[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
If you are going to restore something then restore it.  The same would go for your question about the Road Bunker.  If you want to restore it to the way it looked at a particular time, then do it.  If you add your own spin just don't call it restoration.  

The same would go for the orginal topic of this thread.  In my opinion, if the original architect did not have the back left side of a green hidden and now it is because of sand flash then you need to change that otherwise you are not restoring the architect's original intent.  To me that is almost black and white.  If you don't adjust for the sand flash, fine.  Just don't call it restoration.  

[TEPaul]

"Would you call moving Macdonald's gates and the driveway to put in a tip tee on #18 where one has never been, a "pure" restoration?

ABSOLUTELY.

Because as you and I both know, niether the gate nor the road were there originally,  they were added subsequently, after the holes had been built and played upon.

Hence, moving the gates slightly north, and moving a small portion of the road slightly north DOESN"T conflict with CBM's original intent., nor does it challenge or alter the integrity of the design.  It's in perfect harmony with CBM's intent.

"The moment you accept one deviation you open the door to accept all others, thus disfiguring the golf course and its architectural integrity."

Let me TRY to explain it to you again.

The gate and the road were the deviation, not my suggestion to move them slightly north,  which would enhance the hole and allow for elasticity which is currently prevented by the location of those gates."



Patrick:

That just may be the dumbest thing you've EVER said on this website!  

And you're the one who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions or letting somebody's personal agenda open up Pandora's Box on the original architecture of a golf course?

If NGLA was dumb enough to take your suggestion about moving Macdonald's Gate, the wall and the driveway on #18, then some member or committeeman might some day be as dumb as to say:

"Well, they took Patrick Mucci's advice and moved Macdonald's Gate, the wall and the driveway to get 30-50 more yards on #18 and he wasn't even a member of this golf club! So why not take my advice and build a ramp behind #1 tee for 30-50 more yards? And while we're at it we should move the clubhouse too so we can maintain the integrity of the original angle on the teeshot?"

A reasonable person would say: "Move the clubhouse?? Are you joking? What kind of rationalizing crap is that?"

The totally unreasonable "ELASTICITY" advocate, like you are, would then say:

"Well, why the hell not? They bought Patrick Mucci's point that Macdonald's Gate, the wall and the driveway weren't build when the hole was originally built---so why shouldn't they buy my point that the clubhouse wasn't built either when the original #1 which was initially the original #10 was built? Therefore, the clubhouse has nothing to do with the ORIGINAL design intent and design integrity of the 1st hole and they should accept my recommendation on #1 just as they accepted Patrick Muccis' recommendation on #18!  We should move the clubhouse too in the name of "ELASTICITY?". If you accepted his idea you should accept mine too."

[Mark_Fine]

One more thing, its seems Ron Prichard gets picked on here about his "Ross" bunkers.  I could be wrong but I'm not sure Ron is trying to do "restoration".  He has a bunker style that he likes and that is what he does.  I'm trying to think of a Ross course that he has done where the bunkers look different and I can't think of one.  Can anybody here?  That said, I think he would tell you the same if you asked him and not be worried about it.  That process works for him.

[TEPaul]

"One more thing, its seems Ron Prichard gets picked on here about his "Ross" bunkers."

Mark:

It does? By whom? Who do you know who's constantly criticized Ron Prichard for doing a single type of Ross bunker everywhere other than Tom MacWood? And if it's basically just him who's criticized Prichard on here for constantly doing one style of Ross bunker my suggestion to you would be to do what I do and just don't listen to Tom MacWood's unsupported opinion. If there were clubs and golfers and Ross lovers all over the place supporting Tom MacWood's opinion of what Ron Prichard has done on Ross courses everywhere he's worked it might be a different story but there aren't.

Ron Prichard is a good friend of mine but even if he wasn't and I knew about him what I do, I'd say exactly the same thing. Ron Prichard is very likely the architect in this world who is most interested in research material and the way old golf courses were and why. I think he's always been that way and far longer than anyone else. He certainly seems to have more research material with him and available on restoration projects than any other architect I've ever seen and frankly by far, at least until recently when others like Hanse and Wagner and particularly Force and Nagel have gotten to be semi-fanatics on research material on architects and courses. Prichard has also been doing research based restoration for about 2-3 decades almost exclusively.

I would be more than happy to call him and ask him but there's little question in my mind if Ron Prichard had a set of actual Ross bunker drawings that showed bunkers flashed all the way up that's what he would do in a restoration. I think he likes to remain faithful to what these architects like Ross DESIGNED as best as he can.

Now, I will admit that Ron Prichard may have somewhat of a different idea than Tom MacWood has about what some crews may have done in original construction particularly with a high production architect like Ross, and the value of that, or lack of it, architecturally, stylistically etc, and particularly if it originally or otherwise varied significantly from actual Ross drawings.

Furthermore, about a project like Aronimink's bunkers Tom MacWood is just frankly wrong. It's just maddening he can't bring himself to admit it too. He just keeps saying the same old thing over and over again obviously hoping people might believe him if he never relents.

For instance, he claims Aronimink's original bunkers, those multi-sets that may've been done by McGovern are flashed all the way to the top. They were never anything of the kind. Tom MacWood has even said Aronimink's bunkers were Ross's competitive attempt to do the well known style of "Philadelphia flashed faced bunkers" better than the Philadelphians did. The well known style of Philadelphia flashed faced bunkers? Were did he come up with that? Is that some Ohio extrapolation of the "white faces of Merion" or something?  

Tom MacWood claims Aronimink's original bunker were sand flashed all the way to the top on the strength of one photo of the 1st hole in 1929 of green-side bunkers that were taken from the tee 425 yards away. Those original multi-set bunkers were not flashed all the way to the top at all. And Tom MacWood has never seen the aerial we finally found of Aronimink in the late 1920s both under construction and probably just about finished. It shows the entire course and from a pretty good angle and it's clear as day those bunkers were not flashed to the top as Tom MacWood continually claims with basically no evidence at all other than one ground photo from 425 yards away and one aerial from around 1938 that's directly over the course and really high. Nobody could possibly tell if a bunker is flashed or grassed all the way down from that height and angle.

If Tom MacWood was an architect or knew something about what went on in both architecture construction (originally and also in restoration architecture) in the field then maybe he might have some credibilty in this type of analysis but he's no architect and he has no experience in the field and with construction. Maybe he thinks he does if he's visited a restoration site a time or two but he doesn't.

One time in that whole ridiculous Aronimink discussion with Tom MacWood, Ron, who couldn't be a nicer and more accomodating guy said:

"You mean this guy is out in Ohio, he's never even been to Aronimink, he's looked at one bunker photo from 425 yards and that really high 1938 aerial directly over the course and he's trying to tell me who's been doing this kind of work for 30 years every day that I'm wrong and making mistakes on Ross bunkers?"

Do you blame him?

Once and for all, at least in the case of Aronimink, Tom MacWood is certainly entitled to his own opinions but he just does not have reliable information on that golf course, he's never seen it and many of the things he's still claiming such as those bunkers were originally flashed all the way to the top is just wrong. It's historically wrong and we can prove that.

Do I think he will ever admit that? Well, of course not, he's apparently incapable of that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Perhaps a review of the plasticine model of NGLA in the thread that you started would help refresh your memory.

Study that model, CBM's conceptual intent, and see if he incorporated the potential for elasticity on # 18.

Those gates were put there without much thought, probably for cost reasons because that's the first opening  along the eastern border of the property where you wouldn't substantively disturb any of the golf holes.

Moving the gates another 20 yards north isn't going to harm anything, but, it would allow for elasticity as reflected in CBM's original plasticine model.

With respect to restorations and purity, I think you're missing something.

Right or wrong, most of the restorations I'm familiar with have allowed a little modernization to be squeezed into them, and that's one of the most dangerous elements, becuase the substance and the degree of the modernization is often affected by the latest fads and pet peeves or pet projects of the committees.

You and I also know of the political compromises made within a committee, certainly not the ideal vehicle with which to undertake and implement a restoration.

So, the process is usually flawed because the foundation and committee are flawed, and that's why I feel the quest for purity best serves the club because it doesn't allow for random deviation for a variety of reasons.


With respect to intent and my earlier post on the acquisition of photos from opening day, OR DETAILED PLANS, it's hard to argue with Ross's actual plans, complete with notes, for Aronomink.

I don't see how you can fault anyone for restoring a golf course to the near exact specifications as outlined in the detailed drawings and notes from the original architect.

I would have thought that Tom MacWood would have supported that effort rather than oppose it, especially as a purist.

[TEPaul]

"I don't see how you can fault anyone for restoring a golf course to the near exact specifications as outlined in the detailed drawings and notes from the original architect.

I would have thought that Tom MacWood would have supported that effort rather than oppose it, especially as a purist."

Patrick:

I think just about anyone under the circumstances at the time they made the decision on which bunkers to do at Aronimink would have made the decision they made. Tom MacWood was not aware of the circumstances at that time, only after the fact. That was one project I really was aware of the circumstances because I live only a few miles from Aronimink and I went over there a number of times when Ron was there and they were talking about it and I discussed it with Ron. He sure did try to do the research.

However, I believe I know exactly why Tom MacWood feels they should've done the multi-set bunkers that ended up being the ones they originally did build although there's no way at all he could've known that when they were trying to figure out what happened before the bunker project. Matter of fact, I doubt Tom MacWood was even aware Aronimink was doing a restoration project. I never saw it on here before the last phase of the project which was basically the bunker project (well a lot of tree removal came later) since a lot of it took place probably before Golfclubatlas.com.

Frankly, I think I know exactly why Tom MacWood feels they should've done the multi-set bunkers and I think it has a lot to do with his philosophy regarding some of the basic principles of the "Arts and Crafts Movement". By that I'm mostly referring to the A/C principle of "regionalism" and local artistic flavor. I'm not kidding at all about that and frankly I think it's a most interesting idea and one that should be discussed on here in a general sense regarding aspects of golf course architecture particularly with a high production architect like Donald Ross.

I'm not sure he's willing to admit that on here though. It sure didn't seem like it the last time I mentioned that on here. Frankly I think he would've felt the same way even it was provable that foreman McGovern may've acted on his own with those bunkers without Ross's over-all approval, just as McGovern obviously did at Jeffersonville that had those same multi-set bunkers and was built before Aronimink. Ironically there was an ad in an early Aronimink tournament program for Jeffersonville that actually mentioned those bunkers.

There is another thing that's never been mentioned to my knowledge on here regarding Aronomink's construction with J.B. McGovern as the foreman. And that is that McGovern apparently wasn't exactly like some of the foremen of other architects. The guy appears to have been pretty  sophisticated and there's no question at all he was a  respected and apparently pretty important member of Aronimink on committees and such before, during and after the construction of this Aronimink course. For that reason alone, maybe Ross told him to do his own thing there since it was his club.

McGovern's daughter who I have spoken to said that Ross was like a favorite uncle to her and that her best friend was the daughter of the superintendent who lived in the house that today is still the maintenance offices. By the way Ross's daughter at that time after just marrying lived above the Wynnewood office that McGovern ran.

As for Aronimink, clearly they were not interested in that kind of thing. They really were intent on doing bunkers that they could be as sure as possible really were Ross, and obviously when you're looking right at his own drawings it doesn't get more real than that. They just never found that early aerial in time for the bunker restoration. Ron went to the Hagley but for whatever reason they couldn't produce that one. They produced it for me and Wayne about three years later, but that was way after the fact.

In any case, Tom MacWood's feeling on Aronimink I'm certain is inspired by his interest in the A/C philosophy of regional artistic expression even if it was in golf course bunkering.

Unfortunately for Tom MacWood even if they were aware of something like that I doubt Aronimink would've shared that feeling either then or now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How can anyone argue with Ross's detailed diagrams and field notes.

How do you act responsibly, and as a purist restore to anything other then those detailed design plans and notes ?

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,
How can anyone argue with Ross's detailed diagrams and field notes.
How do you act responsibly, and as a purist restore to anything other then those detailed design plans and notes?"

Pat:

As you'll recall, the Aronomink bunker situations was a most unique dilemma. I'd never heard of such a set of circumstances and I doubt Ron Prichard had either.

Although they could not be sure of it at the time, as it turned out the bunkers that were Ross's own drawings never were built originally.

Obviously the club and Ron Prichard could not be sure of that at the time. Had they had that earlier aerial of the course that proved those bunkers were multi-sets I have no idea what they would have done. Maybe they would have restored them and maybe not. Even if they could see those multi-sets were built originally I guess the dilemma of why they were different from Ross's own drawings would've still existed.

At the time the thinking was that the Ross bunkers were built orginally and that maybe McGovern (who was a respected member of Aronomink) changed them at some point in the 1930s for some reason. Since they were pretty much in the same places as the Ross single bunker drawings, Ron thought the club may've just put partitions in Ross's single bunkers for some reason, thereby creating those multi-set bunkers of 2s and 3s.

There's no question either that cost was some of the consideration of what to do. I did hear the fellow from the club who ran the project say that maintaining around 200 separate bunkers vs about 80 was a consideration.

Of course the analysts on here like a Tom MacWood who's never even been there don't consider such things as cost. Why would he? He doesn't have to pay anything anyway, and he certainly isn't going to do something as risky as get involved in any way in the decision-making process---so why would something as mundane as a decision on construction and maintenance cost concern his critique? He's even said he doesn't need to concern himself with memberships, only the actual architecture and its restoration (or not).

Unfortunately, I've never heard of a project where no one from the club's membership was consulted. Have you? To look at a club's architecture in that vein seems a bit unrealistic to me but some of the analysts on here apparently don't think reality needs to be part of the way they look at things and critique them. It's too bad restoration architects don't have the same luxury.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Even if the club had known of the as-built, Ross's detailed design plans and field notes are difficult, if not impossible, to ignore.

Absent factual data with respect to how the bunkers transitioned from Ross's plans to the as-built, you'd have to go with the plans that Ross committed to detailed writings and drawings.

My theory is that Ross left and turned the project over to McGovern, that McGovern built the bunkers his way and that when Ross returned, he uttered his famous statement.   I believe that statement was borne of surprise rather then high praise.

But, until the mystery is solved, returning the golf course to Ross's detailed plans and field notes has to be the purest purist form of restoration.

[wsmorrison]

Even if the club knew that on opening day the course had sets of multiple bunkers (some of which were flashed and many not) I think they have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they'd go to the Ross plans or stay with the sets of multiple bunkers, especially since nobody knows if they were designed or approved by Ross or something McGovern chose to do.  It may well be the latter as McGovern oversaw the design of Jeffersonville with its sets of multiple bunkers.  If the club chooses to go with something they know is Ross and they like the look and playability, who is anyone else to say that they did wrong?  It is as per the Ross design (perhaps not the final iteration) and it is quite good.  It works for the members and appreciated by the members that understand all the background information.  Given everything they know today, it can easily be shown that it was an excellent result.

Tom MacWood,

When you finally visit us in Philadelphia this year, you'll see for yourself a wonderful collection of courses, and hopefully we'll walk Aronimink together.

[Kyle Harris]

Even if the club knew that on opening day the course had sets of multiple bunkers (some of which were flashed and many not) I think they have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they'd go to the Ross plans or stay with the sets of multiple bunkers, especially since nobody knows if they were designed or approved by Ross or something McGovern chose to do.  It may well be the latter as McGovern oversaw the design of Jeffersonville with its sets of multiple bunkers.  If the club chooses to go with something they know is Ross and they like the look and playability, who is anyone else to say that they did wrong?  It is as per the Ross design (perhaps not the final iteration) and it is quite good.  It works for the members and appreciated by the members that understand all the background information.  Given everything they know today, it can easily be shown that it was an excellent result.

Tom MacWood,

When you finally visit us in Philadelphia this year, you'll see for yourself a wonderful collection of courses, and hopefully we'll walk Aronimink together.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think McGovern's involvement with Jeffersonville, and a supposed prediliction with clumps of bunkers is assertable from just this one case. McGovern/Ross's work at Schuylkill Country Club showed no such bunkers, and a lot of Ross's work on the original nine involved the relocation and redesign of several of the bunkers. Also, none of the new Ross holes on the course featured clumps of bunkers in both drawings and aerials.

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
What did Ron end up doing at Schuykill?  Do you know if he did a restoration or not?  
Mark

[Kyle Harris]

Mark,

He is consulting with Jim Rattigan as Jim's budget allows for work. Work has been done/completed on holes 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 17 with bunkers and green size restoration. The contours have been preserved on the greens with the majority of the work coming in the form of bunkers and their integration with the fairway and green complexes.

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks Kyle.  Jim is a very capable guy.  I've walked the course with him and he is one of those Superintendents that it would be a pleasure to work with.  

Do you know what Ron used for restoration of the bunkers.  I have a set of the Ross drawings for the course.  Were they the basis?

[Kyle Harris]

Thanks Kyle.  Jim is a very capable guy.  I've walked the course with him and he is one of those Superintendents that it would be a pleasure to work with.  

Do you know what Ron used for restoration of the bunkers.  I have a set of the Ross drawings for the course.  Were they the basis?

I'm not sure as to that. From what I've seen of the drawings the club has and the work on the ground, it's similar.

For example, the bunker on the left of 12 green was removed - replaced by a knuckled of ground mowed as fairway.

Trees are coming down slowly too.  

[John Gosselin]

Are the members( outside the master plan committee) at Aronimink under the impression that the new bunkers are original? If they knew what Ross, who was on site during construction, actually designed in the field and built would they be surprised?

I am sure many Ross courses were built just the way he drew them, but are these the sites that he did not visit? On the sites where he was known to be involved, and made visits during construction, did he make field changes?

Did Ross typically build bunkers that all were the same basic shape, size, and depth? How did Aronimink end with such a radical, intimidating, and dramatic set of bunkers when he was present and his associate was intimately invoved? Was it an oversight? Did the members at the time agree to the changes from the plans? Someone must of been representing the club during the process and was that person McGovern? Who approved going from 74 simple bunkers to over 200 bunkers that were all different shapes, sizes, and depths?

I am not playing Monday morning quarterback nor do I disagree with what has been done here at Aronimink, but I have to wonder how Ross, McGovern, and the members ended up with a set of bunkers so different from the plans. I have a hard time believing it was some sort of mistake.

Does Doak, C&C, and others start out with a conceptual set of plans drawn in an office, and follow them exactly?

In modern day architecture has detailed construction plans required for permitting taken away the artistic, adlib side of golf course design?

[Jay Flemma]

So then really shouldnt each determination be made on a case by case basis?  For example, while No. 2's greens are not the same greens Ross built and are much more sharp, they are still an excellent test and injected even more strategy in the play of the course.  Likewise, some courses would be better off going back to the original design rather than dealing with the additional issue and impact on play the build up caused.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

If you look at the global pattern of Ross's work, there wasn't a dramatic deviation from plans to as-builts, which is the case at Aronomink.

How intimately was Ross involved with the construction at Aronomink ?

[T_MacWood]

Tom M,
If you are going to restore something then restore it.  The same would go for your question about the Road Bunker.  If you want to restore it to the way it looked at a particular time, then do it.  If you add your own spin just don't call it restoration.  

The same would go for the orginal topic of this thread.  In my opinion, if the original architect did not have the back left side of a green hidden and now it is because of sand flash then you need to change that otherwise you are not restoring the architect's original intent.  To me that is almost black and white.  If you don't adjust for the sand flash, fine.  Just don't call it restoration.  

Back to the point of the thread...would you recommend removing the slope coming off Road bunker (the result of sand build up)?

[TEPaul]

JohnG:

That's a wonderful post. It's not just some critic who's never even seen this golf course spouting off some half-baked personal architectural opinion and defending his position at all costs and from all comers.

Contributors, John Goesslin is Aronimink's new superintendent and if I know anything at all about golf course architecture I'm totally convinced he is a really great one for Aronimink at this point. I sure hope Aronimink realizes this. It's been through every manner of architectural iteration over the years and even some pretty severe agronomic problems recently.

John Goesslin said;

"I am not playing Monday morning quarterback nor do I disagree with what has been done here at Aronimink, but I have to wonder how Ross, McGovern, and the members ended up with a set of bunkers so different from the plans. I have a hard time believing it was some sort of mistake.

John:

I can't really imagine how it could have been a mistake either. However, don't forget, when Prichard and the club reached the decision they did on those bunkers they just did not know what both we and obviously the club knows now about those bunkers. If they had known what everyone knows now would they have done anything differently?

Who knows, but one way to find out is to just ask them. Do you want to do that? Do you want me to ask them? If you do I will, I have no problem with that at all. I'm pretty sure I know most everyone who runs that club or did. What if they did decide to recreate those multi-set bunkers of 2s and 3s? How do you suggest they go about that? Did you know that Ron Prichard at one point thought those bunkers were originally built to Ross's drawings and then simply broken up into 2s and 3s at some point in the 1930s by partitioning Ross's original bunkers from his drawings?

Would you like to see that if the club agreed? Would you like to maintain 200 separate bunkers instead of 80 if they were simply partitioned? And what do you think the cost would be to alter them into partitioned bunkers? Could you do that in-house or would you recommend bringing a contractor back in? Would there be much difference in the cost of on-giong manintenance of 200 vs 80?

I think your opinion would carry a ton of weight, particularly since the club always wanted to do the right think by Ross. I guarantee you they always wanted a restoration of the original golf course as long as it really was Donald Ross. Do you blame them? I don't.

I agree with you---it seems pretty illogical that Ross himself could've been completely surprised and blind-sided by that alteration to his drawings. It seems likely he would've known about it. If he did know about it and authorized it, I think it's pretty obvious it had something to do with McGovern and very likely those unusual bunkers of Jeffersonville, particularly since McGovern appears to be a pretty significant member of the club. After-all, as it said in that ad for Jeffersonville in the 1929 Aronomink tournament program those Jeffersonville bunkers must have been pretty unusual in style or look or whatever to be mentioned like that in that ad.

So what do you say? Would you like to see them transitioned now or would you rather not go there?

If they did transition them now it sure would be one of the most unusual bunker sagas all the way around of any golf course Donald Ross ever did.

[wsmorrison]

I think Ron Prichard's conclusion, based on the evidence at the time, that the bunkers were likely built according to Ross's plans and then later divided into multiple complexes of bunkers is very much in tune with what was going on at other clubs in the area a few years after Aronimink opened.  Rolling Green divided their large bunkers sometime in the 1930s into two or more bunkers.  This may have been convincing evidence to Ron, who for a long time has a profound sense of historical accuracy.  It made a lot of sense at the time.

I guess the fad to convert single large bunkers into smaller ones was a matter for ingress and egress as raking of bunkers began to be more common place.  Wasn't it around the same time--late 1920s and early 1930s?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne, TEPaul & John,

Aronomink is listed as having been done by Ross in 1928 with a revision in 1930.

If that is true, I wonder how much impact the great depression had on the design or revision of the golf course.

Wayne,

Jeffersonville would also be an interesting study in the context of the exact dates the golf course was worked, as it relates to the great depression of 1929.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I think Jeffersonville was built after the onset of the Depression.  They aren't always right, but golfcourse.com states that it opened in 1931.  Maybe Tom knows, or John G, what the revisions were, if any, in 1930.  Is there any evidence that Ross came back to do something?  

[ForkaB]

One of my clubs, Dornoch, periodically reviews and removes sand splash.  Sometimes I agree with what they do (e.g. allowing for a possible, but very risky, shot to the green from the string of fiarway bunkers to the right of the 3rd fairway).  Sometimes I disagree (e.g. when they emasculated the left greenside bunkers on the 6th).

The good thing about sand splash, however, is that as sure as shootin' it'll eventually come back, so the 6th will look and play like it ought to, sooner rather than later!

PS--as TEP knows, I think that Merion would benefit from reducing the greenside sand splash on holes like the 8th.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
There is not a simple answer to your question.  One would have to study what the members/caretakers of the course wanted to have done and why?  Only then and after doing some research could a thoughtful recommendation be made.  When you jump to quick conclusions is when trouble usually starts.  

Most restoration/renovation work happens because someone doesn't like the bunkers.  They either don't come into play anymore, have lost their zest, don't drain well, or heaven forbid, are "inconsistent".  That triggers a process (at least in my opinion) of what to do next.  We outlined what that is in our book.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()