I don't know if he explained it then, but he did explain it now. At the very least, it gives the club an informed stance on what they are giving up if they restore the McGovern bifurcated bunkers under Gil's watch.That's all I am saying, and please don't read more into it than that.Sven
Sven, They are not McGovern bunkers. Ross was on site more than once during construction. He is even pictured near some bunkers that had been completed (sand in) along side some that were still being shaped. To believe otherwise would require some radical assumptions. Aronimink's archives and research has clearly lead the club to put back what Ross built in the first place. - John
John:
I was working off of what Prichard wrote, specifically this text:
Hole #10 – where three fore bunkers, (on the left – each labeled #1), were left unaltered, however the two approach bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.
Hole #11 – Three left side fairway bunkers were left untouched, and the three beyond the 350 yard mark, (#s 4, 5, and 6), were altered by McGovern. Please note: for the most part, The Ross fairway bunkers are 4’ 6” in depth.
Hole #12 – Each of the leftside fairway bunkers were divided by McGovern as indicated by the narrow turf bridges – with a pencil.
Hole #17 – The first two bunkers were not altered from Ross’ design. The next four, (#s 3, 4, 5, and 6), were each divided by McGovern. (Again, notice all bunkers, except one was specified to be 4’ 6” in depth).
Hole #18 – Of the six bunkers illustrated by Ross, four, (#s 1, 2, 5, and 7), were split in half by McGovern, #4 is an “irregular mound not less than 5’ high”. If the club has reason to believe that Ross was involved in the decisions to split the various bunkers in half, all the better and it is clear that Prichard has it wrong. I still find value in Ron's description of the differences in the two styles (bifurcated v. not) and what that meant for the surrounding fill and the size of the back shoulders of the bunkers.
Perhaps the lessons we are trying to glean here are better suited being discussed without referencing specific courses. I apologize if the continuation of the conversation has touched on any sensibilities particular to Aronimink.
Sven