[Paul_Turner]

It's someone(S).  And why do you choose dismiss it?  Do you have hard evidence to the contrary?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I have no idea how many times Tom Fazio was onsite at Merion overseeing the work.  Perhaps he was even driving one of the D-9's, but I didn't see him among the numerous workers out there from MacDonald & Co during several visits.  On the other hand, perhaps he was onsite constantly because the bunker work at Merion looks EXACTLY like the new bunkers from Fazio's organization on 7 & 8 at Riviera.    Of course, everyone knows that William Flynn/Hugh Wilson bunkering and George Thomas bunkering are identical in style, so who cares anyway.  Or, is it that Macdonald & Co did that work, as well?  Guess we'll never know.  

I've been on construction sites where the architect and his most trusted shapers and associates spent hours assiduously seeing to every detail of shaping and nuance, often by hand and shovel, and I must admit that it's a painstaking process.  However, almost inevitably, the final work bears out the amount of care and effort.

At Merion, I watched perhaps the most complex set of 100+ bunkers in the land go under the knife and even though many of them are huge and highly involved, I watched the machinery roll through there and complete the whole project in a period from February to August if memory serves.  Once again, the final result bears out the amount of care and effort.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike Cirba, Never Falter!

Pat, Some facts are clear---No one knows where you are going with this; no proof is going to be good enough for you; and it's a proven fact you aren't answering questions.

But I still think your A.O.K.!

[Dave_Miller]

Dave

Thanks.  Would you be interested in the Tillie articles, or are they already well documented in the club history...?  

So it appears, that the evidence points towards Ross being on site at Aronimink.  I wonder if we'll get the minor miracle of a conceded point from Patrick?

Paul:
I would be very interested in the Tillie articles on Aronimink.  There isnothing I've seen that refers to the course in Drexel Hill other than a passing mention that they were there for a few years.
Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

Danny;

Glad you liked Gulph Mills. The greens have just been regrassed, that's why they're still a bit slow. They'll be at their optimum later in the year. Come back this time next year and you'll see the second phase of the restoration which is fairways and fairway bunkering and the course should be really good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Frankly I don't care if Ross spent one day or forty days. Or if MacKenzie or Alison or Fazio spent two weeks or if Coore and Crenshaw or Macdonald spent a year or two. The bottom line are the results.

MacKenzie was brilliant at finding talent and bringing out that talent - then moving on. If you have a great plan and confidence with the crew for whatever reason - you might create a Royal Melbourne or Hirono.

C&C and CB M devoted their time to Sand Hills and NGLA and it shows. If you don't have the educational/communication skills of MacK, Ross or Alison -- you are bound to be disapointed.

Aronimink is certainly not disappointed with the bunker work that MacDonald & Co did, and neither is anybody else.
The work seems to be widely acclaimed.

Did MacDonald & Co perform as they were instructed to perform at Merion ?  If so, then they successfully produced what they were contracted to build.

Tommy Naccarato,

You were amongst the many who criticized MacDonald & Co for their work at Merion.  Criticism not based on the performance of their contractual obligations, but based on your preference for how you would have liked the bunkers to look.

Where this thread started, and should be headed, is acknowlegement from you and others that perhaps MacDonald & Co performed as they were retained and contracted to perform.

Blaming them for a look you don't care for seems misguided.


Paul Turner,

Since you want further divert this thread to grammatical corrections, It's not, "and why do you choose dismiss it"
It's "and why do you choose TO dismiss it".

I've read that Ross wasn't there during construction, with the implication that he had nothing to do with construction, which was a criticism leveled at Fazio at Merion.  Until I see solid evidence to the contrary, I'll go with my recollection.

This group is and has been quick to criticize architects for quick "pop in" visits, yet you're willing to accept a perceived
publicity visit as acceptable on site supervision, a double standard if I ever saw one.  How many times has this group accused other architects of "mailing it in", but, when it's an architect that enjoys "most favored nation" status, you conveniently look the other way.  

And now, someone wants to count flyovers in airplanes as legitimate on site visits ?  You fellows are playing with yourselves and each other.

MacDonald & Co was widely villified on this site, so now I ask you, did they build the bunkers at Aronimink and Merion as they were contractually obligated to do, YES or NO ?

[Dan Grossman]

Can we go back to discussing Architecture rather than speculating what the guy driving the damn bulldozer did or didn't know at the time!   :-/

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,

This is all starting to sound like the "gunman behind the grassy knoll" (Reespieces mound)/magic bullet conspiracy.


What are you trying to prove with this thread?

[TEPaul]

"MacDonald & Co was widely villified on this site, so now I ask you, did they build the bunkers at Aronimink and Merion as they were contractually obligated to do, YES or NO ?

Pat:

Why do you keep going over all this? At Aronimink the answer is YES they obviously did a fine job on the bunkering. There're no problems with them that I've heard about.

But at Merion you know the story as well as most on here. The answer is NO! The bunkers at Merion are clearly a disappointment in "look" to some at Merion. Is that what was contracted for? The bunkers have access and egress problems? Is that what was contracted for? They had some irrigation and bunker-wol problems? Is that what Merion contracted for? These things are obviously going to have to be fixed at some point for additional cost? Is that what Merion contracted for? Why don't you call up a Merion member or two and see what they think about the necessity of fixing those bunkers and the cost of it?

This is all obvious--so why don't you cut this crap and these questions that are leading nowhere?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Previoulsy, I asked if the bunkers were constructed sequentially or all at once, for an obvious reason.

Let's say that Merion has 130 bunkers for the purpose of this discussion, and let's agree that the bunkers were constructed sequentially.

When the first bunker was completed, if all those problems that you list existed, why weren't subsequent bunkers constructed correctly ?

Even the most primitive or basic quality controls would have picked that up, and corrected, not only the first bunkers but all subsequent bunkers.

You would have us believe that all 130 bunkers were sequentially constructed, improperly, one after the other, all 130, as if there was no comprehension with respect to evaluating a finished product, no learning or experience curve in the construction of 130 bunkers.

So, suppose the first one slipped by, don't you think that after the 10th bunker someone would have noticed the problems, corrected the first 10 bunkers and modified construction on the remaining 120 ??

Somewhere, your thesis fails the practicality test and the prudent man rule.

Sorry, but, I can't accept your thesis based on common sense alone  

[Joe Hancock]

Patrick,

Wouldn't implying that someone would notice the "flaws" after the first bunker  the same logic as saying no one noticed the "flaws" after the first bunker?


Joe

[Paul_Turner]

Since you want further divert this thread to grammatical corrections, It's not, "and why do you choose dismiss it"
It's "and why do you choose TO dismiss it".

It was nothing to do with grammar, just that several contributors are of the opinion that Ross had visited Aronimink and presented information to support this.  And accusing me of diverting a thread is a bit rich.

So far all you've presented, is some mysterious recollection, that Ross never visited Aronimink.  Pretty useless, really.

Ross has come in for plenty of criticism on GCA for mailing in many designs.  It's a well known fact, and nothing new.  

As I said before, this constant accusations of bias and double standards is tedious beyond belief, and is wrecking the site.  It has turned into a parochial slagging match.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat
I have never critized MacDonald's work at Aronimink--if they sucessfully built what Prichard gave them, then yes a job well done.

I'M GLAD THAT YOU FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MACDONALD & CO DID GOOD WORK AT ARONIMINK

My concern at Aronimink was the decision not to resotre the course as it was built and to build proto-typical Ross features where none existed.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACDONALD & CO's PERFORMANCE.

Perhaps Prichard was considering - as Doak said he was - MacDonald's limitations when coming up with a plan.

THAT'S AN ABSURD ASSUMPTION, AND DOAK NEVER SAID THAT.

Perhaps the same was true at Merion.

ANOTHER ABSURD ASSUMPTION

In either case its hard to praise what is ultimately a bad result.

TOM, YOU JUST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID GOOD WORK, AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING THE RESULT AT ARONIMINK WAS BAD, ISN'T THAT CONTRADICTORY ?

And to praise a construction organization whose methods are severely limiting to an accurate restoration.

AFTER THE GOOD WORK THEY DID AT ARONIMINK, WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGE, AND ATLANTIC CITY, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THEIR METHODS ARE "SEVERELY" LIMITED ?
YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF, AND DRAWING A CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED TO MAKE.

Paul Turner,

You appear quite willing to jump in and stir the pot.
And then you have the nerve to indicate that the site is becoming a parocial slagging match, as if you're not part of it.
Hypocritical, wouldn't you say ?

Try to answer my question with respect to the bunker construction at Merion and Aronimink, or are you incapable of same because you've never seen the new bunkers, thus making the posts you've made part of the parochial slagging match that you allude to.

Stay on topic, or stay out of the discussion.

[HamiltonBHearst]

It is comical that these threads regress in such a way.  Mr. Mucci is just trying to get the truth out and the board can't accept the inherent bias.  I love the line "most favored nation status". What a rip.  So now we have "MFA". Thank goodness this problem is at least acknoweldged by some on the board. Thank you Pat.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

...Perhaps Prichard was considering - as Doak said he was - MacDonald's limitations when coming up with a plan....

This is what you said that Doak said, a far cry from what he actually said.

The real failing in your statement is that:

It wasn't Prichard's plans, it was Ross's original plans that the bunkers were built to.

So, how did Prichard make the modifications to Ross's bunkers to accomodate for the deficiency you claim exists in MacDonald & Co's ability to construct bunkers according to the architects specs ?

You've totally misrepresented what took place, and distorted the truth in an attempt to support your conclusions.
Conclusions which should contain the caveat that you've never laid eyes on the bunkers in person, or in an airplane at any altitude.

These are not word games, just a call for accuracy in relating what was said, the quality of the work done, and according to whose plans.

It is widely acknowledged that the Prichard/MacDonald bunkers came out exactly as they were intended to be built, based on Ross's actual field notes and diagrams, that almost everyone thinks that they are terrific, and that MacDonald & Co built them.

Your bias is so strong that you just can't come to grips with the fact that MacDonald & Co did a good job.

Sometimes, you have to give the devil his due.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I suggest you stop beating this drum on here and see if you can call a meeting of Merion's membership and bring your #1 fan HamiltonBHearst with you and explain to all of them that their bunkers are just fine that they got exactly what they contracted for and nothing whatsoever needs to be fixed and they don't need to worry about raising a red cent to do anything at all about them!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I never said that they were fine, and you know that from the direct conversations that we've had on this subject, both on and off site.

My position was that MacDonald & Co built them as requested/directed, and as such, they shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce.

Another example of a similar situation is Lost Tree's bunker project, and the need and expense of redoing them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Perhaps you're right.  Perhaps M&Co are artists.  Perhaps if it had been their charge they could build the most awe-inspiring bunkers the world has ever seen.  If only their sheer genius and talent wasn't held back by the limited vision of those pesky architects.

And you know, Patrick, the problem is even worse than that.  In fact, it's a conspiracy I tell you.  Can you believe that no matter which architect they have to work under, each one of those architects wants them to all come out looking the same?  

Yep...that's what it is...a worldwide conspiracy to hold back their ultimate genius.  It's so bad that it doesn't matter if it's Rees using them at Bethpage, Fazio using them at Riviera or Merion, or clubs like Rolling Green doing it on their own.  They ALL ask Mac & Co to sadly limit their true creative talent and genius and build them bunkers that are "puffy and upholstered".  It's a cryin' shame!  Even worse, they weren't able to fully ply their trade on those basic, rectangular bunkers at Aronimink.  How the heck can you make a flat bottomed, rectangular bunker look creative?  That Ross guy was obviously a dullard, and if Prichard had any sense he would have let Mac & Co gussy them up a bit.  

I'm with you.  Let's take on these architects and memberships and let MacDonald & Co have free rein to unleash their genius on the golf world.  Alister MacKenzie, AW Tillinghast, and George Thomas will all soon be forgotten..

Say it with me now...FREE Macdonald & Co....FREE Macdonald & CO, FREE MACDONALD & CO....

I'll start painting signs and you can bring the bullhorn.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

What's wrong with the bunker construction at Bethpage, Atlantic City, Galloway and Aronimink ?

Four distinct bunker styles from four different architects, built to spec.

What's wrong with the look of the bunkers at Bethpage, Atlantic City, Galloway and Aronimink ?

I know that you're sincere, with a tad of cynicism thrown in, but Mike, clubs don't build bunkers to your specs, whims and
desires.  And, contractors don't go off on wild tangents, usurping creative license from the architects, ignoring their contractual obligations to the club and architect, and build what they want, the way they want it.

You're living in a fantasy world with respect to how features are designed, approved, built, approved, accounted and paid for.

But, that's okay, you're in good and numerically superior company.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I'll answer your questions, but I also hope you'll answer mine.

At Bethpage, I believe the bunkers do not have the raw, natural look they did previously.  There is something very synthetic about them.

I haven't seen Atlantic City since Doak's work.  I've heard good things, but I can't comment otherwise.

I think Galloway's bunkering is really good, and despite an awkward routing, it's one of my favorite courses in NJ and my favorite Tom Fazio course I've played.  There are many excellent holes.  Did MacDonald & Co do the bunker construction?

I think Aronimink's bunkering is generally fine, and looked much better this past weekend than it did when I played there last year shortly after construction.  Rick is doing a great job there as the superintendent, that's for certain!  However, the bunkering style from Ross's plans is very simple in terms of complexity.  From a construction standpoint, it's much easier to "draw" straight lines (the bunkers are nearly all rectangular, grass face faces with flat sand bottoms) than something complex like Merion's old bunkers, or like George Thomas or Alister Mackenzie often designed.

So, my question to you is straightforward.  Many folks on here have complained about the aesthetics of the bunkers at Merion...even a contrarian like Rich Goodale says they are ugly.  Beyond that, others have mentioned (including you) issues of access and egress, maintenance problems, drainage problems, construction problems...

So, since you've absolved the contractor of all possible responsibility, who is to blame in your opinion; Tom Fazio or the Merion Greens Committee?

And really, the whole "blame" thing is not something that I think matters right no.  It's water under the bridge, yet it does seem to be the point of your thread so I would like to hear you state your opinion rather than to just tell others that they're biased for expressing theirs.  

And while I'm asking, for what possible reason would everyday folks who happen to visit this discussion group have to be "biased" against a contractor?  For some of us, they just seem to be the common denominator on some very questionable "restoration" work at Riviera and Merion to name two.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I never said that they were fine,......."

My position was that MacDonald & Co built them as requested/directed, and as such, they shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce."

Pat:

You never said they were fine?! But you maintain that MacDonald shouldn't take any heat for producing what they were contractually obligated to produce!?

So then I suppose you're implying that Merion contracted MacDonald & Co. to produce something that was less than 'fine'? Hmmmm--that's a fairly bizarre point to make. What are you thinking--that Merion enjoys bunkering problems that will probably have to be fixed? That's some pretty neat and specious reasoning on your part that's produced one of the most sophist arguments I've seen to date!

And your question as to whether the bunkers were done sequentially or all at once really makes me laugh. Did it ever occur to you that the success or failure of bunkering is generally determined by memberships and players when the course is back in play? Sometimes that takes a bit of time. Or do you suppose that Merion got their memberhip out in force to test and critique the first few bunkers that were done? Ever hear the adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? I guess your architectural philosophy is to get the entire party into the kitchen early to test the cooking and the cook, huh? Interesting idea but that's generally not the way it works Pat!

Mike Cirba:

When you're next at Aronimink take a closer look at the grass faces and the tops of the bunkering. The sand floors of the bunkering may be generally flat but the grass faces have some very interesting movement to them both vertically and horizontally. I ran into Gulph Mills's asst super, Bob Sawicki at the PGA Senior Championship over there and he made that observation which is an excellent observation.

That kind of thing did not happen by accident. That's precisely the kind of thing that took Ron Prichard some time to teach the MacDonald shaper to do and get right. The first few attempts were not that way--much straighter lines on the constructed angles of the bunkering. This kind of thing may have been slightly interpretative on Ron's part (since the Ross bunkering at Aronimink was long gone on the ground due to a few redesigns) but it makes perfect historic sense to me--Aronimink being one of the later Ross designs showed more sophisticated architectural touches in my opinion than some of his earlier work.

Some might look at that type of thing as odd or too interpretive but I believe restoring that type of thing in the spectrum of architectural restorations is impressive and indicates and highlights the very interesting evolution of a particular architect--ie Ross.

Gulph Mills, for instance, or particularly a course like LuLu are much older than Aronimink and consequently indicates a time in Ross's architectural evolution that shows where he was architectural at that time. Our bunkering did not really have that type of movement to them--they were a bit more rudimentary obviously because that's were Ross was in the early to middle teens in relation to the late 1920s.

For a restoration architect, be it Ron Prichard or Gil Hanse to pick up on those variations is good stuff to me. The same might be said regarding the expansions of LuLu's or GMGC's greens. LuLu had many that were very square. GMGC, a course designed and built a bit later had a number of Ross greens that were basically square with some interesting "flares" on many of the corners! This to me is a wonderful indication (in both an original and restoration sense) of being familiar with Ross's own architectural evolution and how it was progressing! The Aronimink greens are some of the most flowing and multi-shaped one will ever see from Ross. And as such they indicate where he had gotten to from the very early LuLu work and the more mid-career work of say GMGC.

All this is great stuff to me because it really says so much about the evolution of architecture even in one man's career and there's so much interest in that ultimately. It's anything but a "one size fits all" mentality on the part of restoration architects (and contractors). Good architects pick up on things like that and try hard to communicate it to contractors. As much as someone like Pat Mucci may think they should it's highly unlikely that anyone at a golf club would pick up on a nuance like that going into the planning stages of a restoration! That's why any club doing an interesting restoration of sigificant architecture should hire the best restoration architect for their particular type of course they can find.

As a sidenote, a course such as Oakmont, that is very old and who apparently has MacDonald & Co working on their bunkering is probably a job that MacDonald & Co can do quite easily as the angles on their bunkering is quite straight (because that's were architecture was at that time on that course!).

That's why I believe a contractor such as MacDonald & Co are probably much better at doing certain styles than others. They're probably very good at early Ross, Raynor or a bunker style like Oakmont's and not as good at others with styles such as Flynn, Tillinghast or Thomas. They do seem to catch the length and width randomness (aerials) quite well but not so much the height or vertical randomness aspect of it. Unfortortunately, the latter is the primary dimension to the golfer's on-ground eye.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Did it ever occur to you that the success or failure of bunkering is generally determined by memberships and players when the course is back in play?

Your above statement reflects a total lack of understanding  with respect to the bunker construction process and the evaluation of the finished product, before, not after it's too late to do anything about it.

You've also taken a different position and say that it's the membership that determines if the bunkers came out right.  Are you now maintaining that if the majority of the members at Merion like their new bunkers, that those bunkers were designed and built successfully.  That seems counter to prior posts by you, Tommy Naccarato and many others.

When we were on site, how long did it take us, when we were reviewing our first bunker on the golf course, to see some if not all of the problems  Three nano-seconds.
Do you think that we're the only rank amateurs with decent eyesight capable of those observations ?

Have you ever been intimately involved in the design, construction and modification of bunkers in the field ?
If not, perhaps that experience would enlighten you and alter your position as evidenced by your postings.

Your concept of bunker evaluation is akin to a surprise party for the membership, and I don't think that's the way it works.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I agree with you and my description of Aronimink's bunkers was simply to point out the significant difference in shape, contour, and complexity between their's and Merion's.

Patrick Mucci;

At last we've come full circle.  

So, since you agree that the bunkers at Merion "take about three nanoseconds to see all of the problems", let me ask again since it seems to be the point of your thread.

Who is to blame?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

When's the last time you played Bethpage Black and how many times have you played it.

How did Bethpage's bunkers look the year after Tillinghast built them ?

Is that your only criticism, that they don't have that worn look when they were brand new ?

You like Galloway's bunkers.

You like Aronimink's bunkers, but make the excuse or caveate that they were easy to build to Ross's specs, because you can't come to grips and admit that MacDonald & Co did a good job.

You haven't seen Atlantic City's bunkers, but Tom Doak, the architect, says that MacDonald & Co did a good job for him.

MacDonald & Co should not be criticized by you or anyone else for the bunkers they built at Merion, Aronimink, and Atlantic City.  They did there job as instructed.

Tom MacWood,

I believe MacDonald and Co is privately held.
I own no stock.
I don't even know anyone who works for them.

Ordinary folks aren't making critical evaluations on this site.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Will you answer my question?

Who is to blame for the obvious deficiencies in Merion's bunkering that an untrained eye can spot in "three nanoseconds"?

I've answered all of yours to the best of my ability.

I'd also venture to say that "ordinary folks aren't making critical evaluations on this site" because they neither have the time nor the inclination to be interrogated when they do by those of us who know everything.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()