Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on June 09, 2003, 07:50:32 PM

Title: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 09, 2003, 07:50:32 PM: MacDonald & Co have been roasted on this site for building terrible bunkers at Merion, yet Ron Prichard has been praised for designing great Ross bunkers, based on Ross's field drawings, at Aronomink.

But, MacDonald & Co was the contractor for the bunkers at Merion and Aronomink.

Why is the fact that MacDonald & Co did the bunkers at Aronomink rarely mentioned ?

Why isn't this firm given credit for doing great bunker construction work, in a timely fashion, to almost universal praise at Aronomink ?

Instead we hear that Ron Prichard did great work, which he did, but why render the contractor at Aronomink invisible ?

How can the same contractor do such a great job at Aronomink and such a poor job at Merion ?

And, how can this site not praise their work at Aronomink ?

It is the same company isn't it ?

P.S. TEPaul, please refrain from commenting, early.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tyler Kearns on June 09, 2003, 08:16:50 PM: Patrick,
It is a shame that golf course shapers receive so little, if any credit for high-quality construction work that plays such an important role in the successfulness of the golf course. They are an intrinsic element of the overall project team, and have the ability to make or break a project, however well intentioned the architect's plans are.
Macdonald & Co. are building the bunkers that were envisioned by the archietcts for the courses in question, Merion and Aronomink. I'm sure a contractor landing such high profile jobs as these is first rate, and thus feel they should not shoulder the blame for Merion's "restoration". Were they not executing Tom Fazio's plans to the best of their ability? Were they not executing Ron Prichard's plans to the best of their ability? I believe they probably were, and should thus be credited in both cases for doing quality work!! The restorative effort is not the responsibility of the contractor, that is the work of the architect and they alone should be judged on those merits.

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 09, 2003, 08:38:36 PM: Tom MacWood,

You've come a long way. ;D

But, back to MacDonald & Co.

They did both jobs, how can they be criticized for one, and begrudgingly praised for the other ?

Double standard ?

Depends on the architect ?

Fazio did Merion and Pine Valley.

Merion gets hammered, Pine Valley gets praised.

Where do the inherent differences lie ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 09, 2003, 09:14:16 PM: "P.S. TEPaul, please refrain from commenting, early."

Hey, professor, what's going on here? I've got my hand up and do I have the complete answers for you! So what is this, some kind of pop quiz to see if the class did its homework?

PS;

If this is the beginning of another one of those "bias" threads I just might have to cut you off at the pass and massacre you with a whole division of cavalry!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 09, 2003, 10:33:55 PM: Patrick, I know little about the details of the restorations at Merion and Aronomink. Perhaps you can help me out by filling me in on how much Fazio was hands-on involved and/or personally supervised the bunker work at Merion, compared to the Ron Prichard's hands-on involment or personal supervision at Aronomink. Otherwise, I am not sure how we can answer your questions. Thanks.

TEPaul. Blow the bugle and charge. Of course this is the beginning of yet another thread about bias.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 09, 2003, 11:46:18 PM: Pat, your 100% equivocably right. I haven't seen any of MacDonald's work at Merion in person.

But I have seen it at Riviera..................Please, keep him on the East Coast!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick Hitt on June 10, 2003, 01:49:32 AM: Mr. Mucci,
I do not know enough about the process at Merion to say why the bunkers ended up looking like they do. I do know that Ron Prichard approves the finish work on each bunker before grassing. I raised the same point about the builder here after seeing both courses 18 months ago. I give Ron credit for finding a prosess that works or him. I don't know the shapers that deserve credit for recreating shapes from the old drawings at Aronimink. I'm not sure we'll ever know who chose the look for the Merion bunkers. I miss the old faces but love how steep an deep the new bunkers play.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 01:49:57 AM: The answer is simply because I'm BIASED!!! ;)

Actually, it's a basic question...as basic as simple geometry.

The bunkers at Aronimink are almost all of basic geometric form in shape, with all of them just flat sand bottoms with grass faces. THe outside shaping is rectangular in most cases, similar to something by Seth Raynor.

The bunkers at Merion were much more free form, with all sorts of capes, bays, twists, turns, and sand flashed up to the top lip at bunker height. They had internal contour within the bunkers themselves. 80-90% of them had more twists and turns than anything one finds at Aronimink.

Given the differences in complexity, the bunkers at Aronimink lent themselves well enough to the machine-shaping, modus operandi of MacDonald and Sons. The bunkers at Merion did not.

The same solution applied to two different questions leaves us with the questionable results. Simple as that.

Part of the equation was also almost certainly due to the fact that Ron Prichard seems to me to be the kind of guy who would be onsite as much as possible and puts his heart and soul into "restoration", as he is a true believer. I assume that he'd work hard to try to get the details right. In the case of Merion, I'm not sure that Tom Fazio could make similar claims.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 07:16:26 AM: Redanman & Mike Cirba,

Are you going to tell me that the bunker work, under the design, direction and supervision of Fazio on the short course at Pine Valley isn't terrific ???

You must be kidding, or in denial.

How about the bunker work on the new alternate green on #8, are you going to tell me that that isn't terrific ?

Seems to me, that Fazio did a great job in replicating the bunkers at Pine Valley, with all those capes and bays, nooks and crannies, and all that good stuff Mike Cirba likes.

You fellows are troubled by the dilema that Fazio designed and produced great bunkers at Pine Valley and MacDonald produced great bunkers at Aronomink.

And you can't understand.... Merion ?

That's okay,

DMoriarty,

Could you tell me how hands on Donald Ross was at Aronomink ? How much personal supervision he put in to the construction of the bunkers at Aronomink ?

I think you fellows live in fantasy land with respect to the construction of bunkers and other features.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 10, 2003, 07:39:08 AM: Pat Mucci:

I'd advise being a little bit careful with this issue.

To answer your question would probably require getting down and dirty about specifically who did what during the project. In other words, we would not only have to examine a project at a far more detailed level than we typically do, but we would also have to get far more personal than I think is wise for this discussion group.

Keep the long term in mind. We are trying to attract more industry participation. I don't think adding individual performance appraisals - e.g., how well did Johnny supervise this project? - is a direction we want to go.

Why not just focus on the final product, i.e., what people like and don't like about what was done?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 07:41:54 AM: (http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/PV8a.jpg)
credit: Geoffrey Childs
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 07:48:58 AM: Patrick et al:

As one who has been a member at Aronimink for over 25 years and a guy who actually caddied at Merion as a kid I believe there are a few reasons why Fazio and McDonald are criticized by many concerning Merion and Prichard and mcDonald are praised for Aronimink.

To begin when I was 13, 14 years old and caddied at Merion the Bunkers did have many twists, scotch broom in some, etc. but were almost universally referred to as "the white faces of Merion." The work done by Fazio and McDonald changed the so-called "White faces of Merion".

When I played Merion last summer I was surprised at the bunker surrounds and the facings coming over the bunker lip and into the face.

This look was not what I remembered as "The White Faces of Merion".

At Aronimink Pritchard and McDonald built the bunkers to what the oringinal plans showed. They clearly showed the Ross type bunker with the grassing down the facings to the bunker floor.

It is difficult to know what was really what at Aronimink for many years due to the many changes that had taken place with the bunkering.

For this reason I believe Pritchard and McDonald get kudos at Aronimink.

I have also been told by others that this is the type of bunker McDonald specializes in. Don't really know if this is true or not but I have been told that.

Perhaps Wille Dow and Chip Oat can lend some insight into the process at Merion.

Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 07:57:58 AM: Patrick;

I haven't seen the Short Course at PV, although I have seen other work Fazio has done on cleaning up and reconditioning the bunkers on the regular course that has been done in recent years. I've seen them fore and aft.

My honest opinion...it's ok, although it's much too clean, tidy, "fairer" and formalized for my tastes and I prefer the more rugged and natural look that Pine Valley has been known for over past decades. Did I like it better before? Yes. Was some of it probably necessary due to maintenance issues or bunker disrepair. Yes, I'd imagine it was.

The work on 8 was done a few years back, and I even like the alternate green Fazio built there. However, more recent bunker work on holes like 10, 14, etc., seem to me to be more dictated by concepts like standarization, formalization, and fairness in outcome than the wild variations in terrain one experienced before.

Case in point. The old left hand bunker on 10 was almost trench-like. If you ended up there you might be well-advised to pitch sideways. That's been widened so no such dilemma exists anymore. Seems a shame on such an exacting little hole.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 08:09:37 AM: Oddly enough, the surrounds on the left bunker bears an uncanny resemblance (if you don't agree just dismiss me - i have no interest in reprising the Berkshire/Merion donnybrook), whereas the one on the right (Fazio) looks more simplistic.

but I digress

Does anybody have any postable Merion pictures from 1930 that they can post? There seems to be a dispute on the Aronomink thread as to whether the original Ross creations were grass faced or flashed, might a similar claim be made as to the Merion bunkers, i.e. might the orig. faces of merion have eroded or declined from a lack of maintenance interest?
such that they evolved into the look of c.1998?

Also, to satisfy my own curiosity. Does anybody have a problem with the depth of the bunkers? particularly in view of the fact that for most of the bunkers they dug down through 2-3 feet of sand that had been continuously added over the year?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 10, 2003, 08:12:08 AM: Yep, that bunker work by Fazio, on the 8th at PV, was highly criticised on GCA. The pot bunkers on the 11th look much too formal now too, although I don't know who did this work.

A question about Aromomink. Was the original "Aronimink" a Tillinghast design on a different location (about 1913). I think I remember reading this. The course incorporated an old ruin, somewhat like the one at Devil's Paintbrush.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 08:16:29 AM: Sean;

Certain of the new bunkers at Merion are now effectively deeper because as I understand it, Macdonald & Co. dug down to the original bunker "footprint" during their construction work.

On certain much-frequented bunkers, such as those fronting 8 & 13, sand spashing over the years had raised their top edges rather dramatically. There was concern that taking down those top edges back to their original levels might lead to uncertain green characteristics (the splashing had also altered the green attributes over time), so a decision was made not to touch the top ends of certain greenside bunkers (ironically, the only bunker "surrounds" untouched in the entire process).

The combination of original footprint (flooring), with the evolved top end (ceiling) made for effectively deeper bunkers. Do I have a problem with that? No, not at all.

As far as Pine Valley, re-read your post because I think on the last time you said "left", you meant "right". In any case, I believe that Fazio did stabilization work to the entire green complex, including both bunkers, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong here.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 08:38:32 AM: Quote

Aronomink thread as to whether the original Ross creations were grass faced or flashed,

Sean:

It is unclear whether the origninal bunkers at Aronimink were grass faced or flashed. The only evidence available were some aerial photos from the 1930's. These photos show many of the bunkers as a series of three bunkers and some of them, if not many, were flashed.

This led to the discussion of whether Ross's assistant, James McGovern who oversaw the day to day construction, changed
the bunkering in the field or did the membership change them after the course had opened.

Given that the Great Depression came a few years after the opening of Aronimink it seemed unlikely, but not definitive, that the bunkers were changed by the Membership. It appeared more likely, but again not definitive, that the bunkering was changed during construction by McGovern and probably, but again not difinitively, approved by Ross.

Thus the decision to go with the original plans and the original field drawings.

Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 10, 2003, 09:00:08 AM: Quote
DMoriarty,

Could you tell me how hands on Donald Ross was at Aronomink ? How much personal supervision he put in to the construction of the bunkers at Aronomink ?

I think you fellows live in fantasy land with respect to the construction of bunkers and other features.

Patrick, I said I know very little about the restorations; I know even less about the original work. You are the one who is making the comparison. I think it only fair that you fill us in on some of the specifics so that we can adequately compare.

What fantasy land do I live in with respect to the construction of bunkers and other features? Have I ever expressed an opinion on construction?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 10, 2003, 09:40:10 AM: Pat,
I'm starting to wonder where you are going with all of this. Please do tell.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 09:56:49 AM: Quote

A question about Aromomink. Was the original "Aronimink" a Tillinghast design on a different location (about 1913). I think I remember reading this. The course incorporated an ruin, somewhat like the one at Devil's Paintbrush.

Paul:

Aronimink was originally located at 52nd and Chester Ave. in Philadelphia in 1896. In 1904 or 1906 it moved to the Aronimink section of Drexel Hill, Pa. and built a golf course which I believe was 9 holes and could have been designed by Tillinghast, I just don't know.

In 1926 the Club moved to the current location and Donald Ross designed the current course.

Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 10:03:53 AM: Quote
Paul
I don't know if it was a different site or not, but Tillinghast did design the first Aronimink (or at least the Aronimink prior to Ross's)

Dave
Does the club have photos of the golf course - other than the aerial - from the 20's, 30's and 40's? I would think a club with such a rich history would have a considerable archive of photos. Was there a clubhouse fire?

There are photos of the 1st hole (from the tee) on the cover of the August 1929 issue of Golfdom and the 18th green from the July 1929 issue of Golf Illustrated that clearly show sand flashed and in the case of the 1st a multiple bunker scheme.

Tom:
See my prior post to Paul. The course you are referring to as designed by Tillinghast was located in the Drexel Hill about seven miles or so east of the current location.

I am not aware of any fire but in looking at the photos in the Club House, etc. The earliest I have seen are from the 30's forward. I do agree that in 1929 the photos to which you refer had flashing on the face of the bunkers but again no one knows for sure whether that was done in 1926 or later. My guess is they were built that way due to what McGovern found in the field.
The aerial photos from the 30's show the sets of three and also bunkers with flashings and some with grass facings.
As there was no definitive information available the decision was made to restore to the original plans and drawings.

Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: G.Crump on June 10, 2003, 10:12:44 AM: Rumor has it Mr. Mucci wants to join Merion.
That makes him BIASED, so you should ignore everything he says about Merion. ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 10:21:31 AM: The original Aronimink course was designed by Alex Findlay in 1896.

I don't know what the bunkers looked like, but I do know they weren't done by MacDonald & Sons. ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 10:29:47 AM: It should also be noted, for the sake of completeness, that McDonald & Sons also did the construction of the Bethpage restoration/renovation/redesign. Placing it yet another controversial project.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 10:32:58 AM: Quote
The original Aronimink course was designed by Alex Findlay in 1896.

I don't know what the bunkers looked like, but I do know they weren't done by MacDonald & Sons. ;)

Mike:
Was this course designed by Alex Findlay a nine hole course. I believe it was located at 52nd and Chester Ave's. in Phila.

The course in Drexel Hill may have been 18 holes and could that have been Tillinghast. I can't find my write-up on the history at the moment.
Best
Dave

PS - How was Sunday.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 10:37:52 AM: Dave;

I believe that's correct. I have more info about the course at home, and if I get a chance tonight, I'll report further.

I know little about the Tillinghast course except that I know Rick Wolffe of the Tillinghast Society (www.tillinghast.net) asked me if I knew anything about it a few years back. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to help him.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 10:42:48 AM: Quote

Mike:
Was this course designed by Alex Findlay a nine hole course. I believe it was located at 52nd and Chester Ave's. in Phila.

The course in Drexel Hill may have been 18 holes and could that have been Tillinghast. I can't find my write-up on the history at the moment.
Best
Dave

PS - How was Sunday.

Found my history.

"Aronimink Golf Club- There is a railroad station, Belmont, situated about one hundred yards distance, on the West Chester & Philadelphia Railroad. It may also be reached by electric cars from the city. The Post Office Address is Fifty-second and Chester Avenue, Philadelphia. Organized in 1896. Entrance Fee $10.00 Annual Dues $20.00. Membership 150. The nine holes were laid out in December, 1896."

The original Clubhouse was occupied prior to 1896 by the Chief of the Lenape Indian Tribe named Aronimink from which the Club derived its name.

In 1913 Aronimink moved to Drexel Hill and built an eighteen-hole course and modest clubhouse.

Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 10, 2003, 11:42:52 AM: Sean, Its interesting that you brought that up, because it really shows how MacDonald & Sons go about doing paticular architects styles of work.

To me, the work at Merion clearly reflects upheavel--that the person in charge really didn't know what they were doing. (As far as the bunkers)

At Aronomink, it is obvious in pictures that it isn't the same place I saw three years ago, and that Ron Prtichard has seemingly had a positive affect on its change. I'm with Tom Mac in the fact it isn't restoration, but it is in fact a very positive way to go about remodeling in the vein of trying to reincorporate the spirit, style and substance of its original designer--Donald Ross. I appladue Ron Pritchard for accomplishing this.

The effort to change Bethbage Black from a much beloved, well designed, but ill-maintained municiple tract into a USGA Championship venue is certainly impressive on both it scale and its intentions. What a treat it must be for all of those deovtees of the course who labored all of those years playing under such shoddy conditions. Rees Jones specifications are certainly to be acknowleged. But we should, in a similar vein, never call his specs "Restoration," no matter how mis-used or mis-understood the term. It became a "Remodel" the second he moved or replaced bunkers, and, I'm not even talking about what they look like or how they are shaped.

MacDonald & Sons was there for all of them, and like I said last night, they were at Riviera, and what they and Tom Marzloff of Fazio were thinking of is beyond terms. It isn't something to be proud of, thats for sure.

So we have two Fazio-led projects with the MacDonalds that are brought into question--Merion and Riviera. One Rees project that has been questioned by some, but more, highly celebrated for its intent, nothng but a plus as far as I'm concerned, and I wish the City of LA could follow suit with the Griffith Park courses; and Aronomink, which is being celebrated by everyone, all highly respected opinions, that have both written about it in the press and on this website, acknowledging Ron Pritchard for not only a job well done, but also hi-lighting his abilities in guiding a construction firm--the same construction firm that did all of the courses mentioned, on how he wants his work carried out.

Yes Pat, your post has proven it. They MacDonald's need expert guidance.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 11:50:30 AM: Quote

At Aronomink, it is obvious in pictures that it isn't the same place I saw three years ago, and that Ron Prtichard has seemingly had a positive affect on its change. I'm with Tom Mac in the fact it isn't restoration, but it is in fact a very positive way to go about remodeling in the vein of trying to reincorporate the spirit, style and substance of its original designer--Donald Ross. I appladue Ron Pritchard for accomplishing this.

Tommy, then couldn't the same be said of Merion. If you concede that Pritchard didn't conform to the original in designing the bunker surrounds, then you are holding Pritchard and Fazio to different standards, and that goes a long way to what Pat is trying to get at with this post (although I'm not really sure what McDonald has to do with any of this, they simply follow instructions - its like blaming the infantry for a tactical military error).

As we both know by now, I feel very differently than you do regarding Merion's bunkers.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 10, 2003, 11:51:17 AM: I'm pretty sure that Tillinghast's Aronimink was built around 1913. He wrote about it in several editions, under his psuedo "Hazard" in American Golfer. There are pics of the holes tool.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 10, 2003, 11:58:08 AM: Quote
I'm pretty sure that Tillinghast's Aronimink was built around 1913. He wrote about it in several editions, under his psuedo "Hazard" in American Golfer. There are pics of the holes tool.

Paul:
This fits with the History and with Mike Cirba's Alex Findlay. It apprears that Findlay did the design of the original nine at 52nd & Chester Ave. in Phila. and Tillinghast did the original 18 Holes in Drexel Hill.
Best
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 12:46:43 PM: Tim Weiman,

My point was that MacDonald & Co was severely criticized on this site for bunker construction at Merion, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect, Yet, they weren't given an ounce of praise for constructing the bunkers at Aronimink, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect.

It seems like a terrible double standard.

DMoriarty,

My point was: that you may have spent more time on site during the construction of Aronimink then Ross did.
He was absent from the site, far more than Fazio & Associates was at Merion. Again, it's the implementation of a double standard. It's okay for Ross to be AWOL, but god forbid that any other architect who doesn't enjoy "most favored nation" status on this site, isn't there 24/7.

P_Turner,

I'll tell you who did the bunker construction work at Pine Valley
The Pine Valley maintainance crew under Fazio's consultation.

G.Crump,

To set the record straight, I'd like to join the following clubs.
Merion
Pine Valley
Maidstone
Shinnecock
NGLA
Friar's Head
Westhampton
Piping Rock
The Creek
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Plainfield
Somerset Hills
Baltusrol
Hollywood
Mountain Ridge
Seminole
Cypress Point

and many, many more.

The truth is, I have made no formal or informal application or request to join any of these clubs.

Your statement is false, disengenuous, misleading and cowardly, since you've chosen to post anonymously.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 01:17:56 PM: Tommy Naccarato,

How do you know that MacDonald & Co didn't follow the specifications they were given, perfectly, for the Merion project ?

You admit that you've never seen the new bunkers at Merion, yet you make a critical judgement regarding their construction, indicating that the person in charge didn't know what they were doing, and that the project was in upheaval.
How can you make that evaluation and retain your credibility ?

You applaud Ron Prichard at Aronimink but don't give one iota of credit to MacDonald & Co for doing such a great job in constructing the bunkers..... Why ?

Not once have I ever heard any criticism of the bunker construction at Bethpage Black by MacDonald & Co.

Not once have I heard any criticism of the bunkers at Bethpage Black, other than from Tom MacWood, who has NEVER seen them.

The overwhelming comments, from those who have played the course extensively, before and after the USOPEN project have been complementary. It would appear that MacDonald & Co properly built the bunkers at Bethpage Black following plans provided by the architect.

The debate regarding restoration versus renovation versus modernization is a seperate issue.

With respect to Riviera, is MacDonald & Co in charge of design or is it the Fazio organization ?

If it's the Fazio organization, how can you blame MacDonald & Co for building bunkers to the specifications they were provided ? Isn't that what they're supposed to do ?

The other question I have for you is as follows.

Do you think that the membership/owners of these clubs,
give the architect carte blanche, with no review process, with respect to the intended work ?

Or, do you feel that the architect must submit plans for review and approval before he begins his work ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 01:51:53 PM: Pat - I think you're confusing the issue. Forced to choose culpability or credit for a restoration, etc., no one would pin it on McDonald. Its a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

please read my last post.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 10, 2003, 02:33:41 PM: Sean, As I have stated in my original post, I don't think we should reopen that old wound again. It is history because it is over and done with, and I'm apologize if I was taking it too far--AGAIN in my subquent posts.

But, you do know what my thoughts are on the subject.

In the interest of Discussion Group harmony and World Peace, I'll refrain from making anymore comment. It's al because I have too much respect for the memories of Hugh Wilson, William Flynn & Joe Valentine; the legacy of Bill Kittleman's tenure at the club; the efforts of Richie Valentine; the honest and sincere intentions of Bill Greenwood; Joe Logan, for getting just one quote from the other side, compared to a whole slew of them from the club; My own personal Air Force,:) who flew the missions in their high-tech U-2 Spy Planes to get the proof (pictures) that we needed, proving that indeed Nikita Kruschev, Tom Fazio, and the MacDonald's had indeed planted Nuclear Stinkbombs just off of the Merion greens and fairways; the yet to be slain rapper, Huge "Puffy" Wilson; Kenny Tanakawana and any other name you can think of.

I'm OUT!:) ( I don't want any of the Mucci backlash that is going to occur after this one! ;D)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: George Pazin on June 10, 2003, 02:53:17 PM: Quote
My point was that MacDonald & Co was severely criticized on this site for bunker construction at Merion, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect, Yet, they weren't given an ounce of praise for constructing the bunkers at Aronimink, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect.

It seems like a terrible double standard.

This isn't entirely factual. Several posters, especially the esteemed Tom Paul, have stated that MacDonald did a very good job with the work at Aronimink. I believe Tom P even hypothesized that the reason they did a good job at Aronimink versus a less acclaimed job at Merion was that their procedures (larger machine versus hand work) are better suited to this type of work.

Might wanna check your facts a little closer next time. ;D
(I favor this particular grin as well - why do some people think it looks evil?)

Quote
To set the record straight, I'd like to join the following clubs.
Merion
Pine Valley
Maidstone
Shinnecock
NGLA
Friar's Head
Westhampton
Piping Rock
The Creek
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Plainfield
Somerset Hills
Baltusrol
Hollywood
Mountain Ridge
Seminole
Cypress Point

and many, many more.

If by many, many more you mean Oakmont, Fox Chapel, Allegheny & maybe a few across the pond, then your list looks a lot like mine. 'Course, I'd have to also add GCGC to mine.:)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: T_MacWood on June 10, 2003, 02:54:39 PM: Ah yes....Kenny Tanakawana....it brings back good memories. Bel Air CC some years ago....I was having lunch with Kenny T, Mac Davis and Charles Nelson Reilly...when that little fellow the pro came in with George and young Tommy F...they had big plans for the golf course...unfortunately Tommy F accidently bumped into Chuck and all hell broke loose....I've often wondered if their work at B-A was effected by this ugly incident.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: SPDB on June 10, 2003, 03:20:07 PM: Thomas - don't leave this thread, at least not before answering the question I posed to you.

I never thought you took it too far. Like I've said before, you're passionate about these things. I respect a good healthy exchange of ideas (excepting the furtive RCD bunker hypo ;D :D).

However, please answer my question. After two years, I feel that I may have you in a corner. :-* :-* :-* ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 10, 2003, 04:44:40 PM: Sean, I guess I'm not thoroughly reading into what your getting at, because what I'm trying to say in my post that maybe indeed that it is the directive of the architect on how this work should come out, in the form of remodeling, not restoring. After all, he is specing to the builder what he wants, correct? I hate to go into Forrest-hating building analogies, but in construction (my business) you have a set of plans and specs you have to follow. Any material has to follow the architect's specs what to use. Any generic comparitable materials have to be approved by the architect by submitting him a list of materials going to be used.

Take an office area that is going to get 200-2 x 4 Lithonia brand florescent fixtures with the really expensive parabolic diffusers; expensive but cost effective energy saving transformer and T-8 tubes, then, try replacing it with something that is half the cost that is obtainble from Home Depot's cheapest Korean made brand. That is something that is just not going t happen unless the client and the architect are sound asleep or just plain inexperienced.

You have to submit to the architect why you are doing this, so he can compare it to the Lithonia brand, (which btw, he gets a nice stipend from Lithonia for each large order sold.) and then see if he ok's or disapproves it, only after he has consulted with the client.

Then I have to install it correctly to his specs. Say if I find a much better and cost-effective way (for me) of installing it, but it doesn't conspire with the architects original Muccivision of making sure the building will have minimal earthquake improvements that might be coming into law in a few years. Am I going to try to get away with it, knowing that he can come back and make me rip 200-2 x 4 florescent lighting fixtures out? (If I did, and it came back to haunt me, I can assure you the contractor I'm working for would fire me for doing so.) So, I'll make out a "Request for Information" (aka Change Order) which allows the architect to say yea or nea to my ideas of installation, as well as seek additional savings for the client who we are building it for, by asking me to revise a cost it will take to put it in MY way.

So, what I'm getting at, if I'm some wild buckaroo that thinks I can get away with doing somewhat shoddy work, and get away without the legal ways and means of the construction trade, then I got away with it, and ina few years, they can cal in another contractor to replace it all because the lights are falling out of the ceiling. But I'm not that buckaroo, I take pride in my work. so hopefully it will all come out right, and if it doesn't, I can say, "I did it as specified--LOOK!"

But lets say all of a sudden, the client, starts to oversee and change the work that I'm doing to the letter of the Specifications, from the architect? Once again, the Change Order, and I'm going to demand that he sign it right then and there, because it is here I can charge him and do it anyway I want because he said so, and as long as I feel that the installation is technically safe and sound, and the architect agrees with the methods of installation. He's happy-The architect is happy, and my boss who is going to charge him a fortune for doing so is REALLY happy.

Now, I don't know if any of this is what happend at Merion, I would hate to think it was the client getting too involved and signing-off on ideas the consulting architect didn't really know about because he wasn't there or an associate OK'ing the destruction of the most famous bunkers in American Golf (lets not forget, they ripped the compacted foundations of the original bunkers completely out so they could dress them up in the Gold Package or Eddie Bauer add-on. Does that sound like a sympathetic restoration to what they saw in pictures from 1931? I for one don't think so.

but maybe I would be better off thinking that it was simply horrible guidance and decision making in regards to making the course play tougher so they could convince the USGA that the course could somehow hold the US Open
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 06:02:37 PM: Tom MacWood,

You're unqualified to comment on the construction of the bunkers at Merion, not because of me, but because you've never personally seen them, or the construction specifications.
Don't get pissy because you don't have the facts.
It never troubled you in the past.
You seem quick to condemn work you've never seen and you seem quick to blame people without knowing the entire story.

Golf at Bel-Air was with Duffy Waldorf, Bobby May, Kenny Tanakawa and Eddie Merrins. Mac Davis, who had played golf with my dad on a few occassions joined us.

Tommy Naccarato,

Let's not mislead those not familiar with work order changes specifications contained in a contract between the parites.
You and I both know that work order changes can't be enacted unless they are approved and SIGNED OFF by one and in most cases TWO representatives of the client.
They have to be scrutinized and approved, first.
No deviation from the specs is permitted without the sign offs.

Don't turn tail and run when pressed for the facts or factual answers to difficult questions.

You made definitive statements about the work on the bunkers when you had absolutely no knowledge of same, and that's irresponsible, not matter what your passion.

George Pazin,

Baloney,

Only after the issue was pressed and comparisons made did some grudgingly give MacDonald & Co credit.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 06:37:56 PM: HAYSUS H. CHRISTO felllas...

We're talking work orders, specs, double signed secret probation, dying grass, purposeful lack of TLC, seeing versus not seeing (even though the whole freaking course is pictured by Ian on the other thread), pinning each other into corners, relationship of footprints to buildups, and all of this complete and utter bullshit when the bottom line is simple...

The bunkers are FUGLY. They look as if they were dropped in from the planet BLOAT. The surrounds fit the terrain like a 70's leisure suit at a summer beach party in the Hamptons.

Who F'ed up? Who cares? Why are we trying to assign blame?

Are they deeper? Yes. Big fat, freaking deal. That takes some real talent and artistry! Ooooooo....the bunker used to be four feet deep and I made it five! Aren't I quite the revolutionary thinker!! Yep...I thought it up all by myself....one day I just decided that I'd dig up another foot of dirt with my front end loader!!! All Hail!

Will they evolve? Yeah...but not in our lifetimes fellas. Unless someone comes in there with mortar shells and AK47's the fact is that the bunker-wolled, pinned down, layers of turf facing on each of them are staying put for the long haul. I watched them being built and there's less insulation and upholstery on suburban split-level.

Why don't we just move on and wish the club the best. They went into this with the best of apparent intentions...hire the world's most famous architect, put together a "restoration" plan, hope to draw a US Open...but the fact is that someone sold them a bill of goods that the 100+ enormously complex bunkers could be rebuilt top to bottom by machine in about 6 months and look "fabulous....really darling".

To paraphrase John Houseman, some things are worth waiting for...or conversely, haste makes waste. It's sad.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 10, 2003, 06:47:28 PM: George Pazin:

I'm just having a good time chuckling while reading this thread and all the Nowheresville hairsplitting on it. Patrick Mucci has initiated this thread, like so many others, so he can attempt to establish "bias" and a "double standard" with his typical "dog chasing his tail" method.

Reading some of this minutae as well as some misguided speculation does anyone wonder why most of the architects and most of the golf clubs that tune into this website and read some of these threads think most of us are a bunch of lunatics?

But just for the hell of it I'll throw a bit of food for thought into this thread regarding Aronimink vs Merion bunkering. The MacDonald shaper on the Aronimink project is reputed to be the best they have. I met the guy a few times and watched him work with Ron Prichard at Aronimink. Ron Prichard said he missed the mark on the first few he did there but Ron got him to do what he wanted him to do on the rest. Wish I could remember the guy's name to give him credit by name but I can't remember. Big strong dude though--wouldn't want to pick a fight with him! If he wasn't the only shaper on the project I know I'll find out about that shortly.

And just another interesting bit of info. Ron has yet to see the bunker restoration at Merion. But my take on this is MacDonald & Co to date have shown there're a few bunker types and styles they can do well and there're a few bunker types and styles they can't do very well. At the very least that's the undeniable evidence on the ground so far from what I've seen!

Pat Mucci might call that statement biased and and a double standard but I'd call it not much more than an informed opinion!

But heh, it's not the end of the world--just the ongoing world of golf course architecture!

This Merion bunker restoration project debate on Golfclubatlas in never going to die--I'm convinced of it. But once again, my take on it is the club, architect and contractor should have done two steps of a three step process in the bunker restoration project. They should've redone the drainage and the sanding and they should've basically left the surrounds alone except to fix them where needed.

Why should they have left the surrounds alone? Were they unique in look and in their architecture? Not really. There are a lot of bunkers around here that look the way many of Merion's came to look. And did that Merion bunker look stay the same from 1912 to 1920 to 1930 to 1950 to 1970 to 1999?
No, not even close. For the reasons and extent of that one only needs to speak in detail to such as Richie Valentine. But instead of completely removing the bunker surrounds of Merion's bunkers and starting anew why should they have been left and just fixed? Again, because they were wholly unique? Not really. Simply because they were the f...ing bunkers of Merion G.C., and they were really famous as they'd evolved and they'd evolved all those decades through one maintenance cycle after another to get the way they did and they'd never been remodeled like this project and didn't need to be because they were Merion's--plain and simple.

At least that's always been my take on them--but just like Pat says, I could be wrong! ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: T_MacWood on June 10, 2003, 06:48:00 PM: Pat
I don't recall being at Bel-Air with you. It was Kenny T, Mac Davis, Charles Nelson Reilly, Gene Rayburn, Slappy White and myself - I don't remember Bob May, Waldorf or you. I did however have a Waldorf salad at the Brown Derby with Wally Cox--were you there?

Give it up Pat--this bunker analysis really isn't your bag. I hate to say it but you really are not a good judge of these things. Some people just don't have an eye for aesthetics (or could care less). I've never once seen you describe or compare the aesthetic quality of one bunker style to another. I've never read you describe or contrast the aesthetic qualities that are unique to Rees or Tillie or Flynn or Travis. I don't think you care.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 10, 2003, 07:45:43 PM: Quote
DMoriarty,

My point was: that you may have spent more time on site during the construction of Aronimink then Ross did.
He was absent from the site, far more than Fazio & Associates was at Merion. Again, it's the implementation of a double standard. It's okay for Ross to be AWOL, but god forbid that any other architect who doesn't enjoy "most favored nation" status on this site, isn't there 24/7.

Thanks Patrick, but I got your point the first time. I also got that you tried to make your point without answering my questions; then clarified your point, again without answering my questions. My point is that unless you want to delve a little more deeply into the Merion work vs. the Aronomink work (or the Ross work for that matter), your points are much less than well supported.

But I guess if you are just interested in making your usual superficial "bias" observation/accusation, there is no need for you to really dig into the bunker construction.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 07:55:43 PM: Tom MacWood,

I love how you self appoint yourself as the expert on the bunkers at Merion and Aronimink, especially when you've never seen them. You've never played to or from them.

You have ZERO frame of reference when it comes examining them in person. Yet, you know more than me, and others who have personally examined those bunkers.

You have NO experience with either project, yet you're the self appointed expert.

You're all talk and no action, otherwise, you would have accepted the bet with the great odds I gave you. You made a false statement, but when called on it, and asked to back it up, you wilted and refused. And now, you say that you're a bunker expert on bunkers that you've never seen, which is no surprise.

TEPaul,

You seem to miss the point, again.

If those bunkers weren't built to the architect and clients specifications, MacDonald & Co would have had to build them over, made a financial settelment, or gone to court, and none of the above happened, which would seem to indicate that they built them exactly as they were instructed, vis a vis the bid specs and contract.

Don't give me this hocus pocus about a guru shaper, most shapers understand exactly what the boss wants, and if they don't give it to him, they have to reshape it until they get it right or they're replaced. Or, did the architect and club accept something other than what they had designed and contracted for ?

The point is simple.

How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?

They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere.

If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: T_MacWood on June 10, 2003, 07:58:51 PM: Pat
You should be thankful I present myself as "a self appointed expert", if not you couldn't focus your attention toward me and would be forced to actually analyze and differentiate. Go ahead analyze and differentiate.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 10, 2003, 08:21:42 PM: DMoriarty,

Many have made allegations relative to MacDonald & Co and their work at Merion, but when pressed to present the facts substantiating their allegations, they refuse to do so.
When questioned about the project and details, they again refuse, and provide no substantiation for their charges.

You insert the tired "being there" mantra, but, apparently, you weren't familiar that Ross wasn't there either, nor was he there at many other courses he's credited with designing.

So, in your eyes, it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else.
I'd call that a double standard of bias, wouldn't you ?

The criticism of MacDonald & Co's work at Merion remains unsubstantiated, and I'm just refuting that criticism.

Tom MacWood,

I'm curious as to what you do for a living that takes advantage of your incredible expertise, your ability to analyze and differentiate everything, with unimpeachable certainty, especially from afar, without first hand experience.
Certainly, you must be the "expert" in your field.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 10, 2003, 08:52:40 PM: Patrick;

Let's assume for a moment that MacDonald & Co are artistically and functionally capable of doing anything that they are tasked to do. In reality, I question that...I really do based on what I've seen, but for discussion purposes, I'll accept it.

So, then let's also accept that they did exactly what Tom Fazio's organization asked them to do. Let's assume that Fazio's group drew up detailed specs of every single bunker at Merion, compared them meticulously using laser-guided, detailed analysis against the bunkers that existed at the course in 1930 from computer generated, three-dimensional photographs and retinal images and brain scans taken from the most elderly members and others in the community who were there when Bobby Jones was.

Then let's assume that the club was willing to spare no expense, leave no stone unturned, or no bunker unearthed in an effort to do a true restoration.

Let's assume that everyone was above-board, awe-inspiringly talented, and willing to do whatever it takes to complete the job in a way that would be a shining exmple to the golf world as to what is possible given enough time, money, talent, and good intentions.

Are the results indicative of that? If not, why?

Even if we find the dozer operator or club official, or architectural associate who varied slightly from those lofty goals, what is the point of doing so?

I love the Merion golf course, and have since I was 13 years old. I'm not a member, yet feel an affinity for the place due to many reasons, some logical, some sentimental, and some just out of appreciation for the genius and diligence that went into it over the last century.

What's the point of assigning blame? Where does that get us? What have we learned that's applicable to the general golf community?

I don't understand what you're getting at. If it's simply to say that people like me are biased against a particular architect or contracting company, then I think that's way off-base and I wouldn't even begin to know how to respond.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 10, 2003, 09:55:26 PM: Mike Cirba, to paraphrase Rod Tidwll from the movie Jery McGwire, "Your militant and I love it!" You go guy!

However, it pains me that you didn't read the between the lines of my comparison. There is meaning........and you can bet the same million dollars that Pat & Tom were betting back& forth last week that Buddy Marucci signed-off on all of it. (probaby after twisting the green committee's arm's a bit!)

Tom Paul, Like always, spot on. You are my guru. You are my Emperor of Quon. (More Jerry McGwire quotes)

But..................................

I wouldn't say that would be entirely true that Ron Pritchard hasn't seen the "new" Merion bunkers. At least from what I heard from one of my spies...........
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 10, 2003, 11:58:40 PM: Quote
DMoriarty,

Many have made allegations relative to MacDonald & Co and their work at Merion, but when pressed to present the facts substantiating their allegations, they refuse to do so.
When questioned about the project and details, they again refuse, and provide no substantiation for their charges.

I find it odd that you are always scolding others for their (perceived) hypocracy, while at the same time being hypocritical yourself. What does their refusal to substantiate their allegations have to do with your refusal to substatiate your 'bias' claim? It certainly doesnt justify it.

Quote
You insert the tired "being there" mantra, but, apparently, you weren't familiar that Ross wasn't there either, nor was he there at many other courses he's credited with designing.
You may view it as a "tired mantra" but I would think that it might be important to understand the level and degree of instruction and guidance MacDonald & Co. received before and during their work at both sites. You don't mean to claim that the only determinant of the quality of a bunker is the company which does the work, do you?

As I said above, I knew very little about the original construction of Aronomink, so how could I know whether he was there? I do know that many claim that Ross very rarely had much on-site involvement, so it wouldnt surprise me if he wasnt there at all. But Patrick, who cares? Please explain to me what Ross' involvement in his courses has to do with whether MacDonald did the same quality work at Aronomink and Merion? Surely MacDonald did not do the original bunker work for Ross! I dont see why we need to discuss Ross' work in a discussion about MacDonald's.

(I wont bother to ask for specifics of Ross' involvement at this particular course, because you wont answer. You would rather just throw out conclusions.)

Quote
So, in your eyes, it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else.
I'd call that a double standard of bias, wouldn't you ?
Huhhhh?
When did I say that "it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else"? When did I give any opinion on the bunker work? I prefer to be able to substantiate for my claims before I make them, so I really doubt that I expressed the view you attribute to me. But if I did, please point it out to me. Meanwhile, dont try to make me your strawman in your never-ending efforts to put forth the same old, tired, and unsubstantiated claim that everyone except you is biased.

So Patrick, what is your substantiation for implying that the bunker work at Merion is of the same quality as that at Aronimink. [If the quality isnt the same, then those that look at one negatively and the other positively might not be bias at all.]

Surely your support is not so thin as just relying on the fact that the same company performed both jobs, is it? What about the other factors that may have influence on the work, such as supervision and direction; the shapers; the architects; the wishes of the membership?

My questions still remain unanswered . . .
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 11, 2003, 02:24:41 AM: Pat said:

"TEPaul,

You seem to miss the point, again.

If those bunkers weren't built to the architect and clients specifications, MacDonald & Co would have had to build them over, made a financial settelment, or gone to court, and none of the above happened, which would seem to indicate that they built them exactly as they were instructed, vis a vis the bid specs and contract.

Don't give me this hocus pocus about a guru shaper, most shapers understand exactly what the boss wants, and if they don't give it to him, they have to reshape it until they get it right or they're replaced. Or, did the architect and club accept something other than what they had designed and contracted for ?

The point is simple.

How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?

They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere.

If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary."

Pat:

What the hell is going on with you? What do you think you're establishing here? That some people have no right to comment on what they think the bunker projects at both Aronimink and Merion look like to them? If that's what you're saying, and it sure looks like you are, you aren't establishing that point at all and someday you oughta realize you never will.

And I'm not blaming MacDonald & Co for anything here. All I've said is I really don't think they do very good Flynn style bunker restorations. I've also said I think they're capable of doing a good restoration on the look and style of other types of bunkering such as Ross's grass faced bunkering at Aronimink. My bet is they can probably do a real good job on the bunkering at Oakmont. Do you have any idea why I'd say that Pat? Do you have any idea why one would be different to restore than the others? Do you have any idea why the architectural reconstruction of the bunkering at Aronimink and Oakmont is different than Merion, Rolling Green, Riviera, Shinnecock and probably Atlantic City? Do you have any idea what MacDonald & Co's bunker reconstruction method is---their modus operandi for constructing bunkers, so to speak? If so let's hear it instead of having to read endlessly you're attempt to assign blame to someone and to question everyone's right to have an opinion on these projects.

I don't know exactly what Merion or the Fazio organization told MacDonald to do. My sense is they probably told them to recreate the look of the bunkers at Merion in 1930 and they tried to do that. What else are you looking for here?

If you want to get into exactly how they did that then fine, I'll do that because I'm both familiar with the pre-project look of Merion's bunkers from playing Merion scores and scores of times for the last 25 years as well as watching the new restored bunkers being reconstructed at Merion. I've talked to a ton of people over there for years now--I've talked to the Merion super and can even talk to the young man who was the project manager for the Fazio organization--since he's a terrific young man--and called me the other day about some research on a bunker at another course here in town. Plus he's the son of an old friend of mine. I could even talk to Buddy Marucci about it but I'm not going to do that. The green chairman I've talked to a lot--he's been extremely accomodating with me and anyone else interested in the Merion bunker project and the entire restoration of Merion.

Plus I spent a lot of time out at Aronimink with Ron Prichard and the guy from Aronimink who was most involved in their restoration project who I've known for years. It was a good learning experience for me in the details of what it takes in the field to do this kind of work from the architect, shaper, respresentative from the club and the superintendent. Since then I've talked to Ron Prichard a lot about this type of work and even how he views some of what's said on Golfclubatlas about restoration work, particularly bunker restoration work.

But did Merion get what they wanted from Fazio/Macdonald on their bunker project? Well, different people have differing opinions about that. Did they want access and egress problems with some of their bunkering? Did they want irrigation problems with their bunker surrounds? Did they want some bunker-wol problems? What do you think?

So, I don't know why you're on such a campaign to assign blame to someone? Obviously you just don't like the fact that some may criticize the product for whatever reason because you're on this ridiculous mission to lay blame at the feet of club membership no matter what the situation.

It matters Pat--I guess, but the larger and better point here is some of these things need to be fixed and hopefully they'll get fixed. For some odd reason it doesn't appear that the restored bunkering at Aronimink needs fixing. To date, and through a major tournament last weekend the restored Aronimink bunkering appears to have passed muster with almost everyone I've heard from--except Tom MacWood who happens to think the club and Prichard made an incorrect decisoin of what Ross (or McGovern) look to restore to. That's not something I agree with Tom on and have given all the reasons why on here a number of times.

And I'm the guy who coined the term "puffy and upholstered" on here about 2+ years ago. If you want to know why I came up with that description I'll be glad to tell you again. It has a lot to do with the technical method MacDonald & Co uses on certain types and styles of bunkering, in my opinion. Ian Andrews thinks there may be a way of retrofitting that method at this point to catch a look on Merion's bunkers that's more representative of the way they used to look at certain times in their evolution. I'm not convinced of that exactly because there appears to be some bunker construction under those rolled over grass surrounds as they merge with the sand that probably isn't meant to be uncovered. But that might remain to be seen and known.

In my opinion, the way the entire dirt surrounds were reformed is probably just too rounded anyway, and MacDonald didn't use the so-called "ledge" where the sod merges with the sand upsweep as far as I can see and as far as the Merion East super said.

So what more do you want to know and what exactly are you trying to prove here? It sure looks like you're just trying to prove bias and a double standard against Fazio and maybe by association MacDonald & Co. Why bother to do that on here endlessly? It's a f...ing waste of everyone's time.

But I'll say it again--I think Macdonald can do certain types and styles of bunkering pretty damn well--particularly with the oversight of a really good restoration architect like Ron Prichard--but again Ron had to really work with them in the beginning of the bunker restoration to get them to do just what he wanted. He most definitely did not tell them to just go out there and make him some Ross style bunkers! Everytime I ever saw Ron at Aronimink he had copies of Ross's original drawing under his arm!

So once again Pat, when you ask a question such as;

"The point is simple. How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?"

Finding fault isn't exactly something I'm trying to do here but obviously you are. And if you don't or can't understand why I think the bunkering at Merion missed the mark after all I've said above then frankly I have little idea what more you need to know by way of an answer to your question.

And when you say;

"They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere. If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary."

I can't see what more there is to say or to prove. There's a lot of detailed information there for you. So get off your campaign to assign blame to those you categorically assign blame to on every single project. Matter of fact, why don't you just get off your campaign to assign blame altogether? Instead of asking everyone on here a zillion questions of how they can know or prove this or that why don't you just get into explaining on here what you really think about various aspects of golf course architecture and why?

I've done that and so have others. That's what this site is all about. And stop trying to quash people's opinions on architecture simply because you figure they have no right to have an opinion because they haven't proven to you that they've played the course and are intricately familiar with the details of these projects. People have eyes and they have opinions.

I'm surely not trying to quash your opinion on any of these bunkers on any of these courses, matter of fact I wish you'd be far more forthcoming about what your opinion is on these things and why. And surely you're not going to question the fact I'm about ten times more familiar with these projects than you are---or these courses pre-project either. I live right here and have played these courses and looked at them for the last 2 1/2 decades.

So give it up on this bias and double standard campaign of yours. Make your points about what you think about any of this architecture, like everyone else does on here and then just leave it at that. Your opinions about any architecture will just stand or fall on its own---just like everyone else on here.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 11, 2003, 08:38:06 AM: Mike Cirba, Tom Paul, DMoriarty, et. al.,

You were the fellows assigning blame, not me.

I'm trying to exonerate MacDonald & Co from your rumor based allegations borne of unfamiliarty with the project.

You fellows were assigning all the blame, I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Mike Cirba,

Your assumptions are flawed, hence your conclusions are flawed.

TEPaul,

Are you going to sit here and tell us that Fazio's organization just gave MacDonald & Co vague instructions to make the bunkers look like they were in 1930, based upon MacDonald & Co's interpretation ? You know better then that.

DMoriarty,

Do you mean to tell me that when people make damaging allegations regarding the construction of the bunkers at Merion by MacDonald & Co, that they're not accountable to substantiate their charges when questioned about the facts and their allegations ?

If you don't see the bias, you're blind as a mole.

Tom MacWood holds himself out to be an expert on the bunkers at Merion and Aronimink, despite the fact that he's never seen one bunker, and noone else renders his opinion as unqualified. Fellows, you're in the same camp, and biased.

Imagine someone criticizing Coore & Crenshaw's work, Doak's work, or Gil Hanse's work without ever seeing it.
This site would go ballistic.
But, because Fazio and MacDonald & Co are involved, the absurd statements are allowed to stand. Nah, there's no bias.

When it comes to construction, the architect and contractor, you guys just don't get it.

TEPaul,

Who is the member in charge of the Gulph Mills restoration project ?

Et. al.,

My money says that MacDonald & Co can build any bunker that any architect designs for them.

Is anybody familiar with the bidding process ?
Do clubs just pay any bill that is rendered by contractors and sub-contractors ?

Last question on this post today :

Were the bunkers at Merion built sequentially, or all at one time ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 11, 2003, 08:48:18 AM: DMoriarty,
Quote

You're getting warmer, and you're starting to catch on.

Relfect on the above statement, and expand your thinking a little further, you're making great progress.

To repeat another question, do you think that the bunkers at Merion were built sequentially, or all at once ?

Go back and review your quote, you're starting to get it.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 11, 2003, 08:58:16 AM: Patrick;

I'm not going to defend myself against charges of "bias".

I also don't know how you can't see that a company who uses machine based construction methods can't be as precise or detailed as those who use handwork. It's like giving a surgeon a chainsaw and asking him to do open heart surgery. If, as in the case of Aronimink, bunker shapes are relatively rectangular and simple, he can make those cuts using that tool. That was most definitely not the case at Merion.

As far as seqential or all at once, it was sequential, with multiple holes chosen per sequence.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 11, 2003, 09:16:14 AM: Mike Cirba,

Different tools are used for different tasks.

Would you tell me how the 1st right side fairway bunker on hole # 1 was constructed improperly, and what machines were used, for what specific tasks ?

If the bunkers were constructed sequentially, as you say,
What happened after the first bunker was completed, while others were still in construction and others hadn't begun to be constructed ?

Was there a bunker opening ceremony when all the bunkers were done, or was each bunker reviewed upon its completion ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 11, 2003, 10:37:33 AM: Patrick;

Ironic that you mention that rightside fairway bunker on the 1st hole. When I last played there, one of my playing partners had the misfortune of hitting into it. We all saw the ball go in there, but when we arrived, it was nowhere to be found.

We spent a minute or two looking further, and were about to give up, when I spotted someting white about 30 inches down the nearly vertical, thickly blue-grassed bunker face. Sure enough, his ball had gotten stuck into what had formerly been one's introduction to the "White Faces", except the face had changed colors. ::)

Now, this fellow is no youngster, and he faced an awful predicament in trying to extricate his ball after it had lodged in the grass. I was afraid he was going to hurt himself and we all just sort of said, "c'mon take it out of there", each shaking our heads bewildered at the ridiculous predicament.

(http://www3.sympatico.ca/iandrew/index.html/m1.jpg)

Now, what was it that you were asking?

Patrick, to my knowledge, MacDonald & Sons don't do bunker "handwork". I believe that it's impossible to "recreate" bunkers that intricately interesting and creatively varied without it, and so did everyone else who was ever intimately involved with the project or course maintenance for decades.

The results speak for themselves as to who was correct.

Patrick, as far as wanting to place the blame on club officials (who I'm presuming you're suggesting should have made them do it over and over and over until they got it "right"), what were they supposed to do exactly? The original bunker was GONE. The original bunker surrounds were completely excavated. So now you have a secondary design associate on site directing traffic and a bunch of well-meaning blue collar guys sitting on tractors and back hoes and you're trying to talk to them about 1930!, and getting answers like "I built you a bunker like you asked, sir."

Perhaps instead of being so vague you can tell us what you think should have happened at that point.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 11, 2003, 11:56:11 AM: Pat Mucci:

I agree with Tom Paul that you are way off base with your ongoing campaign to find bias and double standards behind every tree.

If you like the work done by MacDonald & Co at Aronomink or any other course, why don't you just start a thread about it and tell us why? Instead, you seem to waste a lot of energy telling us that because nobody else has started such a thread, that is evidence of this bias/double standard thing you seem preoccupied with.

Pat, we saw the same pattern with all your comments about Rees Jones. You would almost never cite a Rees course and tell us what you found appealing about it. Instead, you went on endlessly about how everyone else is biased not to like his work.

What is gained by this?

There is no double standard with respect to MacDonald & Co and Merion or Aronomink.

News flash: most people visiting a golf course do not review construction specifications. They don't review all the written communications between various members of the project team. They don't have access to transcripts - or even gossip about - verbal communications between the team members. They don't know how many times the architect of record showed up. They don't know who was the on site project manager and what his/her experience/skills might be. They don't know anything about specific shapers on the project.

No, Pat, they simply walk the golf course and form their own impressions. At Merion, in many cases the impression has not been favorable. Having walked the course myself, I can understand why the famous bunker project got so much negative reaction. I have no bias against Tom Fazio or MacDonald & Co nor any desire to bash any Merion member associated with the project. I just didn't like what I saw. Period. I don't need to "substantiate" any "allegations".

With resprect to Aronomink, I haven't seen the work Pritchard and MacDonald & Co did there so I can't comment. But, I'd much rather you detail why it is worth going out of my way to see rather than deal with another lecture about bias.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Daniel_Wexler on June 11, 2003, 12:16:04 PM: Pat:

Just curious: What information do you have to suggest that Ross wasn't at Aronomink? I personally have no documentation to suggest that he was or wasn't, but the quote "I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew" has always made me think that Aronomink might have been among the few that actually received some attention.

As I say, just curious...

DW
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 11, 2003, 12:23:04 PM: Isn't there a film of Ross onsite at Aronimink during construction? I believe I heard that mentioned here.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 11, 2003, 02:28:32 PM: "My money says that MacDonald & Co can build any bunker that any architect designs for them."

Pat:

Well, isn't that nice. I wish I could share your confidence in them doing that. I believe in giving them credit when it looks like it's due on a project but not if it isn't due on another project. And I've never blamed Macdonald & Co, only said I don't think they do very good Flynn bunkering from what I've seen. The rounded look they put on Merion and Rolling Green tells me they don't do great Flynn style bunkering, that's all, but maybe you don't notice or don't care or worse yet maybe you think that rounded look is the Merion and Flynn style.

You think MacDonald & Co could build bunkering like Friar's Head and Hidden Creek if Coore and Crenshaw designed it for them, Pat? You probably do--you're about that naive or that lacking in understanding the distinctions in these things. They probably could figure out how to build bunkers like that but only if they hired "The Boys" first!

"Are you going to sit here and tell us that Fazio's organization just gave MacDonald & Co vague instructions to make the bunkers look like they were in 1930, based upon MacDonald & Co's interpretation ? You know better then that."

Did I ever say that? But you don't know otherwise do you? You probabaly didn't even know that MacDonald & Co is in the golf architecture business did you Pat? They say they're not just bunker contractors as you thought they were unitil you read this sentence. They'll offer to build or restore an entire course for you.

You didn't know that did you?

But after post #58 I'm about done discussing this stuff with you. That post is sad--and I'm starting to get phone calls from people asking me if you've truly lost your mind you've become such a pain in the ass with this constant "bias" and "double standard" crap, thread after thread--which even more incredibly you start yourself!!! I tell them I don't think you've totally lost your mind yet but it would be worthwhile to keep and eye on you--sort of like one of those crazy people in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" who sits alone in the corner ranting to themselves or anyone else who happens to be in earshot. ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 11, 2003, 03:18:35 PM: Hey wait, it's my turn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pat,

-Where is your proof that Donald Ross wasn't at Aronomink?
-If Ross wasn't there, who was in charge of signing the change orders?
-Who was Ross' lead shaper, and what was his mother's maiden name?
-What was the intent of the Aronomink project?
-Who was in charge of that intent?
-What was his mother's maiden name?
-Where were you when during the construction process of Aronomink?
-Was Ross biased?
-What function did the shaper have in the project?
-What was his intent?

The point is Pat, you are just as unable to answer thes questions not only because of YOUR bias, but because you weren't there either!

And where do I stand in all of this ? ? ? ? NO WHERE! I just wanted to join in the fun!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: T_MacWood on June 11, 2003, 04:02:40 PM: Please leave Pat alone. His purpose is simple--point out bias when ever and where ever he sees it. We can not and should not expect Pat to analyze architecture -- Pat Mucci is THE bias detector. And he does a damn fine job of it.

Analyze Rees's architecture? No.
Analyze the unfair bias toward Rees? Yes!
Compare the original Aronimink to the current Aronimink? No.
Comment on the success of recapturing 1930 at Merion? No.
Comment on the unfair bias against MacDonald & sons? Yes!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 11, 2003, 04:39:47 PM: Quote
Mike Cirba, Tom Paul, DMoriarty, et. al.,

You were the fellows assigning blame, not me.

I'm trying to exonerate MacDonald & Co from your rumor based allegations borne of unfamiliarty with the project.

You fellows were assigning all the blame, I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Patrick, you are again just making things up. When did I ever assign blame regarding Merion's bunkers? Show me.

Quote
DMoriarty,

Do you mean to tell me that when people make damaging allegations regarding the construction of the bunkers at Merion by MacDonald & Co, that they're not accountable to substantiate their charges when questioned about the facts and their allegations ?

If you don't see the bias, you're blind as a mole.
Patrick, I dont mean to tell you anything. I meant to ask you something, namely I asked for substantiation regarding your thin attempt at comparing and contrasting.

Dont be a hypocrit Patrick. If you express an opinion, substantiate it with fact. Or at least stop calling for others to do so. You cant have it both ways.

Quote
Imagine someone criticizing Coore & Crenshaw's work, Doak's work, or Gil Hanse's work without ever seeing it.
This site would go ballistic.

Ive read quite a bit of implicit and explicit criticism of Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon, yet not many have gone ballistic, at least not for the reasons that you regularly go ballistic.

Quote
Were the bunkers at Merion built sequentially, or all at one time ?
How the hell should I know? I know very little about Merion's bunkers, except that I thought them beautiful about 10 years ago when I lived nearby. I havent seen them since, nor have I taken a position on either set of bunkers. Is that so hard for you to understand?

I am not here to defend anyone else's position, but to explore yours; to discover whether you have a legitimate point or not. But you refuse to answer my question.

Quote
You're getting warmer, and you're starting to catch on.

Relfect on the above statement, and expand your thinking a little further, you're making great progress.

To repeat another question, do you think that the bunkers at Merion were built sequentially, or all at once ?

Go back and review your quote, you're starting to get it.

Patrick the reason you like my quote is that it sounds a lot like you when addressing others. Of course you have missed that I am merely parroting you. Making the same demands of you, that you foist upon others. You think these types of questions are useful, we know that. So start answering them so we can get somewhere. I am a neutral observer in this bias discussion and I am looking forward to you shedding light on the issue. Using your own preferred methodology no less.

Please, explain the basis for your position, using the compare and contrast that you yourself proposed.

One last thing . . . I have to laugh that, as I predicted, you appear to be unwilling to substiate your claim that Ross was never at Aronomink. You are a class act, Patrick. You try to put me down by calling into question my knowledge regarding Ross' involvement with the project, all the while you were apparently just making up the bit about Ross not being there.

Who do you think you are? You can throw out allegations without any real substantiation? The only support you offer is a fiction you simply made up? You have a lot of nerve accusing others of bais and hypocritical behavior.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Michael Moore on June 11, 2003, 04:54:28 PM: Quote
Isn't there a film of Ross onsite at Aronimink during construction? I believe I heard that mentioned here.

Yes, there is!!

And I have some stills from that VERY FILM that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ross WAS on site!!

(http://www.summersoccer.com/golf/ross.jpg)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 11, 2003, 05:20:38 PM: Michael, I hate to refute you, but I know that film, and they have a copy of it at the Ralph Miller Library. That isn't Ross either, It's one somewhat younger Pat Mucci taken a few years ago while signing change orders for construction of the original Preakness Hills CC!

Pat, Do they make those knickers in the VERY extra large sizes, and can I get a pair of them before Monday?:)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tom_Doak on June 11, 2003, 05:41:02 PM: I happened to play Merion yesterday, for the first time in many years. I had been afraid to go back because of all that had been said and written here and elsewhere, and because I would be forced to have an opinion on it which would undoubtedly offend one camp or another.

It also happened to be one of my 5-10 favorite places in all of golf, and I was very apprehensive about how it had come out.

The short opinion: Merion is still a wonderful golf course. It's clear to me now that the members had heard nothing but negatives about the course for most of the past twenty years (too short to host the Open!), lost sight of the fact they were better than all but ten courses in America because they were different, and decided with Tom Fazio to make the course a bit more like other US Open courses with deeper grass-faced bunkers. Whether this decision was prompted by Fazio or by the USGA or by the club members themselves, I cannot say.

It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere. Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers.

Yes, the bunkers are deep and not easy to get out of, and what they took away in unplayable broom they gave back in awkward stances ... no less than three times I had to hit a bunker shot with one foot out of the bunker! I don't know if this was an intentional trade-off or not, but if so the credit or blame should go to the architect and NOT the contractor.

I have not seen the work at Aronimink (the boys at Stonewall all raved about it) so I won't comment on that.

We did work with Macdonald & Sons at Atlantic City, and they are quite competent at what they do. I would not go so far as to say that they "can build any bunker that any architect designs for them," unless one means to place all the onus on the architect for communicating his ideas to the last detail. They are clearly more comfortable at some styles than at others ... as most contractors are, and as most architects are ... and we modified our style to fit not only what we thought the client wanted there, but what the contractor could produce.

Macdonald and Sons do not intend (or pretend) to be adding creativity to the design of their renovation projects, which is probably a good thing. I'm not saying that good shapers cannot add to a great course ... they certainly can, and that's why I keep around several on my own payroll. Creativity is supposed to be the architect's job, and Chip Macdonald is fine with that.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 11, 2003, 06:22:15 PM: DMoriarty said to Pat Mucci;

"Ive read quite a bit of implicit and explicit criticism of Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon, yet not many have gone ballistic, at least not for the reasons that you regularly go ballistic."

David;

Who criticized Hanse's work at Rustic Canyon? I don't even care if it was subtly implicit--I'm gonna kill them. I want names, telephone numbers and exact addresses and I want them NOW! I'm paying whatever reward it will take to get those "biased", "double standard" SOBs who criticized Gil Hanse! Whoever the hell criticized Gil Hanse's work had to be put up to it by Tom Fazio or Chip Macdonald--I just know they were behind this--I can smell it!

I want to know who criticized Gil Hanse NOW! They're gonna be dead meat before the sun rises tomorrow! ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 11, 2003, 07:28:36 PM: Quote

The short opinion: Merion is still a wonderful golf course. It's clear to me now that the members had heard nothing but negatives about the course for most of the past twenty years (too short to host the Open!), lost sight of the fact they were better than all but ten courses in America because they were different, and decided with Tom Fazio to make the course a bit more like other US Open courses with deeper grass-faced bunkers. Whether this decision was prompted by Fazio or by the USGA or by the club members themselves, I cannot say.

It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere. Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers.

Tom;

I agree that Merion remains a wonderful course, but I think your first point about the loss of such unique and distinguished features is what many here object to; the homogenization of classic golf courses under the name of "restoration", but actually done for reasons of modernization, consistency, fairness, and predictability.

The fact that we appreciate gorgeous, well-integrated bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 12, 2003, 05:34:58 AM: Tom Doak said;

"It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, but that doesn't change the fact it's a great routing with great greens that fits together as perfectly as any puzzle anywhere. Chalk up a lot of the talk about the course here to this site's obsessive preoccupation with beautiful bunkers."

And Mike Cirba responded;

"The fact that we appreciate gorgeous, well-integrated bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss."

In many ways those two remarks encapsulates almost 2 1/2 years of continuous discussion and debate on Golfclubatlas about Merion's bunker project. (The Merion bunker project subject has undoubtedly been the most continuously hashed over subject in the history of Golfclubatlas.com. Was it obsessive? No question about it!).

It's also terrific to get Tom Doak's take on Merion from his playing of it this week after not having seen the course in a number of years.

Not that he necessarily wants to answer the question, or will, but I'd be interested to have him elaborate a bit more on this remark of his; "It is a crying shame that the changes removed the one thing which made the course truly unique, ......"

And I'd like to add something when Mike Cirba says; "The fact that we appreciate gorgeous,.......bunkers only compounds the shame at their loss.

"We" all (if "we" means those who rue the loss of the "look" of the old pre-restoration bunkers) should be aware that if you lined up the entire Merion membership shoulder to shoulder (as well as others familiar with the course over the years) and asked them to look at an old bunker compared to a new bunker and which they prefer I dare say the majority of them would say they prefer the "look" of the new bunkers!

That's probably a reality "we" on Golfclubatlas should come to terms with and get used to. Why would the majority say that? In my opinion, because the old bunkering had come to be perceived by many as basically falling apart or fallen apart. And they're the ones who play the course everyday and are most familiar with it.

But still why would they say such a thing about such famous old bunkers? Obviously the playbility of the old bunkers had gotten to that point where the sand was road hard and the drainage had about totally failed and sand had leaked well out from the low ends of much of the bunkering into the rough making definition of "in or out" of a bunker questionable. A good deal of the top ends of the bunkering and the surrounds around them had become sort of choppy and spotty agronomically as well as sort of randomly irregular due to years of varying maintenance practices and particularly just the effects of the evolution of what might be called “time and tide” (and play).

But “we” must realize that the reality in golf today and even amongst a membership such as Merion’s is that something like that will be perceived in very different ways by a single membership. Some will look at the old bunkers as an unnecessary and unwanted disintegratation and others will look at it from the opposite extreme as something of true beauty in the manner of say a stream edge that has eroded from the forces of nature over time.

Many on here wonder and even assume that something must have gone wrong in the reconstruction of the Merion bunkers under Fazio/Macdonald/the club. I don’t know that that’s true--or at least when it comes to the "look" of the restored bunkers.

One may ask, though, if the club truly understood what the differences may have been if the club had hired another architect to restore the Merion bunkers under exactly identical instructions! Or if there would have been a difference in look at all if another architect was used and given identical instructions. An architect such as Tom Doak and his really fine crew, perhaps, who are known for their natural looking bunkering. But of course one shouldn’t assume that Tom Doak would ever have build or restored Merion’s bunkers to look like the ultra natural looking bunkers of say Pacific Dunes---that’s a different place and a different style that fits with THAT course’s site. So if Doak’s Renaissance had done the restoration how would the Merion bunkers have turned out looking vs the way they look now?

I dare say the vast majority of the Merion’s membership would've liked them even better than what they have now or what they used to have. But why—that’s the question? And it’d be nice to know from Tom Doak if he'd have recommended that the bunker surrounds be completely taken apart and rebuilt from scratch as they were with the Fazio/Macdonald/club project.

I’ve always thought that it would have been a better policy to simply do two steps of what is generally a three step bunker restoration process and simply fix the internal drainage (1st step) fix the sanding (2nd step) and basically try to merge those two steps with the old surrounds and simply fix any perceived problems with those old surrounds instead of taking them completely apart and rebuilding them (to another look?).

Basically the two step vs three step bunker restoration method is what another club here in town did with their Flynn style bunkering at about the same time as Merion did their bunker restoration project. That, of course, was Philadelphia C.C. The decision was made at PCC to basically leave the surrounds alone and just work on them some instead of rebuilding them.

But there’s a lot more to the Merion bunker project than just the “look” of them, that’s for sure. That would be the playability of them today vs the old bunkers. I think the club got just what they wanted that way but for differing reasons.

Today the Merion bunkers are much harder to play in an architectural sense and not so hard as the old bunkers were in a maintenance sense. It’s an interesting trade-off indeed but the net effect is something that’s very interesting to ponder.

I also wonder what Mike Cirba means when he says the old bunkering was ‘so well integrated” vs what they have now.

One last thing---I don't mean to put you on the spot, TomD, and ask you to jump into this ongoing cauldron that's been the Merion bunker restoration project on Golfclubatlas but it sure would be a real help and undoubtedly a real education too if you would comment. My hope has always been (with this ongoing subject) to take it somehow out of the realm of continous antagonism and adverserialness of some on here with the club and into the realm of real architectural education--certainly for those on Golfclubatlas who comment on this subject without clearly understanding either the realities of Merion and its memberhip or the realities of golf architecture and particularly the realities of restoration architecture! And possibly in some way an education for the club too and other clubs who'll be doing some of the same things in the future that Merion has done with their bunker project.

To be continued.....
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 12, 2003, 06:13:51 AM: Tom Paul;

I don't have much time today, unfortunately, so I'll try to quickly answer your question about what I mean when I say "integrated with their surrounds".

I don't want to come off as being cute, but in a word, "seamless". The old bunkers looked to have been there since the dawn of time and the new ones look to be airlifted from a CCFAD with a "classic course" theme.

Your example of Philadelphia Country Club's bunker work exemplifies my point. I defy anyone to have a walk around there and have any idea that bunker work was recently done. They look to be part and parcel of the course.

As far as your other question as to what Merion's bunkers would have looked like if another architect had done the work, we already know that answer. The work had been started by another architect and it was wonderful. Unfortunately, it seems that it was also too labor-intensive (i.e. slow) for club officials concerned about a 2005 US Amateur timeframe. I imagine other issues were involved, but let's not get into that.

I even have pictures of those restored bunkers, including one of the 9th green from the exact same angle as the 1930 picture in Geoff Shackelford's "Golden Age" book.

It looks exact.

Unfortunately, I won't post it here for reasons I won't go into, but let's just say that I wouldn't want to compromise personal relationships.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 12, 2003, 06:16:10 AM: redanman said;

"I won't venture a word about the short course at PV except that Mr Fazio's influence has led the Complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics."

redanman;

In fairness to Tom Fazio (or any architect), when you make a remark like the influence of Tom Fazio is why the original 18 holes of PV, or even the newer Short course, has changed somewhat in playing intent or aesthetics, I really do wonder why you make a remark like that and how you'd substantiate it. But since you have said it's the influence of Tom Fazio I would say there's a lot more that goes on down there than you know! It's been my understanding that although Tom Fazio belongs to PV and has for some time and has given his advice to the club but only if and when asked, and is somewhat, or perhaps more than somewhat, the reluctant advisor.

This is not in any way intended to denigrate Tom Fazio or to praise him, only to set the record straight and put an accurate description on things. Some on here might howl at that but do they really know what goes on down there and who calls the shots?

There are a number of architects who belong to PV but the fact remains the club has turned to Fazio for quite some time now if and when they ask for advice on the golf course from an architect. Is it logical to assume that if PV turned to any of the architects who are members of that club that any of them would or should say; "I can not or will not advise you in any way on this golf course?"
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 12, 2003, 07:46:42 AM: Tom Paul:

I have no special knowledge of what goes on at Pine Valley, but can share one conversation I had with Ernie Ransome several years back. As Ernie put it, the involvement of Tom Fazio in an architectural matter came at Ernie's request and was NOT the result of Fazio trying to elbow his way into control of such matters.

Beyond that, I have mixed feelings about the way our discussion about Merion has unfolded over the past couple years. Like you, I would like to see less of an adversarial tone to our discussion. I can't believe the leadership of Merion wants to do anything other than the very best thing for their club.

But, I also worry if something might be lost if we got too buddy-buddy - no pun intended!

Recently, I visited a club I hadn't seen for more than twenty years. My hosts were quite gracious and the last thing I wanted to do was offend anyone. But, I did notice the accumulated effect of what must have been a big tree planting program. In a sense, the club was the antithesis of what we see happening at fine clubs like Merion or Oakmont with their well known tree removal programs.

When I commented that the course looked different because of all the trees, one member quickly replied, "Yes, the course is a lot better now". But, I thought it was a good example of what Geoff Shackelford has written about in recent years, i.e., eliminating width to dictate a single line of play.

Truthfully, I found it difficult to express my true feelings other than to point out one particular shot that was lost on a par 5. Interestingly, none of the members had even imagined such a shot. Fortunately, at least one was intrigued.

With respect to Merion, it may well be what you say. Perhaps a majority of members like the new bunkers. But, assuming this is true, should that really stop people here from expressing a candid opinion that something was lost, that really much better work could have been done, especially when it comes to the "look"?

Tom Doak is right that Merion has so many strengths that it remains one of the great places in golf. But, even such clubs may not always get it right and perhaps - just maybe - it takes a little bomb throwing, if you will, to get this message across.

I wish I knew how we could achieve the right balance between candor and constructive education.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 12, 2003, 07:50:59 AM: Tim;

I wish I knew the answer to your final question.

It makes me wonder if I shouldn't have posted anonymously here all along.

Sometimes there is more intrigue on this site than in the halls of the CIA.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 12, 2003, 04:30:00 PM: Mike Cirba,

I think the example you cite is one of the non-agronomic reasons that I don't think the cantilevered grassed tops will survive.

How do you know that MacDonald & Co doesn't do hand work ? How did those cantilevered tops get built ?

Does the term "quality control" have any meaning ?

Mike, did you ever think that perhaps they got the product that they contracted for ?

Tim Weiman,

How can you draw a quantitative conclusion with respect to how many people don't like the bunkers ?

You may know some people who don't like them, like some on GCA, but, there may be many people who do like them, including members and non-members of Merion.

Dan Wexler,

I recall reading that Ross made that comment at the opening, possibly the official opening of the golf course.
That upon seeing the finished product for the first time, he made that comment.

It is no secret that many of Ross's courses didn't enjoy a great deal of his personal attention on site. Some on GCA had taken Fazio to task for not being at Merion enough during the project. That contention may be false, but, even if it was true, why was it okay for Ross to be AWOL, but not other architects ? It's a clear double standard, that's why.

TEPaul,

I think a pretty good case exists that MacDonald & Co was unfairly slammed for the work they did at Merion.

Perhaps they built the bunkers exactly as they were instructed to build them. If so, why should they take any hits on the project.

What has been lost in this discussion is the "cost" to construct. What was the budget for the bunker project, and could that budget have been met if the bunkers were constructed by hand as Mike Cirba would have prefered ?
Clubs don't always have the luxury of Steve Wynn type budgets.

I'm also curious if any of the critics have any experience in bunker construction or bunker construction projects at a club?

Tommy Naccarato,

It's locked up with your proof that Fazio wasn't there. ;D

Tom MacWood,

You might not be aware of it, but this thread is about current bunker construction projects at Merion and Aronimink, not guesswork on the original bunkers at Aronimink and Merion.

DMoriarty,

I addressed my comments to several named people and many others through "et. al.". If you took the royal you personally that's your problem.

One only has to read the posts on Merion to see the overwhelming number of critical comments directed toward the architect and contractor. If people are going to make allegations, they should support or substantiate them when asked.

"Quite a bit of criticism on Rustic Canyon"
You must be kidding, high, or both.

The question regarding sequential bunker construction was meant to emphasize a point. Obviously the question/point went far over your head.

I maintain that Ross wasn't there.
Do you know for a fact, as of this moment in time, that he was ? If so, present your proof.

You knowingly entered this discussion without knowing anything about the bunkers recently built at Merion and Aronimink. Don't get testy because you don't like the answer to questions asked, and don't tell me that I made something up. It has been repeated several times on this site, especially a thread about Aronimink, that Ross wasn't on site, and returned upon completion of the course, something he was prone and known to do.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 12, 2003, 04:35:09 PM: Redanman,
Quote
I won't venture a word about the short course at PV except that Mr Fazio's influence has led the Complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics.

Could you tell us how Fazio's influence has led the complete course to resemble the short course in playing intent as well as aesthetics ?

Could you also list the untrue assumptions regarding Pine Valley and Merion you said I posted ?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 12, 2003, 05:19:48 PM: Does anyonehave any proof whether Ross was at Aromimink or not? Nobody appears to have a clue.

Sometime, I'll copy the Tillinghast reports of his Aronimink and post it here-he definitely visited it!

Why does all this have to get so bleeding personal (using "you" and snide name calling)? It's happened many times before, but now days any thread of any length, turns into slagging match; it spoils the site IMO-no wonder we never see Ran post anymore.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 12, 2003, 06:07:51 PM: Pat said;

"I maintain that Ross wasn't there.
Do you know for a fact, as of this moment in time, that he was ? If so, present your proof.

You knowingly entered this discussion without knowing anything about the bunkers recently built at Merion and Aronimink. Don't get testy because you don't like the answer to questions asked, and don't tell me that I made something up. It has been repeated several times on this site, especially a thread about Aronimink, that Ross wasn't on site, and returned upon completion of the course, something he was prone and known to do."

Pat:

You maintain that Ross was never on site at Aronimink? Why do you maintain that? Is it because to date nobody on Golfclubatlas has given you proof that he was on site? That's a pretty neat trick! I thought you were the guy who liked to deal in fact. Why wouldn't you just reserve an opinion on whether or not Ross was on site until someone who really might know looks into it first--like maybe the club, or Ron Prichard or the library at Pinehurst?

Joe Logan, the Philly Inquirer golf reporter told me last week as he researched a series of articles on Aronimink for the Senior PGA at Aronimink that Ross was known to spend up to a month in Philadephia on his way north to Rhode Island or Boston from Pinehurst in the summer. Ross for many years had an office in Wynnwood probably no more than six miles from present Aronimink. J.B. McGovern, the apparent project manager at Aronimink was the office manager of Ross's Wynnwood office. It'd be a very odd thing indeed if Ross had never been on site at Aronimink in Newtown Square, Pa.

And one would also wonder how Ross had done such fine "field" drawings (Ron Prichard said they were the best "field" drawings by Ross he'd ever seen) of the design of Aronimink if he'd never been on site.

The reason you may've thought Ross was never there may have come from something I once said on here about that remark Ross made about Aronimink--ie, "I intended Aronimink to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built".

All, I ever said about that--somewhat in jest--is a statement like that might be considered a publicity agent's nightmare as it could be construed to mean that Ross had not been around much. But on the other hand many other people could simply take it to mean he didn't really realize how good he thought it was until the completion of construction.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 12, 2003, 06:10:35 PM: Paul Turner said;

"Does anyone have any proof whether Ross was at Aromimink or not? Nobody appears to have a clue."

Paul:

I'll ask Tom Elliott, the Green committeeman who had the most to do with Ron Prichard and the Aronimink restoration about that---he's sure to know.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 12, 2003, 06:10:37 PM: Pat Mucci:

I'm not aware of any "quantitative" study of how many people like and don't like the new bunkers at Merion. Nor am I aware of any new rule at Golfclubatlas that requires discussion group participants to conduct such a study before offering any point of view.

There are plenty of natural obstacles to people offering golf architecture criticism. I don't think we we need to add quantitative studies as an additional requirement for saying anything critical, do you?

Mike Cirba:

The entire golf industry, including the private club world, is so insular that it is awfully difficult for people to speak critically about anything. But, I think golf architecture benefits in the long run by people willing to speak out occasionally and sign their name to it. Hopefully, people will understand that you only mean the best for the game.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tom_Doak on June 12, 2003, 06:29:24 PM: Tom Paul:

I went back and read what I wrote about Merion in The Confidential Guide today and was glad to find that every single word I said about it is still true. I didn't talk about the plants in the bunkers at all, strangely enough, though I liked them immensely and thought they gave the course a character all its own.

I suspect that's why they are gone now. For twenty years, the Merion membership had basically heard nothing about the course except why it wasn't long enough to hold the Open anymore. I think they lost faith in the fact that they were a BETTER course because of their differences, and sought out someone who would put the course more in line with modern notions of greatness, as Tom Fazio is certainly qualified to do.

(Likewise, I was at National last week, and I wonder if they are succumbing to the idea that they aren't as good as the Open course next door because they too are different ... an ugly thought.)

Tom, to answer your question, if I had been asked to take the plants out of the bunkers I would have tried to argue against it. That may be why they didn't talk to me about it; they already had their minds made up. I could not have really talked to them anyway because I would not have wanted to be seen as trying to take the job away from the previous architects, as much as I loved the golf course.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 12, 2003, 08:01:32 PM: Tom MacWood,

Do you know for a fact that "Restoration" was the mission statement, and the ONLY mission statement at Merion ?

And, how can you make an analysis of MacDonald & Co's work if you don't know what the design specs were ?
Oh, I forgot, you can, you're self qualified.

TEPaul,

The reference to Ross not being on site is during construction, not surveying or drawing up plans.
But, you knew that, right ?

Tim Weiman,

You were the one who made the statement about "Many" not liking the bunkers at Merion. Many implies quantification.

Tom Doak indicated that MacDonald & Co did good work for him. Based on critical acclaim, it would appear that they did good work for Ron Prichard at Aronimink. I believe that they produced what they were directed to build at Merion. Hence, I believe that they shouldn't be blamed for the bunker work and bunkers that some are disatisfied with at Merion.

Perhaps some are barking up the wrong tree.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dan Kelly on June 12, 2003, 08:10:16 PM: I came to www.golfclubatlas.com for the first time, about 18 months ago, after reading a Joe Logan piece about Merion's bunkers -- a piece that mentioned a group of golf-architecture nuts who were arguing about it online.

I thought I should check that out. Did. Stayed.

None of my business, and not that you asked, but I'll tell you anyway:

This spat is neither improving with age, nor showing any sign of dying gracefully.

Can't you all just agree to disagree?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 12, 2003, 08:21:39 PM: Patrick;

If your point is that some in the club got exactly what they wanted with the new bunkers, then I'd probably agree. However, I'm not sure they understood the ramifications. If you know what I'm talking about, then enough said. If not, then I'm not going into it here.

Do I think that MacDonald and Co. could have built bunkers that most of us would have appreciated, given the complexity and variety of the original bunkers there? If they had the ability, they certainly couldn't do it in the 7-8 months it took to excavate and rebuild the 100+ bunkers on the property.

There's a reason that good things take time. I was fortunate to see the work that was being done before them, and I can guarantee that if they had been allowed to complete that work, you wouldn't have heard a negative peep about it from this group.

Is that bias? No, it's simply discernment.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: DMoriarty on June 12, 2003, 10:40:50 PM: Quote
DMoriarty,

I addressed my comments to several named people and many others through "et. al.". If you took the royal you personally that's your problem.

One only has to read the posts on Merion to see the overwhelming number of critical comments directed toward the architect and contractor. If people are going to make allegations, they should support or substantiate them when asked.
. . .

The question regarding sequential bunker construction was meant to emphasize a point. Obviously the question/point went far over your head.

I maintain that Ross wasn't there.
Do you know for a fact, as of this moment in time, that he was ? If so, present your proof.

You knowingly entered this discussion without knowing anything about the bunkers recently built at Merion and Aronimink. Don't get testy because you don't like the answer to questions asked, and don't tell me that I made something up. It has been repeated several times on this site, especially a thread about Aronimink, that Ross wasn't on site, and returned upon completion of the course, something he was prone and known to do.
Patrick,

Refusing to admit your obvious mistakes doesnt mean that you havent made them. It does make you look quite silly and immature, though.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: ForkaB on June 13, 2003, 02:36:22 AM: Tom D

Thank you very much for your comments/observations on Merion (and NGLA). A refreshing discussion of GCA issues rather than ad hominem attacks/counter attacks/attacks/counter attacks etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum..........
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 13, 2003, 05:11:50 AM: Dan Kelly (tm);

Did not know you arrived on this website as a result of the Joe Logan article about Golfclubatlas and the Merion restoration project. It seems as if you've been here from the beginning. Anyway, I'm glad you're here and I can't imagine what we would do without our resident lexicographer.

Rich:

'Ad hominem' is a very good term to use for what goes on so often on this site particularly this ongoing Merion subject.

As I've said many times, or tried to, it's a shame the Merion restoration subject and all its many threads on this website took on the cast that it did so long ago. Before that happened the subject and the situation had so much potential for some really good and healthy communication and then due to adversialness and personal swipes from this site all that was lost long ago. It's not that Merion and those who are responsible for it aren't interested in what's said on here---they just won't ever communicate on here and why would anyone wonder about that?

The Internet medium is a fascinating one for ultra swift and comprehensive communication but unfortunately it seem to occasionally completely lack the required "superego" or necessary social consciousness that it generally takes to communicate with people and do it effectively.

And the constant quibbling over bias and double standard on here is just continuing to ruin subject after subject and thread after thread!

Tom Doak:

As Rich said your post #87 is a breath of fresh air on the subject of Merion and it's evolution in the last 20 years or so culminating in their restoration project.

What you mention in that post is more than a breath of fresh air, though. It touches upon not just a minor shift in direction such as cleaning up vegetation in their bunkering. It's far more of a sea-change than that!

And it's certainly not just Merion--it's so many others, probably NGLA and even Pine Valley, Seminole, possibly even Shinnecock to a degree too. My God, even one of the oldest and most long lasting courses of the truly old style--Maidstone--may be considering the new mindset!

What is that slow sea-change and new mind-set? Just as you imply it's the fear of daring to be DIFFERENT! Daring to remain true to those things (sometimes little things) that brought some golf courses to the dance in the first place!!

I don't know how long it's been since you were last at Merion. But it wasn't so many years ago that some of the bunkering at Merion was a virtual jungle--not all but a few. And they were just fascinating in their makeup and variety! A few of them such as the 1-2 on the fairway right on #10 and very much the one just right of #14 were places you didn't want to go not just because you could have a good deal of trouble exticating your golf ball but you also had a pretty good chance of ripping your clothes and probably scratching yourself up somewhat!

And to think that Merion and the USGA actually conducted the 1981 US Open (their last one) that way!! (Remember the photo of David Graham (winner) trying to contort himself into the vegetation (a virtual jungle of plant life and scrub bushes) on that bunker right of #14 green and extricate his ball)?

Why do course like a Merion, NGLA, Pine Valley go this route of cleaning their courses up to the extent of removing much of what was so different about them? I'm sure most know the reasons. It's the new mindset that's basically sweeping the world of golf!

However, one shouldn't generalize about these things too much I suppose. I love the fact that Merion removed the trees that sat in the bunkering on #11 and I love that they removed the trees on the right of the quarry on #16. What I don't love is a fixation in golf that its architecture should formulaically make every golf ball automatically bounce or release off a bunker face into the expectation of a semi-ideal lie or that it's a golfer's birthright that he should receive identical treatment in various places (as Ron Prichard mentioned in a recent interview).

Why did this happen at Merion? Frankly I remember the beginnings of it in some of the best clubs in this area. It happened maybe fifteen years ago when PV had some real conditioning problems and the super-Super, Dick Bator came to town and put them in a condition the likes of which they'd never seen before and only dreamt of. Bator worked on the areas of fairways and greens primarily, though, and did not over-sanitize the rougher areas of PV--including the massive amounts of sand areas.

Then he was off back to Rochester for a time until hired by Merion to do the same thing he'd done for PV. And he did a great job as he always does. But my recollection is the areas of bunkering and such remained as it always had been for a time until finally that too was cleaned up and made to function somewhat more formulaically--and recently PV's was too--and probably NGLA's and Shinnecock's too!

You said;

"I think they lost faith in the fact that they were a BETTER course because of their differences, and sought out someone who would put the course more in line with modern notions of greatness,"

That's such a cogent statement on your part, TomD! I hope you mean it--I know you do--don't back away from it. But this kind of realization is getting harder to sell today--it's flying more in the face of the new mindset in golf of standardized formulaics--and ironically bunkering, that true architectural vestige and tool of an architect's strategic expression is the most prevalent target today! Everywhere you turn today with the proposal to dare to remain different (or what got the course there in the first place) you here someone say;

"That was back then, who cares about that anymore, this is the way golf and all its courses should be today!"
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 13, 2003, 05:13:22 AM: Mike Cirba,

So now you agree that if MacDonald & Co built the bunkers to the specifications that they were given, then they did their job properly, and no criticism should be directed toward them.

One of the impediments to restoring the 12th hole at GCGC is Membership inconvenience.
Taking two or three years to make the bunkers just the way you like them is totally unrealistic and never going to happen.

Tom MacWood,

You say that there are films of Ross allegedly flying over Aronomink. How would anyone know where he was flying ?

Would viewing a site from 5,000 feet qualify as on site supervision ?

Did he drop notes, like bombs to the construction workers below, depending on the winds to deliver them to the right person ?

Would this mean that if Fazio was flying to or from Philadelphia and the glide path took him over Merion that this too would qualify as on site supervision ?

Have you ever seen the new bunkers at Aronimink and Merion?

DMoriarty,

In keeping with the theme of this thread, do you know anything about the new bunkers at Aronimink and Merion ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 13, 2003, 05:33:17 AM: My recommendation would be that those who have never seen or played Aronimink or Merion should do one of two things;

1. Stop commenting on Aronimink and Merion, or better yet;
2. Stop all comments to Patrick Mucci!!! ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: HamiltonBHearst on June 13, 2003, 09:53:50 AM: Mr. Muccia asks relevent and insightful questions that deserve an answer. Why should he answer stupid questions from you serial deceivers, it is beneath him.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 13, 2003, 10:19:56 AM: Ok...we've now hit a new low here. :-/

Hamilton B Hearst, who has contributed so greatly to this site over the years, now steps forward and calls those of us debating this issue with Mr. Mucci "serial deceivers".

I'd guess that includes, me, Tom Paul, Tom MacWood, Tim Weiman, Dave Moriarty (hope I haven't left any of the evil doers out).

I'm outta this thread. If anything was to be learned here it came in fits and starts, and in between all of the personal nonsense.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 13, 2003, 11:40:00 AM: Quote
Pat:

Just curious: What information do you have to suggest that Ross wasn't at Aronomink? I personally have no documentation to suggest that he was or wasn't, but the quote "I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew" has always made me think that Aronomink might have been among the few that actually received some attention.

As I say, just curious...

DW

Daniel:
Ross did spend time at Aronimink of the project but was not there day to day. James McGovern his assistant oversaw the day to day construction of the golf course.
There are photos of Ross on the property and there is a film showing him on the property.
How much time he spent there I don't know. But he was not overseeing the day to day as McGovern was.
Best
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 13, 2003, 11:48:22 AM: Quote
Does anyonehave any proof whether Ross was at Aromimink or not? Nobody appears to have a clue.

Sometime, I'll copy the Tillinghast reports of his Aronimink and post it here-he definitely visited it!

Why does all this have to get so bleeding personal (using "you" and snide name calling)? It's happened many times before, but now days any thread of any length, turns into slagging match; it spoils the site IMO-no wonder we never see Ran post anymore.

Paul:

Donald Ross was definitely at Aronimink during the construction but not on a day to day basis. There are photos of him on site during the construction and there is the movie which many people say was at the official opening.

James McGovern, his assistant, actually oversaw the day-to-day construction.
How often Ross visited from Boston I don't know but he definitely spent time on the site.
Cheers,
Dave

To the Treehouse:
Aronimink is spelled A-R-O-N-I-M-I-N-K NOT Aron-O-mink. ;)
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 13, 2003, 04:25:30 PM: Dave

Thanks. Would you be interested in the Tillie articles, or are they already well documented in the club history...?

So it appears, that the evidence points towards Ross being on site at Aronimink. I wonder if we'll get the minor miracle of a conceded point from Patrick?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 13, 2003, 05:08:31 PM: P_Turner,

The early rap on Fazio was that he wasn't there to supervise MacDonald & Co's work at Merion.

My analogy was that neither was Ross there to supervise at Aronimink and MANY other courses.

So why should Ross get a pass from the treehouse and Fazio take a hit ?

The question is as valid today as it was at its inception.

It's a matter of form versus substance.

I almost always opt for substance, while others prefer form.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Danny on June 13, 2003, 05:13:14 PM: Had the privilege of playing Gulph Mills today and it is absolutely fantastic. The greens were true, but a little slow; when they get up to speed the course will be an absolute treat. It is visually spectacular, classic Donald Ross. Why does it not get rated at one of the top PA courses? It clearly is so much better than others on the list.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 13, 2003, 05:48:18 PM: I suppose it was too much to hope for.

Patrick

Nevermind the analogy.

You wrote, "I maintain that Ross wasn't there". Do you now concede that you're probably wrong with this assertion?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 13, 2003, 07:34:53 PM: Patrick;

We don't know if Donald Ross was onsite much at Aronimink. Neither do you! There is evidently a film of him there, but nobody's sure if he was there once, twice, or fifty times. Neither can we ask him...he's dead!

If Tom Fazio makes one or two site visits to a new course he's building and instead leaves the onsite supervision to Jan Beljan or Tom Marzolf, well, that's his perogative. I understand that one of my favorite of his courses, World Woods Pine Barrens, was mostly the work of Michael Strantz, who was his associate at that time and that turned out fabulously. I'd also love to know who did most of the work at Galloway National.

However, this wasn't Pecan Hill, or The Lodge of Beautific Gorgeousity at Desert Valley, or even Rich Guy's Dream at Unlimited Budget Country Club.

This was Merion, one of the top 10 courses in the world, and possibly the most historic course in this country!!

I think it deserved better than a second-level associate in charge. I don't mean any disrespect to this associate and I understand he's a heckuva fellow. I'm just saying that a project of this importance and visibility should have had a lot of hands on care and oversight from the top of the organization.

I'm starting to think that if some famous architect comes to your course and starts talking about pro bono work, you should most often expect to get what you didn't pay for.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 13, 2003, 08:07:48 PM: Mike Cirba,

I'm not the only one to say that "free" advice is often the most expensive advice you can get.

Many, if not most contracts have a specific number of visits that are required by the architect.

Does anyone know exactly how many times Fazio was on site?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 13, 2003, 08:14:44 PM: Is my Q being ignored?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 13, 2003, 08:18:59 PM: P_Turner,

Does someone posting that Ross was there 80 years ago during construction make it a fact ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 13, 2003, 08:27:04 PM: It's someone(S). And why do you choose dismiss it? Do you have hard evidence to the contrary?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 13, 2003, 08:43:34 PM: Patrick;

I have no idea how many times Tom Fazio was onsite at Merion overseeing the work. Perhaps he was even driving one of the D-9's, but I didn't see him among the numerous workers out there from MacDonald & Co during several visits. On the other hand, perhaps he was onsite constantly because the bunker work at Merion looks EXACTLY like the new bunkers from Fazio's organization on 7 & 8 at Riviera. Of course, everyone knows that William Flynn/Hugh Wilson bunkering and George Thomas bunkering are identical in style, so who cares anyway. Or, is it that Macdonald & Co did that work, as well? Guess we'll never know.

I've been on construction sites where the architect and his most trusted shapers and associates spent hours assiduously seeing to every detail of shaping and nuance, often by hand and shovel, and I must admit that it's a painstaking process. However, almost inevitably, the final work bears out the amount of care and effort.

At Merion, I watched perhaps the most complex set of 100+ bunkers in the land go under the knife and even though many of them are huge and highly involved, I watched the machinery roll through there and complete the whole project in a period from February to August if memory serves. Once again, the final result bears out the amount of care and effort.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 13, 2003, 10:13:11 PM: Mike Cirba, Never Falter!

Pat, Some facts are clear---No one knows where you are going with this; no proof is going to be good enough for you; and it's a proven fact you aren't answering questions.

But I still think your A.O.K.!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dave_Miller on June 14, 2003, 06:06:00 AM: Quote
Dave

Thanks. Would you be interested in the Tillie articles, or are they already well documented in the club history...?

So it appears, that the evidence points towards Ross being on site at Aronimink. I wonder if we'll get the minor miracle of a conceded point from Patrick?

Paul:
I would be very interested in the Tillie articles on Aronimink. There isnothing I've seen that refers to the course in Drexel Hill other than a passing mention that they were there for a few years.
Best,
Dave
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 14, 2003, 06:36:44 AM: Danny;

Glad you liked Gulph Mills. The greens have just been regrassed, that's why they're still a bit slow. They'll be at their optimum later in the year. Come back this time next year and you'll see the second phase of the restoration which is fairways and fairway bunkering and the course should be really good.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 07:11:51 AM: Tom MacWood,
Quote
Frankly I don't care if Ross spent one day or forty days. Or if MacKenzie or Alison or Fazio spent two weeks or if Coore and Crenshaw or Macdonald spent a year or two. The bottom line are the results.

MacKenzie was brilliant at finding talent and bringing out that talent - then moving on. If you have a great plan and confidence with the crew for whatever reason - you might create a Royal Melbourne or Hirono.

C&C and CB M devoted their time to Sand Hills and NGLA and it shows. If you don't have the educational/communication skills of MacK, Ross or Alison -- you are bound to be disapointed.

Aronimink is certainly not disappointed with the bunker work that MacDonald & Co did, and neither is anybody else.
The work seems to be widely acclaimed.

Did MacDonald & Co perform as they were instructed to perform at Merion ? If so, then they successfully produced what they were contracted to build.

Tommy Naccarato,

You were amongst the many who criticized MacDonald & Co for their work at Merion. Criticism not based on the performance of their contractual obligations, but based on your preference for how you would have liked the bunkers to look.

Where this thread started, and should be headed, is acknowlegement from you and others that perhaps MacDonald & Co performed as they were retained and contracted to perform.

Blaming them for a look you don't care for seems misguided.

Paul Turner,

Since you want further divert this thread to grammatical corrections, It's not, "and why do you choose dismiss it"
It's "and why do you choose TO dismiss it".

I've read that Ross wasn't there during construction, with the implication that he had nothing to do with construction, which was a criticism leveled at Fazio at Merion. Until I see solid evidence to the contrary, I'll go with my recollection.

This group is and has been quick to criticize architects for quick "pop in" visits, yet you're willing to accept a perceived
publicity visit as acceptable on site supervision, a double standard if I ever saw one. How many times has this group accused other architects of "mailing it in", but, when it's an architect that enjoys "most favored nation" status, you conveniently look the other way.

And now, someone wants to count flyovers in airplanes as legitimate on site visits ???? You fellows are playing with yourselves and each other.

MacDonald & Co was widely villified on this site, so now I ask you, did they build the bunkers at Aronimink and Merion as they were contractually obligated to do, YES or NO ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Dan Grossman on June 14, 2003, 07:21:36 AM: Can we go back to discussing Architecture rather than speculating what the guy driving the damn bulldozer did or didn't know at the time! :-/ ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on June 14, 2003, 07:27:41 AM: Pat,

This is all starting to sound like the "gunman behind the grassy knoll" (Reespieces mound)/magic bullet conspiracy.

What are you trying to prove with this thread?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 14, 2003, 07:28:48 AM: "MacDonald & Co was widely villified on this site, so now I ask you, did they build the bunkers at Aronimink and Merion as they were contractually obligated to do, YES or NO ?

Pat:

Why do you keep going over all this? At Aronimink the answer is YES they obviously did a fine job on the bunkering. There're no problems with them that I've heard about.

But at Merion you know the story as well as most on here. The answer is NO! The bunkers at Merion are clearly a disappointment in "look" to some at Merion. Is that what was contracted for? The bunkers have access and egress problems? Is that what was contracted for? They had some irrigation and bunker-wol problems? Is that what Merion contracted for? These things are obviously going to have to be fixed at some point for additional cost? Is that what Merion contracted for? Why don't you call up a Merion member or two and see what they think about the necessity of fixing those bunkers and the cost of it?

This is all obvious--so why don't you cut this crap and these questions that are leading nowhere?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 08:28:44 AM: TEPaul,

Previoulsy, I asked if the bunkers were constructed sequentially or all at once, for an obvious reason.

Let's say that Merion has 130 bunkers for the purpose of this discussion, and let's agree that the bunkers were constructed sequentially.

When the first bunker was completed, if all those problems that you list existed, why weren't subsequent bunkers constructed correctly ???????

Even the most primitive or basic quality controls would have picked that up, and corrected, not only the first bunkers but all subsequent bunkers.

You would have us believe that all 130 bunkers were sequentially constructed, improperly, one after the other, all 130, as if there was no comprehension with respect to evaluating a finished product, no learning or experience curve in the construction of 130 bunkers.

So, suppose the first one slipped by, don't you think that after the 10th bunker someone would have noticed the problems, corrected the first 10 bunkers and modified construction on the remaining 120 ?????

Somewhere, your thesis fails the practicality test and the prudent man rule.

Sorry, but, I can't accept your thesis based on common sense alone ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Joe Hancock on June 14, 2003, 10:05:17 AM: Patrick,

Wouldn't implying that someone would notice the "flaws" after the first bunker the same logic as saying no one noticed the "flaws" after the first bunker?

Joe
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Paul_Turner on June 14, 2003, 12:04:47 PM: Quote
Since you want further divert this thread to grammatical corrections, It's not, "and why do you choose dismiss it"
It's "and why do you choose TO dismiss it".

It was nothing to do with grammar, just that several contributors are of the opinion that Ross had visited Aronimink and presented information to support this. And accusing me of diverting a thread is a bit rich.

So far all you've presented, is some mysterious recollection, that Ross never visited Aronimink. Pretty useless, really.

Ross has come in for plenty of criticism on GCA for mailing in many designs. It's a well known fact, and nothing new.

As I said before, this constant accusations of bias and double standards is tedious beyond belief, and is wrecking the site. It has turned into a parochial slagging match.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 02:53:50 PM: Tom MacWood,
Quote
Pat
I have never critized MacDonald's work at Aronimink--if they sucessfully built what Prichard gave them, then yes a job well done.

I'M GLAD THAT YOU FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MACDONALD & CO DID GOOD WORK AT ARONIMINK

My concern at Aronimink was the decision not to resotre the course as it was built and to build proto-typical Ross features where none existed.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACDONALD & CO's PERFORMANCE.

Perhaps Prichard was considering - as Doak said he was - MacDonald's limitations when coming up with a plan.

THAT'S AN ABSURD ASSUMPTION, AND DOAK NEVER SAID THAT.

Perhaps the same was true at Merion.

ANOTHER ABSURD ASSUMPTION

In either case its hard to praise what is ultimately a bad result.

TOM, YOU JUST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID GOOD WORK, AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING THE RESULT AT ARONIMINK WAS BAD, ISN'T THAT CONTRADICTORY ?

And to praise a construction organization whose methods are severely limiting to an accurate restoration.

AFTER THE GOOD WORK THEY DID AT ARONIMINK, WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGE, AND ATLANTIC CITY, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THEIR METHODS ARE "SEVERELY" LIMITED ?
YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF, AND DRAWING A CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED TO MAKE.

Paul Turner,

You appear quite willing to jump in and stir the pot.
And then you have the nerve to indicate that the site is becoming a parocial slagging match, as if you're not part of it.
Hypocritical, wouldn't you say ?

Try to answer my question with respect to the bunker construction at Merion and Aronimink, or are you incapable of same because you've never seen the new bunkers, thus making the posts you've made part of the parochial slagging match that you allude to.

Stay on topic, or stay out of the discussion.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: HamiltonBHearst on June 14, 2003, 03:35:15 PM: It is comical that these threads regress in such a way. Mr. Mucci is just trying to get the truth out and the board can't accept the inherent bias. I love the line "most favored nation status". What a rip. So now we have "MFA". Thank goodness this problem is at least acknoweldged by some on the board. Thank you Pat.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 04:22:33 PM: Tom MacWood,
Quote
...Perhaps Prichard was considering - as Doak said he was - MacDonald's limitations when coming up with a plan....

This is what you said that Doak said, a far cry from what he actually said.

The real failing in your statement is that:

It wasn't Prichard's plans, it was Ross's original plans that the bunkers were built to.

So, how did Prichard make the modifications to Ross's bunkers to accomodate for the deficiency you claim exists in MacDonald & Co's ability to construct bunkers according to the architects specs ?

You've totally misrepresented what took place, and distorted the truth in an attempt to support your conclusions.
Conclusions which should contain the caveat that you've never laid eyes on the bunkers in person, or in an airplane at any altitude.

These are not word games, just a call for accuracy in relating what was said, the quality of the work done, and according to whose plans.

It is widely acknowledged that the Prichard/MacDonald bunkers came out exactly as they were intended to be built, based on Ross's actual field notes and diagrams, that almost everyone thinks that they are terrific, and that MacDonald & Co built them.

Your bias is so strong that you just can't come to grips with the fact that MacDonald & Co did a good job.

Sometimes, you have to give the devil his due. ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 14, 2003, 07:38:16 PM: Patrick:

I suggest you stop beating this drum on here and see if you can call a meeting of Merion's membership and bring your #1 fan HamiltonBHearst with you and explain to all of them that their bunkers are just fine that they got exactly what they contracted for and nothing whatsoever needs to be fixed and they don't need to worry about raising a red cent to do anything at all about them!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 08:03:14 PM: TEPaul,

I never said that they were fine, and you know that from the direct conversations that we've had on this subject, both on and off site.

My position was that MacDonald & Co built them as requested/directed, and as such, they shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce.

Another example of a similar situation is Lost Tree's bunker project, and the need and expense of redoing them.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 14, 2003, 08:04:12 PM: Patrick;

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps M&Co are artists. Perhaps if it had been their charge they could build the most awe-inspiring bunkers the world has ever seen. If only their sheer genius and talent wasn't held back by the limited vision of those pesky architects.

And you know, Patrick, the problem is even worse than that. In fact, it's a conspiracy I tell you. Can you believe that no matter which architect they have to work under, each one of those architects wants them to all come out looking the same?

Yep...that's what it is...a worldwide conspiracy to hold back their ultimate genius. It's so bad that it doesn't matter if it's Rees using them at Bethpage, Fazio using them at Riviera or Merion, or clubs like Rolling Green doing it on their own. They ALL ask Mac & Co to sadly limit their true creative talent and genius and build them bunkers that are "puffy and upholstered". It's a cryin' shame! Even worse, they weren't able to fully ply their trade on those basic, rectangular bunkers at Aronimink. How the heck can you make a flat bottomed, rectangular bunker look creative? That Ross guy was obviously a dullard, and if Prichard had any sense he would have let Mac & Co gussy them up a bit.

I'm with you. Let's take on these architects and memberships and let MacDonald & Co have free rein to unleash their genius on the golf world. Alister MacKenzie, AW Tillinghast, and George Thomas will all soon be forgotten..

Say it with me now...FREE Macdonald & Co....FREE Macdonald & CO, FREE MACDONALD & CO....

I'll start painting signs and you can bring the bullhorn. ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 14, 2003, 08:30:47 PM: Mike Cirba,

What's wrong with the bunker construction at Bethpage, Atlantic City, Galloway and Aronimink ?

Four distinct bunker styles from four different architects, built to spec.

What's wrong with the look of the bunkers at Bethpage, Atlantic City, Galloway and Aronimink ?

I know that you're sincere, with a tad of cynicism thrown in, but Mike, clubs don't build bunkers to your specs, whims and
desires. And, contractors don't go off on wild tangents, usurping creative license from the architects, ignoring their contractual obligations to the club and architect, and build what they want, the way they want it.

You're living in a fantasy world with respect to how features are designed, approved, built, approved, accounted and paid for.

But, that's okay, you're in good and numerically superior company. ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 14, 2003, 08:47:30 PM: Patrick;

I'll answer your questions, but I also hope you'll answer mine.

At Bethpage, I believe the bunkers do not have the raw, natural look they did previously. There is something very synthetic about them.

I haven't seen Atlantic City since Doak's work. I've heard good things, but I can't comment otherwise.

I think Galloway's bunkering is really good, and despite an awkward routing, it's one of my favorite courses in NJ and my favorite Tom Fazio course I've played. There are many excellent holes. Did MacDonald & Co do the bunker construction?

I think Aronimink's bunkering is generally fine, and looked much better this past weekend than it did when I played there last year shortly after construction. Rick is doing a great job there as the superintendent, that's for certain! However, the bunkering style from Ross's plans is very simple in terms of complexity. From a construction standpoint, it's much easier to "draw" straight lines (the bunkers are nearly all rectangular, grass face faces with flat sand bottoms) than something complex like Merion's old bunkers, or like George Thomas or Alister Mackenzie often designed.

So, my question to you is straightforward. Many folks on here have complained about the aesthetics of the bunkers at Merion...even a contrarian like Rich Goodale says they are ugly. Beyond that, others have mentioned (including you) issues of access and egress, maintenance problems, drainage problems, construction problems...

So, since you've absolved the contractor of all possible responsibility, who is to blame in your opinion; Tom Fazio or the Merion Greens Committee?

And really, the whole "blame" thing is not something that I think matters right no. It's water under the bridge, yet it does seem to be the point of your thread so I would like to hear you state your opinion rather than to just tell others that they're biased for expressing theirs.

And while I'm asking, for what possible reason would everyday folks who happen to visit this discussion group have to be "biased" against a contractor? For some of us, they just seem to be the common denominator on some very questionable "restoration" work at Riviera and Merion to name two.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 15, 2003, 03:42:47 AM: "TEPaul,
I never said that they were fine,......."

My position was that MacDonald & Co built them as requested/directed, and as such, they shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce."

Pat:

You never said they were fine?! But you maintain that MacDonald shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce!?

So then I suppose you're implying that Merion contracted MacDonald & Co. to produce something that was less than 'fine'? Hmmmm--that's a fairly bizarre point to make. What are you thinking--that Merion enjoys bunkering problems that will probably have to be fixed? That's some pretty neat and specious reasoning on your part that's produced one of the most sophist arguments I've seen to date!

And your question as to whether the bunkers were done sequentially or all at once really makes me laugh. Did it ever occur to you that the success or failure of bunkering is generally determined by memberships and players when the course is back in play? Sometimes that takes a bit of time. Or do you suppose that Merion got their memberhip out in force to test and critique the first few bunkers that were done? Ever hear the adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? I guess your architectural philosophy is to get the entire party into the kitchen early to test the cooking and the cook, huh? Interesting idea but that's generally not the way it works Pat!

Mike Cirba:

When you're next at Aronimink take a closer look at the grass faces and the tops of the bunkering. The sand floors of the bunkering may be generally flat but the grass faces have some very interesting movement to them both vertically and horizontally. I ran into Gulph Mills's asst super, Bob Sawicki at the PGA Senior Championship over there and he made that observation which is an excellent observation.

That kind of thing did not happen by accident. That's precisely the kind of thing that took Ron Prichard some time to teach the MacDonald shaper to do and get right. The first few attempts were not that way--much straighter lines on the constructed angles of the bunkering. This kind of thing may have been slightly interpretative on Ron's part (since the Ross bunkering at Aronimink was long gone on the ground due to a few redesigns) but it makes perfect historic sense to me--Aronimink being one of the later Ross designs showed more sophisticated architectural touches in my opinion than some of his earlier work.

Some might look at that type of thing as odd or too interpretive but I believe restoring that type of thing in the spectrum of architectural restorations is impressive and indicates and highlights the very interesting evolution of a particular architect--ie Ross.

Gulph Mills, for instance, or particularly a course like LuLu are much older than Aronimink and consequently indicates a time in Ross's architectural evolution that shows where he was architectural at that time. Our bunkering did not really have that type of movement to them--they were a bit more rudimentary obviously because that's were Ross was in the early to middle teens in relation to the late 1920s.

For a restoration architect, be it Ron Prichard or Gil Hanse to pick up on those variations is good stuff to me. The same might be said regarding the expansions of LuLu's or GMGC's greens. LuLu had many that were very square. GMGC, a course designed and built a bit later had a number of Ross greens that were basically square with some interesting "flares" on many of the corners! This to me is a wonderful indication (in both an original and restoration sense) of being familiar with Ross's own architectural evolution and how it was progressing! The Aronimink greens are some of the most flowing and multi-shaped one will ever see from Ross. And as such they indicate where he had gotten to from the very early LuLu work and the more mid-career work of say GMGC.

All this is great stuff to me because it really says so much about the evolution of architecture even in one man's career and there's so much interest in that ultimately. It's anything but a "one size fits all" mentality on the part of restoration architects (and contractors). Good architects pick up on things like that and try hard to communicate it to contractors. As much as someone like Pat Mucci may think they should it's highly unlikely that anyone at a golf club would pick up on a nuance like that going into the planning stages of a restoration! That's why any club doing an interesting restoration of sigificant architecture should hire the best restoration architect for their particular type of course they can find.

As a sidenote, a course such as Oakmont, that is very old and who apparently has MacDonald & Co working on their bunkering is probably a job that MacDonald & Co can do quite easily as the angles on their bunkering is quite straight (because that's were architecture was at that time on that course!).

That's why I believe a contractor such as MacDonald & Co are probably much better at doing certain styles than others. They're probably very good at early Ross, Raynor or a bunker style like Oakmont's and not as good at others with styles such as Flynn, Tillinghast or Thomas. They do seem to catch the length and width randomness (aerials) quite well but not so much the height or vertical randomness aspect of it. Unfortortunately, the latter is the primary dimension to the golfer's on-ground eye.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 15, 2003, 07:38:11 AM: TEPaul,
Quote

Did it ever occur to you that the success or failure of bunkering is generally determined by memberships and players when the course is back in play?

Your above statement reflects a total lack of understanding with respect to the bunker construction process and the evaluation of the finished product, before, not after it's too late to do anything about it.

You've also taken a different position and say that it's the membership that determines if the bunkers came out right. Are you now maintaining that if the majority of the members at Merion like their new bunkers, that those bunkers were designed and built successfully. That seems counter to prior posts by you, Tommy Naccarato and many others.

When we were on site, how long did it take us, when we were reviewing our first bunker on the golf course, to see some if not all of the problems ??? Three nano-seconds.
Do you think that we're the only rank amateurs with decent eyesight capable of those observations ?

Have you ever been intimately involved in the design, construction and modification of bunkers in the field ?
If not, perhaps that experience would enlighten you and alter your position as evidenced by your postings.

Your concept of bunker evaluation is akin to a surprise party for the membership, and I don't think that's the way it works.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 15, 2003, 07:44:33 AM: Tom Paul;

I agree with you and my description of Aronimink's bunkers was simply to point out the significant difference in shape, contour, and complexity between their's and Merion's.

Patrick Mucci;

At last we've come full circle. ;)

So, since you agree that the bunkers at Merion "take about three nanoseconds to see all of the problems", let me ask again since it seems to be the point of your thread.

Who is to blame?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 15, 2003, 07:51:53 AM: Mike Cirba,

When's the last time you played Bethpage Black and how many times have you played it.

How did Bethpage's bunkers look the year after Tillinghast built them ?

Is that your only criticism, that they don't have that worn look when they were brand new ?

You like Galloway's bunkers.

You like Aronimink's bunkers, but make the excuse or caveate that they were easy to build to Ross's specs, because you can't come to grips and admit that MacDonald & Co did a good job.

You haven't seen Atlantic City's bunkers, but Tom Doak, the architect, says that MacDonald & Co did a good job for him.

MacDonald & Co should not be criticized by you or anyone else for the bunkers they built at Merion, Aronimink, and Atlantic City. They did there job as instructed.

Tom MacWood,

I believe MacDonald and Co is privately held.
I own no stock.
I don't even know anyone who works for them.

Ordinary folks aren't making critical evaluations on this site.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 15, 2003, 08:03:40 AM: Patrick;

Will you answer my question?

Who is to blame for the obvious deficiencies in Merion's bunkering that an untrained eye can spot in "three nanoseconds"?

I've answered all of yours to the best of my ability.

I'd also venture to say that "ordinary folks aren't making critical evaluations on this site" because they neither have the time nor the inclination to be interrogated when they do by those of us who know everything. ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 15, 2003, 09:52:44 AM: Mike Cirba:

As I'm quite sure you appreciate, all this talk about "blame" does not serve any purpose. As lay people, the only thing we can do with something like the Merion bunkers is give our honest opinion on the finished product. Period. Getting into a public discussion about whether MacDonald, Fazio or the Merion leadership is to blame is counterproductive, in my opinion.

All the project management blow-by-blow stuff is best left to private discussion whether the final product is judged successful or not. If we start pointing fingers of blame, it will only make it more difficult for industry personnel to ever participate here. Let's stay away from that and concentrate on discussing the "final product".
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 15, 2003, 10:31:36 AM: Patrick:

In my opinion, your entire post #135 is crap. It's total bullshit! It's not realistic--it's not the way things generally happen in real life and you must know that.

You seem to be pass what you say off as great problem solving but the fact is it's in retrospect not in foresight. We did speak about these things the other day on the telephone and I told you there is only so much that any memberhip or their representatives serving on committees can know about the details of golf architecture. That's precisely why a club such as Merion needed to and needs to have the very best in restoration architectural advice and contracting work.

Did they have that with Fazio and MacDonald & Co? Many of us think they did not and for reasons other than just the "look" of the restored bunkers. There were other problems with the contracted work. Again, did the club contract for problems in the bunker work? Of course not. Why didn't they realize it earlier as you asked? Because that apparently is not something they could foresee earlier. Is that something you have a hard time understanding? Your general implication throughout this entire discussion of bunkers and architecture and a membership's responsibility vs that of an architect or contractor seems to be if you were running things yourself for any golf club none of this would have ever happened? Do you really think that Pat? Are you as knowlegeable about all these things as a professional architect and a professional contractor, particularly a really good architect with an accomplished record in restorations? Maybe you think you are. I know I don't think I am--and that's precisely why I'd depend on somebody who I really did know and knew the track record of! I'm not half so naive or even arrogant as to assume that ANYBODY could do the same thing just so long as I told him what I wanted! That's the impression you seem to be trying to ply on here and I'm not buying it. A great education in architecture is doubtlessly very important for such as us but that doesn't make you as accomplished in the production of the architecture as a C&C and their "Boys" and some of the others who seem to be respected on here!

When the entire membership comes back and plays the golf course with the new work after a time there will be feedback. Is that something you think is unimportant or of no consequence? It's frankly of the ultimate consequence. Try reading Geoff Shackelford's Behr reprints of what so-called "Permanent architecture" is all about! Does one wonder why Pine Valley has basically never changed its architecture, or Cypress Point or even TOC. Generally they didn't because its acceptable to most all golfers.

I told you that probably the majority of Merion members don't really have a problem with the look of the restored bunkering. The majority of members and probably the majority of all golfers just don't make those kinds of distinctions because basically they don't notice them. That's because they simply aren't aware of some of the nuances in architecture, period! But there're a number of members who do notice it and aren't happy about it. That's just the look---but again, as has been said numerous times there're a number of additional problems that need to be fixed.

Is that something the club contracted Fazio and MacDonald for? Answer the question. And stop this foolish dreaming and trying to claim the club should have picked up on those potential problems much earlier if the bunkers were built sequentially. All that sounds to me as if you're claiming in retrospect that the club should have picked up on it because someone like you would have picked up on it. Frankly, I'm not in the slightest bit convinced that you would have picked up on it before the bunkering went into general play again. You certainly don't seem to be one who makes the greatest distinctions in what bunkering actually looks like that's for sure.

And it's pretty obvious that if even some of the members don't like the "look" of the new bunkering compared to the look of the old bunkering something must have gone wrong. Afterall the old famous "white faces" of Merion were world famous and apparently respected by everyone I've ever heard from! So why aren't they now? Oh yes, of course, those that say they don't like the new look are merely biased towards a particular architect or contractor! It's just that simple to you, is it Pat?

Your points and your arguments are hanging somewhere out on a real limb on this entire thread and all those like it. The reason you are, in my opinion, is you really aren't discussing the subject at hand here. All you're trying to do is fit just another example you yourself came up with into this ridiculous campaign of yours about "bias" and "double standards" on this website. Your campaign isn't working--it will never work and my advice to you would be to shitcan this constant "bias" campaign of yours!

As for Aronimink's newly restored bunkering--they seem to be extremely popular and respected amongst the membership and those that've seen and played them, including a senior tour contingent in a major championship. And they seem to be problem free? Why is that? Because those running the project did their homework well, the architect was a good one who really did his homework (I know because he's been talking to me about it for a couple of years now and I spent a number of sessions out there watching it progress with him and the clubs representative and the shapers and super) and he communicated exactly what he wanted done to the contractors, the superintendent and the representatives of the membership.

You asked:

"Have you ever been intimately involved in the design, construction and modification of bunkers in the field ?
If not, perhaps that experience would enlighten you and alter your position as evidenced by your postings."

I thought you had some idea where I've been for the last five years and what I've been doing but perhaps not.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 15, 2003, 04:33:22 PM: TEPaul,

You're response drifts so far from the topic and introduces so many new issues that it's hard to respond, but let me try.

Your view is the one that is unrealistic, a view that would have the evaluation of the construction of a bunker deferred until after all the members have played it. And, then what ?
It's too late to change anything, and it's too late to raise additional money to fund desired alterations. The time to evaluate each bunker is during construction stages, and certainly, immediately after their completion, not after the entire project is complete and the course is opened for play.

I wasn't referencing our conversation of the other day, but, specifically our conversations on site, and shortly thereafter.
I thought that I made that clear.

Your scenario would portray committee members as uneducated about architecture and unfamiliar with their home course, something that I find hard to believe.

You say that they could not foresee the problems earlier and I submit that Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could have foreseen some of those problems in the early stages.

C & C and the "boys" have nothing to do with this, please don't drag them into this, I understand that they didn't want this job, so why bring them up ?

Tom, instead of directing me to read about field work, try getting involved in it first.

Pine Valley may not have changed due to the iron willed dictator who ran the club. I doubt many would make architectural suggestions to modify Pine Valley to JAB without the fear of having their membership discontinued.
Had the club been a member owned club like many others, I guarantee you changes would have been made over the years
TOC has seen changes over the years, so I don't know why you hold it out as "permanent" from its inception, to current date.

First you tell us that the majority of the membership, through examination and playing determines the merits of the new bunkers, and now you tell us that a select few with discerning tastes performs that function. Which is it ? You've taken two, diametrically opposed positions, which one do you mean ?

I don't want to personalize this issue as you have, but I'm confident in my abilities to distinguish the look, playability and construction of bunkers, are you ?

On any change to a golf course you'll get a portion of the membership that likes the change, a portion that doesn't like the change, and a portion that doesn't care. Your argument that gives weight to one faction you may support versus other factions has no merit based solely on it being a differing view.

As the originator of this thread, I know what it's about, despite the fact that you can't grasp it.
It's about the fact that MacDonald & Co produced great bunkers at Aronimink. It turns out that they produced very good bunkers at Atlantic City. They produced very good bunkers at Bethpage. With that resume under their belt, is it possible that they produced what they were required to produce under the terms of their contract at Merion ?
And if so, then all the criticism directed toward them by many on this site should be retracted, and the appropriate apologies made. You wouldn't want anyone to make false allegations about you, would you ?

With respect to your involvements for the past 5 years, have they been in an official capacity for any club, and have you been actively involved with field work with the sole authority, delegated to you by the club, to approve, alter or reject the contractor's and/or architect's field work ?

Or, have you been a highly interested spectator with respect to the field work ?

Action speaks louder then words.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 15, 2003, 06:09:59 PM: Tiim Weiman;

I completely agree.

I was only asking the obvious question because it seemed to be the unspoken point of this thread.

I certainly won't press Patrick for an answer, because I'm sure he's uncomfortable with doing so, and rightly so.

I respect that.

Thanks for your honest and direct feedback.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: HamiltonBHearst on June 15, 2003, 06:28:50 PM: I am sure if Macdonald & co were not capable of doing the specified, contracted for work Tom Doak (MFA) would not have let them do the work at ACCC.

The members that i know at Merion are quite happy with the look and playability of the bunkers. Should we overide the members thoughts?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 15, 2003, 07:34:16 PM: Pat Mucci said;

“They produced very good bunkers at Bethpage. With that resume under their belt, is it possible that they produced what they were required to produce under the terms of their contract at Merion ?
And if so, then all the criticism directed toward them by many on this site should be retracted, and the appropriate apologies made. You wouldn't want anyone to make false allegations about you, would you?"

And Pat Mucci also said;

“When we were on site, how long did it take us, when we were reviewing our first bunker on the golf course, to see some if not all of the problems? Three nano-seconds.
Do you think that we're the only rank amateurs with decent eyesight capable of those observations?

Patrick:

Is it possible for you to see the crystal clear contradiction in those two statements? So are you saying that we really are the only ones who saw some problems? Are you saying that not a single one of Merion’s 750 members saw some problems? Are you also saying that the Merion committee responsible for the project actually instructed MacDonald & Co to construct and create those problems? That’s completely ludicrous and you have to know that.

You’re simply incapable of accepting the fact that MacDonald & Co may not be very good at restoring Merion’s famous bunkering and that they may not have done a particularly good job of it!

My take, once again, is they probably can do a decent restoration on a particular type and style of bunkering but apparently not other styles such as Flynn and Thomas. Obviously you don’t see that or can’t see that and you’re simply looking to lay blame elsewhere because that fits neatly into this ridiculous campaign of yours to prove “bias” and a double standard against Fazio and MacDonald & Co on this website. No one buys that argument of yours or this ongoing campaign against what you perceive to be bias and a double standard.

Are you still questioning what my involvement or interest in this subject of bunkering or architecture is? If so don’t take my word for anything—call Gil Hanse or Bill Coore or Ron Prichard—or call Gulph Mills’s Green Chairman or the club’s President by all means and ask them yourself.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 16, 2003, 07:43:48 AM: TEPaul,

Why do I need to call those people, just tell me if you had the sole AUTHORITY to approve, alter or reject the contractor/architect's work in the field, and if you were ACTIVELY involved in field/CONSTRUCTION work in an OFFICIAL capacity for a club.

If, as you claim, that MacDonald & Co didn't do a particularly good job on Merion's bunkers, then why weren't they instructed to redo them, or, why wasn't another contractor brought in after it became apparent, early in the process, that, as you allege, they weren't doing a particularly good job? Or, if they didn't build the bunkers as required, why weren't they required to make a financial settlement for improper construction ?

HamiltonBHearst brings up a good point.
If MacDonald & Co were so limited, why would Tom Doak employ them on a VERY important job for Arthur Goldberg, a very difficult task master.

And, why would Ron Prichard employ them, especially after he's had such great results with Pavlek & Co, (sp?) as his bunker construction firm in New Jersey ?

Tom Doak made a slight qualifying statement, and now you want to expand it, and hang your entire argument on it.

With regard to the Merion bunker project, I thought that, officially, they served as a contractor on the job, and that they were not contracted to be the architect. Am I correct ?
Why are you placing the responsibility for restoring the bunkers to the white faces on MacDonald & Co's shoulders.

And, are you sure that restoring the white faces was the object of the project ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 16, 2003, 08:40:37 AM: Pat:

What you probably need to do is call up Merion and ask them your 20 questions yourself because you sure aren't willing to listen to any of us on this site. I can guarantee you they won't remotely consider answering your questions but I guess there's no harm in asking. A lot of time and effort has been and probably will continue to be spent on those bunkers but if you want to advise them on how to handle that as well as their arrangement with MacDonald & Co and probably the Fazio organization then by all means be the guest of all of us, including Merion.

What I did for GMGC in the restoration of the course with Gil Hanse is serve on the committee that created the Master plan to do the restoration with Hanse & Co. That took about a year and one half. And I also serve on the green committee. There's no one at GMGC who has SOLE AUTHORITY on anthing to do with architecture, contracts or anything else. GMGC is a golf club that's run by committees and that's the way it's been from Day One in 1916. The club has always had a very low-key way of doing things but you can bet we did our architectural research with this project.

But something tells me you'll have a better way to do things---you always seem to think and say you do anyway!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 16, 2003, 08:52:47 AM: "And, are you sure that restoring the white faces was the object of the project ?"

Oh for Christ sake--is there no end to the innane things you'll ask??

No, the truth is the club had grown tired of their bunkers being known as the "White Faces of Merion" for close to 100 years so they thought they'd ask the architect and contractor to restore to basically the 1930s look for the next 100 years but this time to see if their bunkers could become famous as the "Upholstered Furniture Faces of Merion".

Amazing the questions you ask! Did you hear that TOC is thinking about hiring Fazio/MacDonald to do over all their bunkering but first they thought they'd change the name of the course to St. Andrew's National?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 16, 2003, 09:10:07 AM: Quote

No, the truth is the club had grown tired of their bunkers being known as the "White Faces of Merion" for close to 100 years so they thought they'd ask the architect and contractor to restore to basically the 1930s look for the next 100 years but this time to see if their bunkers could become famous as the "Upholstered Furniture Faces of Merion".

Sort of has a nice ring to it. Plus, it's politically correct and functionally descriptive. ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: ChipOat on June 17, 2003, 06:39:00 AM: I believe the deeper bunkers have restored the original shot values (in terms of "degree of difficulty") that Hugh Wilson intended when the course was designed and constructed in the pre-sand wedge era.

Aesthtetics are certainly important in evaluating the merits of a golf hole/course. But to me, routing, strategy and shot values are more critical than appearance.

I believe that Hugh Wilson would be pleased with the "shot value" demands of Merion's new bunkers. That's got to be worth a lot in evaluating the initial success of the project.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: T_MacWood on June 17, 2003, 06:53:38 AM: chipoat
Is it an either or proposition? Did the traditional aesthetic need to be sacrificed in order to restore the shot value--was it possible to accomplish both? When approximately was the shot value lost?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: BCrosby on June 17, 2003, 06:56:58 AM: Chipoat -

Where do you get off making a perfectly reasonable post on an otherwise ridiculous thread?

Sheesh. Get with the program.

Bob
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: wsmorrison on June 17, 2003, 08:23:11 AM: I agree with Tom MacWood that shot value and aestethics need not be mutually exclusive. As others pointed out previously, the Merion bunker surrounds could have been left untouched (as done at Philly Country) and the internal defects addressed alone. This would have required more hand work and taken longer, perhaps these constraints subordinated other considerations, none of us know for certain. However, that was for the club to decide. Unfortunately with the equipment that MacDonald & Company use(d) I don't believe that leaving the bunker surrounds alone could have been done.

I think the architect(s) should have recognized the unique look of the bunkers and strived to maintain that as much as possible. Even if the club did not specify this--which I doubt (again, none of us knows), it was important to make sure this cause was pressed. I am disappointed in the results. Maybe in time we will see some erosion that will make the bunkers appear more natural. I am not so sure but do not know and remain hopefull. The puffy look and rounded top profiles of the capes do not appear to be at all correct and may never soften unless intervention is done.

I find it hard to fathom why Tom Doak took into account the abilities of his contractor in determining his design work at Atlantic City CC. Maybe that is the real world and I am naive. Is it because other crews that could construct irrespective of design were not available? Tom Doak wrote "....they are quite competent at what they do." and "They are clearly more comfortable at some styles than at others...we modified our style to fit not only what we thought the client wanted there, but what the contractor could produce." Clearly this implies that MacDonald & Co. have their limitations. A course like ACCC and certainly Merion demands better than this firm's method of construction and range of abilities.

Overriding the look of the bunkers but integral to the playability is the unmistakable fact that they were constructed improperly. There are a host of problems from the bunker woll tearing, spikes coming up, sand faces eroding, grass dying on the southern and SW faces, etc. These are ongoing issues that is costing too much money and other resources. I don't know how to apportion responsibility, but clearly a competent construction crew with the oversight of the architect should have known there were going to be significant problems. The membership is relying on the experts to build something that works. A group of people, including the membership and interested outsiders have various opinions regarding look and playability. What is clear is the bunkers are not performing as they should and they are costing a lot of money to get them where they need to be.

I don't want to get into a back and forth with Pat or others. I am not writing this to defend or blame anyone. Too much emotional and intellectual (well, maybe not) energy has been spent in an entirely unproductive effort. Lessons can be learned and the unfortunate results need to be recognized and avoided going forward. I wish this thread and others dealing with this issue would address what is and was done wrong on the project, and most importantly what needs to be done to make it right. I guess there has to be some discussion of who did what and what part that plays in the results, but why spend so much time pointing fingers and putting people down? So much effort is being spent defending certain parties and placing blame on others in this forum and is counter-productive.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 17, 2003, 08:47:42 AM: Wayne;

You've summed up the entire situation to a tee. Nicely stated.

It should also be mentioned that the MacDonald & Sons had already been selected as the replacement contractor to Hanse & Kittleman, et.al., prior to Tom Fazio offering his "pro bono" advisement to the club.

However, I'm not sure if they actually began any bunker work prior to Fazio coming on board. I find that hard to imagine, because I'm not sure whose specs they'd be working to during that period. Does anyone know?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 17, 2003, 09:15:51 AM: wsmorrison,

You may recall, almost a year ago, that I indicated that I didn't think that the bunker tops could survive without TLC.
The difficulties associated with the southern exposure could expand to all exposures, and that is how an evolutionary process begins, that is how the bunkers begin to take on a new, continually evolving look.

The equipment that contractors use can be obtained by firms that lease this equipment on a needs basis. Few firms are willing to commit capital to have every piece of construction equipment they may need, as part of their inventory, so I don't buy that MacDonald & Co were limited in their construction methods by the equipment in their inventory.

I fear that you may be spending too much time with TEPaul, as your comment about Tom Doak hiring MacDonald & Co is misquided. If we are to believe, as many have postured, that Tom Doak is one of the most creative and competent architects today, I am certain that he would not retain a firm incapable of doing his work properly. He would not hire a firm that was incompetent, a firm that would make him look bad.
If the firm is good enough for Tom Doak, they should be good enough for any architect, wouldn't you agree, or
are you calling Tom Doak's judgement abilities into question ?
I feel the same way about Ron Prichard, and his retention of MacDonald & Co.. Ron certainly wouldn't retain a firm incapable of performing superior work.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern of successful projects at Aronimink and Atlantic City under the guidance of Ron Prichard and Tom Doak ? Or, is everybody in denial.

I'm also not so sure that many rebuilt bunkers don't experience their own unique set of problems, which require fine tuning over time.

Lastly, the thrust of this thread was to exonerate MacDonald & Co from all of the blame that others were hurling their way.
I thought that pointing out examples of some of MacDonald & Co's work that had received excellent reviews would shed positive light on the subject, and cause those directing the blame to rethink their position, to question their fact absent conclusions. ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 17, 2003, 09:24:34 AM: Mike Cirba,
Quote

It should also be mentioned that the MacDonald & Sons had already been selected as the replacement contractor to Hanse & Kittleman, et.al., prior to Tom Fazio offering his "pro bono" advisement to the club.

If this is true, it has been largely overlooked, perhaps conveniently, and is the most revealing information to date.

It would seem to indicate that the bunker renovation project had an internal "concept" genesis.

That the genesis of the concept was independent of, and prior to, the retention of any architect.

Think about that !
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: ChipOat on June 17, 2003, 09:55:36 AM: Tom MacWood:

Not a mandatory "either/or" situation but if there's going to be a need for further effort, it seems to me that getting the "shot value" part right at the beginning means the most important result (at least to me) has been accomplished.

Hugh Wilson's original shot values began to become less relevant when the Sand Wedge became the club of choice (as opposed to a niblick). As the bunkers became more shallow through the years, the degree of difficulty to extract one's self was further reduced. Finally, the improvements to the design features of the Lob Wedge by Vokey et al made the problems encountered in Merion's bunkers by 1995-99 a mere shadow of their former selves as designed by Messrs. Wilson/Flynn/Valentine.

Bob Crosby:

Lost my head - sorry.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: wsmorrison on June 17, 2003, 10:25:00 AM: Pat,

Please do not presume to know my ability for independent thought. Although I highly regard Tom Paul's intellect and understanding of golf architecture (and other subjects), I have yet to see him walk on water. I am not his disciple, not have his thoughts corrupted my own. We are co-writers of the Flynn book, but we are also working, together and independently, to better understand and appreciate golf and golf course architecture. He is farther along than I am (one of many reasons he makes and ideal partner) but he would not want me to merely follow him, let alone blindly.

Strange as it may seem to you, my comments about Doak are my own...if they correspond to Tom Paul's I am not concerned nor am I alarmed as you seem to be. You say if MacD and Co. are good enough for TDoak they should be good enough for any architect and by logical extension, me. You are mistaken in your comment about Tom Doak hiring MacDonald & Co when you state:

"If we are to believe, as many have postured, that Tom Doak is one of the most creative and competent architects today, I am certain that he would not retain a firm incapable of doing his work properly. He would not hire a firm that was incompetent, a firm that would make him look bad. If the firm is good enough for Tom Doak, they should be good enough for any architect, wouldn't you agree, or are you calling Tom Doak's judgement abilities into question ?"

I don't know why Tom Doak hired McD and neither do you. Only he does. I have not questioned Tom Doak's judgement. I would not do so since I don't know all the factors that weighed into his judgement. I did not say that MacD & Co. made him look bad, were incompetent, or any of the other concepts you conveniently spin. I did wonder why he took their abilities into account in his design plan. My feelings are that the process would be different, that he would design first and then find somebody that could put it into practice. The limitations of McD were stated by Doak and not by me. I try to look at the results and make my own observations. When Tom Doak gives some insight (albeit not complete) into his process, I questioned an aspect of it.

My point about the machinery that McD uses is not to point out that they don't have the capital resources to have a complete compliment of equipment nor does it disregard the possibility of leasing some of it. I don't know the equipment in their inventory, I just have an idea of what equipment they tend to use. They have demonstrated a systematic use of certain equipment and techniques, probably because they are comfortable with them and their clients' feedback has reinforced it. But by no means is their work universally praised. Wouldn't you be most surprised if it were? They can do things quicker than most, but in a style that is limited by the equipment that enables it. Others are more knowledgeable than I am on this subject...don't grill me on it. Persons far more knowledgeable than myself, Tom, and you have spoken to me about this and I have found no reason to date not to believe them.

Your arguement that McD should be exonnerated from all blame at Merion because they did good work elsewhere is ludicrous. Pat, you are a smart guy. Its just there is little evidence of it on this thread. It doesn't make you a bad guy, it doesn't make you part of a conspiracy to glorify McD. Why do you see yourself as a lone voice of reason who sees a pattern of successful work and can't understand other negative opinions? McD was part of a great team and great job at Aronimink. From what Tom Doak says, he was very satisfied with the results at ACCC. Again, they were part of a great team. At Rolling Green, the team was not nearly so strong and the results show it. My belief is that there was no outside architect in charge and the task fell to an unprepared group loosely following a great master plan. Are they entirely to blame? Of course not. But take each case independently rather than your approach and I think it makes a lot more sense. Just because they were part of good work elsewhere means absolutely nothing when it comes to an objective analysis of the Merion job or other individual jobs for that matter.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 17, 2003, 10:27:29 AM: Quote
Mike Cirba,

If this is true, it has been largely overlooked, perhaps conveniently, and is the most revealing information to date.

It would seem to indicate that the bunker renovation project had an internal "concept" genesis.

That the genesis of the concept was independent of, and prior to, the retention of any architect.

Think about that !

Patrick;

Why would the fact that the "genesis of the concept" was initiated within the club prior to the retention of an architect be in the least surprising?

Perhaps the real question should be which came first; the bunker work, or the explanation that it was intended to be a 1930's restoration?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 17, 2003, 10:49:58 AM: wsmorrison,

You took my remarks with respect to talking to TEPaul too seriously. I should have added a ;D

But, you and I do know why Tom Doak hired MacDonald & Co at Atlantic City. He hired them because he felt that they could produce the results he desired. It's that simple.
Now, I can't tell you if they were his first choice or his fifth choice, only Tom Doak can answer that question.

Your last paragraph is getting you closer to the mark on one hand and further from the mark on the other.
My conclusion is not flawed, and it is prudent to think that If a surgeon has performed 100 operations, very successfully, it's not that something can't go wrong with patient # 101, it's just very unlikely, and their may be mitigating circumstances or outside influences which impacted the result.
In other words, a bad outcome may not be surgeon related.

Mike Cirba,

The genesis of the concept, and the identification of the concept are critical elements.

You are now informing me that both issues were determined prior to the retention of any architect. This is the material factor in your evaluation.

The other question you ask is connected to the above issue.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 20, 2003, 05:34:36 AM: Patrick:

You'd do well to read Wayne Morrison's post #157 again very carefully. You're assumption that MacDonald & Co must have done a good job with the Merion bunkers simply because they may have done a successful job on bunkering elsewhere is a ridiculous assumption to make and certainly a ridiculous conclusion to make. You're concluding that just because they've done well received bunker projects elsewhere (on different styles) that it's virtually impossible for them to make mistakes. That's preposterous and the reasoning of a man I sure wouldn't want making decisions on a course I had anything to do with.

And furthermore, you're constantly contradicting your own reasoning. You fail to answer the obvious questions. If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

Your reasoning in blind defense of MacDonald & Co on every single project they do is just flat ludicrous! It's total bullshit! Frankly, it makes you look idiotic and lacking in just good old commonsense! I know you have to know better than this and I'm convinced you do. I'm convinced the only reason you continue with this discussion is because you continue to try to ply this ridiculous campaign of yours on "bias" and some double standard. It's not working Pat---and practically everyone on here knows it's not working. You should just shitcan this mention of "bias" and double standard on here once and for all and allow this site to get on with the critical discussion of architecture, warts and all!

And you should also start to heed the very discretely worded implication from such as Tim Weiman (on his "gossip" thread) to stop asking various questions on here that are not going to produce answers on here. It's not that a club such as Merion doesn't have the answers--they just don't feel like airing everything on the Internet. Some of us have those answers too and we're not going to air everything on the Internet either. Do I really have to explain to you why that is and probably has to be?

So give up on this campaign of yours in blind defense of certain architects and contractors and all the things they do. They don't need you anyway, the clubs don't either. If you really must---simply to figure out what this all basically boils down to at least try to READ between the LINES!!

And how do you know that Doak hired MacDonald & Co at ACCC? Maybe the client hired MacDonald & Co and gave them to Doak. Ever hear the story of Kye Goalby working at ACCC for Doak and probably lent to MacDonald & Co? I guess you probably haven't. I hate to bring up something probably so personal but will in one last attempt you'll begin to figure out the reality of some of these things! Eventually he just couldn't take working with that contracting crew out there and some of their completely clueless operators. They just continuously f...ed up about every interesting detail he did out there so he called it quits.

Tom Doak is a very forthright guy on here and as honest about details as he probably figures he possibly can be. I think everyone on here admires him for that, but honestly there have to be a number of things that he's not willing to air on here either--and who among us can't understand that and the reasons why? So far apparently just you because you keep asking all these questions which are never going to have total answers on here even when a number of people might know those answers! But did it sound to you what he said on here about the ACCC project with MacDonald was a ringing endorsement of MacDonald & Co's bunker work at ACCC? It didn't sound like that to me. Go read it again Pat because you just missed the obvious or at least the obvious implication.

Those restored ACCC Flynn bunkers weren't a big success in my book, that's for sure. The point here has always been that to date it doesn't really seem like MacDonald & Co are very good at doing a particular style of bunkering although they seem to be good at doing some other styles, like Ross or perhaps even Oakmont. The reasons why that is is what should be discussed on here. But you keep missing that point even from an architect who worked with them.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 20, 2003, 02:48:49 PM: TEPaul,

Quote

If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MACDONALD & CO DIDN'T BUILD THOSE BUNKERS TO THE SPECS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN ???

AND, ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THAT THE MANDATE TO CREATE THE 1930'S BUNKERS WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PROJECT BEGAN ?

And how do you know that Doak hired MacDonald & Co at ACCC? Maybe the client hired MacDonald & Co and gave them to Doak.

I KNOW BECAUSE THE CLIENT, ARTHUR GOLDBERG, WAS A CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE, AS IS BILLY ZIOBRO.

NICE TRY AT ATTEMPTING TO DISTORT AND TAINT THE FACTS.

HOW CAN YOU TRY TO DIVERT THIS ISSUE BY SUGGESTING A TOTAL FABRICATION, WITHOUT A SINGLE FACT TO SUPPORT YOUR FALSE CONTENTION ?????

THAT'S DISENGENUOUS, A POOR ATTEMPT TO PASS THE BUCK AND CREATE CREDIBILITY FOR YOUR POSITION, WHEN NONE EXISTS.

Ever hear the story of Kye Goalby working at ACCC for Doak and probably lent to MacDonald & Co? I guess you probably haven't. I hate to bring up something probably so personal but will in one last attempt you'll begin to figure out the reality of some of these things! Eventually he just couldn't take working with that contracting crew out there and some of their completely clueless operators. They just continuously f...ed up about every interesting detail he did out there so he called it quits.

Yes, I've heard the story, Kye's version of the story.
I haven't heard the other participants version of the story.
That means that all the facts aren't in, just one parties version of a story, based on his perspective.
When all the facts are in, I'll be in a better position to make a prudent judgement. Don't you think you should adopt a policy of obtaining all of the facts before making a pronouncement ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 20, 2003, 05:05:11 PM: Tom Paul & Pat Mucci:

Honestly guys, the business of Kye Goalby, Tom Doak, MacDonald & Co and the ACCC project really doesn't belong here. There has to be some privacy and this case is a good example of why, in my view.

You both know that Tom gives generously of himself at this site. But, it is not fair to raise personnel issues or to ask Tom (or any other architect) to comment publicly on his relationship with a contractor or even just the dirt on a single project.

The further we get from commenting on "final product", the more problematic the entire discussion becomes. We simply can't expect developers, architects or contractors to publicly comment on every aspect of a project.

Pat, if you think the "final product" at Merion, Aronomink or ACCC is good, then simply go ahead and share with us why you think so. But, you really need to step back from trying to dig into "gossip". It isn't fair to our industry friends and will only make it more difficult to encourage them to participate here more frequently.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 20, 2003, 08:37:32 PM: Tim Weiman,

I think that I'm begining to see how GCA works.

For two years I've heard nothing but negative comments and gossip about MacDonald & Co and their work.

I start a thread defending their work, citing the good work they did at Aronomink, Atlantic City and Bethpage and all of a sudden I'm branded by you as "digging into gossip"

I think just the opposite is true.

I've provided concrete examples, with exhibit's A, B and C being the final product at Aronimink, Atlantic City and Bethpage, as evidence of their capable work.
My contention, on the other hand, has been countered, mostly with gossip, and certainly absent substantive information to the contrary.

If it's the gossip mongers you seek, just review all of those threads that hurled accusations at MacDonald & Co without so much as one iota of supporting documentation or facts.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Is it possible that you too are in need of Cooreshaw's assistance ? ;D
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 21, 2003, 08:29:15 AM: Tom MacWood,

Here's where you, repeatedly, don't get it.

Atlantic City was never intended to be a sensistive restoration. Why is that the contractor's fault ?
Another one of your Ivory Tower theories ?

The owner's mandate was not to restore the golf course, but to alter it, and the contractor had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, nor did they have any influence over the owner. So why are you blaming them for a decision totally beyond their influence and unrelated to the construction work they performed, capably ?

At Aronimink, Ron Prichard used Donald Ross's original field notes and drawings. You can't get more sensitive than that, and the contractor had nothing to do with the decision regarding restoration, so why are you blaming them for a decision beyond their influence and the excellent work they performed for the architect and club.

At Bethpage, the goal was not restoration, any moron who has seen the 18th hole could have figured that out.
Once again, the contractor had nothing to do with the decision making process. They built the bunkers as they were directed to, very capably.

Have you visited Atlantic City CC, Aronimink and Bethpage and viewed the finished product, the bunkers built by MacDonald & Co. ?

Or, is your judgement regarding the construction of the bunkers at Atlantic City, Aronimink and Bethpage based on third party information with absolutely no first hand experience ?

That you blame the contractor for a club's decsion regarding restoration is the most naive and stupid concept that I've heard of in a long time. Further evidence that you just don't get what goes on in the real world.

Stay in your Ivory Tower Tom, and continue baying at the moon, you're good at it.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 21, 2003, 09:24:39 AM: Pat Mucci:

I would not be opposed to you making any positive comments about work performed by any architect or contractor. Ditto for any negative comments you might care to make.

The key is to stick with commentary about the "final product". While some commentary about "project management" is inevitable and sometimes appropriate, as a general rule we should stay away from it. Just sharing our opinions - pro and con - about the finished work is enough.

Project management commentary really should be left to those with direct involvement in the project - if they care to. But, surely you recognize that for practical business reasons, people in the business can't always come on here and share their true feelings about what occured during the course of a project. This means that "project management" discussions are inevitably incomplete and superficial. So, why get into them all?

I can't speak to the bunker work at either Aronomink or Bethpage but I have seen the work at both Merion and Atlantic City. The "final product" results are mixed, in my view. The work at Merion has to be among the biggest disappointments in the world of golf architecture. The work at Atlantic City is really cool, in my opinion.

I have no desire to get into what I know about what led to either failure or success. It wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be appropriate.

Pat, I'm really surprised that you believe we as lay people should be discussing anything more than our opinions about the "final product". We are "consumers" of golf architecture. We aren't the people who do the work itself. Why not be clear about our roles and our limitations and generally restrict our commentary accordingly?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 21, 2003, 10:10:24 AM: Tim Weiman,

I suppose, if you want to emulate the three blind men examining the elephant, you can form your opinions on architecture, without pertinent information. But, I would think that the introduction to material information would enable one to make a more prudent judgement and offer more credible opinions.

Tom MacWood's above post is a perfect example.

He tries to blame the contractor for the club's decision relative to the intent and scope of the project at Atlantic City, yet he knows absolutely nothing about the intent and scope of the project, and has never seen the project pre and post the recent work. He makes a gross error in stating that the club intended to embark upon a sensitive restoration.
I know for a fact, that nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that Arthur Goldberg and I had spoken about this project on numerous occassions appears to be something that you want to disqualify.
WHY, when it's fact based, sheds light on the project, and refutes Tom MacWood's erroneous speculations.

Do you want to embark upon a thorough and complete examination of golf course architecture or an incomplete examination based largely on speculation and the opinions of those who have never examined the finished product ?

If it's the later, I'm not interested, and you can go back to the days of hero worship, agenda reinforcement and demonization, without the facts.

Have a good time.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 21, 2003, 11:28:54 AM: Pat Mucci:

I don't want to "disqualify" private discussions. But, I do want us to be realistic. The content of private discussions can't always be shared. That's why going down the road to discuss "project management" issues is problematic. We are never going to get a "thorough and complete examination" of "project management" issues and it is silly to even suggest it is possible. Reasonable confidentiality concerns make it impossible.

Pat, I never saw Atlantic City prior to the recent work. I just know that I like how things turned out and would be happy playing there any day. Why bother getting into all the mission statement stuff? Why pretend that we can really talk about how each party performed during the project?

We're here to be art critics - that should be our only agenda.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 21, 2003, 12:47:27 PM: Tim Weiman,
Quote
Pat
You've always been a great judge of talent. A, B, and C - not exactly the triple crown of sensative restoration work. Throw in D....Merion.

And your point is....its not their fault....just following orders....I get it.

Here is the crux of the problem with judging the final results, the CONTEXT in which they are judged.

Tom MacWood slams MacDonald and Co because Atlantic City didn't complete a sensitive restoration, which was never their goal.

Tom MacWood seeks to deliberately deceive you by implying that the three courses failed in their attempts at sensative restorations, when that was not the intended goal at Atlantic City and Bethpage.

He knowingly falsifies the club's intent, trying to convince you that they failed to reach an objective that was never their goal, or even in their sights.

He judges the final product in an absurd fifth dimension, his own. Forget what everyone wanted to accomplish, the club, the architect and the contractors, it only matters what Tom MacWood wanted them to accomplish, and he judges the final product according to his fantasy goal, that even he can't define, despite his attempt to declare a nebulous, consensus high water mark as some sort of definition.

Remember too, that this is an individual making judgements on the construction of, and the final product, despite the fact that he has never seen the final product. And, he has never seen what existed before the project began. So you tell me, how does one establish a fact based, credible opinion without ever seeing the work.

It's an insult to this site.

I'm glad that you enjoy Atlantic City, so do I.
I think that Tom Doak did a very good job, based on the directive that he was given by the owner, and the bunkers are just fine.

I'll guarantee you one other thing.
If Tom MacWood didn't know in advance who designed or constructed the bunkers at Atlantic City and he came and played Atlantic City, he wouldn't have a clue as to who designed and built them. He only knows what he reads.

What you are missing is that Tom MacWood's judgements are preconceived, due to knowledge beforehand, before he ever lays eyes on the finished product, if he ever lays eyes on the finished product.

Do you want to judge architecture by actual experience and the facts entwined in the project, or do you want to judge architecture by phantom standards created by someone who has never seen the golf course and doesn't understand what the club was trying to accomplish ?

As I said, CONTEXT is an important factor, critical to a truer evaluation.

Tom MacWood,

I can understand you forgetting about the reasons each club initiates a project, it undermines your phantom conclusions.

You bring up sensative restoration, yet you are in conflict with respect to what that means. You mention a "high water mark", as if their is universal agreement as to what time in the club's architectural history that represents. And, could it be that by making alterations, or modernizations to classic courses, that that time is in the future, hence we should modify classic courses to improve them, just like you alleged Maxwell did to GMCC.

You're so out of touch with reality that it's comical.
I would suggest that you continue with your forte, research, and let people more in tune with reality, who have actually seen the golf courses discussed, render their opinions.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 21, 2003, 02:09:59 PM: Tom MacWood,
Quote
Pat
You've always been a great judge of talent. A, B, and C - not exactly the triple crown of sensative restoration work. Throw in D....Merion.

And your point is....its not their fault....just following orders....I get it.

You did write this, didn't you ?

I'd say that you've been critical of MacDonald & Co's work and the above post is but one example of your snide criticism.

Another example of your arrogance and fallacious conclusions is in the assertion that I haven't looked into the architectural history of golf courses.

But, then again, you're the expert when it comes to drawing conclusions without the facts.

Stick to research, field work is not your bailiwick.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 21, 2003, 10:55:45 PM: Tom MacWood,

So you're the guy from Ohio whose lawn is almost four (4) feet high.

Tom your neighbors didn't want to tell you, so they asked me to step in. They weren't concerned about the height of the grass in your yard, but the fact that both of your hands are bandaged and bloody.

You would think, after three months of trying to mow the grass, without any results that you would have figured it out.

Please, let go of those reels and stop pushing the handle along the ground.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 22, 2003, 06:23:28 AM: Pat Mucci:

Context is not important for any "final product" analysis. All you have to do is tell us why you liked or disliked the golf course. No research, no material facts. You don't even need to know who the developer, architect or contractor was.

You want to keep blurring the distinction between "final product" and "project management" analysis. I think it is better to keep a clear head and keep them separate.

People have a right to be consumers, to like or dislike something based on their own subjective feelings. They don't need to go through a project review before expressing an opinion about whether a course appeals to them.

Again, the key thing for the discussion group is simply that the writer shares why he came to the conclusion he did. As long as you understand that, you can evaluate how much weight you want to put on his input when deciding to play the course.

For example, just yesterday by coincidence I happen to run into someone actively trying to raise money for a new swimming pool at Yale University. So, I mentioned that I was playing at Yale on Monday.

"Oh, the hell with that......I'll never play that course again", he told me. When I asked why he replied "it is much too hard....I can't play it anymore".

Now that's a perfect example. This gentleman was a proud
Yale alumnus who had enough of their famous golf course and in just a few words he explained why.

I sure don't need to review the mission statement given to CB Mac to know I still want to play it!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 22, 2003, 07:09:34 AM: Tim Weiman,

You're lecturing the wrong guy, and context is important.

Over and over again, Tom MacWood will comment that a golf course or hole that has been worked on is a failure because it's not a sensitive restoration.

He has repeatedly condemned work, including a good deal of work he has never seen, on the basis that the hole or course wasn't restored.
And you accept his evaluation, without question, time and time again, despite the fact that he judges the "final product" not in terms of the holes worth, but in terms of whether or not it's a "sensitive restoration", a totally seperate context.

My point is, that if the club never intended to restore the hole, how can you evaluate and condemn it in the context that they didn't restore it ?

Like you, I've played Atlantic City CC, and I like it, especially when the wind is up. Tom MacWood was critical of the bunkers, and MacDonald & Co because the course wasn't "sensitively restored". What has that got to do with one's evaluation of what's in the ground today, understanding that the owner didn't want to restore the course, he wanted to alter it, and did ?

Are we now to go through the, "woulda, shoulda, coulda" form of mental masturbation when evaluating a golf course, in Tom MacWood's CONTEXT of whether or not the work is a "sensitive restoration" ignoring the fact that the club didn't want to restore the course ?

I'm the one who said that you should evaluate the hole based on its strategic merits, not that it failed his idealistic fantasy test of whether or not it's a "sensitive restoration".

He's the one making the abstract analysis, while I've tried to confine analysis to the play of the hole/s, and their strategic merit.

I also played Aronimink, Bethpage, Hollywood, Baltusrol, TCC, Congressional and Merion, and all are great golf courses as they are.

I think you addressed your above post to the wrong person.

Sorry that I'm going to miss you at YALE tomorrow.
I was supposed to play, but work got in the way.
What are you doing tuesday morning ?
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 22, 2003, 07:32:21 AM: Pat Mucci:

I’m surprised you care so much about what Tom MacWood may have said about Atlantic City. The golf course is a treat to play and I’d be happy doing so any time. If Tom has a different view, fine. Note it and move on. He’s entitled to his view, but I’ll stick to mine. Atlantic City is pretty cool. Anyone fortunate enough to be invited should go and enjoy it. Period.

Again, I’m convinced that project management discussion is inherently problematic. People who really know the inside scoop usually can’t share more than a few tidbits and most discussion group participants don’t have such information. That’s why it is usually better to concentrate on sharing views about the “final product”. That’s as far as most people can go most of the time. Hell, we have a hard enough time just doing that!

Sorry you can’t make Yale. Just to see Tommy tackle #18 is going to be a blast, I’m sure. Tuesday may be a possibility. Let’s touch base Monday afternoon/evening.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 22, 2003, 09:08:08 AM: Patrick quoted me in the first paragraph and then in caps said:

"If a golf club such as Merion asks a contractor to recreate 1930s bunkering from their course can it be a successful project from the contractor if those bunkers have ingress and egress problems, bunker-wol problems, irrigation problems, problems of "look" to various people? Just answer those quesitons will you Pat? How can that be considered a successful project on the part of the contractor (and/or architect)? Is that what the club ASKED them to do Pat? To create a series of problems? Just answer that at least will you please?

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MACDONALD & CO DIDN'T BUILD THOSE BUNKERS TO THE SPECS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN?

Patrick;

Why answer my question with another question? No, I don't know for a fact that MacDonald & Co. didn't build those bunkers to the specs they were given? Do you? But if they did build those bunkers to specs they were given then who do you suppose gave them those specs? You just said above that 'CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS'.

So then who's reponsible for the mistakes made on those bunkers at Merion---mistakes you yourself acknowledge? You've just said it can't be the club because they don't hire contractors and they don't prepare construction specs---so the only one I can see left to lay responsiblility on (in your mind) must be the architect---an intermediary by the name of TOM FAZIO!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 22, 2003, 10:17:22 AM: Tom MacWood said;

"I think Pat's imagination may be getting the best of him...not uncommon for these conspiracy theorists."

Tom MacW:

I don't believe I'd say Pat's imagination may be getting the best of him---but I think I would say that Pat's complete lack of logic and commonsense has gotten the better of him a long long time ago! I don't think Pat actually likes to contradict himself all the time---it's just that he's totally unaware of it!
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 22, 2003, 01:13:09 PM: TEPaul,
Quote

TEPAUL,
YOU'RE MISSING A MOST IMPORTANT FACT.
CLUBS DON'T HIRE CONTRACTORS
CLUBS DON'E PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SPECS
CLUBS HIRE INTERMEDIARIES, AND THEY ARE CALLED......
ARCHITECTS

You've just said it can't be the club because they don't hire contractors and they don't prepare construction specs

That's some leap in logic ????

I never said that it can't be the club, I said clubs don't create a plan and hire a contractor to implement it.

Clubs hire an architect who creates the bid specs for contractors, based on their interpretation of the clubs intent, as communicated to the architect by the club.

Your conclusion is flawed because you WANT to arrive at a conclusion that you support, therefore you make a quantum leap, absent logic or a logical progression.
I've never exculped the club from responsibility.

Tom MacWood,

You have been critical of MacDonald & Co and their work at many sites, in a variety of threads.

You've had a history harping on the issue that they and the architect didn't successfully complete a sensitive restoration, when that was never the intent of the projects at several courses, like Hollywood, Bethpage, Baltusrol, etc, etc..

You deemed their work, "failed" because they didn't achieve
YOUR objective, despite NEVER seeing the work.

What I don't understand is how their can be any inkling of credibity to your assessment of the finished work when you've never seen it, and the project was never intended as a restoration.

You have a prejudiced position not in tune with the reality of the project.

Tim Weiman wants us to comment on the finished product.

When I told you and others that Rees Jones had dramatically improved the 14th hole at Hollywood, your parrot like response was, he didn't restore it to the original or near original course. On a zillion occassions, I told you that restoration was not the clubs goal, yet you want to continue to judge the final product in the context of a fantasy standard of sensitive restoration, when Rees Jones improved the hole, just like you allege that Maxwell improved the holes at GMCC. You accept Maxwell's work at GMCC and reject Rees's work at Hollywood, even though you have seen neither
golf course. why, because you are clearly biased and have an agenda. Otherwise, if you had a discerning eye, you would recognize the improvements to the 14th hole due to Rees's work.

Hopefully, you'll see your inconsistencies and the errors of your way.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 22, 2003, 04:32:45 PM: Tom MacWood,

But, you've NEVER seen the changes that you're critical of.

So how can you make the determination that you don't like them, if you've never seen them ?

The extending of the green to the stream wasn't the only change made to # 14 at Hollywood, but then again, since you've never seen the hole, pre and post change, you wouldn't know that, yet you claim you don't like something that you've never seen.

I think it is a good thing to expose people to architectural history, but when a club embarks upon an alteration that was never intended to be a restoration, you can't judge the "final product" that Tim Weiman references in the context of its failure to be a restoration.

According to Charles Blair MacDonald and others, it's impossible to make a prudent judgement on the architectural merits and play of a hole if you've never seen it.

In most cases I think it's a good thing to support restoration work, but when a club doesn't perform a restoration, judge the "final product" based strictly on its architectural and playability merits, not what you would have liked to have seen accomplished.

If you want to say that any work that doesn't gravitate toward a sensitive restoration is contrary to your basic philosophy, fine, I wouldn't disagree with that. But, don't judge a hole that you've never seen based on the clubs failure to restore it. Let the worth of the hole speak for itself.

Tim Weiman,

This is exactly what I mean.
Tom MacWood has never seen the "final product" you reference, yet he draws a harsh opinion of it, repeatedly.
If that's not a biased or predisposed view, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 22, 2003, 08:52:55 PM: Pat Mucci:

When it comes to expressing "final product" opinions the best thing you could do is just go ahead and do it. Spending so much time attempting to disqualify someone else's point of view really doesn't add much.

Let's take the 14th at Hollywood. I haven't seen the work Rees Jones did. So far all I've learned is that Pat Mucci doesn't think Tom MacWood is qualified to comment on this subject and/or on plenty of other topics

Pat, I already knew that - from a couple hundred posts ago!

What I'd much rather hear about is your view of the work itself. Is Rees' work worth going out of my way to see and, if so, why?

That would not only help me, but it would also help other people here with an interest in such things.

I certainly don't need to hear for the 1,000th time that you don't think much of Tom MacWood's views about golf architecture. That stopped being news a long time ago!

We all know that Tom takes an interest in the historical aspect of golf architecture. The list of people who do serious research on the subject isn't very long. If that is Tom's thing, why do you care so much? If you don't get anything out of his essays or comments, fine. No problem. It is still better for you to share your own thoughts on "final product" than to remind us once again that you think Tom spends too much time in the library.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on June 23, 2003, 10:43:23 PM: Pat:

I love reading these incredible posts of yours. I'm convinced very soon you'll attempt to insert both your feet in your mouth while trying to stand! ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim Nugent on March 02, 2009, 10:12:17 AM: For those "not-in-the-business" let me shed some light.

Yes, clubs do hire contractors. I have done jobs where the contractor was already choosen. Mostly due to a prior relationship with the super or that the contractor did work at another club that impressed the board.

Not all crews of a contractor are created equal. Unless it is a small outfit, you may get a completely different set of guys.

Guys within a crew may have different abilities.

The architect is typically not there every minute or even every day.

Plans and specs are not the end-all. They are open to interpetation and it needs to be realized that they are prepared to allow the contractor to get areas and quantities in order to have a scope to bid. Sometimes you get lucky and the architect/contractor are on the same page from day 1, other times they eventually get there and still other times - never.

Your best bets are to 1) hire a team that have worked together before,
2) Allow the architect to submit a short-list of contractors he deems suitable for the result he wants, 3) hire an architect who does design-build -so there's no finger-pointing and you know for certain that the finished product is exactly what the architect intended. If Doak had done the work himself, this thread would have ended months ago because you speculators out there wouldn't have much to speculate on. All you could do is to comment on what's important - the finished product.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on March 02, 2009, 10:42:36 AM: TimN:

Your last post is a good one for observers and contributors on here, particularly those who don't have much in the way of the details of how various restoration projects worked.

This is an old thread, and it's also five pages long so I'm not going back through it to check, but if one reads Pat Mucci's first post (he started this thread back in 2003) and the various questions he asked in it, particularly between Merion's bunker work and Aronimink's bunker work and using the same contractor, there sure are some interesting and detailed answers to Pat's questions on that initial post (again whether they've been put on this thread or not).

I guess I might be the only one on here who saw both projects happen, who went on site from start to finish and in pretty good detail including speaking with the architects and committee people involved about various things (since I live nearby both courses and I know both clubs well).

I think most all the detailed answers to Pat's initial questions about the differences between these two projects are on here. I realize some may not have agreed with those answers but I've always maintained that is because they either never got involved in them or even saw these courses or else they just never want to or will agree for whatever their biases and reasons, probably mostly to do with just automatically not liking various contractors or architects no matter what they do.

But that's fine----everyone seems to have opinions on these restorations and their architects and contractors no matter their familiarity or not with them. And there is a lot to be said for the finished product and anyone's review of it in play or aesthetically. But I've just always felt it's better with the producing of a competent review of a product if one plays and sees a golf course rather than trying to review the whole thing over the Internet.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim Nugent on March 02, 2009, 11:02:59 AM: TEP - to take it one step further - to be in from the beginning, through the process, and then being able to comment on the final product. Often times, things like personalities, egos, bullying, budgets, weather, environmental concerns play a greater part in these projects than people realize.
Rare is it that an architect gets a free hand to do exactly what he wants. The mark of a seasoned veteran is how close he can get to his goal and still please a majority of those involved. This is unfortunate because many courses would be much better if the owners found someone with passion - that they trusted - and left him alone. Nothing is worse than members coming out in the middle of a project to comment on unfinished work.
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: TEPaul on March 02, 2009, 11:33:28 AM: TimN:

With the Merion and Aronimink projects (both basically bunker restoration projects) I'm not so much thinking of say extraneous members complaining about things before or after the fact, I'm talking more about the dynamics of say a committee (or those leading a committee) trying to accomplish something vis-a-vis the architect or contractor used or just the on-going working relationship with a contractor (or shaper) and the architect.

In that way, the dynamics involved in the Merion project compared to the Aronimink project was pretty different but no less educational for me and probably all those involved including the committees from those two clubs.

I have always wondered if Merion would've done things somewhat differently if they had the luxury going into it of seeing what the finished product was all about. I sense they would've done some things differently but this in no way means to me they did not go into it with the very best of intentions both for themselves and for the golf course. One pretty much has to realize that with most any committee from most any club doing a restoration project that it is very likely the first time they have ever been involved in something like that----and for that reason alone their experience level just can't be all that high.

This is why I so much believe that any club and any committee involved in a restoration project should do everything they possibly can to collaborate on information with other clubs and other committees that have done restoration projects before them. But for some odd reason they rarely think to do that. Unless of course someone really impresses on them the importance of doing that before they start! ;)
Title: Re: Merion Vs Aronomink, who gets the credit ?
Post by: Tim Nugent on March 02, 2009, 11:58:00 AM: TEP - Agreed. The projects that seem to have the best outcomes tend to be ones where a small "demostration" project was done first. This allows for the members to actually live throught he process and see if the end results are what they envisioned. Sometimes they are, sometimes not. In the case of not, they have the ability to address their concerns before proceeding with a flow-blown, invasive and expensive project.
A renovation/resotation project will have to be lived with for a long time (unless the club has very deep pockets) so my advice is go slow and be certain that you are on the right path. This, as you point out, is required as board members need to spend the time to research the process. Unfortunately, board terms expire and not enough clubs have long range planning committees. Nor do they keep an architect on retainer to provide continuity from board to board. Some clubs (and it's something I promote) have a 'Past-Presidents' council. This can be a wealth of trial and error knowledge - especially if there is turnover on the supt. side - that can keep new boards from committing the same mistakes of past boards.

As my mother was fond of saying, "experience is a dear school, but only fools will learn".