Aronimink!? Ross's true championship venue?!

[Brad Klein]

Just got back from Philadelphia and was able to play both Aronimink and Merion.

Aronimink is so vastly improved from when I last saw it in 1996 - the work then by RTJ and Rulewich was a complete mess of strategy, with no regard for the placement of fairway hazards except to jam up landing areas. Now, Aronimink's fairways require the kind of offset shot-making on drives that makes Seminole so strong, and there's really no more than two shorter layup par-4s, one on each nine (7, 13). Otherwise, you have to work the ball, choose a landing area, and you have to work it left-to-right, right to-left, often followed by an approach into the green that has to bend the other way. That's great design work.

A few other points of observation along the way.

-Kudos not only to Ron Prichard, but also to green chairman Tom Elliott who has been spearheading the work and done much of the in-house politicking. This is by far the hardest and least understood part of all restoration - club politics - and gets not enough attention on this Web site.

-McDonald & Sons' bunkering is so much more interesting than what they did at Merion's. At Aronimink, you can see into the leading edge of the bunker and the back is flashed high, then turfed. At Merion, everything is way too fleshy, too thick-lipped, and way too deep - you have to step down into Merion's bunkers like bath tubs.

-Aronimink has also done a lot of tree work that deserves credit.

-I did think many of the fairway bunkers were way too penal. I'm not sure whether the problem is the vertical depth of their floor, as Prichard seems to be claiming (above), or their relative lack of depth from beginning to end on a south-north axis, so to speak, which leaves little room for the ball to expend energy/momentum as it rolls to a halt and leaves you with too many shots that nestle in under the greenside bunker face, making it impossible to advance the ball more than 20-30 yards. In other words, it might be a design issue, not a construction one. I just don't know.

-I'm a little concerned about the chipping areas. Some of them are intriguing (8th and 10th holes), but at times it's hokey and contrived (back left on 7). Was wondering to what extent these mowed down areas were part of the original plan. It's always hard to do Pinehurst-style chipping areas - the key is making them big enough so that they are substantive, not ornamental. The proper horizontal scale here is crucial.

-The greens at Aronomink are wonderful, varied, and Prichard recaptured many areas behind bunkers that were lost over the years. These are now masterfully done, and the A4 bentgarss is superb, even if a little slow to recover from ballmarks.

-What's with the 122 Slope rating from the back tees? I would have thought this about 12-14 points too low.

As you can tell, I thought Aronimink a wonderful revival. Small wonder it's making its way back up the ratings, and just returned to Golfweek's top-100 Classical ratings, where I think it well belongs. A very strong course. But also playable down the middle from the middle tees for average golfers (like myself).

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Aronimink's slope after the restoration at 122 would be a real joke and the GAP rating team better get with reality on that one when they rerate the course!

The chipping areas you mentioned are not part of the original design of Aronimink exactly--certainly not in the nature of the agronomy of them (extremely close cropped and cut)!

What they are is a concession to a multi-optional design feature that has likely been an improvement or enhancement towards multi-optionalism from the modern age of architecture.

Both Prichard and Elliott are well aware of this fact in the areas you mentioned, particularly the chipping area connection between #10 & #8--or anywhere else for that matter!

This to me is a perfect application of a thought expressed some years ago by Jim Finegan to understand the nature and essence of these old courses but at the same time do not deny the application of various improvements that may have come along after their creations that could make them play even better than originally!

The chipping areas are such a thing as long as they blend well into the inherent design and create a certain "sense" with it! The point is the chipping areas do make recovery sense in the context of the overall original length of Aronimink (although I do wonder about the chipping areas in close proximity to some blue grass rough areas around greens!!). And they are undeniably "multi-optional" which can never be a bad thing, no matter what age they may have emanated from.

The other very interesting aspect of Aronimink is the club's apparently renewed interest in general tree removal. Bob Ford mentioned that the other day regarding Aronimink and Pete Trenham made a startling remark (completely unsolicitied) to me about tree removal and Aronimink.

Pete mentioned some time back he'd walked Aronimink in the winter when the leaves were all down and he was really taken aback by how beautifully the architecture of the course "melded" into the overall beautiful NATURAL topography of the site.

Of course at this time most of that beautiful visual expanse and visual "melding" is being lost by the hole to hole tree lining!

I think the club has just come to realize the benefits of this long hidden visual asset! They're certainly not going to remove all their trees because Aronimink is a classic "parkland" course but if a golfer can easily see the sweep of the natural land with the architecture of the course interpersed with clumps of trees here and there (like a good parkland setting) it would be the best of both worlds.

Aronimink and its restoration may be criticized by certain purists but I think that's wrong. There seems nothing at the purist end that Prichard is not aware of--but he is sensible enough to totally understand the new too with the old and how they might be combined to potentially make the course even better than it ever was!

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

You mentioned the significant differences in bunker work done by Macdonald & Co at both Aronimink and Merion, and my impression has been that the construction differences are largely because of the inherent degrees of complexity of the bunkers themselves.

Merion's bunkers were historically very complex and multi-dimensional in shape, size, depth, internal contouring, uncertain edging, integration with surrounds, etc.  By contrast, the Ross bunkers at Aronimink are fairly straightforward, with grass walls falling to flattish floors, and largely consistent and "straight-lined" in shape.

My guess is that capturing the essence of bunkers like Merion's is much more difficult without using arduous handwork, while the mechanized approach used by that contractor is fairly able to handle more straight-forward bunkers adequately.  

[TEPaul]

And that's precisely what that entire thread on Hanse bunkering vs MacDonald bunkering was all about.

If a course has Flynn, Tillinghast, Thomas, certainly MacKenzie and probably Maxwell style bunkering hiring MacDonald & Co to do it may not be best! But if the course has Ross, Oakmont's style or maybe even MacD and Raynor hiring MacDonald & Co might be OK!

When you get into trying to match the look of the capes and bays and sometimes intricate lacy randomness of the bunkers of those first set of old guys MacDonald doesn't seem to match that look real well on the ground but interestingly from the air they match fairly well!

But the other straighter lined old guys they can probably do fine! But what those more intricate older guy's bunkers need to match their look, the companies like we've already mentioned (Hanse, C&C and Doak) can do real well.

After watching Hanse build some fairly intricate internal green contours the other day I don't even think this stuff is all that much hand-work vs machine work anyway--although I think the grassing methods used in various bunkering can be quite different between the companies!

But I was really surprised at just how intricate Gil can get with a fairly big piece of equipment. So it really isn't even probably that much in the equipment either--it's more just in knowing what kind of look you're going for in real detail!

This was trying to match a basic Maxwell green look--and I was more than interested when Gil hopped off the dozer and went over and stared at a few of our other Maxwell greens for a while and came back and matched a piece of the green to something he found over on #11 green.

I guess it all comes down to whether you really have an eye and a feel for this kind of thing or whether you don't.

[Ed_Baker]

Very interesting and informative thread gentlmen.

Having worked closely with Ron at Charles River I'll share a couple of observations.

First the "saucer" or concave shape of the bunker floors is quite important to their ultimate playability. Ron is VERY specific in his instruction to the shapers on this issue. The initial construction of the bunkers usually gets done very close to what Ron envisions, it is then up to the club to maintain the design. This may sound a little anal or obsessive, but I literally had to run a "class" with the superintendent on bunker raking after the restoration. No sand pros, all hand work, and the daily "set-up" crew had to learn to work from the middle of the bunkers out to the edges. What happens if not monitored, is that golfers tend to rake the bunkers after their shots by pulling sand away from the edges in to their divot and footprints to "cover the evidence." Then the set-up crew comes out the next day and "smooths" the sand which actually starts to "fill" the center of the " saucer" and human nature being what it is the crew deveops "paths" to the lowest or easiest way to exit the bunker and a "rail" of sand starts to develop alond this "path." It is quite insidious and gradual but left unchecked balls will not release in to the bunker floor as intended because the floor becomes flat or in worst cases convex. The analogy I used with the crew was that the bunker floors were designed like a spoon, if we didn't do our work correctly eventually the bunker floors would look like we turned the spoon over, that seemed to work, or has so far. This is particularly important on fairway bunkers of severe depth where any chance of getting the ball out to a reasonable "recovery" position relies on the ball coming to rest away from the faces. So, from this aspect it becomes clear that the maintainence meld is far more than just firm and fast turf through the green.

Also, freshly restored bunkers of this nature tend to look a bit uniform and the grass faces tend to be a little soft and hairy until the sod establishes, member patience is one of the ultimate oxymorons, so managing expectations is very important when the course re-opens. It has been 5 years since our bunker restoration and playability gets better every year. Also, each bunker is starting to develop its own unique  character and look as the various grass strains establish on the faces, the south facing bunkers are dramatically different from some of the others in look, so the "uniformity" disappears over time.

Lastly, Ron is very active in the bid process and his expertise and sensitivity to what particular contractors are capable of ,is one of the intangible benefits of hiring a professional. I can state from personal experience that he would not let a club hire a contractor/shaper that he had any reservations about. Michael Drake out of Framingham Ma. was our shaper and he had plenty of Ross experience, he was an absolute artist with his machines, but before a bunker was deemed complete and ready for sod, Mr. Drake did a lot of hand work, and Ron "approved" them. We had no "re-do's."

It was a fascinating experience and the results speak for themselves everyday.

[TEPaul]

I just had a nice chat with Ron Prichard about this thread. As I mentioned before Ron Prichard is very high on the interest shown in golf course architecture by participants and contributors to Golfclubatlas.

But he was higher than I've ever heard him on this post above written by Ed Baker! He said for anyone truly interested in an example of the nitty gritty detail that needs to go into bunker building, for instance, from an architect, that Ed's post should absolutely be required reading!

Obviously his additional message is that if a club can reach the comprehensive understanding about these things that Ed Baker (and hopefully his club) has everyone is way ahead of the game and on the road to overall success!

So I read Ed's post and Ron is definitely correct! The analogy to a spoon is a good one and the examples of how player raking and general maintenance practices can change things and basically begin to screw up necessary architectural formation directed at particular "playability" is just fascinating!

Ron also sent me a three page fax about his thinking on the general principles of bunkering in golf strategy and architecture, variable recovery chances, bunker shapes and depths, sand floor formations, perpendicular fairway bunker placement vs inline placement etc, etc!

There is also some mention about techniques used in construction and the various equipment used by various people and architects to do it!

It's all great in-depth info and the kind of thing I've always hoped for from an architect to contribute on here.

Eventually, I think this kind of input will probably shake some of us out of some overly doctrinaire and maybe even myopic thinking and help us all understand better the things that go on out in the field in an "architectural" and "concept" context!

I might have implied in an earlier post that Ron, since he's an independent architect (without his own crew), at times has to suffer through some imperfect work from contractors and such (since he can't be everywhere at the same time)! I shouldn't have!

Apparently not! He insists that things be done the right way and even if he can't force a club or even a contractor to do it he certainly doesn't hesitate to tell everyone how it needs to be done--and he insists on it!

So hopefully the restoration of Aronimink will be shared on here in some real detail as time goes on. I'll post some of the fax later. Aronimink's tree removal program is also ongoing in thinking and planning and may end up being one of the late entry restoration highlights of the entire project!

And--great post Ed!

And yes, the "ideal maintenance meld" is surely a lot more than just firm and fast! I did promise to post something permanent on all the interesting things and ingredients that could go into it but as usual I'm a laggard and procrastinator--but I'll do it and keep it open-ended for interesting contributions and recommendations!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Ed Baker & Brad Klein,

I played Aronimink thursday, it's certainly the hardest 122 sloped golf course I've ever played.

I found the same bunker condition that Jamie Slonis alluded to, it seemed that every time my ball was in the bunker, it was close to the green side bunker face providing a 1/2 shot to 1 shot penalty, with the majority being a 1 shot penalty.
It could have been a coincidence or a product of the design.
I learned quickly to avoid them, if I could.

The greens were a little slow due to the prior aeration, but a member informed me that they were at about 12 just prior to the aeration.  With their contours and undulations, the test isn't over when you reach the green.

The course had been aerated a week or two ago and was wet and LONG, no actually, it was really LONG.

I agree with Brad I found that there were too many chipping areas, but I'm sure the club will fine tune them over time.

I would like to see a little more variety in the par 3's.
Three of them play to about the same 210 yards.  They are certainly good, tough holes, but I miss the occassional short or medium length par 3.

Aronimink struck me as a demanding golf course where driving it long and straight are REQUIRED.

At par 70 it's a real challenge.

It will be interesting to see where they play the Senior PGA Championship from.

[JSlonis]

Pat,

I think it is more than coincidence(balls in the fairway bunkers), everyone that I know who played in the Patterson Cup said the same thing.

You are correct...you must learn quickly to avoid them.

I think the course is due to be re-rated soon. It sure is one of the more difficult tests in the Philly area. The greens for the Patterson Cup were rolling at 12.

[Mike_Cirba]

If the Philadelphia area ever hosts another US Open, the present, newly-restored Aronimink course would probably be a fine choice.  

I'd love to see Merion, but Aronimink is closer to the Bethpage Black model in terms of stringent demands and significant length.

It's a really good golf course, which lacks some of the charm, variety, and interest found on other courses in the region (i.e. Philly Country Club, Merion, Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green, et.al.), but it's probably also tougher to score well against par than any of them.

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick:

What I have heard from speaking with other Club Members is that the Senior PGA will be played at around 6,850 yards.  

This should provide a pretty good test for the players especially if the greens are firm and fast which at the time of year they are playing would seem likely.

Glad you enjoyed the course

Best
Dave

[Ed_Baker]

Patrick,

There is no question the "restored" fairway bunkers are penal. As I said in previous posts, my experience with this style of grass faced bunkers is that the playabilty improves with time, IF the proper maintainence meld is employed. When the faces firm up, the turf is healthy enough to cut a little closer, and the bunker floors are maintained with the original saucer shape, more balls will release towards the middle of the floor and allow a longer recovery shot to be played with a less lofted club.

I happen to like this style of bunker because it allows some flexability in resistance to scoring particularly for a course capable of hosting major tournaments. Part of a USGA "tweak" besides growing roughs and green speeds, would be to let the faces grow a little longer (like they are when new) and the balls would finish in the face, or very close to it in the sand, and be the full shot penalty you allude too. This would also follow closely with one of the more common quotes atrributed to Ross on his bunker philosophy that the player should avoid bunkers at all costs.

At Aronimink, with its length, very penal fairway bunkers add to the shotmaking demands where the choice is made on the tee. A "safe" play with a fairway wood or iron off the tee will result in a longer and potentially more difficult approach shot. I think that Prichard and the Aronimink membership have done an excellent job in restoring the design intent of a true Ross gem, the members can play and enjoy it without beating themselves up, and it is still a stern test for the best players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad & Ed,

First let me say that I like the penal nature of the bunkers, they put a premium on driving accuracy and strategy.
They provide you with a mental awareness of their location and danger.  

I think, a first time player is at a slight disadvantage.  I hit what I thought was a perfect tee shot on # 3, only to find my ball nestled in the bunker.

I would be amazed if the Senior PGA is played at 6,850,
that's a long course with only two par 5's, and more than a few uphill tee shots.

That's a strong golf course from the whites to the tips.

[TEPaul]

With the new thread on Aronimink by Turboe this thread should come to the first page so as not to go over material again that is on this thread.

[Brian Phillips]

Tom,

I have to agree with Brad on the chipping areas.  I really believe where there is room on that course they should be used more....

You have seen how badly I play and the chipping areas create doubt in the players mind.  Instead of being able to just pitch out the player must think about chiping, putting or pitching.

Now, I had a bad golf day on the course the day we played but I can't get around how highly praised the course is when there are soooo many other courses around that seem to be better.  I didn't play Gulph Mills but to me it look much more interesting than Aronimink.

For those of you who don't know who this Tom Elliot guy is, he is one of the most energetic guys I have ever met in my life.  My caddie even described him as a sort of cartoon figure!!  A really nice guy who is not afraid to ask questions or listen to the answers.

That's the big difference between a good green chairman and a poor one.  One who asks questions but does not listen or the one that listens and then makes a decision on ALL answers he or she has received.

Good luck to Tom Elliot now and in the future.

Brian Phillips.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

I think you're right about Tom Elliot's approach to this restoration. He clearly has asked many questions of many people and he seems to very much encourage blunt and truthful opinions and answers from anyone. He's not at all afraid to hear negative things and frankly even encourages them!

The decisions he makes (or the committee makes) with Ron Prichard are good and well thought through.

But the point is he's very willing to learn, to keep his ears open too and also to make decisions and not waffle around! Tom Elliott also spent a huge amount of time with this project clearly on site probably everyday he was in town. Fortunately he lives about a minute from Aronimink!

Prichard and Elliott together should be on television! They are hilarious together! I think Ron Prichard may even be at the point where he may tell a prospective client; "Fellows, if I could put up with Tom Elliott of Aronimink, I can put up with anyone you've got!"

But the point is they were both extremely dedicated to the project in real detail, and they had a wonderful time doing it together! There was plenty of humor involved too, I think, and that always helps to make things more enjoyable!

[Dave_Miller]

Brian:

I have known Tom Elliott since high school.  Energetic is an understatement.

The son of the famed track coach Jumbo Elliott, what else would he be other than energetic.

However, his devotion, dedication, hard work and a pure willingness to not only listen but to hear the members can not in any way be minimized.

Tom Elliott and Tom Rozmus deserve nothing but kudos for the work done.

After being a member of the course restoration committee at Charles River I know what is involved.  It takes not only yeomans work but work above and beyond to accomplish what has been done at Aronimink.

Thank you Tommy Elliott and Tom Rozmus.  Even if I hate your Betsy Ross hay field on ten I hope I have at least 24 more years as a member.

Best
Dave