News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #325 on: August 12, 2005, 09:13:19 PM »

Pat
I was speaking of the 12th at GCGC, although I have also documented the recent change to the 17th.

No you didn't.
I was the one who informed the site of the alteration.
You know nothing about the change on # 17 other from what you've heard from me.


You certainly don't have to be in those places to document the changes, which is what you and TE contiually object to.

That's not what we object to.
Now you're reverting to your intellectual dishonesty again.
You look at two photos and see the difference, like anyone else making the comparison.  But, an important piece of information is WHY did the changes take place, and what does the current membership feel about those changes.
[/color]

The rational for changes to the 12th at GCGC are well documented.

That too, is not true.
There is speculation as to why the green and surrounds were changed, not clear documented evidence.
And, most of the speculation centers on the internal mounds, but, noone ever addressed why the bunkering scheme was totally modified.
[/color]

I'm not interested in getting into another pissing contest about Aronimink, if you have questions about the chain of events go back and look it up. I'm not falling for your trap of erroneously characterizing my comments about Seminole in hopes of bating me into an argument on that topic.

There's nothing more to say, you made a colossal blunder at Seminole and drew false conclusions at Aronomink.
[/color]

Your historical information is extremely limited, which is why you are often defending the work of Rees Jones.
Like when you said that Rees Jones left his "distinctive mark' all over Baltusrol and I challenged you to identify the specifics and you couldn't come up with anything other than he expanded a section of a green from fringe to putting surface.
[/color]

You have consistantly disputed historic documentation when it comes to Rees.

That's not true.
You provided NO historical documentation to support your wild accusation that he left his "distinctive mark" all over Baltusrol.
You conveniently categorized the expansion of a putting surface from the fringe and immediate area as your exhibit A.
What a joke that was.
[/color]

Bringing to light architectural changes is not being extremely critical,

Agreed.

unless you are someone who has incorrectly characterized redesign work as restoration...

Ron Prichard and Aronomink got it right, you got it wrong


and even then I wouldn't call showing inconsistancies extremeley critical.

I'd call it hypocrisy.

Like advocating the reconstruction of OSU Scarlet to MacKenzie's original plans, but criticizing Ron Prichard for reconstructing Aronomink to Ross's original plans.

Yet, you can't recognize your own contradictory positions.
And, you can't admit when you're dead wrong, vis a vis, Seminole.
[/color]

I don't hold myself as an infallible expert...I make mistakes like anyone else...but when it comes to architectural research, documentation and presenting my thoughts, theories and conslusions, I'd say my record is pretty good.

Of course you would.
That's why legal disputes aren't decided by the plaintiff or the defendent..
[/color]

I'm not really interested in your thoughts on OSU...you have limited or no knowldege of MacKenzie, MacKenzie's design, the golf course as built, the University, the history of the project, who has been involved and what their precise efforts have been.

I"m not arrogant enough to posture myself as an expert on OSU Scarlet.  I admit that I have limited knowledge of OSU Scarlet.  You on the other hand had equally limited knowledge regarding Seminole, yet you held yourself out as an expert on the golf course, it's topography, construction, etc., etc. .

You couldn't admit when you were DEAD WRONG, and that's one of your failings.  
False in one, False in many.
You desperately attempted to support and reinforce a position that was pattently absurd, rather than yield and admit that you made a mistake.

When will this process repeat itself ?
How are we to trust you if you can't admit to making mistakes ?
[/color]

You only look at the topic as opportunity to take a shot at myself.

Not true.
You've taken shots at my methods, but, at least I got things done ..... accomplished.
Your efforts at OSU Scarlet were a complete failure.

Perhaps if you had sought advice from either TEPaul or myself
you might have had a better chance of making a difference.
But, you chose your way and it was an abject failure.
Hence, in the future, I'd be cautious about being judgemental of club's such as Aronomink that embark upon projects for their golf course.   At least Aronomink reconstructed the bunkers to Ross's original plans.  Will OSU Scarlet be reconstructed to MacKenzie's original plans ?
[/color]

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #326 on: August 13, 2005, 07:48:47 AM »
Tom MacWood,

You claimed that Rees Jones left his distinctive marks on Baltusrol, yet you couldn't identify them.

And, the reason you couldn't identify them is that you've never been to Baltusrol to see the golf course pre and post Rees's work.

Adding tee length, edging bunkers and mowing fringe to  putting surfaces hardly qualifies as a distinctive marks.
But, you chose to lie, to be intellectually dishonest, despite never having been to Baltusrol.

Your support of the alleged statement that Seminole is FLAT is another of your colossal blunders.
Then you compounded your mistake by trying to state that Donald Ross created the massive ridges from small lake excavations.

You claimed you wanted OSU Scarlet rebuilt to MacKenzie's plans yet you opposed and criticized Aronomink for rebuilding their golf course according to Ross's plans.

You're a phony, arrogant and a self claimed infallible expert.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #327 on: August 13, 2005, 09:35:07 AM »
Pat:

I'm not sure Tom MacWood ever actually said he thinks he's an infallible expert on golf architecure or that he said all of Seminole was flat or that he ever thought Ross may've created the ridgelines of Seminole out of excavation fill. But if he did of course those would be extremely fallible things to say. He certainly has said that he proved that Aronimink had those 200 bunkers that showed ten years later on the 1939 aerial of Aronimink. How did he claim he proved that? By producing a single photo of bunkers on the first hole from about 400 yards away (a photo, I might add, Prichard and the club always had). That to me is certainly not infallible, and it's certainly not the production of infallible research material of an expert. It's basically guessing and getting lucky on a guess. Guessing was most certainly not what Aronimink wanted to do on their bunker project. One photo of one golf hole certainly doesn't prove what Aronimink's bunkers on the entire course looked like ten years earlier in 1929. For that a 1929 aerial was needed. Did Tom MacWood have that 1929 aerial that infallibly proved how the bunkers were originally built? No, he didn't. Why wouldn't an expert researcher who claims he proved something at Aronimink have that earlier aerial of Aronimink that infallibly proved how the course was built? Good question. But that apparently hasn't stopped him from claiming he proved how the course's bunkers were built. One can do that I suppose if he just acts like he proved what others did.   ;)

No matter how much research he does on some course there never will be any way he can ever know that course as well as others who've been there and actually studied the golf course itself. Tom MacWood pretty much has to always depend on the accuracy of what he reads. I guess or moms and dads may told us when we were growing up to not always believe everything you read but maybe no one ever told tom that. But he's never going to acknowledge that or admit that so my advice to you would be to quit trying to get him to.  
« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 09:40:49 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #328 on: August 13, 2005, 10:27:08 AM »
"TE and Pat
I admire your loyality to Rees Jones and Ron Prichard, I just wish you were as loyal to Tillinghast, Ross, and Travis."

That's just one more in a long list of total horseshit Tom MacWood remarks. This is another great example of a man who just says things that have virtually no meaning. And another good reason why his kind of blind doctrinairism will never work in golf course architecture or even restorations.

Tom MacWood's mantra seems to be "Just restore or preserve it no matter what it is or was." Saying things like that completely overlooks how golf courses may play at any particular time. Has Tom MacWood never heard of "the test of time"? Or maybe something like that just has no meaning at all to him. His feeling seems to be the old architecture looks so cool who really cares what it plays like? No wonder Tom MacWood doesn't see the point of ever seeing some of the courses he criticizes. What difference does it make to him how they play with his doctrinaire attitude? He'll probably tell us again this is great art like some building in Japan or England. No wonder he's so fixated on William Morris's idea of unifying art forms! That kind of idea makes remarks like his appear somewhat rational, when it's anything but in golf and the art form of golf architecture.

Probably the primary reason Pat and I have been questioning some of the things he says on here is because Tom MacWood's blind doctrinairism to just believe everything that the old architects said and did has to be great simply because they said it and did it, is getting to be somewhat of the thoughtless blind mantra of this website.

It's purism on golf architecture starting to run amok. There are too many on here who criticize most everyone in sight in an attempt to "out-purist" each other.

It would be a whole lot better if they'd take more time going to these golf courses and studying them as intensely as they seem to study old magazines and newspapers about them.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #329 on: August 13, 2005, 11:06:43 AM »
"TE
I'm not of the school that believe that every Tillinghast and Travis course should look like a Rees Jones course."

And either am I, Tom MacWood. I've never said anything remotely like that. I can't do much about your long list of horseshit assumptions to the contrary, though.
 

"I'm not of the school that believes every Donald Ross course should have his aetypical grass faces bunkers. Evidently based upon your actions and blind defense of these fellows....you disagree."

And evidently you're wrong, Tom MacWood. What blind defense are you speaking of? Are you speaking about when I mentioned I thought Ron Prichard was a good restoration architect who did dedicated research. Or were you speaking of what was done at Aronimink and my defense of that. I certainly wouldn't expect you to understand this but the bunkers that were done at Aronimink recently were from Ross drawings that called for partially grassed down faces. You may not think so but you're not a restoration architect who's been doing this stuff for about thirty years. You're just a guy who sits in Ohio and comes up with a photo of one hole on the course of bunkers that're about 400 yards away. The fact is you just don't know what you're talking about. You say the bunkers of Aronimink were all sand flashed up. They weren't. On that you're simply incorrect.
 
"And the test of time has nothing to do with why these restored/redsigned courses come out looking the same way."

So, now they've all come out looking the same way, have they? Every Ross restoration has the same bunker look does it? How would you know that from Ohio. Have you seen every Ross restoration? Wait a minute, you've never even been to Aronimink have you? If grassed down faced bunkers upsets you so much about Ron Prichard how do you feel about Gil Hanse?

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #330 on: August 13, 2005, 11:19:14 AM »
"IMO it is time to stand up for Tillinghast, Ross and Travis."

Tom MacWood:

And this is what you think you're doing all by yourself, don't you? What do you think Ron Prichard, Gil Hanse, Ron Forse, Ian Andrews et al are doing?  

Why do you suppose we admire what they've been doing in restorations? You can't really be as blind about golf, as pompous and as arrogant as to think you're defending these old guys and their golf architecture all by yourself, can you?

But maybe you do think that. That'd be OK with me if you'd get out there and do it on the golf courses in question and learn something about what happens out there, though.

As I've said many times, you are a good researcher. But you should just pass it along to those architects who know what to do with it in the field because apparently you don't. If you're trying to claim you do know what to do with it in the field better than a Prichard, Hanse, Forse, Andrews et al, then I'm afraid Pat is right about you-----you are a phony and you are a fraud.

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #331 on: August 13, 2005, 11:28:35 AM »
"TE
Yes. Ron Prichard. You are more loyal to Prichard than Ross. Has he ever restored a Ross course without the grass faced bunkers?"

And why would you say that Tom MacWood? Have I ever said anything at all about loyalty to Ron Prichard? The word  loyalty on here has always been your word, not mine--I've never used that word. You have an odd way implying someone said something when it was only what you said about them (me being loyal to Prichard).

How do you know how loyal I am to Ross? Has Ron Prichard ever restored a Ross course without grassed faced bunkers? I reallly don't know Tom MacWood. It was you who seems to be accusing him of having done grassed down faces on every Ross course he's ever done. Why don't you answer that question yourself, then instead of asking me?


TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #332 on: August 13, 2005, 11:49:40 AM »
"If you are going to be pro-restoration at least go to the trouble of determining if in fact these restoration architects are restoring these golf courses accurately."

Tom MacWood:

On the courses and restoration projects I've had anything to do with as far as determining if in fact the restoration architects are restoring accurately or should do that I'd put myself up against a guy like you every day of the week. At least I do go to these projects with those architects and members of the clubs, something I doubt you've ever done.

We do differ apparently in our approach. Yours seems to be constantly suggesting to just put everything back EXACTLY the way it once was and you'll have a successful restoration. That's where your real lack of experience and understanding on site and with actual restoration architecture truly shows.

A whole lot more than just suggesting everything be put back EXACTY as it once was is necessary. For instance, why was something changed in the first place? Was it originally a mistake or something that just wasn't working well for some reason? If so, one needs to find out that reason or you might be in danger of restoring a mistake or something that just doesn't work well in play and never did. Can any golf club depend on some guy in Ohio who collects old magazines, newspapers and photos and never visits and studies these courses for information like that? Of course not.

That's why they hire people like Prichard, Forse and Hanse, Andrews et al, and why they don't depend on a guy like you to make the decisions that need to go on in the field.

wsmorrison

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #333 on: August 13, 2005, 05:52:28 PM »
Tom,

This bickering back and forth has gone on a long time.  I for one am pretty tired of the same things being repeated over and over.

One thing I think you may not consider well enough, and here it goes back to practical matters and pertinant facts you'd know if you were on site or in contact with those involved in the decision making process, is that maybe the architect, club staff and membership got together on these issues and came to a conclusion not to restore exactly as original for one or more of three reasons:  One, the agronomic considerations may differ as new grass strains may have been introduced; Two, the maintenance of the flashed features or multiple sets may be prohibitive in today's economic realities and Three, the game has evolved over the past eighty years and some things may need to change on a golf course.  These issues could result in failure or success; there are many examples of each--perhaps more of the former.

A number of architects in the Golden Age had something in common with those of today--change.  You may not want to admit it but few courses, especially the great ones were left unchanged.  Architects great and not so great made changes.  Flynn, Wilson, Fownes, Ross and others made changes over many years.  Most to their own courses but Flynn made changes at Tillinghast courses and Ross courses often within ten years of their opening.  Why?  Mistakes were made and technology changed.  Sometimes changes back then were for the worst (not by Flynn of course ;) )and sometimes for the better.  

Would you want Shinnecock Hills restored to Macdonald and Raynor's version?  Do you think Ron Forse has any regrets not knowing that a number of changes to Sunnehanna were done by Flynn in the late 1930s and should not have been removed?  John Yerger now know the changes Flynn made and for the most part thinks they were definite improvements.  Do you think the Maxwell changes at Gulph Mills should have been reverted back to the original Ross despite failing the test of time?  The membership pays and plays for these matters.  It is easy to criticize the work from a simplistic perspective--is it original?  Its about time you take into account the realities and practicalities that sometimes come into play.  

If you came to Aronimink, drawings and photos in hand, spoke to the membership and Ron Prichard and walked/studied the course, then you would certainly have a more informed opinion.  Until then, it was a series of cheap shots rather than a straightforward presentation of any data.  Not that cheap shots aren't thrown around on this site at times.

You have got to be realistic about these issues and to casually dismiss all the dyanmics in play can be a glaring omission of the value you might bring to a project.  There are more issues in play in restorations and renovations than your ideal desire to see things restored as in a vacuum.  I guess you can say I am lecturing again.  But the fact is, you're not far away from a lot of what some of us think.  I believe you have to be more informed and more involved.  I don't know for sure, but I doubt looking back you feel you did everything possible to impact the OSU project.  If you do, well then should be satisfactory to you.

Please don't bait me or engage me on this.  I think it high time this thread moves further and further back in the archive.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #334 on: August 13, 2005, 08:00:35 PM »
Pat
Let me explain the difference between Ohio State and Aronimink one more time.

Aronimink was design and built by Ross.
That's not true.
Ross designed it, including the bunkers.
He didn't build it, that was left to others.
You have yet to explain or present ANY factual evidence to support your claim, and you admitted that you don't know how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, the as builts.
[/color]

He was alive and well during construction,

That's true
[/color]

in fact he was on site during construction,

That's NOT true.
He visited occassionally, he was not on site continuously as you suggest.
[/color]

along with his most senior design associate.


He later returned to course and after inspecting it, said he intended Aronimink to be his masterpiece, and it was better than he knew.

And how many years after the course opened is he alleged to have made that remark ?

Are we to believe this remark is credible in light of his having claimed that Seminole was FLAT ?
[/color]

Ohio State was designed by MacKenzie in 1929. Construction was put on hold due to the Depression. MacKenzie died in 1934. The golf courses were built in 1938-39 by an agronomy professor and then bunkered by a local pro in the 40's (during this period MacKenzie was still dead). Years later the agronomy professor returned to the course, and said he intended the course to be his masterpiece, but who the hell put these god awful bunkers here! (MacKenzie was still dead).

The situation is identical.

OSU has Mackenzie's original design plans for OSU Scarlet.
Aronomink has Ross's original design plans for Aronomink.

If you're a Ross purist, as you claim, why wouldn't you want them built to Ross's detailed design plans and written instructions ?

You can't have it both ways.

In keeping with your PURIST mandate, If McGovern made the changes at Aronomink, is that any different from some professor making changes at OSU Scarlet ?

I think not.

Again, you can't have it both ways.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #335 on: August 13, 2005, 08:33:49 PM »

Pat:REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THOSE GREENS.
Let me repeat that in case you've missed it.
REES JONES HAS NEVER TOUCHED THE 9TH, 10TH OR 14TH GREENS.
[/color]

That's correct Tom, he never altered the existing greens as you erroneously claimed.  He had them mow the fringe to green in limited areas.

So tell us, where are the distinctive marks you claim he made on those greens ?

I know you won't answer this question because you can't answer it.  There are no distinctive marks as you falsely claimed.  You never saw those greens pre and post Rees.
You're a phony.
[/color]

You made a statement relative to work you alleged that Rees did at Baltusrol, despite NEVER having seen the golf course, then compound your error by further alleging that Rees altered the greens on three holes, #'s 9, 10, and 14, when in FACT, you've never been there or seen any evidence to support your statement.
Let me repeat, Rees has NEVER altered any of those greens.
Now, would you like to recant your statement ?
Don't you think you owe Rees an appology ?
[/color]

Rees:"Remodeling Baltusrol was a special opportunity for me....
We marked every bunker edge.Now, the grass around the bunkers is pure bluegrass, which will provide a constant, but penal rough

How convenient of you to forget my previous response.
That was a maintainance function, not an design alteration.
Would you show us how and where the bluegrass around the bunkers bears his distinctive marks ?
[/color]


....we did add slightly to the size of the ninth and 10th greens, allowing for some additional placements, closer to the existing greenside bunkers


Mowing the fringe to green in limited area isn't altering the existing green as you wrongly claimed.

And, would you define and identify where he left his distinctive marks on those greens ?

Again, you're incapable of answering that question because you're a fraud.
[/color]


....the seventh is 470-yard four, a slight dogleg right. In 1954 my father added a new tee to the right of the existing one, creating the dogleg. We built a new fairway bunker on the right, past the ones my father installed...We added a third bunker to the left of the fairway on the 374-yard eighth...the 409-yard 14th now plays 418 yards and the front left portion of the green has been extended, to bring the bunker into play."


Could you define Rees's "distinctive marks" and could you identify where them are on # 7 and # 8 fairway bunker ?

Did you see the golf course immediately prior to Rees's work ?
Did you see the golf course immediately after Rees's work ?

Have you EVER SEEN BALTUSROL in person ?

You couldn't tell what Rees did if you didn't have prior knowledge of the work and played the golf course.
[/color]

Tom: Your memory is shot. Do you remember this quote.
Of course I remember it, and my responses.

I also remember that you FAILED to define Rees's distinctive marks and you FAILED to identify where they exist, choosing instead to quote a P.R.  piece.

And, the reason you can't define, identify or locate Rees's 'distinctive marks" is because you've never been to Baltusrol, which is the same reason why you called Seminole FLAT, and then, when you were shot down on that colossal mistake, you came up with the deranged theory that Ross built the two, multi million cubic yard ridges with about 25,000 cubic yards of fill he excavated when expanding the lakes.

You're so wrong so many times it's comical.

And, one of the reasons you're wrong is that you continue to make pronouncements about golf courses you've NEVER SEEN. SEMINOLE or BALTUSROL and ATLANTIC are just some examples of your doctrinaire pronouncements that are totally false.
[/color]


Check out the link in my previous post. When Rees got done re-edging every bunker on the course Baltusrol looked like every other Rees redo.

That's totally untrue.
Did you see the bunkers immediately prior to Rees's work ?
Did you see the bunkers immediately after Rees's work ?

If not, you're not qualified to draw that conclusion, an erroneous conclusion ... again
[/color]

Do you know Rees Jones bunker when you see it?
Watch TV today.

That's right Tom, keep making judgements and criticizing work based on NEVER seeing a golf course in person, but, by watching it on TV or seeing a photo or two.

You're a phony, a fraud.
[/color]

Pat you look silly trying to invent things I've said (or didn't say)...it makes you look desperate.

I don't need to invent absurd things for you to say,
you do more than an adequate job of inventing things and drawing absurd conclusions all by yourself.

Remember your support for Seminole being FLAT ?
And then, your absurd contention that Ross created those two huge ridges from fill from the lakes he excavated.

Perhaps you should reflect on why OSU and the Nicklaus organizaton REJECTED any imput from you.

Arrogance, tainted or colored facts, inflexibility and inaccurate conclusions might be at the heart of it.
[/color]

« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 08:35:21 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #336 on: August 14, 2005, 06:09:38 AM »
"You've said many times, I was the first to question the restoration at Aronimink."

Tom MacWood:

What I always said is you are the first and only one to question the restoration of Aronimink and to claim the bunker project was a mistake. No one else has done that. What I said is that everyone who knows the golf course considers the restoration a success including the bunker project. You act as if you made some discovery. You did not.


"When I said Ross built that golf course with multiple bunkers, I was told I was wrong."

You still could be wrong. Still today no one, including you knows why the bunkers were changed from Ross's drawings. You have nothing to show why they were changed other than your speculation----like anyone else. There is nothing at all to prove why those bunkers were changed.

"I was told the course was built with single bunkers and then altered, most likely by the rogue McGovern."

You were told that the club and Prichard thought that was a possibility. That tournament program from 1931 showing the course with bunkers that largely matched Ross's drawings was the reason. There were no multi-set bunkers in that tournament hole by hole drawing two years after the course opened. No one here called McGovern a rogue. That's your word. All we said is he's never been considered a particularly good architect around here. We even explained why. One would think that may've help you understand something, since you started a thread on here asking about him since you said you knew little about him. But no, obviously that wasn't what you wanted to hear and you accussed us here who know McGovern and his work around here of trying to assasinate his character. Tom MacWood, with that kind of ridiculous horseshit from you, do you really wonder why we continue to challenge the things you say on this website?

"When I intitially showed the first hole (and the third) circa 1929 had multiple bunkers, I was told, that the picture did not prove anything."

That photograph was part of the file. I saw that photo probably around 1999. All that photo shows is that the first hole bunkering is slightly different than Ross's drawings. The tournament program shows a few more holes that have bunkering slightly different than Ross's drawings. Part of your problem Tom, is you seem incapable of understanding reason. You basically cannot see the 3rd hole from that photograph from the first tee. You just basically can't see the 3rd hole from the first tee in 1929, 1939 or today. All you can vaguely make out from the first tee is a bunker complex just short of the 3rd green. That's probably less than 10% of the 3rd hole. Anyone who's been to Aronimink knows that.

"You don't have to be in Philadelphia to know that kind of thinking is completely illogical."

Again, what that photo proved is what the first hole bunkering looked like in 1929 and definitely not the remaining 17 holes. Again, other than one bunker scheme near the 3rd green the 3rd hole simply cannot be seen in that photograph. That's not interpretative----that's just the way the course is. The 3rd hole runs perpindicular and above the 1st hole and the vast majority of it simply cannot be seen in that photograph and could never be seen from behind the first tee at any time.

"The problem with many restoration projects today is lack of historical documentation. The result of this lack of knowledge is you've got far too many advocates of restoration/redisign aligning themselves with restoration/redesign specialists instead of aligning themselves with original architect."

Ron Prichard most definitely aligns himself with original architects and in the case of Aronimink most definitely aligned himself with the original architect----Donald Ross. So did the club. That's precisely why they were so intent on doing Ross bunkers and that's precisely why they decided to create bunkers from Ross's Aronimink drawings. At least they were sure Donald Ross did them. Now that they know how the course was originally built (after we, not you, found those earlier aerials) they say they would've done the same thing because still today they have nothing to show why or to prove why a change was made---and you have nothing to show why or to prove why a change was made, other than your speculation. If you happen to find drawings for Aronimink by Donald Ross that calls for multi-set bunkers in place of his singles then maybe they will consider changing them but not until and in the meantime everyone is happy with the creation of Ross's Aronimink bunkers at Aronimink.

"If you are looking for the root of our disagreement (Pat and you, and myself) that is it from my point of view."

Again, in the case of Aronimink the mission was to "align", as you call it, with Donald Ross's own plans and drawings of Aronimink and that's what they decided to do. Still today you don't have half the historical documentation on that course they do and we do but still you have the hutzpah to make a remark like that? Everything you've ever produced on Aronimink they've had for years. The club and Prichard has not only always had more historical documentation on Aronimink than you ever had but they've also always had everything you've ever produced and still you make that arrogant statement that the problem with restoration is lack of historical documentation? You have less today than they had years ago and you have the gall to make a statement like that and criticize them for lack of historical documentation and research? To me that's perhaps the height of hypocrisy, on your part.

But if you run across something that none of us here in Philly and Aronimink have and had before the decision was made then show it to us and maybe we can revisit this issue.

In the meantime, why don't you try some other golf course and restoration project you've never seen to try to make a name for yourself? On this one you've come across as an ill-prepared, rationalizing self promoter trying to make a name for yourself as the only person out there who defends the "old guys".

I will guarantee you Ron Prichard in a career over a few decades has defended the work of the old guys a couple of thousand percent more than you could ever dream of doing. At least he spends a good deal of time and effort on these sites and digging up historical documentation. As for you---sending your criticisms and a photo of a single hole into GOLFCLUBATAS.com over the Internet isn't in the same zip code.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2005, 06:30:23 AM by TEPaul »

Niall Hay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #337 on: April 12, 2012, 10:19:28 AM »
For any that are interested, the "restoration" of the Scarlet course is well underway.  Most of it seems to be as advertised and deals with reshaping bunkers, recontouring greens, and removing trees.  The one more basic change so far is to the fourth hole, a short par five that runs along the west edge of the property with a green that sits very close to the boundary fence.  The tee location is being maintained on this hole, but the fairway is being rerouted to the east and the green is being moved approximately 80 yards to the east so that the hole now runs along and around the small lake on the property.  The idea seems to be that the lake will have a finger built out in front of or around this green.  Though it is hard to tell from what can be seen at this point, it appears that this will bring water into to play on both a second shot lay up over the existing creek and a subsequent third shot to the green and will make reaching this green in two more risky for the NCAA bombers than it has been in the past.  In some ways it appears it may have a little of the feel of the eighth hole at Scioto.

Are there any pictures of the final product? Was the consensus that the changes were better? An improvement?

Niall Hay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #338 on: April 12, 2012, 10:22:07 AM »

 I've already recommended they take down the MacKenzie plan hanging above the fireplace in the clubhouse and replace it with a Nicklaus plan.


Tom is there a MacKenzie plan hanging above the fireplace in the clubhouse? An original?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #339 on: April 13, 2012, 08:46:38 AM »
Tom is there a MacKenzie plan hanging above the fireplace in the clubhouse? An original?

Yes, and it is an original.

Niall Hay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #340 on: April 13, 2012, 09:23:53 AM »
Tom is there a MacKenzie plan hanging above the fireplace in the clubhouse? An original?

Yes, and it is an original.

Wow, that is pretty cool. Good condition? Tom are you based in Columbus?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #341 on: April 13, 2012, 01:04:29 PM »
It is in beautiful condition. There is a picture of the map in Doak's Mackenzie book. Yes, I'm in Columbus.

noonan

Re: OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #342 on: April 13, 2012, 01:33:25 PM »
They are hosting a college tournament this weekend

Niall Hay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #343 on: April 13, 2012, 02:32:03 PM »
It is in beautiful condition. There is a picture of the map in Doak's Mackenzie book. Yes, I'm in Columbus.

Wow, need to check that out next time I'm in Cbus.

Niall Hay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OSU Scarlet restoration
« Reply #344 on: April 13, 2012, 02:32:42 PM »
They are hosting a college tournament this weekend

Which tourney?  Spring Game next weekend in the Shoe.