[TEPaul]

"TE
That's what I thought you meant by 'test of time'. If that is the case why did you recommend the waste bunkers at Shinnecock be restored? They were removed because of maintenance issues and ultimately they ignored your recommendation for the same reason."

Tom MacWood:

That's the kind of remark I may've overlooked in the past with you but I'm not going to in the future.

Let me ask you something. How do you know why Flynn's "waste area" bunkers at Shinnecock were let go? Who have you spoken to at Shinnecock who gave you that information? Who told you the club decided to "let those bunkers go" for maintenance reasons? This is probably another example of complete speculation on your part and then having said it you try to pass it off as FACT the next day. You try to pass yourself off as an expert researcher and this is another good example of why you're not.

Again, tell me exactly who you've spoken to at Shinnecock about that so we can ask them what they told you?

[T_MacWood]

I learned that from Wayne....maintenance issues during the Depression. Why do you ask?

[TEPaul]

"Regarding Aronimink we all know the excuses (the fact that no one bothered or knew to look for old photos at Hagley or in old golf magazines, the alleged tournament program, the Jeffersonville confusion, etc) no need to repeat them over and over again.  We understand when you have incomplete information or wrong information its difficult. But my impression is that you fully support the decision anyway and would recommend or support that decision again even with the knowledge the course was originally built with multiple bunkers."

Tom MacWood:

You can categorize what I explained to you was the decision making process at Aronimink as "excuses" but they are nothing of the kind. I think the decision arrived at with the information available then was a good one.

God knows why you aren't able to pick up on it after being told about a dozen times but Ron Prichard DID GO to the Hagley museum for ALL the Aronimink aerials. Unfortunately the only one they produced for him was the 1938-39 aerial. It's just incredible that you continue to fail to realize or consider that.

We did have incomplete information back then, I've told you that about twenty times but you seem of fail to realize what that means for some reason.

And you assume that I would support to decision to not restore those multi-set bunkers if those late 1920s aerials had been available back then BEFORE a decision was made? How is that, Tom MacWood? Where did I ever say that? Where did anyone ever say that? I want you to show me where anyone ever said that so it will become obvious that you just make this shit up. Go ahead, show me where anyone ever said that or else retract that remark.

If we'd all had those late 1920s aerials that show conclusively the course was built with those multi-set bunkers I suspect the decision to restore to them would've been pretty clear. I believe I mentioned that in a post on here yesterday but obviously you failed to understand or notice that too. I told you an number of times I found those 1920s aerial last year about 2-3 years AFTER the project was completed. You're unbelievable---you just see what you want to see and simply avoid the rest.  

"Your positions are contradictory. If you are going to say the 13th should have been preserved as Macdonald left it, you should advocate the multi-bunker set because it was what Ross left us."

I believe I said that very thng yesterday IF it was conclusive those bunkers really were originally built that way. Unfortunately we just didn't have that information that we have now about 2-3 years after the fact. Why you can't understand that is just beyond my comprehension. It shows you to be incredibly dense or obdurate, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

"I learned that from Wayne....maintenance issues during the Depression. Why do you ask?"

Well, then I'll check with Wayne if he told you that.

I remember distinctly when we explained to them that those "waste areas" were actually designed by Flynn. They said they never realized that and that they thought those old areas in aerials and old photographs were simply natural areas that hadn't vegetated for some reason.

The reason they may've always thought that is pretty obvious to me. It's because they never had the plans we showed them that had those areas marked by Flynn for construction "Undulate waste areas". Those plans had been in a box in barn in Bucks Co for about fifty years.

[T_MacWood]

"The last question was based upon speculation. There is no evidence McGovern deviated from the plan. The answer to the question...I would not base a restoration on speculation. Speculative restoration is redesign....that is one of the reason's I question what occured at Aronimink."

What last question? There's no evidence that McGovern deviated from the plan? No there isn't but there was a lot around here that would indicate he certianly may have deviated from Ross's plan---not the least of which is the example of Jeffersonville. I don't blame you for not wanting to consider that Tom, as Prichard and the Aronimink did---it just doesn't fit into your "after the fact" opinion. Talk about looking at a decision with blinders on---that really is you on this issue.

It's ironic that you would say what you just did about speculation. There's also no evidence of Ross approving or even being aware of that bunker change either. Once again, why would he have drawn those single bunker plans so elaborately if they weren't what he wanted at Aronimink? Speculation is precisely what Aronimink wanted to avoid and they did that. They knew those plans really were Ross's. The rest, including those cluster bunkers was speculation.

"The course as built by Ross was one of his more unique designs. I'm surprised you fellows don't see the same thing Mike Cirba, John Gosselin, myself and others see from an architectural point of view."

The course as built was one of Ross's more unique designs? Oh really? Why is that? Because it had those multi-bunker sets? What would you call that unique style then---the McGovern/Jeffersonville style? I don't think Aronimink was as interested in that as they were in Ross's  own plans for Aronimink itself. Are you aware of other courses with McGovern as foreman with those clusters? I think we are. Have you seen Ross drawings with those clusters? Maybe you have an if so produce them to prove it. And once you've done that produce cluster bunkers at Aronimink drawn by Ross. That would constitute proof. Anything less does not.

Read again what John Goesslin said and you might see he said he does not disagree with the decision they made.

And so Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba disagree with the decision that was made after the fact? A lot of people from the club were involved in that decision and I think they got what they wanted which were undeniably Ross bunkers. Those multi-bunker sets were not as undeniably Ross as some like you seems to want to continue to say they were. Of course you can just continue to say that endlessly but that doesn't prove a thing.

They got Ross bunkers and they got what they wanted. If a Tom MacWood or a Mike Cirba disagree with it after the fact, so what? That certainly would not remotely constitute "a mistake".

Your opinion, Tom, in this long Aronimink bunker project discussion has been found to be what it always was---eg essentially baseless.

Next subject!?

TE
Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it appeared you continued to support the principle of re-building of the course according to the plans as opposed restoring the original design even after learning the truth. Would you have recommended restoring the course (multi-bunkers) as built ?

[T_MacWood]

"I learned that from Wayne....maintenance issues during the Depression. Why do you ask?"

Well, then I'll check with Wayne if he told you that.

I remember distinctly when we explained to them that those "waste areas" were actually designed by Flynn. They said they never realized that and that they thought those old areas in aerials and old photographs were simply natural areas that hadn't vegetated for some reason.

The reason they may've always thought that is pretty obvious to me. It's because they never had the plans we showed them that had those areas marked by Flynn for construction "Undulate waste areas". Those plans had been in a box in barn in Bucks Co for about fifty years.

TE
Why didn't you apply your test of time theory to Shinnecock before recommending the waste areas be restored?

[TEPaul]

"TE
Why didn't you apply your test of time theory to Shinnecock before recommending the waste areas be restored?"

Because from what I understood from them up there it was most likely a situation where at some point back then those "undulated waste areas" that Flynn designed and made were simply misunderstood by the administration of the club, and that they didn't realize they were actually designed by him---eg that they thought that was just the way the land was and that maintenance of it wasn't necessary and so it just naturally vegetated over. That doesn't have anything to do with a "test of time" application which is basically how well anything is working "In play".

There certainly can be a "test of time" application in maintenance too, and probably the best examples of that would be the original bunkering at both Cypress and Pebble at the end of the 1920s, particularly the famous so-called "imitation sand dunes".

It certainly appears to me that that issue may've been a large part of what sparked the argument between MacKenzie and Mayo which Morse had to mediate (I have those letters). I think it was pretty obvious that as beautiful as bunkering like that might have been it clearly was a maintenance nightmare, ane perhaps according to Mayo was bound to fail the "maintenance test of time" bigtime.

There is little question it did fail that maintenance test of time and was changed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I agree with you. I think each case should be evaluated on its own. I'm not in favor of the last in theory being followed across the board.

The evolution of an architect's design philosophy is an interesting study.

It would be interesting to question and listen to older surviving architects and perhaps younger ones too.

I'd like to know how their design principles and views have changed over the years, or if they've remained static.  
I'd also be interested to know if their design principles had changed due to internal or external forces.

You also have to wonder if the genius in the creative process is linear or random.   I would imagine that a chronological study of their work would answer that question.

I would agree that the last alteration to a golf course isn't always the best bench mark.   But, it does have a huge advantage in that it can be finitely determined, whereas, determining when they did their best work is often subjective, without a finite line of demarcation.

In light of the non-subjective nature of their "last" alteration, I would tend to lean toward it, unless other information, overwhelming in nature, would lead a prudent person to conclude otherwise.  

[TEPaul]

"TE
Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it appeared you continued to support the principle of re-building of the course according to the plans as opposed restoring the original design even after learning the truth. Would you have recommended restoring the course (multi-bunkers) as built?"

Tom MacWood:

I'd like to answer this. Do me a favor and tell me where to find this thread you quoted from on post #29 from July 2005. That was pretty close to the date I found those 20s aerials at the Hagley.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

""TE
Perhaps I got the wrong impression, but it appeared you continued to support the principle of re-building of the course according to the plans as opposed restoring the original design even after learning the truth. Would you have recommended restoring the course (multi-bunkers) as built?"

Tom MacWood;

My sense is that IF we had those 20s aerials that showed the course built originally with those multi-set bunkers BEFORE the decision was made of what to restore to, those multi-sets is what the decision would have been to restore to. I certainly have no problem asking the club or Ron if they concur with what me sense is on that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Tom MacWood,

IF the photos and the plans had been available, it would be difficult to go against Ross's detailed design drawings and accompanying notes.

Absent accurate information on how the "as built" deviated from the detailed design drawings and field notes, my inclination would have been to go with the plans drafted by and presented by Ross.

If the club valued its connection to Donald Ross that would seem to be the prudent choice.

Tom MacWood,

Do you recall your friend Burback (sp?) at Bethpage.

What if you restored the golf course to the Hagley photos and discovered years later that the work, including the deviation from Ross's detailed design plans was actually the sole work of McGovern or other Ross assistants ?

Would you restore the golf course to Donald Ross's original detailed design plans and notes or would you leave it as McGovern's work ?

[TEPaul]

"Absent accurate information on how the "as built" deviated from the detailed design drawings and field notes, my inclination would have been to go with the plans drafted by and presented by Ross. "

Pat:

IF those earlier aerials showing the course "as built" HAD been available BEFORE the decision had to be made they would've provided about 2/3 of the accurate information needed (lengths and widths) of how they deviated and Ross's drawings probably could've been basically used  for the remaining 1/3---- eg basic height and depth guide.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I don't get too caught up in crazy speculation...IMO it is the quality of the design not the name on the design that should be the determining factor.

There are plenty of obscure names who have created work worthy of preserving and protecting: Peter Gannon, Komyo Otani, Herbert Barker and the architect of Princess Anne whose name escapes me but I'd never heard of him before.

San Remo, Tokyo, Mayfield, Princess Anne, Bethpage and Aronimink were all recognized as special designs in their day.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

It's interesting to me how and why you say some of the things you do. You say Aronimink was recognized as a 'special' design in its day? It may have been for varioius reasons but what makes you say that about Aronimink and most particularly why do you think those multi-set bunkers made the golf course 'special', if in fact you do think that's what made it 'special'?

You may say things like that but if you do maybe you should provide some documentary evidence that anyone else felt the course was 'special' for that reason.

I'm not aware that anyone felt that way and I doubt Ron Prichard or even the club is either. For something to be truly 'special' it's probably necessary for more than just one guy in Ohio 85 years later to think so.  

Can you provide historic documentary evidence that Aronimink was considered to be 'special" because of those multi-set bunkers? And if so, I'd love to see it as I'm sure the club and Ron Prichard would too.  

And if you can't provide that historic documentary evidence proving that, then maybe you should just begin to QUALIFY what may be meant by "special" about Aronimink G.C.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't get too caught up in crazy speculation...IMO it is the quality of the design not the name on the design that should be the determining factor.

That's a cozy way of avoiding the question.

Could you address and answer the question.

Keep McGovern's course or restore to Ross's course ?

There are plenty of obscure names who have created work worthy of preserving and protecting: Peter Gannon, Komyo Otani, Herbert Barker and the architect of Princess Anne whose name escapes me but I'd never heard of him before.

That's not the issue.

Aronomink is the issue.

What would you do, keep McGovern's design or restore to Ross's design ?

San Remo, Tokyo, Mayfield, Princess Anne, Bethpage and Aronimink were all recognized as special designs in their day.

But, if it were discovered that Aronimink was actually built contrary to Ross's detailed design plans by McGovern, who had his own thoughts on golf course design, would you retain McGovern's work or restore the golf course to Ross's detailed design plans ?

It's a simple straight forward question, with a specific set of facts.

Don't waffle, make the call

[TEPaul]

If Tom MacWood is going to call Aroninmink a "special" design I think he should answer the question of specifically why he thinks that, and so I'm going to resubmit my post to him about that.

"Tom MacWood:
It's interesting to me how and why you say some of the things you do. You say Aronimink was recognized as a 'special' design in its day? It may have been for varioius reasons but what makes you say that about Aronimink and most particularly why do you think those multi-set bunkers made the golf course 'special', if in fact you do think that's what made it 'special'?

You may say things like that but if you do maybe you should provide some documentary evidence that anyone else felt the course was 'special' for that reason.

I'm not aware that anyone felt that way and I doubt Ron Prichard or even the club is either. For something to be truly 'special' it's probably necessary for more than just one guy in Ohio 85 years later to think so.  

Can you provide historic documentary evidence that Aronimink was considered to be 'special" because of those multi-set bunkers? And if so, I'd love to see it as I'm sure the club and Ron Prichard would too.  

And if you can't provide that historic documentary evidence proving that, then maybe you should just begin to QUALIFY what may be meant by "special" about Aronimink G.C."

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't get too caught up in crazy speculation...IMO it is the quality of the design not the name on the design that should be the determining factor.

That's a cozy way of avoiding the question.

Could you address and answer the question.

Keep McGovern's course or restore to Ross's course ?

There are plenty of obscure names who have created work worthy of preserving and protecting: Peter Gannon, Komyo Otani, Herbert Barker and the architect of Princess Anne whose name escapes me but I'd never heard of him before.

That's not the issue.

Aronomink is the issue.

What would you do, keep McGovern's design or restore to Ross's design ?

San Remo, Tokyo, Mayfield, Princess Anne, Bethpage and Aronimink were all recognized as special designs in their day.

But, if it were discovered that Aronimink was actually built contrary to Ross's detailed design plans by McGovern, who had his own thoughts on golf course design, would you retain McGovern's work or restore the golf course to Ross's detailed design plans ?

It's a simple straight forward question, with a specific set of facts.

Don't waffle, make the call

Tom MacWood,

You've been critical of club's decisions, including Aronimink.

Could you answer the last question please.

Do you restore to Ross or McGovern ?[/color]

Tom,

You're quick to criticize club's decisions regarding their golf courses, but, when the vote it put to you, you run and hide.

Take a stand, which is it at Aronimink, Ross or McGovern ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It's more than just that. Tom MacWood has sort of based his remarks about Aronimink's bunker project on the fact that the course was a "special" design (his words) and he's used a few other examples of "special" designs in other art forms as an analogy.

I've asked him, who, other than himself, thinks or ever thought Aronimink was just a "special" design and exactly why. He doesn't seem to want to answer any of that.

I'm fairly sure he will answer eventually and I'm also sure his answer will be as unsupportable as everything else he's heretofore said about Aronimink's bunker project DECISION at the time they had to make it, which frankly he wasn't even aware of (at that time).

It really doesn't much matter what he thought about the bunker project when he found out about it a few years AFTER the decision of what to do HAD BEEN MADE. It doesn't even matter what me or Ron Prichard or the club thinks about the decision now that information they did not have previously has become available.

All that matters is the decision they made and the reasons for making that decision when they had to make it on the available information they had at that time.

Tom MacWood says he's not criticizing Aronimink or Ron Prichard, he's only pointing out and making information available.

Well, we all have that information now, and we found it, not Tom MacWood. Again, the  only problem was we did not have some of that information available when the decision had to be made. Tom MacWood didn't have it either then. Matter of fact, again, I doubt he could've even been aware the project was taking place.  

It's always easier to criticize people after the fact with information no one had at the necessary time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Have you disabled Tom MacWood's computer ?

Why is he having such a difficult time answering this simple question ?

Surely, someone who's been so critical of Aronimink and other clubs, who knows the history of the design and construction of the golf course can answer such an easy question.

Restore to Ross or McGovern ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're asking Tom MacWood to answer whether the course should've been restored to Ross or McGovern bunkers.

He's already answered that basic question regarding Aronimink, and that is he does not think those multi-set bunkers which the course was originally built with are McGovern bunkers. He thinks there is no way that Ross could NOT have approved the change in bunker style between the Ross bunker drawings and those multi-set bunkers.

Unfortunately, when the decision of what to do had to be made noone even knew if those multi-set bunkers HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY built. NOONE knew, and certainly not Tom MacWood.

He's answered that question of yours a lot of times. What he never has answered, though, is EXACTLY WHY either he or anyone else he may be aware of thinks Aronimink was such a "special" design?

Does he think it was because of something to do with the golf course or does he think it was a "special" design simply because of those multi-set bunkers? I've never heard anyone EVER say the course was a "special" design for that reason and I'm simply asking him if he's heard that, where did he hear it and can he cite who it was that ever said that.

Personally, I think that's a more than appropriate thing to ask someone who says that about a golf course when he's never even been to see it---ever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You're asking Tom MacWood to answer whether the course should've been restored to Ross or McGovern bunkers.

He's already answered that basic question regarding Aronimink, and that is he does not think those multi-set bunkers which the course was originally built with are McGovern bunkers.

He thinks there is no way that Ross could NOT have approved the change in bunker style between the Ross bunker drawings and those multi-set bunkers.

What hard, factual evidence did he present to support his thinking ?[/color]

Unfortunately, when the decision of what to do had to be made noone even knew if those multi-set bunkers HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY built. NOONE knew, and certainly not Tom MacWood.

He's answered that question of yours a lot of times. What he never has answered, though, is EXACTLY WHY either he or anyone else he may be aware of thinks Aronimink was such a "special" design?

Does he think it was because of something to do with the golf course or does he think it was a "special" design simply because of those multi-set bunkers? I've never heard anyone EVER say the course was a "special" design for that reason and I'm simply asking him if he's heard that, where did he hear it and can he cite who it was that ever said that.

Who determines what's special ?

Are Ross's detailed design plans with accompanying notes not special ?[/color]

Personally, I think that's a more than appropriate thing to ask someone who says that about a golf course when he's never even been to see it---ever.

[TEPaul]

"What hard, factual evidence did he present to support his thinking?"

No hard factual evidence that I'm aware of. He presented only his opinion that it's illogical to think that Ross would NOT have approved those multi-set bunkers. Maybe Tom MacWood thinks his own opinion is hard factual evidence and not speculation but I don't and I doubt anyone else does either. He's merely given his opinion, like anyone else and his opinion is certainly not the only logical opinion on how and why that change may've occured. Maybe he thinks his opinion is the only logical one but that's not the point of the discussion of the Aronimink bunker project.

"Who determines what's special?"

That's essentially what I'm asking him. Or even who was it that ever said the course was "special", and exactly why? He will probably say something that it was common knowledge or some other unsupportable and evasive answer like that.

"Are Ross's detailed design plans with accompanying notes not special?"

They certainly are---to the club, Ron Prichard and a number of others. If they had never existed clearly this bunker project would've been very different. But the fact is they did exist when the decision had to be made and they do exist now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Absent hard, factual evidence, how can you fault a golf club for restoring their golf course to Ross's original detailed design plans and accompanying notes ?

Surely, the prudent man rule would demand that course of action.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The silence is deafening, and tells you all you need to know.

[PThomas]

Two recent examples of architects "perfecting" their own work are Pete Dye's Cypress Links, now known as Dye Preserve, and Jack Nicklaus' Loxahatchee, both  in Florida.

Here is Ron Whitten on these courses:

www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/dyepreserve_loxahatchee.html

if I had the money to build a course, and the guy I hired the first time "didn't get it right" to the point that I am doing a total redesign, I personally just don't think I'd go back to the same architect again!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()