Aronimink...the course is the star

[Dan Herrmann]

Aronimink is a course that elicits joy for me.  It's a joyful expression of world-class architecture done in a way that's somewhat sublime but always satisfying.

I walked Aronimink for the first time without playing today, and I'm now convinced that one must both play and study the course without clubs to fully appreciate it.   

Aronimink is not only fantastic golf, it's fantastic landscape architecture.  I didn't really appreciate its beauty when playing but it hit me over the head (in a very good way) today.

Folks - You have to experience this course.   Obviously in person is preferred, but a study of photographs and video might suffice.

I for one think Donald Ross built something extremely special, that it was almost destroyed by RTJ's "modernization" remodel, and brought back to life by RP.   For that, we owe Ron sincere gratitude, for he saved a treasure of golf course architecture for the future to enjoy.

[Mark Luckhardt]

Mike,
You just mentioned"from a spectating standpoint". When I first set foot here about 4-5 years ago, the sweeping vistas the topography allowed caught my eyes immediately. It screamed to me that it was laid out in the existing land to take advantage of views of several holes at once.Perfect opportunities for spectators abound here. I would imagine before the stellar tree pruning, these views would not have been as dramatic.

We had the pleasure of installing our XGD System in to all of the greens/approaches/runouts here in 07. These green complexes are fascinating and it is a joy to hear commentators and players alike, liken the course setup to a major championship with the rough being a factor, but not stealing the show.

Aronimink is a beast, the way it is being portrayed right now, and rightly so.

[Steve Lang]

  how many other RTJ modernizations need to be reversed?

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link to an old aerial. Its a shame the course was not accurately restored. The original course had to be one of Ross' most boldly bunkered designs.

http://digital.hagley.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=4697&CISOBOX=1&REC=20

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom MacW

Does a course have to be "accurately restored" in this day and age? Does this mean to go back to the original yardage?

It may just happen that Ron Prichard will become active here soon and answer your question directly.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jim Finegan is writing the club's history:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/golf/97721069.html

[JESII]

Here is a link to an old aerial. Its a shame the course was not accurately restored. The original course had to be one of Ross' most boldly bunkered designs.

http://digital.hagley.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=4697&CISOBOX=1&REC=20

Tom,

The date on that aerial is 1939...when was the last time Ross did anything there?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacW

Does a course have to be "accurately restored" in this day and age? Does this mean to go back to the original yardage?

It may just happen that Ron Prichard will become active here soon and answer your question directly.

Steve
I don't understand your question....in this day and age? What do you mean?

When you hire Ron Pritchard you know what you are getting, a golf course redesigned in a prototypical Ross style, and many people are quite happy with that (see Aronimink). IMO, in the case of Aronimink, I think they missed a golden opportunity.

[JESII]

Tom,

Please explain in detail what you mean...what would have recommended they do, which they did not?

[Tom MacWood]

I would've recommended they restore the golf course as built by Ross.

http://digital.hagley.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=6082&CISOBOX=1&REC=17

[JESII]

What did they fail to restore?

[George Pazin]

There are several big threads of this argument in the archives, between two of my favorite posters, both named Tom. For those interested, do some searching on either name - or even mine, I think I was crazy enough to post, even with limited info - back maybe 2002 or 2003. I believe Jamie Slonis offered some terrific insights as to how the course played around that time.

[TEPaul]

I believe the commentary today on the CBS telecast amongst the team of CBS commentators (Faldo, Feherty, Baker/Finch and the handle-bar mustache joker) was the very best and most comprehensive and detailed regarding the architecture of Aronimink, particularly the greens, I have ever heard on a TV telecast of a professional golf tournament.

If one watched and listened carefully to their constant architectural commentary it was probably more educational than playing or studying the golf course ten times over.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

There were a couple of very good and comprehensive threads on here a number of years ago discussing (and also arguing about) various aspects of the Prichard restoration of Aronimink.

One protagonist in those discussions/arguments was MacWood whose point seemed to generally revolve around the comments he made on the Prichard restoration on this thread particularly the following:

"When you hire Ron Pritchard you know what you are getting, a golf course redesigned in a prototypical Ross style, and many people are quite happy with that (see Aronimink). IMO, in the case of Aronimink, I think they missed a golden opportunity."

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

There were a couple of very good and comprehensive threads on here a number of years ago discussing (and also arguing about) various aspects of the Prichard restoration of Aronimink.

One protagonist in those discussions/arguments was MacWood whose point and comments back then seemed to generally revolve around the comments he made on the Prichard restoration on this thread, particularly the following:

"When you hire Ron Pritchard you know what you are getting, a golf course redesigned in a prototypical Ross style, and many people are quite happy with that (see Aronimink). IMO, in the case of Aronimink, I think they missed a golden opportunity."

and...

"Here is a link to an old aerial. Its a shame the course was not accurately restored. The original course had to be one of Ross' most boldly bunkered designs."



I've known Ron Prichard for maybe ten years or more now and have had all kinds of meetings and discussions and conversations with him over and around a number of courses and projects and subjects. But it may've been around his bunker restoration project of Aronimink when I got to know him best as I only live a couple of miles from it. Back then he did call me sort of out of the blue to talk about the origination and evolution of those Aronimink bunkers in the context of Ross field drawings and aerial information and other material information and the various ways to go or not go with them during the bunker restoration.

If you want me to try to explain that again in brevis, I'd be glad to try.

[Tom MacWood]

What did they fail to restore?

Jim
The bunkering scheme today is completely different than the course Ross built, and Prichard admits that today. He'd mistakenly thought the course was built according to a set of plans he'd discovered. At one point he led us to believe he had proof the course had actually been built that way and then later redesigned, but that proof never materialized.

[JC Jones]

Phew

I haven't been paying attention to this thread but when I saw MacWood posting I was expecting a "Ross didn't actually design Aronimink" post.   

[Tom MacWood]

Phew

I haven't been paying attention to this thread but when I saw MacWood posting I was expecting a "Ross didn't actually design Aronimink" post.   

Funny you should mention that...on those old threads Prichard and TEP put forth a theory that the course as built was the result of renegade associate of Ross. I suppose it was their way of rationalizing why the course was not restored.

[JC Jones]

Phew

I haven't been paying attention to this thread but when I saw MacWood posting I was expecting a "Ross didn't actually design Aronimink" post.   

Funny you should mention that...on those old threads Prichard and TEP put forth a theory that the course as built was the result of renegade associate of Ross. I suppose it was their way of rationalizing why the course was not restored.

Certainly Maples was not THE renegade?

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

That's too bad -- I was really interested in seeing your personal 25 with Aronimink included.

Well, they don't call your hometown the Windy City for nothing.

Mike C:

When I return from the UK next week I'll be sure to reach out to a few people and see what's possible. Enjoy the many comments and for those who see my bashing the course you're all wet. I share many of the comments Doak made that appeared in CG -- I'm well aware of the talent that RP possesses.

TePaul:

Let me say this good buddy -- whether the course restored the bunkers or not -- the issue is did thre work of RP actually improve the course. Clearly, from the comments posted thus far -- that question seems to have been answered in the affirmative. The obsession with the restoration debate really obscures the more important question -- does the work that's been done serve to strengthen the overall golf course? Clearly, you and others believe it has. I'm looking forward to seeing that for myself. One last question -- given your superior knowledge of all GAP courses what Doak number would you give the lahout now?  Thanks ...

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Jim Sullivan on Yesterday at 11:17:23 AM
What did they fail to restore?


Jim
The bunkering scheme today is completely different than the course Ross built, and Prichard admits that today. He'd mistakenly thought the course was built according to a set of plans he'd discovered. At one point he led us to believe he had proof the course had actually been built that way and then later redesigned, but that proof never materialized.  
 
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:07:32 PM by Tom MacWood »"




Sully:

That statement of MacWood's above is more than a bit misleading when he says the bunker scheme restored was completely different than the course Ross built.

Pretty much the entire story of the RP bunker project is on some old threads on the subject from maybe close to ten years ago now. I guess they are still back there somewhere and it would be good if someone pulled them up if they are still back there.

Matter of fact, the entire story of the evolution of the bunkering schemes of Aronimink from the beginning of the planning of the course until today just may be so unique it may not be a bad idea if someone did a really comprehensive design evolution report on that subject alone. I say that particularly because the bunkering that is there now is basically from some really good Ross "field drawings" (in Ross's own hand) that apparently were not originally done.

But to say they are a completely different bunker scheme than what was built there originally is misleading because they are essentially in the same places and pretty much with the same coverage as what was originally built.  It is really just a matter of the fact that Ross's "field drawings" called for single bunkers in the same places in which a series of "multi-set" bunkers were originally built.

And then the question arose of who it was exactly who called for those "mulit-set" bunkers in the same place as Ross's single bunker "field drawings?"

This brings up the question of J.B. McGovern, Ross's long time Philadelphia or northeastern region associate who was actually a very prominent member of Aronimink and served on its Green Committee. It also brings up the fact of Jeffersonville GC that preceded Aronimink's course in Newtown Square and had those "mulit-set" bunkers that were quite famous locally before the present Aronimink course was done.

The Jeffersonville course is technically called a Ross but some very good sources indicate all the work and perhaps the design of it was actually done by his associate J.B. McGovern. Ron Prichard also restored the Jeffersonville course before he restored Aronimink.
 

[TEPaul]

"TePaul:
Let me say this good buddy -- whether the course restored the bunkers or not -- the issue is did thre work of RP actually improve the course. Clearly, from the comments posted thus far -- that question seems to have been answered in the affirmative. The obsession with the restoration debate really obscures the more important question -- does the work that's been done serve to strengthen the overall golf course? Clearly, you and others believe it has. I'm looking forward to seeing that for myself. One last question -- given your superior knowledge of all GAP courses what Doak number would you give the lahout now?  Thanks ..."


Matt:

I pretty much agree with all you say there. However, there are some, and particularly Tom MacWood, who don't seem to care or consider if the RP restoration or project improved the course or not. All he seems to care about is whether or not the course was restored to exactly the way it was originally built, and in MacWood's mind this seems to pretty much involve the bunkering-----at least from what he has been saying on here.

The specific issue seems to be should the bunkers have been restored with those "mulit-sets" that were essentially originally in the same places and with the same coverage as Ross's original single bunker scheme from his "field drawings" in his own hand? It gets down to the question of whether it would've been appropriate and practical to redo about three times as many bunkers basically in the same places and with basically the same coverage as Ross's "fiield drawings" that were used in the RP project? It gets down to whether the course should have over 200 bunkers in the same places and with basically the same coverage as Ross's approximately 80 bunker "field drawing" bunker scheme?

Luckily, the Ross greens at Aronimink were never really touched thoughout the course's hstory and even though I have always realized they are very good it wasn't until yesterday with the comprehensive and detailed commentary on them all and their little nuances and contours by that team of CBS commentators just how good they really are and even with players that are the best in the world.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The course is the star...


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/sports/golf/04course.html?ref=golf

[Gary Slatter]

I believe the commentary today on the CBS telecast amongst the team of CBS commentators (Faldo, Feherty, Baker/Finch and the handle-bar mustache joker) was the very best and most comprehensive and detailed regarding the architecture of Aronimink, particularly the greens, I have ever heard on a TV telecast of a professional golf tournament.

If one watched and listened carefully to their constant architectural commentary it was probably more educational than playing or studying the golf course ten times over.

Have to agree 100%      For once I really enjoyed the commentary about a remarkable modern golf course - congrats Ron!

[Matt_Ward]

Aronimink presents an interesting situation -- if there were no AT&T event how much of the discussion of the course's qualities would really be happening?