[Mike_Cirba]

Dave;

I believe that's correct.  I have more info about the course at home, and if I get a chance tonight, I'll report further.  

I know little about the Tillinghast course except that I know Rick Wolffe of the Tillinghast Society (www.tillinghast.net) asked me if I knew anything about it a few years back.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to help him.

[Dave_Miller]

Mike:
Was this course designed by Alex Findlay a nine hole course.  I believe it was located at 52nd and Chester Ave's. in Phila.

The course in Drexel Hill may have been 18 holes and could that have been Tillinghast.  I can't find my write-up on the history at the moment.
Best
Dave

PS - How was Sunday.

Found my history.  

"Aronimink Golf Club- There is a railroad station, Belmont, situated about one hundred yards distance, on the West Chester & Philadelphia Railroad.  It may also be reached by electric cars from the city.  The Post Office Address is Fifty-second and Chester Avenue, Philadelphia.  Organized in 1896. Entrance Fee $10.00 Annual Dues $20.00.  Membership 150.  The nine holes were laid out in December, 1896."

The original Clubhouse was occupied prior to 1896 by the Chief of the Lenape Indian Tribe named Aronimink from which the Club derived its name.

In 1913 Aronimink moved to Drexel Hill and built an eighteen-hole course and modest clubhouse.

Best,
Dave

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, Its interesting that you brought that up, because it really shows how MacDonald & Sons go about doing paticular architects styles of work.

To me, the work at Merion clearly reflects upheavel--that the person in charge really didn't know what they were doing. (As far as the bunkers)

At Aronomink, it is obvious in pictures that it isn't the same place I saw three years ago, and that Ron Prtichard has seemingly had a positive affect on its change. I'm with Tom Mac in the fact it isn't restoration, but it is in fact a very positive way to go about remodeling in the vein of trying to reincorporate the spirit, style and substance of its original designer--Donald Ross. I appladue Ron Pritchard for accomplishing this.

The effort to change Bethbage Black from a much beloved, well designed, but ill-maintained municiple tract into a USGA Championship venue is certainly impressive on both it scale and its intentions. What a treat it must be for all of those deovtees of the course who labored all of those years playing under such shoddy conditions. Rees Jones specifications are certainly to be acknowleged. But we should, in a similar vein, never call his specs "Restoration," no matter how mis-used or mis-understood the term. It became a "Remodel" the second he moved or replaced bunkers, and, I'm not even talking about what they look like or how they are shaped.

MacDonald & Sons was there for all of them, and like I said last night, they were at Riviera, and what they and Tom Marzloff of Fazio were thinking of is beyond terms. It isn't something to be proud of, thats for sure.

So we have two Fazio-led projects with the MacDonalds that are brought into question--Merion and Riviera. One Rees project that has been questioned by some, but more, highly celebrated for its intent, nothng but a plus as far as I'm concerned, and I wish the City of LA could follow suit with the Griffith Park courses; and Aronomink, which is being celebrated by everyone, all highly respected opinions, that have both written about it in the press and on this website, acknowledging Ron Pritchard for not only a job well done, but also hi-lighting his abilities in guiding a construction firm--the same construction firm that did all of the courses mentioned, on how he wants his work carried out.


Yes Pat, your post has proven it. They MacDonald's need expert guidance.

[SPDB]

At Aronomink, it is obvious in pictures that it isn't the same place I saw three years ago, and that Ron Prtichard has seemingly had a positive affect on its change. I'm with Tom Mac in the fact it isn't restoration, but it is in fact a very positive way to go about remodeling in the vein of trying to reincorporate the spirit, style and substance of its original designer--Donald Ross. I appladue Ron Pritchard for accomplishing this.

Tommy, then couldn't the same be said of Merion. If you concede that Pritchard didn't conform to the original in designing the bunker surrounds, then you are holding Pritchard and Fazio to different standards, and that goes a long way to what Pat is trying to get at with this post (although I'm not really sure what McDonald has to do with any of this, they simply follow instructions - its like blaming the infantry for a tactical military error).

As we both know by now, I feel very differently than you do regarding Merion's bunkers.

[Paul_Turner]

I'm pretty sure that Tillinghast's Aronimink was built around 1913.  He wrote about it in several editions, under his psuedo "Hazard" in American Golfer.  There are pics of the holes tool.

[Dave_Miller]

I'm pretty sure that Tillinghast's Aronimink was built around 1913.  He wrote about it in several editions, under his psuedo "Hazard" in American Golfer.  There are pics of the holes tool.

Paul:
This fits with the History and with Mike Cirba's Alex Findlay.  It apprears that Findlay did the design of the original nine at 52nd & Chester Ave. in Phila. and Tillinghast did the original 18 Holes in Drexel Hill.
Best
Dave  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

My point was that MacDonald & Co was severely criticized on this site for bunker construction at Merion, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect, Yet, they weren't given an ounce of praise for constructing the bunkers at Aronimink, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect.

It seems like a terrible double standard.

DMoriarty,

My point was: that you may have spent more time on site during the construction of Aronimink then Ross did.
He was absent from the site, far more than Fazio & Associates was at Merion.  Again, it's the implementation of a double standard.  It's okay for Ross to be AWOL, but god forbid that any other architect who doesn't enjoy "most favored nation" status on this site, isn't there 24/7.

P_Turner,

I'll tell you who did the bunker construction work at Pine Valley
The Pine Valley maintainance crew under Fazio's consultation.

G.Crump,

To set the record straight, I'd like to join the following clubs.
Merion
Pine Valley
Maidstone
Shinnecock
NGLA
Friar's Head
Westhampton
Piping Rock
The Creek
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Plainfield
Somerset Hills
Baltusrol
Hollywood
Mountain Ridge
Seminole
Cypress Point

and many, many more.

The truth is, I have made no formal or informal application or request to join any of these clubs.

Your statement is false, disengenuous, misleading and cowardly, since you've chosen to post anonymously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

How do you know that MacDonald & Co didn't follow the specifications they were given, perfectly, for the Merion project ?

You admit that you've never seen the new bunkers at Merion, yet you make a critical judgement regarding their construction, indicating that the person in charge didn't know what they were doing, and that the project was in upheaval.
How can you make that evaluation and retain your credibility ?

You applaud Ron Prichard at Aronimink but don't give one iota of credit to MacDonald & Co for doing such a great job in constructing the bunkers..... Why ?

Not once have I ever heard any criticism of the bunker construction at Bethpage Black by MacDonald & Co.

Not once have I heard any criticism of the bunkers at Bethpage Black, other than from Tom MacWood, who has NEVER seen them.

The overwhelming comments, from those who have played the course extensively, before and after the USOPEN project have been complementary.  It would appear that MacDonald & Co properly built the bunkers at Bethpage Black following plans provided by the architect.

The debate regarding restoration versus renovation versus modernization is a seperate issue.

With respect to Riviera, is MacDonald & Co in charge of design or is it the Fazio organization ?

If it's the Fazio organization, how can you blame MacDonald & Co for building bunkers to the specifications they were provided ?  Isn't that what they're supposed to do ?

The other question I have for you is as follows.

Do you think that the membership/owners of these clubs,
give the architect carte blanche, with no review process, with respect to the intended work ?

Or, do you feel that the architect must submit plans for review and approval before he begins his work ?

[SPDB]

Pat - I think you're confusing the issue. Forced to choose culpability or credit for a restoration, etc., no one would pin it on McDonald. Its a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

please read my last post.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, As I have stated in my original post, I don't think we should reopen that old wound again. It is history because it is over and done with, and I'm apologize if I was taking it too far--AGAIN in my subquent posts.

But, you do know what my thoughts are on the subject.

In the interest of Discussion Group harmony and World Peace, I'll refrain from making anymore comment. It's al because I  have too much respect for the memories of Hugh Wilson, William Flynn & Joe Valentine; the legacy of Bill Kittleman's tenure at the club; the efforts of Richie Valentine; the honest and sincere intentions of Bill Greenwood; Joe Logan, for getting just one quote from the other side, compared to a whole slew of them from the club; My own personal Air Force,:) who flew the missions in their high-tech U-2 Spy Planes to get the proof (pictures) that we needed, proving that indeed Nikita Kruschev, Tom Fazio, and the MacDonald's had indeed planted Nuclear Stinkbombs just off of the Merion greens and fairways; the yet to be slain rapper, Huge "Puffy" Wilson; Kenny Tanakawana and any other name you can think of.

I'm OUT!:) ( I don't want any of the Mucci backlash that is going to occur after this one! )

[George Pazin]

My point was that MacDonald & Co was severely criticized on this site for bunker construction at Merion, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect, Yet, they weren't given an ounce of praise for constructing the bunkers at Aronimink, even though they were just following plans provided by an architect.

It seems like a terrible double standard.

This isn't entirely factual. Several posters, especially the esteemed Tom Paul, have stated that MacDonald did a very good job with the work at Aronimink. I believe Tom P even hypothesized that the reason they did a good job at Aronimink versus a less acclaimed job at Merion was that their procedures (larger machine versus hand work) are better suited to this type of work.

Might wanna check your facts a little closer next time.  
(I favor this particular grin as well - why do some people think it looks evil?)

To set the record straight, I'd like to join the following clubs.
Merion
Pine Valley
Maidstone
Shinnecock
NGLA
Friar's Head
Westhampton
Piping Rock
The Creek
Winged Foot
Quaker Ridge
Plainfield
Somerset Hills
Baltusrol
Hollywood
Mountain Ridge
Seminole
Cypress Point

and many, many more.

If by many, many more you mean Oakmont, Fox Chapel, Allegheny & maybe a few across the pond, then your list looks a lot like mine. 'Course, I'd have to also add GCGC to mine.

[T_MacWood]

Ah yes....Kenny Tanakawana....it brings back good memories. Bel Air CC some years ago....I was having lunch with Kenny T, Mac Davis and Charles Nelson Reilly...when that little fellow the pro came in with George and young Tommy F...they had big plans for the golf course...unfortunately Tommy F accidently bumped into Chuck and all hell broke loose....I've often wondered if their work at B-A was effected by this ugly incident.

[SPDB]

Thomas - don't leave this thread, at least not before answering the question I posed to you.

I never thought you took it too far. Like I've said before, you're passionate about these things. I respect a good healthy exchange of ideas (excepting the furtive RCD bunker hypo   ).

However, please answer my question. After two years, I feel that I may have you in a corner.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, I guess I'm not thoroughly reading into what your getting at, because what I'm trying to say in my post that maybe indeed that it is the directive of the architect on how this work should come out, in the form of remodeling, not restoring. After all, he is specing to the builder what he wants, correct? I hate to go into Forrest-hating building analogies, but in construction (my business) you have a set of plans and specs you have to follow. Any material has to follow the architect's specs what to use. Any generic comparitable materials have to be approved by the architect by submitting him a list of materials going to be used.

Take an office area that is going to get 200-2 x 4 Lithonia brand florescent fixtures with the really expensive parabolic diffusers; expensive but cost effective energy saving transformer and T-8 tubes, then, try replacing it with something that is half the cost that is obtainble from Home Depot's cheapest Korean made brand. That is something that is just not going t happen unless the client and the architect are sound asleep or just plain inexperienced.

You have to submit to the architect why you are doing this, so he can compare it to the Lithonia brand, (which btw, he gets a nice stipend from Lithonia for each large order sold.) and then see if he ok's or disapproves it, only after he has consulted with the client.

Then I have to install it correctly to his specs. Say if I find a much better and cost-effective way (for me) of installing it, but it doesn't conspire with the architects original Muccivision of making sure the building will have minimal earthquake improvements that might be coming into law in a few years. Am I going to try to get away with it, knowing that he can come back and make me rip 200-2 x 4 florescent lighting fixtures out?  (If I did, and it came back to haunt me, I can assure you the contractor I'm working for would fire me for doing so.) So, I'll make out a "Request for Information" (aka Change Order) which allows the architect to say yea or nea to my ideas of installation, as well as seek additional savings for the client who we are building it for, by asking me to revise a cost it will take to put it in MY way.

So, what I'm getting at, if I'm some wild buckaroo that thinks I can get away with doing somewhat shoddy work, and get away without the legal ways and means of the construction trade, then I got away with it, and ina few years, they can cal in another contractor to replace it all because the lights are falling out of the ceiling. But I'm not that buckaroo, I take pride in my work. so hopefully it will all come out right, and if it doesn't, I can say, "I did it as specified--LOOK!"

But lets say all of a sudden, the client, starts to oversee and change the work that I'm doing to the letter of the Specifications, from the architect?  Once again, the Change Order, and I'm going to demand that he sign it right then and there, because it is here I can charge him and do it anyway I want because he said so, and as long as I feel that the installation is technically safe and sound, and the architect agrees with the methods of installation. He's happy-The architect is happy, and my boss who is going to charge him a fortune for doing so is REALLY happy.

Now, I don't know if any of this is what happend at Merion, I would hate to think it was the client getting too involved and signing-off on ideas the consulting architect didn't really know about because he wasn't there or an associate OK'ing the destruction of the most famous bunkers in American Golf (lets not forget, they ripped the compacted foundations of the original bunkers completely out so they could dress them up in the Gold Package or Eddie Bauer add-on. Does that sound like a sympathetic restoration to what they saw in pictures from 1931?  I for one don't think so.

but maybe I would be better off thinking that it was simply horrible guidance and decision making in regards to making the course play tougher so they could convince the USGA that the course could somehow hold the US Open

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You're unqualified to comment on the construction of the bunkers at Merion, not because of me, but because you've never personally seen them, or the construction specifications.
Don't get pissy because you don't have the facts.
It never troubled you in the past.
You seem quick to condemn work you've never seen and you seem quick to blame people without knowing the entire story.

Golf at Bel-Air was with Duffy Waldorf, Bobby May, Kenny Tanakawa and Eddie Merrins.  Mac Davis, who had played golf with my dad on a few occassions joined us.

Tommy Naccarato,

Let's not mislead those not familiar with work order changes specifications contained in a contract between the parites.
You and I both know that work order changes can't be enacted unless they are approved and SIGNED OFF by one and in most cases TWO representatives of the client.
They have to be scrutinized and approved, first.
No deviation from the specs is permitted without the sign offs.

Don't turn tail and run when pressed for the facts or factual answers to difficult questions.

You made definitive statements about the work on the bunkers when you had absolutely no knowledge of same, and that's irresponsible, not matter what your passion.

George Pazin,

Baloney,

Only after the issue was pressed and comparisons made did some grudgingly give MacDonald & Co credit.

[Mike_Cirba]

HAYSUS H. CHRISTO felllas...

We're talking work orders, specs, double signed secret probation, dying grass, purposeful lack of TLC, seeing versus not seeing (even though the whole freaking course is pictured by Ian on the other thread), pinning each other into corners, relationship of footprints to buildups, and all of this complete and utter bullshit when the bottom line is simple...

The bunkers are FUGLY.  They look as if they were dropped in from the planet BLOAT.  The surrounds fit the terrain like a 70's leisure suit at a summer beach party in the Hamptons.  

Who F'ed up?  Who cares?  Why are we trying to assign blame?  

Are they deeper?  Yes.  Big fat, freaking deal.  That takes some real talent and artistry!  Ooooooo....the bunker used to be four feet deep and I made it five!  Aren't I quite the revolutionary thinker!!  Yep...I thought it up all by myself....one day I just decided that I'd dig up another foot of dirt with my front end loader!!!   All Hail!  

Will they evolve?  Yeah...but not in our lifetimes fellas.  Unless someone comes in there with mortar shells and AK47's the fact is that the bunker-wolled, pinned down, layers of turf facing on each of them are staying put for the long haul.  I watched them being built and there's less insulation and upholstery on suburban split-level.  

Why don't we just move on and wish the club the best.  They went into this with the best of apparent intentions...hire the world's most famous architect, put together a "restoration" plan, hope to draw a US Open...but the fact is that someone sold them a bill of goods that the 100+ enormously complex bunkers could be rebuilt top to bottom by machine in about 6 months and look "fabulous....really darling".

To paraphrase John Houseman, some things are worth waiting for...or conversely, haste makes waste.  It's sad.  

[TEPaul]

George Pazin:

I'm just having a good time chuckling while reading this thread and all the Nowheresville hairsplitting on it. Patrick Mucci has initiated this thread, like so many others, so he can attempt to establish "bias" and a "double standard" with his typical "dog chasing his tail" method.

Reading some of this minutae as well as some misguided speculation does anyone wonder why most of the architects and most of the golf clubs that tune into this website and read some of these threads think most of us are a bunch of lunatics?

But just for the hell of it I'll throw a bit of food for thought into this thread regarding Aronimink vs Merion bunkering. The MacDonald shaper on the Aronimink project is reputed to be the best they have. I met the guy a few times and watched him work with Ron Prichard at Aronimink. Ron Prichard said he missed the mark on the first few he did there but Ron got him to do what he wanted him to do on the rest. Wish I could remember the guy's name to give him credit by name but I can't remember. Big strong dude though--wouldn't want to pick a fight with him! If he wasn't the only shaper on the project I know I'll find out about that shortly.

And just another interesting bit of info. Ron has yet to see the bunker restoration at Merion. But my take on this is MacDonald & Co to date have shown there're a few bunker types and styles they can do well and there're a few bunker types and styles they can't do very well. At the very least that's the undeniable evidence on the ground so far from what I've seen!

Pat Mucci might call that statement biased and and a double standard but I'd call it not much more than an informed opinion!

But heh, it's not the end of the world--just the ongoing world of golf course architecture!

This Merion bunker restoration project debate on Golfclubatlas in never going to die--I'm convinced of it. But once again, my take on it is the club, architect and contractor should have done two steps of a three step process in the bunker restoration project. They should've redone the drainage and the sanding and they should've basically left the surrounds alone except to fix them where needed.

Why should they have left the surrounds alone? Were they unique in look and in their architecture? Not really. There are a lot of bunkers around here that look the way many of Merion's came to look. And did that Merion bunker look stay the same from 1912 to 1920 to 1930 to 1950 to 1970 to 1999?
No, not even close. For the reasons and extent of that one only needs to speak in detail to such as Richie Valentine. But instead of completely removing the bunker surrounds of Merion's bunkers and starting anew why should they have been left and just fixed? Again, because they were wholly unique? Not really. Simply because they were the f...ing bunkers of Merion G.C., and they were really famous as they'd evolved and they'd evolved all those decades through one maintenance cycle after another to get the way they did and they'd never been remodeled like this project and didn't need to be because they were Merion's--plain and simple.

At least that's always been my take on them--but just like Pat says, I could be wrong!  

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I don't recall being at Bel-Air with you. It was Kenny T, Mac Davis, Charles Nelson Reilly, Gene Rayburn, Slappy White and myself - I don't remember Bob May, Waldorf or you. I did however have a Waldorf salad at the Brown Derby with Wally Cox--were you there?

Give it up Pat--this bunker analysis really isn't your bag. I hate to say it but you really are not a good judge of these things. Some people just don't have an eye for aesthetics (or could care less).  I've never once seen you describe or compare the aesthetic quality of one bunker style to another. I've never read you describe or contrast the aesthetic qualities that are unique to Rees or Tillie or Flynn or Travis. I don't think you care.

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

My point was: that you may have spent more time on site during the construction of Aronimink then Ross did.
He was absent from the site, far more than Fazio & Associates was at Merion.  Again, it's the implementation of a double standard.  It's okay for Ross to be AWOL, but god forbid that any other architect who doesn't enjoy "most favored nation" status on this site, isn't there 24/7.

Thanks Patrick, but I got your point the first time.  I also got that you tried to make your point without answering my questions; then clarified your point, again without answering my questions.  My point is that unless you want to delve a little more deeply into the Merion work vs. the Aronomink work (or the Ross work for that matter), your points are much less than well supported.

But I guess if you are just interested in making your usual  superficial "bias" observation/accusation, there is no need for you to really dig into the bunker construction.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I love how you self appoint yourself as the expert on the bunkers at Merion and Aronimink, especially when you've never seen them.  You've never played to or from them.

You have ZERO frame of reference when it comes examining them in person.  Yet, you know more than me, and others who have personally examined those bunkers.

You have NO experience with either project, yet you're the self appointed expert.  

You're all talk and no action, otherwise, you would have accepted the bet with the great odds I gave you.  You made a false statement, but when called on it, and asked to back it up, you wilted and refused.  And now, you say that you're a bunker expert on bunkers that you've never seen, which is no surprise.

TEPaul,

You seem to miss the point, again.

If those bunkers weren't built to the architect and clients specifications, MacDonald & Co would have had to build them over, made a financial settelment, or gone to court, and none of the above happened, which would seem to indicate that they built them exactly as they were instructed, vis a vis the bid specs and contract.

Don't give me this hocus pocus about a guru shaper, most shapers understand exactly what the boss wants, and if they don't give it to him, they have to reshape it until they get it right or they're replaced.  Or, did the architect and club accept something other than what they had designed and contracted for ?

The point is simple.

How can you possibly find fault with MacDonald & Co ?

They have proven their ability to perform admirably and to contract specifications at Aronimink and elsewhere.

If you don't agree with the above, just prove it to the contrary.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
You should be thankful I present myself as "a self appointed expert", if not you couldn't focus your attention toward me and would be forced to actually analyze and differentiate. Go ahead analyze and differentiate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Many have made allegations relative to MacDonald & Co and their work at Merion, but when pressed to present the facts substantiating their allegations, they refuse to do so.
When questioned about the project and details, they again refuse, and provide no substantiation for their charges.

You insert the tired "being there" mantra, but, apparently, you weren't familiar that Ross wasn't there either, nor was he there at many other courses he's credited with designing.

So, in your eyes, it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else.
I'd call that a double standard of bias, wouldn't you ?

The criticism of MacDonald & Co's work at Merion remains unsubstantiated, and I'm just refuting that criticism.

Tom MacWood,

I'm curious as to what you do for a living that takes advantage of your incredible expertise, your ability to analyze and differentiate everything, with unimpeachable certainty, especially from afar, without first hand experience.
Certainly, you must be the "expert" in your field.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Let's assume for a moment that MacDonald & Co are artistically and functionally capable of doing anything that they are tasked to do.  In reality, I question that...I really do based on what I've seen, but for discussion purposes, I'll accept it.

So, then let's also accept that they did exactly what Tom Fazio's organization asked them to do.  Let's assume that Fazio's group drew up detailed specs of every single bunker at Merion, compared them meticulously using laser-guided, detailed analysis against the bunkers that existed at the course in 1930 from computer generated, three-dimensional photographs and retinal images and brain scans taken from the most elderly members and others in the community who were there when Bobby Jones was.  

Then let's assume that the club was willing to spare no expense, leave no stone unturned, or no bunker unearthed in an effort to do a true restoration.  

Let's assume that everyone was above-board, awe-inspiringly talented, and willing to do whatever it takes to complete the job in a way that would be a shining exmple to the golf world as to what is possible given enough time, money, talent, and good intentions.

Are the results indicative of that?  If not, why?

Even if we find the dozer operator or club official, or architectural associate who varied slightly from those lofty goals, what is the point of doing so?

I love the Merion golf course, and have since I was 13 years old.  I'm not a member, yet feel an affinity for the place due to many reasons, some logical, some sentimental, and some just out of appreciation for the genius and diligence that went into it over the last century.  

What's the point of assigning blame?  Where does that get us?   What have we learned that's applicable to the general golf community?

I don't understand what you're getting at.  If it's simply to say that people like me are biased against a particular architect or contracting company, then I think that's way off-base and I wouldn't even begin to know how to respond.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike Cirba, to paraphrase Rod Tidwll from the movie Jery McGwire, "Your militant and I love it!" You go guy!

However, it pains me that you didn't read the between the lines of my comparison. There is meaning........and you can bet the same million dollars that Pat & Tom were betting back& forth last week that Buddy Marucci signed-off on all of it. (probaby after twisting the green committee's arm's a bit!)

Tom Paul, Like always, spot on. You are my guru. You are my Emperor of Quon. (More Jerry McGwire quotes)

But..................................

I wouldn't say that would be entirely true that Ron Pritchard hasn't seen the "new" Merion bunkers. At least from what I heard from one of my spies...........

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

Many have made allegations relative to MacDonald & Co and their work at Merion, but when pressed to present the facts substantiating their allegations, they refuse to do so.
When questioned about the project and details, they again refuse, and provide no substantiation for their charges.

I find it odd that you are always scolding others for their (perceived) hypocracy, while at the same time being hypocritical yourself.  What does their refusal to substantiate their allegations have to do with your refusal to substatiate your 'bias' claim?  It certainly doesnt justify it.  

You insert the tired "being there" mantra, but, apparently, you weren't familiar that Ross wasn't there either, nor was he there at many other courses he's credited with designing.

You may view it as a "tired mantra" but I would think that it might be important to understand the level and degree of instruction and guidance MacDonald & Co. received before and during their work at both sites.  You don't mean to claim that the only determinant of the quality of a bunker is the company which does the work, do you?

As I said above, I knew very little about the original construction of Aronomink, so how could I know whether he was there?   I do know that many claim that Ross very rarely had much on-site involvement, so it wouldnt surprise me if he wasnt there at all.  But Patrick, who cares?  Please explain to me what Ross' involvement in his courses has to do with whether MacDonald did the same quality work at Aronomink and Merion?  Surely MacDonald did not do the original bunker work for Ross!  I dont see why we need to discuss Ross' work in a discussion about MacDonald's.

(I wont bother to ask for specifics of Ross' involvement at this particular course, because you wont answer.  You would rather just throw out conclusions.)

So, in your eyes, it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else.
I'd call that a double standard of bias, wouldn't you ?

Huhhhh?  
When did I say that "it's okay for Ross, but not anybody else"?  When did I give any opinion on the bunker work?   I prefer to be able to substantiate for my claims before I make them, so I really doubt that I expressed the view you attribute to me.  But if I did, please point it out to me. Meanwhile, dont try to make me your strawman in your never-ending efforts to put forth the same old, tired, and unsubstantiated claim that everyone except you is biased.

 So Patrick, what is your substantiation for implying that the bunker work at Merion is of the same quality as that at Aronimink.  [If the quality isnt the same, then those that look at one negatively and the other positively might not be bias at all.]

 Surely your support is not so thin as just relying on the fact that the same company performed both jobs, is it?  What about the other factors that may have influence on the work, such as supervision and direction; the shapers; the architects; the wishes of the membership?  

My questions still remain unanswered . . .  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()