"But aren't those steep, "bumpy" grass faces a challenge to mow in some cases? That might be a maintenance issue itself."

Jeff:

That's a good question and one I asked when we decided to go to grassed-down faces in our Hanse restoration. Compared to the sand-flashed up faces we used to have the maintenance is a bit of a "net effect" but all in all we decided to go with the extra mowing on the grass faces so as to avoid the repair necessities of what maintenance has to do when you get severe washing down on sand flashed faces!

Further, Tom... I don't have your Gulph Mills evolution booklet in front of me, but the bunkers throughout the Ross course weren't originally grass faced, were they?

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I'm looking at TE's excellent GM booklet and the Ross bunkers were his typical grass faced. It hard to say for certain but Maxwell's bunkers appear to be sand splahed...which must have created a very interesting dynamic.

Jeff:

It's really not a matter of how much rain we get in Philly---it's a matter of the condition of bunker sand faces (those that have no bunker lining in the sand upsweeps) and things like simple thunderstorms (something we can get a few times a week in hot summer weather). Just five minutes of pounding rain from a passing thunderstorm used to wash some significant rills out of our old sand swept-up bunker faces (this before the use of the bunker-wol type product). To repair those problems generally involved overtime maintenance pay and over any year would involve more man-hours and cost than what we do now with our mowing program on our bunkers following the Hanse project. Our super is really detailed and exact about cost comparisons and evaluating savings. Our bunkers, after our Hanse restoration project are not grassed faced down to flat floors anyway---they're only partially grassed down with sand partially sweeping up.

Tom:

First of all, and for about the tenth time, no one really knows, and certainly not you, what Ross himself intended the bunker style of Aronimink to be, other than what Ross actually drew. Other-wise why do you suppose Ross himself produced those "in the field" bunker drawings for Aronimink that were single bunker placements that were not really sand splashed up?

There's no question the course appears to have been built with sets of two and three bunkers where Ross apparently called for one but for all the club (and Prichard) knows those bunkers may have been redone after the course opened. Prichard asked me what I thought of that and I told him I thought it was unlikely that the bunkers could've been redesigned litearally only a few years after opening and in the middle of the depression too. And I think you do know the rationale why the club decided to restore Aronimink's bunkers to Ross's own bunker drawings. They wanted what they considered real Ross bunkers and they did not want to take the chance that what was in those aerials were merely J.B McGovern taking creative liberties with the course. I realize you may think that kind of thing is unique or regionally interesting or something but neither Prichard, the club or anyone else I've ever heard of seems to agree with you! The club and Prichard wanted what they knew to be Ross's bunkers and they had his drawings in hand. You may think what may have been McGovern's style of bunkers is completely fascinating but they don't agree with you!

And secondly, as interesting as the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" may have been and as closely connected (friends) as some of the architects that made up that "school" were there never was some kind of "classic Philadelphia flashed sand bunker" from Wilson, Flynn, Tillinghast and Maxwell as you seem to be implying here!

Both Wilson and Flynn did occassionally talk about and write about the utility and psychological efficacy of white sand in a player's face and view but I very much doubt any of them thought of such a thing as the "classic Philadelphia sand splashed faced bunker" as you seem to be now implying.

The history and evolution of architecture, including bunkering, is a truly fascinating thing to me but we don't need historical revisionism about it at this point. If you have anything from your magazines and newspapers that attributes the bunkering in Philadelphia of Wilson, Flynn, Tillinghast and Maxwell (thomas, Fownes and Crump) to the "classic Philadelphia sand splashed faced bunker" I'd certainly like to see it!

And as you probably know full well by now just because some magazine or newspaper writer from back then labeled something does not make it so in the eyes and minds of those architects back then who actually created the work!

Tom MacWood said:

"I would think what he actually built might be worth considering."

Yeah, Tom, that's a good point there and a really novel point on your part! I realize it might not have occured to you but the club and Ron Prichard definitely did consider that and extremely seriously too! They also considered that it might have been logical to also consider that perhaps Ross DIDN'T BUILD those odd two and three set bunkers in place of where Ross called for one at Aronimink!

The plot even thickens in Prichard's own "INDEPENDENT RESEARCH"! Ron noticed that the only other Ross course he was personally aware of (Ron had previously restored it) that ever had those odd two and three sets of bunkers was little Jeffersonville G.C within about ten mile of Aronimink. This is a little Ross course where from all available records it's true to say that Ross may never have even seen it. Who was the foreman on that course? Yep, even you may have guessed it---J.B. McGovern! And according to Ron (again who previously restored it) there were vestiges of those little two and three set bunkers at Jeffersonville!!

If you haven't figured it out yet that kind of thing was further evidence that McGovern may have just taken things such as a bunker style into his own hands at Aronimink--after all McGovern was Ross's Wynnewood office manager.

And coincidently Wayne and I asked Flynn's daughter if there was any architect Flynn really didn't like. She said the only one she ever heard of was J.B McGovern. We asked if she knew why and unfortunately she didn't really know but a possible reason may have been that one thing that really pissed off Flynn apparently was when foremen departed from the architects drawn plans and took a course's architecture into their own hands---as Dick Wilson did at Shinnecock to their consternation requiring that Toomey and Flynn (and probably William Gordon, the actual Shinnecock project foreman to go back and fix it). Both Flynn's daugther and William Gordon's son confirmed that about Dick Wilson to us!

The other interesting piece of evidence to consider regarding Aronimink is Ross's truly odd remark on the opening of the course;

"I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built!"

I certainly know if I heard that at the course's opening I might've wondered where Donald had been to say such a thing. But obviously all that is the type of INDEPENDENT RESEARCH you either don't like or don't agree with!

"At Aronimink, it appears to me, Ross was showing Philadelphia he could do the Philly style as well as anyone, in fact he could do it even more boldly they could."

It doesn't surprise me that you sit out there in Ohio and assume such a thing. Again there was nothing to suggest to Donald Ross or anyone else in that era that there actually was some kind of "Philly School" STYLE OR TYPE of architecture or bunkering or anything else of the sort. So, in my opinioin, it's sort of illogical to assume, as you seem to be doing, that Ross was try to compete against some "Philly School" type or style of bunkering at Aronimink by somehow mimicing it more boldly!

Those friends, who comprised the "Philly School of Architecture" were just golfing friends and sometime collaborators but all their styles on their courses were as different from each others as any other architect's was!

Again, you probably don't see that or know that because you don't really understand the "Philly School of Architecture" as you've never been here to see it and compare it in any comprehensive way.

The "Philly School" architects were a "school" only in the sense they were friends, golfing friends and sometime collaborators. The wealth of stylistic differences of Philadelphia architecture from those that made up the "Philly School" is notable if one compares it to other so-called "schools" regarding the many stylistic similarities of the "National School of Architecture" or the "Monterrey School of Architecture", for instance.

It may be logical for someone to assume that just because the "Philly School" has been labeled a "school" that it must have or have had very close similarities in architectural type and style.

That was simply not the case and it's one of the unique factors of the so-called "Philadelphia School of Architecture". Perhaps one of the unique reasons for it is 3-4 out of the six Philly School architects who basically made up the so-called "school" were rich and independent amateur architects who were basically creating architecture for themselves or given a complete free hand to do so. Four of the six never took a nickel for anything they did in architecture which in a few cases wasn't much (although clearly extremely notable, including different in type and style, the one from the other!).

It's certainly possible, since Tom MacWood appears to be on such a tear to prove that too many Ross restorations are doing the grassed down bunker look and style at the expense of other Ross types and styles of bunkering, that Tom MacWood just may be one of those guys who personally prefers the sand-flashed up look in bunkering. God knows, there certainly are plenty of golfers out there who do personally prefer that look and style but that personal preference should never get in the way of objective research as to what some architect may have truly intended in his bunkering type and style for any of his golf courses!

As Wayne said, and said about Aronimink too, it's up to us who are around now and who research old classic architecture (which includes Prichard and the club) to actually try to find out what some architect really did intend for some course's bunkering style. We certainly are aware of a few that were built with types and styles that the architect of record may not have exactly intended! Aronimink may have been one of them.

Tom MacWood may find that kind of thing interesting and I for one don't blame him for that. I don't blame a club like Aronimink or Prichard either for restoring Ross bunkers on their course that Ross actually drew for their course!

They were all motivated by one thing omly--to recreate (since that old bunkering had been completely removed and wiped out by ensuing Fazio and RTJ bunkering) real Ross bunkers on their golf course!

Of course. I truly expect Tom MacWood to come back in this discussion and say that Donald Ross had to have approved those changes that J.B McGovern may have done on his own at Aronimink! Of course, Tom MacWood cannot possibly prove such a thing and in the end that's the point of what Aronimink chose to do in their recent Ross restoration--to at least go with bunkering that was drawn for their golf course by Donald Ross himself!

Jeff:

If Essex had two and three sets of bunkers where Ross's plan called for one you or someone should tell that to Ron Prichard for sure. He did say he'd never heard of that on a Ross course other than Jeffersonville and Aronimink.

I seriously doubt McGovern was in the mid-west as he was always Ross's Wynnewood (Philadelphia) office manager.

So, if what you say is true about those old two or three set bunkers at your Essex it begins to lend some credence to the fact that maybe Ross himself got into doing that kind of thing although, again, it just doesn't seem to be common at all.

Ron Prichard has been studying all things to do with Donald Ross for about 20-30 years now and very likely knows a good deal more about Donald Ross and the intricacies and nuances of his various designs and stylistic features than any of us on here do and probably anyone anywhere.

Somehow it seems Ron Prichard may have a hard time convincing Tom MacWood that he knows more about Ross than Tom thinks he knows though!  

I know that either Hatch or McGovern were on-site at Essex more than Ross. Based on what seems to have occured at Aromimink, I'm thinking it was probably McGovern at Essex. He may have modified Essex' bunker plan in similar fashion, which is interesting.

Jeff-

Would it be Walter Hatch?  I recall reading somewhere he was either based in New England or the foreman for Ross' New England office, which was based in Massachusetts.  

Tom,

I'm not saying that Aronimink is a McGovern design.  I am saying that McGovern appeared to take great liberties in changing the plans of the final bunker work.  Unless we can find evidence that Ross changed the plan for Aronimink (the ones Ron Prichard referred to were not the final plans but rather preliminary) or gave specific directions to McGovern, it would appear that McGovern took it upon himself to make alterations to the bunker designs.  

"Mill Road Farm, Country Club, Lehigh and Glen View are others with sand splashed bunkers."

Do you have any ground photos of Mill Road Farm?  I sure would like to get copies if at all possible.  I have the routing plan and hole details but have not seen any photos of the bunkering.  Please provide if at all possible.

The Country Club in Pepper Pike has some bunkers with sand splash (on hillsides) but there were a number of bunkers, many on hillsides, that had grass faces.  I'll admit I was surprised to see them, but there they are in black and white.  I wish I could post them.  I'll try to scan and send to Tommy Naccarato.  As to the other courses you mentioned, it is far too simplistic to pass them off as similar in style by saying they had sand splash with some outline differences.  You do mention the use of sandy/grassy waste areas at ACCC (and several other places as well--Shinnecock and Indian Creek).  These courses were not universally sand splashed.  You ignore shallow bunkers behind greens that were not splashed.  You also ignore shallow fairway bunkers such as found at Kittansett (construction instructions were very specific and carried out as planned), Indian Creek, and others.

Many Flynn drawings (Denver CC, Brinton Lake (Concord), and others) called for revetted faces.  I am not so sure they were exactly the same as we see in the UK--Flynn never went over there.  Yet it seems certain that they were some sort of grassy face.

I do think it safe to generalize that Flynn often splashed sand in hillside bunkers and raised bunkers in fairways and short of greens.  Tom Paul alluded to Flynn's tendencies to have such bunkers be visible and weigh on the players' minds.  However, he was not as systematic in style (Philly or otherwise) as you seem to imply.

From a historical perspective, this is an interesting conversation. What did McGovern do when Ross wasn't around? I get the sense though, that Aromimink was an important commission for Ross. So, I would highly doubt that he didn't "sign off" on the dirt work before seeding.

To put things in a contemporary perspective, it's like Doak in New Zealand for example. Tom wasn't on-site everyday, and he allows his men the freedom to create. So, whereas a paper plan may illustrate a single large bunker, three smaller bunkers may be built instead because during the course of construction things evolve. It always happens. I've been a part of that type of design evolution. And, I'm sure Doak took a look at those courses before seeding, to "sign off" on the feature shaping. Just as I'm sure Ross would have at Aromimink.

Still, I can see a debate fifty years from now: "Doak had one fairway bunker drawn for the fifth (?) hole at Cape Kidnappers, but three appear in the 2005 aerial of the course. Geez,  Bruce Hepner had a lot of nerve to deviate from Doak's original plan!"

Again, I would find it very hard to believe that Ross didn't return to Aronimink prior to seeding. If he did, as I suspect, perhaps he came to prefer the clusters of bunkers over larger singular hazards. That's possible.

TE
"Ross, was a busy man, a busy architect--he had over 3,000 people at one point working for him on numerous projects in some years, particularly the 1920s.
In one year Ross had 26 courses under construction. That's a lot of courses, a lot more holes and many more bunkers than that."

Very busy, no doubt...is that the rationale we should fall back on when we decide to go another direction. No doubt the courses built by McGovern differ slightly from those built by Hatch (that was one area I wish the Ross book would have explored a little more deeply), just as Hunter's differ from Morcom's which differ from Miller's. That is one of the more interesting aspects of golf course architecture. I don't believe that phenomenon should be used to rationalize speculative redesign.

"Aronimink G.C. was particularly interested in restoring their course and their bunkers to what they actually knew to be Ross."

I'm not sure what Aronimink wanted, all I know is what they got--a Prichard redsign, not a Ross restoration. For a golf course to be restored it had to have existed at some point. The golf course which existed was discarded.

"Despite how much you may think that bunkering that's possibly McGovern may have been neat or cool. Aronimink and Prichard wanted confirmed Ross bunkers on their course and they had them in those drawings. If McGovern actually did take liberties with the bunker style at Aronimink that in no manner or means indicates Aronimink G.C was a McGovern design---of course it was Ross's design!"

But it appears you (and Prichard) are saying that golf course Ross designed and built in 1928 (and the club paid for) was actually not the genuine article...that is the reasoning for the new approach...no? How can you have it both ways: its an authentic Ross design or its McGovern redesign. I wouldn't use the words 'neat' or 'cool' to describe the bunkers at Aronimink, historically significant is what I'd call them...I don't think I'd be comfortable recommending a new direction (away from the historically significant design) based upon possibly's and if's.

(If you are interested in excellent detailed Ross plans you should check out the Tufts Archives...they have hundreds of them.)