Tom MacWood:

Basically on the bunker restoration project and the sequence of it you know very little and have not yet even managed to figure out how it's been reported by me on here, and generally all for your benefit since no one else out there seems to agree with you or care about it. Does that tell you anything?

As for John Gosselin, nice try but try again. He explained in his post on some of these threads that he was long gone from Aronimink by the time this bunker project got started. He certainly knows the golf course but not the restoration project. Perhaps he did prefer to see that multi-set bunker look restored. I did too about 5-6 years ago when Tom Elliott explained it to me. But since then the question of whether they were Ross's arose as did those Ross drawings. The point is the club wanted to be sure they were doing Ross's bunkers and not someone else's.

Your insistence that Ross had to have approved or even been aware those 2s and 3s were being built in place of his singles has become comical. Of course he may have been aware of it as easily as he may not have but the fact that you still can't figure that out just goes to prove how totally full of shit your assumptions, conclusions, opinions and criticisms really can be.

One more time---tell me how you can prove Ross was aware of that bunker change other than your own obdurate opinion? Or is it your opinion that is now passing as proof and "expert research"? I guess so and that's more comical than anything else from you has been to date.

As for that tournament program and Ross's hole by hole drawings, I have them right here on my desk and may give them to Wayne but on the other hand I may not. What's the point really? Even in plain view on here there's little doubt in my mind you'd find some way to totally misunderstand them and their significance in the decision making in that project.

Another funny thing about those bunker clusters at Aronimink is I seriously doubt they were as sand flashed up as you seem to think they were. Of course that's not easy to tell from a photo from the tee in 1929 of bunkers about 375 yards and more away or from an overhead aerial from 6,000 ft but I sure wouldn't expect you to understand that.  

Pat:

Tom MacWood has accused us of saying some of the things we have on here out of some sort of frustration over what he says he's proven or something on here.

I think you hit the nail on the head, though. Tom MacWood probably says many of the things he does on this website because basically he's frustrated that he's never had much of any influence on any architectural or restoration project. For a man who understands as little as he does about how and why things get done successfully at golf clubs, is it any wonder?

TE
Prichard's 1939 aerial was not a Dallin photograph and did not come from the Hagley Collection, it was from the National Archives."

Tom MacWood:

I don't know where the 1939 aerial of Aronimink Ron used came from, whether it was the Dallin Collection or the National Archives. Not that it really matters though. If it's of some interest to you though I can probably find out today where it came from. All I need to do is call the Hagley and compare the Dallin 1939 aerial date to the date of this aerial.

In any case, the aerial photograph he probably used most, at least initially, is the very same aerial photo that is in GeoffShac's book "The Golden Age of Golf Design". I have the actual aerial Ron used on my desk right now. It's from 10/15/39. It's from app 6,000 ft which is pretty high for a course aerial. Despite that, it's a good one because it is from right on top of the golf course and there's very little oblique angle to it. I prefer aerials that are right on top of the course because it's a bit easier to nail length and width of course features. Of course comparing almost dead vertical aerials to oblique angle aerials of a course is interesting too and can sometimes help with height dimensions on the course and such things as bunker faces. Dead vertical aerials aren't very good for that for obvious reasons.

Ron also seems to have this aerial scaled to actual course dimension with a "block-out frame" overlay on the actual aerial with a scale in inches to dots that may be an actual course dimension. The aerial I have takes in more of the surrounding land than the one in GeoffShac's book that's obviously been cropped. On the back of this 10/15/39 aerial is the label of a camera shop in Landsdale, Pa (that's where Ron Prichard lives). I suppose Ron had this developed off the old negative or perhaps reprinted by this camera shop off an old postive.

"You don't see the inconsistancies?"

Tom MacWood:

I certainly do not, because there aren't any.

“Version 1: The course was probably built with clusters, but for all we know the course was redesigned right after the opening. Prichard says Jeffersonville and Aronimink the only Ross courses he was aware of with mulitbunker scheme (later corrected by Forse and others).”

I was explaining to you that that was my belief of what Prichard and the club felt perhaps 4-5 years ago when he first called me and I first went over there. At that point it was that no one was completely sure when those bunkers were built. That’s why he called me in the first place---eg to ask what I thought about that. That was the poser---the question---that was the question on which a decision needed to be made as to what to do in the bunker project.

“Version 2: The course built with clusters and unlikely changed after construction, the clusters are probably McGovern's fault.”

That was certainly part of the thought process back then. That was a real possibility to all of us. That was part of the question of who was responsible for those bunkers.

“Version 3: Prichard never believed the course was built with clusters, it was remodeled during the Depression, and he has the proof (the program).”

This is the correction I made in this entire series of posts you’ve quoted from around 9/5/04 to about 9/8/04. The reason I made that correction was because of the discussion we were having in that thread you took these quotes from. Simply to check what I was reporting on here of the chronology of all this at that point, Sept ’04, I called Prichard and asked him again about this chronology and his researching. At that point he either first told me or first explained to me that he had that tournament program. If he mentioned it to me before that I did not remember it. I’d never seen that tournament program until about three weeks ago. It was in a file in Texas and it took him a good deal of time to find it again. Why did he look for it again? Because of these discussions on here, that’s why. As I’ve told you a number of times on here I was not aware of that tournament program 4-5 years ago. And because I wasn’t I did not realize until Sept ’04 the significance of it to him in what he felt about when those bunkers were done. I can’t remember now when I first became aware of that tournament program other than definitely around Sept ’04. And I’ve also told you a number of times, still today I do not know when Ron Prichard first became aware of it.

“Version 4: Prichard and the club believed the course was originally constucted with clusters which are in McGovern's style (similar to version 2).”

Version 4 is from about a week ago after we finally discovered the Dallin aerials from 1929 and before that showed the course built with those cluster bunkers. This is the first time that was finally proven, or are you unaware of that? This is not a new version of the facts back 4-5 years ago or even in Sept ’04 from which you quoted those other three versions. This is new information that was discovered about a week ago. Are you really so stupid or so intransigent that you can’t see the significance of that at this point? I suppose not as you include this fourth version as me changing the story. What I reported on 7/1/05, I did not know in Sept ’04 No one knew who was part of this project there were Dallin aerials at the Hagley from 1929 and before and certainly not you


"And these version all come after the fact, long after the 'restoration' took place (three of these versions are given just days a part)....its not like it was a case of evolving verions during the process of researching, digesting and analyzing the facts."

Again, those versions are given days apart Sept '04 for the reasons given above. We were discussing this on here and to find answers to the questions during that discussion I called Ron Prichard again in Sept of '04. That is probably when he began searching again for that tournament program in files in both Pa and Texas.

“Version 4 comes after Wayne (and you) found the photos at the Hagley that show the course was built with the clusters.”

It certainly does. It’s called new facts that were discovered. Is that too complicated for you to understand somehow?

“Which version is the accurate one?”

The lastest one is the most accurate version of what happened in this chronology as I’ve known it from 4-5 years ago until today. Will there be other or more accurate versions in the future? That’s certainly possible, don’t you think? Or do you have some aversion to new information? You very well might if one looks at the things you say and the logic you tend to use sometime. I remember well when you tried to claim or even prove that Crump could not have wanted his holes separated by trees unless I could actually produce something in writing from him to that effect!! Is it possible, Tom MacWood, that you actually assume and conclude that if someone can't produce something in writing from someone that it could not have happened. When it seems convenient to your opinion it seems you actually say that. When it seems convenient to your opinion it also appears you don't. This idea of yours that Ross must have intended and approved those cluster bunker is a case in point. There's no proof of that--nothing written anywhere that you or anyone else is aware of at this point. But still even without it you're trying to claim proof somehow!

 What if documented written material turns up proving McGovern decided to design and build those bunkers on his own? And what if documented written material turns up that Ross designed those alterations? Is there some reason you think that’s the same thing? But at this point, right now, as I type, as far as I know no one knows the answer to that question----and least of all you. There is no proof at this point---only opinions. These are the questions one needs to deal with when assembling and analyzing research material at any particular time while working in the field on restoration projects and when attempting to make a decision on a difficult question.

The decision back then before going into construction revolved mostly around doing bunkers that the club could be sure really were Ross’s. This whole fixation on “as builts” without any real proof of who did them (the clusters) was something that you inserted into this entire discussion. The primary point back then was to be sure the bunkers to be built were Ross’s. They had that proof with his plans. They did not with the “as builts”.

In my opinion, today they made the right decision. That opinion seems to be shared by most everyone. You’re an exception and perhaps John Goesslin is too although he certainly did say he understands the decision made and does not disagree with it as you do. At least he has the benefit of knowing the golf course which even to date you don’t.

Furthermore, what I'm trying to do on here and have been for about two years now is explain to you how the decision of what to do on that bunker project was arrived at and why as far as I knew. What I may not have known or when legitimate questions have come up I've called Ron Prichard and talked to him about it. If you don't like my recollections ro my chronology and if you believe there are all kinds of inconsistencies and "versions" in it why don't you call up Ron Prichard and Aronimink golf club and go over the entire last 4-5 years yourself? Maybe then you can come up with your own "version"---something it certainly appears you have done.

"TE
Did you revise your memory (on 7/1/05) of what occured 4 or 5 years ago as you uncovered new information? If you find new information tommorrow will you revise your memory again?"

Why don't you tell me how you think I revised my memory?

Pat:

Regarding you post #85 of course that's the point. I'm not missing it at all. Tom MacWood certainly has though.

As I've said on here a couple of times if your Point A is Ross's plans and your Point B is those cluster bunkers (no matter when they were built) of course the question of how it went from Point A to Point B was always the primary poser and with regard to restoring bunkers to what was postively Ross that was always the primary point. It still is a real poser.

Tom MacWood does not want to hear that though, and obvously he doesn't since he still apparently fails to understand or to admit that there is no proof at all of how those bunkers went from Point A to Point B. If there is proof of it somewhere no one has found it yet.

All he wants to do now is argue with me over my chronology of the events as I recall them in the last 4-5 years. All he wants to do is somehow try to make himself look like a competent researcher by proving architects, clubs and others wrong after the fact about some decisions they made. And can you believe, all this, without ever even having set foot anywhere near an Aronimink.

I've often told Tom MacWood he should spend more time on restoration sites with restoration architects and clubs, I think as you do that he would and could learn a lot about all this from doing that. He doesn't do that, he's never really done that. He doesn't see the point of it. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is no one really wants him around. The man is not only a distorter of history, facts and reality to suit some agenda which is probably just self-serving but he's also just about totally proven himself to be a completely arrogant and pompous pain in the ass. Who wants a guy like that around?  

Tom MacWood:

I really can't understand why you think there're inconsistencies in that chronology as I know it. There really aren't any inconsistencies if you look at it as a chronology of changing understanding as additonal evidence was found and analyzed.

First Ron called me probably 4-5 years ago. He called to ask me if I thought if it could be possible those bunkers had been changed in the 1930s to what showed on the 1939 aerial. Obviously if he was sure of the answer back then he wouldn't have called me to ask that question, would he? The dilemma obviously was the course could've been built to Ross's plan or it could've been built with those clustered bunkers---that was the dilemma.

At some point after that it's my understanding he came upon that tournament program. I found out relatively recently (in the last year or so) about that and what it meant and that it led him to assume the bunkers had been built to Ross's plan and changed at some point in the 1930s. Are you able to understand thus far why his opinion may've changed? (hint, the tournament program). This has been my understanding for about a year or so.

Following the evidence of that tournament program he felt the bunkers were very likely built to Ross's plan and changed at some point in the 1930s unitil we proved in the last two weeks with that 1929 aerial that they were not.

Where are the inconsistencies? This is what I've said as this subject has been discussed on here for perhaps a couple of years. I didn't know everything I know now 4-5 years ago or before 10 months ago or even before two weeks ago. That's what happens when additional information comees in. Do you think I'm inconsistent because I didn't know about that tournament program until a year or so ago or the significance of it before about ten months ago? Do you think I'm inconsistent because I just happened to call the Hagley about three weeks ago about some other course and discovered they do have aerials from 1929 and before?

Is that what you think the inconsistencies are?



 

Tom MacWood,

Let's cut through the banter.

What would you have done.

Restored the golf course at Aronoimink to how it appeared in 1928, not knowing why that configuration deviated from the detailed design plans that Ross created, or, to the course as  Ross's detailed design plans depicted it?

And, what is THE factual basis for making your decison ?

"Can't we all just get along?"

-Rodney King