"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.