as you do that he would and could learn a lot about all this from doing that. He doesn't do that, he's never really done that. He doesn't see the point of it. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is no one really wants him around. The man is not only a distorter of history, facts and reality to suit some agenda which is probably just self-serving but he's also just about totally proven himself to be a completely arrogant and pompous pain in the ass. Who wants a guy like that around?  ;)

wsmorrison

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #67 on: July 08, 2005, 12:58:00 PM »
Tom MacWood,

It appears to me that you are viewing the dynamics of information and discovery and converting it to differing recollections.  I don't see this at all.  I don't see the purpose of the effort you are expending either. This energy can be channeled into other more productive efforts.  

It certainly is a diversion from the topic of the changes happening at the golf course at Ohio State University.

If I may get back to this point.  I don't intend to point fingers, I would like to learn from the experience.  I suspect you heard fairly early on that work was intended for the OSU Scarlet Course.  

Looking back on how things developed, would you have done things differently to try and get MacKenzie's plans (actual or sympathetic) realized?  If so, what might those efforts be?  How much of it is just a matter of an increased effort in raising awareness and education to the decision makers?

Taking a step back from all the back and forth bickering, it is clear that an understanding of the revision or remodeling process-at a private club or public institution is key to providing the best chance for seeing a project to its best result.  The real world experience of Pat, Tom Paul and others on the site is valuable and should be considered given the passion you have demonstrated at this course you know so well.  I think you have things to learn and to offer.  Why waste so much time digging up old threads?  Move forward.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2005, 04:28:29 PM »
Pat
From point A to point B the course was contructed by Donald J. Ross & Associates, supervised by Associate JB McGovern and Ross himself.

That's disengenuous and conjecture on your part.
You still don't know WHY and HOW the golf course went from Point A to Point B.  You still don't know why the golf course wasn't built as it was designed.  And, until you do, all of your comments on the journey from Point A to Point B are speculative at best.
I would think that you would be interested in solving the mystery rather than sweeping it under the carpet.
[/color]

Following point B...the designer DJ Ross expressed his pleasure with the completed work.

Do you really think he would have expressed his disappointment or displeasure at the outcome ?
Try being realistic.
[/color]

For whatever reason you do respect Ross's opinion. Why?

I like his style, his presentation, as evidenced at the courses I've played.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2005, 04:30:06 PM »
Dub O'Neil, Tom MacWood & Larry Kellto,

When did OSU first announce or indicate that the golf course would be involved in a project ?

Tom MacWood,

Prior to that announcement had you made any efforts to have the golf course built to MacKenzie's plans ?

In what form and to whom did you make those efforts ?

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2005, 05:39:37 PM »
Tom MacWood:

I really can't understand why you think there're inconsistencies in that chronology as I know it. There really aren't any inconsistencies if you look at it as a chronology of changing understanding as additonal evidence was found and analyzed.

First Ron called me probably 4-5 years ago. He called to ask me if I thought if it could be possible those bunkers had been changed in the 1930s to what showed on the 1939 aerial. Obviously if he was sure of the answer back then he wouldn't have called me to ask that question, would he? The dilemma obviously was the course could've been built to Ross's plan or it could've been built with those clustered bunkers---that was the dilemma.

At some point after that it's my understanding he came upon that tournament program. I found out relatively recently (in the last year or so) about that and what it meant and that it led him to assume the bunkers had been built to Ross's plan and changed at some point in the 1930s. Are you able to understand thus far why his opinion may've changed? (hint, the tournament program). This has been my understanding for about a year or so.

Following the evidence of that tournament program he felt the bunkers were very likely built to Ross's plan and changed at some point in the 1930s unitil we proved in the last two weeks with that 1929 aerial that they were not.

Where are the inconsistencies? This is what I've said as this subject has been discussed on here for perhaps a couple of years. I didn't know everything I know now 4-5 years ago or before 10 months ago or even before two weeks ago. That's what happens when additional information comees in. Do you think I'm inconsistent because I didn't know about that tournament program until a year or so ago or the significance of it before about ten months ago? Do you think I'm inconsistent because I just happened to call the Hagley about three weeks ago about some other course and discovered they do have aerials from 1929 and before?

Is that what you think the inconsistencies are?



 
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 06:02:43 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2005, 05:47:35 PM »
"Pat
From point A to point B the course was contructed by Donald J. Ross & Associates, supervised by Associate JB McGovern and Ross himself. Following point B...the designer DJ Ross expressed his pleasure with the completed work. For whatever reason you do respect Ross's opinion."

Tom MacWood:

So, in your opinion, there is no way at all those cluster bunkers could've been built without Ross's authorizing the change before they were built?  

What do you make of Dick Wilson's alterations to Flynn's plan at Shinnecock?

Are you asking Pat if he completely believes what Ross said at Aronimink (probably on opening day) means Ross had to have been aware of this alteration?  "I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built"

Do you want me to quote for you again what Ross said to GMGC?  :)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 05:51:39 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2005, 08:17:43 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Let's cut through the banter.

What would you have done.

Restored the golf course at Aronoimink to how it appeared in 1928, not knowing why that configuration deviated from the detailed design plans that Ross created, or, to the course as  Ross's detailed design plans depicted it?

And, what is THE factual basis for making your decison ?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2005, 08:18:34 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2005, 09:00:19 PM »
Wow!

This thread has blown me away!!!

These must be some of the longest replies ever offered on GCA.  Ever.


How about a nice "Cut down all of the scrub trees" or something simple?




 ??? ::) :-[
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2005, 10:10:01 PM »
"Can't we all just get along?"

-Rodney King


 :P :-[
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back