[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I doubt very much if the bunkers were converted into smaller bunkers that they would have been typically done a year or so after opening, but I can't say for certain.  The aerials I have for Rolling Green for instance are 1926, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1960, 1992, and 2000.  All I can say as yet is that the bunkers were altered sometime between 1926 and 1937.  

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Now that you have looked at the aerial, is that your professional opinion of what happened?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't have an opinion without spending more time on this.  I just happened to see one of the last posts on this thread about single bunkers and chimed in.  Sorry but I have not read the earlier posts.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"TE
The course opened in the summer of 1928, what is the evidence the course was completely overhauled months after opened?"

Tom MacW:

What's the evidence the course was overhauled months after opening? I don't know, who said that other than you? Ron Prichard believes the Ross Bunker drawings that were built were redone into sets of 2-3 from single bunkers perhaps anywhere from 2-7 years after opening. To determine something like that there'd probably need to be some conclusive documentation found or a stagger of aerial evidence around 1930-33-35. Ron Prichard says he has evidence to that effect and there very well may be that to pin this point down. It seems to me there're more overhead aerials of Aronimink than just that 1939 one shown on this thread and in GeoffShac's book. I have an entire list of all the Dallin aerials and their years of every course in the Delaware Valley and I'll check to see how many staggers there are of Aronimink.

"I would think replacing the relatively few bunkers in the rough drawing with the 200+ bunkers found in 1929 (many occupying the same approximate location) would require a significant construction project."

I don't see that you or anyone else has any evidence there were 200+ bunkers on Aronimink in 1929. It's pretty hard to base that assumption off a single Ross hole drawing (1927) and a photograph (1929) of that one hole (#1) compared to an entire course aerial ten years later (1939).

"Converting multiple bunkers into a single large bunker is not that uncommon, converting a single large bunker into multiple bunkers is very rare (and physically complicated)."

Is that your opinion backed up by documentary evidence Tom, or just another of your assumptions? Have YOU ever converted multiple bunkers into one or one into a set or have you ever seen anyone do that?? Do you really know what's common and what's very rare (and physically complicated) in that vein Tom? Some courses such as PVGC converted multiple bunkers into a single bunker early on but according to sufficient evidence converting a single bunker into multiple bunkers was definitely not rare. There very well may be some evidence that this technique was one of J.B. McGovern's on some Ross courses elsewhere and in the 1930s!

There is one bit of potential evidence I just noticed that may lead to some significance regarding this bunker question at Aronimink or it may not. If one checks Aronimink's architectural attribution in C&W one sees this;

Aronimink GC
Newtown Square, Pa
Donald Ross
    (R) Donald Ross
    (R) A.W. Tillinghast
    (R) Dick Wilson
    (R) George Fazio, Tom Fazio
    (R) Robert Trent Jones

If one checks Ross's bio they see Ross designed and opened the course in 1928, and then a redesign attributtion is assigned him in 1930! As you may know from the C&W "key" an "R" designation is not specific and could mean anything from a redesigned bunker to an entire redesigned course. Perhaps the "(R) Donald Ross 1930" attribution is when some of those originial single bunkers were broken up into 2-3 sets. And if they were broken up in that 1930 (R) attribution under Ross who may have done it? That may be impossible to say at this point if no evidence exists.

We do however know that J.B. McGovern was a long time member of Aronimink G.C both before and after the club moved to Newtown Square. And we also know he was Ross's foreman during the construction of Aronimink. Would it be logical to assume that a redesign of Aronimimk in 1930 was the separating of some of those single bunkers into sets of 2-3s? It would to me since McGovern was right there, he was a member of the club, he was Ross's Wynnewood office manager and one must also appreciate the apparent important roll of McGovern in the construction of Aronimink.

Under McGovern's bio in C&W Aronimink G.C is attributed to McGovern as an "assistant" of Donald Ross. This seems to be a more significant roll in the construction of a golf course than someone like William Gordon who was Toomey and Flynn's foreman at Shinnecock--eg Gordon is given no attribution for Shinnecock in C&W as an "assistant"---he's given no attribution at all!

So where should this evidence lead us? It's impossible to say with assurance, but it seems logical to assume that a good deal of Aronimink's construction could have been left in the hands of Ross office manager and Ross's Aronimink "assistant, and Aronimink club member JB McGovern who may have taken liberties with Ross's drawings both during the original construction of the course and perhaps in a redesign phase two years later in 1930 (the bunker separation phase of Ross's single bunkers?) or perhaps later than that.

More credence could be added to that assumption by Ross's undeniably unusual public relations statement on course opening when he said;

"I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew."

To an objective observer at that opening of Aronimink the obvious question may very well have been;

"Where have you been during the construction of this golf course Donald?

Which brings us back to Ron Prichard (with Ross's original drawings in hand) and Aronimink in 2002 facing what they hoped and wanted to be a true "Ross" restoration! Should they decide to restore to something that may have been McGovern or should they restore to something they were certain was Donald Ross?

They decided to restore to what they were certain was Donald Ross--eg his actual and original drawings. And since there was nothing much left bunker-wise on the ground at Aronimink of Ross (McGovern?), particularly fairway bunkers due to subsequent redesigns by Wilson, the Fazios and RTJ, they decided in 2002 to recreate real Ross bunkers from his actual drawings.

There may be a fellow from Ohio who thinks of himself as an architectural purist who thinks it's neat that a course like Aronimink may have had what he calls "local flavor" because the bunkers of the course were constructed to the design of a "liberty taking" assistant, or even that that assistant may have redesigned Ross's bunkers in 1930 of perhaps '33 or '35, but once again, I, for one, and many others believe Ron Prichard and Aronimink made the correct decision because it was a real Ross restoration they wanted and that's what they got by recreating Ross's own drawings!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Your last post has set a new record for speculation.

Again what is the evidence the course (or even the first hole) was redesigned a few months after opening? You said there was evidence. There must be a newspaper article in Philadelphia profiling the course opening....and supsequent redesign.

If the course was redesigned in 1930 (as you note from C&W with a exclamation mark!) does that mean the first hole (as seen on the cover of Golfdom from a tournament in May of 1929) was not constructed based upon the rough sketch?

Did they convert only the first hole from grass faced bunkering to sand splashed or was the entire original sparcely-bunkered course built with sand flashed bunkers?

It is very discouraging to learn this very rare Ross design was restored based upon so many unkowns and speculation.

[TEPaul]

“TE
Your last post has set a new record for speculation.“

I’ve noticed a number of times when others question or don’t accept your opinions or conclusions you say that.

“Again what is the evidence the course (or even the first hole) was redesigned a few months after opening? You said there was evidence. There must be a newspaper article in Philadelphia profiling the course opening....and supsequent redesign.”

I don’t know what the evidence is the course was redesigned a few months after opening. As I said to you in my previous post I’ve never heard anyone mention that other than you. What I said (in my previous post) is after speaking to Ron Prichard yesterday he mentioned he believes some of the single placement bunkers from Ross’s drawings were built at Aronimink and later broken up into bunkers of 2-3s. Ron didn’t say he thought that was done a few months after opening. My recollection is he said it may have happened at some point between the ensuing 2-7 years (as I mentioned in my previous post). And what I also said is Ron mentioned yesterday he does have evidence of that in his possession. I believe the evidence may be a tournament program. Perhaps it was the same tournament that was taking place when that photo was shot of the first hole you posted. There may be a newspaper article profiling the course opening, but I’m not aware of it. Perhaps Donald Ross’s rather odd remark was reported in that newspaper article on the course’s opening--”I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew”.

(Again, Tom, a remark like that could very well have indicated that Donald felt JB McGovern may have built bunkering different than he knew but obviously he‘s not going to say that, is he?. Do you happen to know how often Ross was on site at Aronimink? If you do I’m sure everyone would be glad to know that as it certainly could indicate a lot. But unfortunately I don’t believe anyone knows that so it may be logical to begin to assume he wasn’t there much very much, something that most anyone knows about Ross--eg he couldn‘t have possibly spent much time on any course he built he built so many of them. Pinehurst is the only place he really did spent a good deal of time on!. At my own course Ross issued a statement that Gulph Mills G.C. would be “….one of the best inland courses in the country and that it will undoubtedly be much superior to any course around Philadelphia.” Apparently Donald didn’t feel like giving courses like PVGC and Merion East a whole lot of respect by that statement! Donald Ross spent three days at GMGC in 1916 and did not return until 1927 (coincidently probably that very same time in 1927 when he was about 5 miles away to design Aronimink. Ross may have drawn and placed the bunkers at GMGC but it appears they were constructed by laborers under the oversight of an excellent  greens keeper from Philly Cricket Club Ross recommended we steal (he said he felt he was the best in the city) and a member by the name of Weston Hibbs who oversaw the entire three year construction of GMGC. The reason I’m telling you all this is so perhaps you can begin to get a glimpse of the reality of the way one of  the busiest architect of all time operated, and also how much of a self promoter Ross could be in some of the things he said about some of his projects. Anyone who knows much about Donald Ross knows that and they also know that‘s a curious combination for someone with such an apparently avuncular persona).

“If the course was redesigned in 1930 (as you note from C&W with a exclamation mark!) does that mean the first hole (as seen on the cover of Golfdom from a tournament in May of 1929) was not constructed based upon the rough sketch?”

I didn’t say the course was redesigned in 1930, as you just said I did. What I said was I just noticed in C&W that Ross was given attribution for an “R” (redesign) in 1930 and I also said in C&W (according to their key) that could mean anything from the redesign of a bunker to the whole course. So I said that could have been the time McGovern broke those bunkers up into 2s and 3s. I don’t see that as a stretch of the imagination at all as McGovern lived in Philadelphia, he was Ross’s Wynnewood office manager and he was a long time member of Aronimink G.C. J.B McGovern probably felt Aronimink was his golf course for Christ Sake! Would you mind telling me why you find an assumption like that the height of speculation?

Was the first hole’s bunkering originally constructed based upon the Ross drawing? I think you can see as well as I can the bunkering on the first hole (from the 1929 photo you posted) appears somewhat different than Ross’s drawing (rough sketch, as you call it). Specifically the large single bunker at the rear of the green is two smaller bunkers. There’re two additional bunkers to the right of the single bunker short right of the green and there’s an additional bunker outside the bunker greenside left in the drawing. If by asking this you’re attempting to prove that if the bunker arrangement on this hole is different from the Ross drawing then that confirms the entire course was initially built with 200+ bunkers that show on that 1939 aerial, I’d tell you I don’t believe you’re proving that at all. That to me would seem to be real speculation on you part. And that’s why I mentioned the necessity of a good stagger of aerials in those years from 1928-1939 could prove that one way of the other. Obviously other evidence could prove specifically when all those bunkers were built but all that evidence does not seem to be available, and once, again, producing an early photo of a single hole and a design drawing does not prove what was on the rest of the course or not in 1929.

[T_MacWood]

TE
There is no large single bunker behind the green in the sketch...there is a line running through the green that differentiate upper and lower levels (its easy to confuse). Ross placed numbers beside each bunker, 1, 2, 3.

Is the rough sketch in Ross's hand?

Do you think it likely the 1st was designed and built with multi-bunkers and the other 17 with the more moderate bunkering seen in the sketches?

Do you think it likely the 1st was redesigned months after the course opened?

Do you think it likely, if the 1st was redesigned in 1928-29 (it is obviously a departure from the sketch), that the other 17 were not?

Do you think likely the bunkers of the 1st hole had sand-flashing and the other 17 holes had the grass face look...we now find?

I would love to see the evidence (tournament program) that proves the course was built according to the rough sketches....the tournament was the Eastern Women's Am if you are interested.

[TEPaul]

"Did they convert only the first hole from grass faced bunkering to sand splashed or was the entire original sparcely-bunkered course built with sand flashed bunkers?"

Tom:

I'm not that sure what your fixation is with sand splashed bunkers but that's the funniest thing of all to me about this ongoing Aronimink discussion with you. Do you think those bunkers that appear in that 1929 photo of the 1st hole of Aronimink are sand flashed bunkers? They aren't. They're  partially grassed down faced bunkers with sand up into the angle of repose to meet that partially grassed down face. If you'd like to see a very similar style Ross bunker turn to page 77 in Ross’s book and look at that right greenside bunker at Oakland Hills. The bunker before that green would be representative of a sand flashing all the way up! Or did you determine that Aronimink’s 200+ bunkers are sand flashed faced bunkers from that 1939 aerial photograph from 6,000 ft directly over the course? If that’s how you determined they’re sand-fllashed faces you’re definitely able to do something no one else ever has.  

“It is very discouraging to learn this very rare Ross design was restored based upon so many unkowns and speculation.”

I’m sorry you’re so discouraged about the bunker restoration of Aronimink. I’d like to know what it is about Aronimink that makes you say it was such a rare Ross design., particularly when you’ve never even been to the golf course. Is it because you think 200+ bunkers that show up on that 1939 aerial of Aronimink makes the course approximately three times better than a course that was or could’ve been  built to the architect of record’s drawings of 80 bunkers? Is it that you think the course had some “local flair”? Such a thing as “local flair” around here on a Ross course generally means somebody other than Ross did some things, such as just take their own liberties with his plans and drawings. And finally, what do you know about JB McGovern because that’s another story that probably directly effected the decision of Aronimink to do what they did? It isn’t as if  Ron Prichard and the club just assumed what Ross would have done at Aronimink (since a good deal of the bunkering from the 1920s and 1930s had been wiped away by subsequent redesigns). They didn’t have to speculate about what Ross might have done, they had Ross’s drawings and they recreated them on the ground. Do you have something in particular against Ross’s own drawings?

I realize you consider yourself the person who must stand up alone and protect dead architects but in the case of Aronimink it appears you’re protecting JB McGovern far more than you are Donald Ross! Again, what do you know about McGovern? Around here he doesn’t have much of a reputation and it appears from a few things we found out from Flynn’s daughter, including a few other things on Ross courses around here as well as McGovern’s only solo design (about a mile as the crow flies from Aronimink) it appears he may not have had much of a reputation back then either. So I’m sorry you’re so discouraged with the Aronimink restoration by Ron Prichard. Thankfully, the good news is you seem to be the only one who is.

 

[T_MacWood]

Come to think of it, Ross' Detroit area courses I'm most familiar with all featured flashed sand bunkers originally:

*Essex
*Oakland Hills
*Roseland

I'm not absolutely sure about Franklin Hills and Detroit GC though. But I suspect the bunkers there, too, didn't originally feature steep grass faces.  

TE
I'm not sure what picture your looking at (I don't have access to the book at present), but Oakland Hills had sand-splashed bunkers too. I don't know what you definition of sand flashed bunkers is, but if those bunkers in the 1929 photo are not sand flashed, than there are no sand-flashed bunkers anywhere. The contrast between those bunkers and the prototypical Ross bunkers restored to the course is stark.

How many courses did McGovern build for Ross...fifty courses? one-hundered courses? maybe more? I'm certain more than once he took in the field liberties, isn't that a common and expected occurance when you have competent experienced field person and a confident mentor? Totally revamping the design is very rare....did McGovern do it often?

McGovern was his assistant from 1916 to Ross's death (1948)..whatever McGovern did, it doesn't appear there was a problem. If its good enough for Ross (good enough to put his name on the final product) its good enough for me.

Your theory that McGovern redesigned, remodeled or atlered Ross's plan (with or without his approval) is pure speculation. Restoration should not be based upon speculation.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I'm not sure what picture your looking at (I don't have access to the book at present), but Oakland Hills had sand-splashed bunkers too. I don't know what you definition of sand flashed bunkers is, but if those bunkers in the 1929 photo are not sand flashed, than there are no sand-flashed bunkers anywhere. The contrast between those bunkers and the prototypical Ross bunker restrored to the course is stark."

Tom:

This is really pretty funny. It's just getting comical the lengths you seem to go to in an attempt to make one of your odd "purist" points about how a really well regarded restoration has gone awry somehow. Look, Tom, I really don't think any of us who are regular contributors to this site or anyone else who knows even a little about golf architecture needs to get into some word-mincing debate as to what is and what isn't a sand flashed bunker face!

It's just mindbendingly obvious and commonsensical if one simply knows a little bit about this subject. If you want to know most everything you need to know about Ross bunkers and his variations of types and styles of bunkering simply get your hands on his book and read it from page 75 to 90. Actually, in your particular case I suggest you read those pages at least a dozen times so it'll be sure to sink in! Those pages are a bunch of chapters that're a virtual laundry-list on all his bunker types and styles and even why he used different types and styles in different places and locations even on the same course sometimes.

The only real reason, I'm sure, you think those bunkers on that 1929 photo of the 1st hole of Aronimink are bunkers with sand flashed to their tops is because you can see a good amount of sand in those bunkers on that hole (in that photograph). That's precisely WHY you need to go to a golf course and see what it really is in the flesh. Those bunkers on that photo are about 450 yards from where the photo was taken. At that distance the faces on the bunkers are sort of hard to see!!!!  

You can see a good deal of sand in them, though, because sand is white and easy to see and also that greenend is on a gradual UPSLOPE and the tee where the photographer took that 1929 photo from is ABOVE the green-end and by quite a lot. So due to the UPSLOPE on the green-end and the high tee you can easily see those sand floors and the slight sand upsweep which touches the grass-down faces which in the case of those bunkers could be anywhere from 2 to 4 FEET! That's 2 to 4 FEET of grassed down bunker face on those old bunkers in that 1929 photo, Tom. Now are you beginning to understand why they aren't bunkers that have sand flashed up to their tops and also why I'm constantly telling you it's JUST KINDA IMPORTANT sometimes that you actually at least see a golf course in person?

Again, on page 77 of Ross's book the bunker short of the green at Oakland Hills has sand flashed all the way to the top of the bunker with a thin ribbon of grass on top. The bunker greenside right in that photo of Oakland Hills has grass draped down a foot or two or even three in it's face! That's a partial grassed down face bunker and the sand sweeps up to the grass in what some call the bunker's "angle of repose". Just read the caption on that photo and it might help you understand how to make these seemingly obvious distinctions as well.

Now look at the rest of the pages in Ross's book, there's bunkers with grass down the entire face to a flat sand floor. No sand flashing at all in those! And there's every other kind of combination of grassed down to sand flashed all the way up.

Then come to Aronimink and compare the sand flashing and grassing down between then and now. Maybe Ron grassed them down a bit more than they used to be so not quite so much sand appears to the golfer, but so what? I can guarantee that all the bunkers of Aronimink have enough sand flashed at least into the angle of repose. And there's a very functional reason for that! It's so the ball will tend to release back off that grassed face and down the sand flashed angle of repose at least enough so a player can get some kind of shot up over that bunker face!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Most sand flashed bunkers are built on upslopes or built up behind to expose the sand (like the two bunkers behind the green at #1). The current bunkers are nothing like these bunkers...they are the typical grass faced variety (you see so often with Ross restorations). What purpose would it serve to see the bunkers as built today...they bear no resemblance to the bunkers in Ross's day?

That would be like going to the county courthouse today to see what Michael Jackson looked like in the 1980's (and to see him dance upon his van!). You aren't going to get an accurate picture of his former appearance....although he still dances well! Or going to ANGC or Ohio State GC to learn about MacKenzie's bunker style.....one is long gone; the other never was.

It appears you are not all that interested in historical accuracy...to each his own. If the members like it, it must be a good restoration.

[TEPaul]

"How many courses did McGovern build for Ross...fifty courses? one-hundered courses? maybe more? I'm certain more than once he took in the field liberties, isn't that a common and expected occurance when you have competent experienced field person and a confident mentor? Totally revamping the design is very rare....did McGovern do it often?"

I don't know what McGovern did often but it appears as a result of this thread which you've had much to do with and my putting Ron Prichard and Ron Forse and Jim Nagel together to discuss this specific subject something might come to be known on that score. And of course that's a very good thing, I'm sure!

"McGovern was his assistant from 1916 to Ross's death (1948)..whatever McGovern did, it doesn't appear there was a problem. If its good enough for Ross (good enough to put his name on the final product) its good enough for me."

Tom:

I know what McGovern was, when he started with Ross and how long he worked for him and a lot of what he did around here, so you don't really need to tell me about J.B. McGovern. It appears McGovern may have taken some real liberties on a green redesign plan from Ross's own hand (I have here in my office) on my own course in 1927! There's also no question at all that McGovern did some really mediocre work on my course in 1947, that we've thankfully been able to remove with our recent restoration with Gil Hanse. McGovern's solo design has always had less then decent respect--just ask most anyone on here who knows it.

"Your theory that McGovern redesigned, remodeled or atlered Ross's plan (with or without his approval) is pure speculation. Restoration should not be based upon speculation."

Tom, that's not my theory, it's Ron Prichard's and he feels he can prove it. Furthermore both your apparent ignorance and arrogance has frankly gone beyond maddening and has arrived at the comical on this Aronimink matter.

Do you even know Ron Prichard? Do you know Ron Forse, or Gil Hanse? I think it's pretty safe to say from all those who attended the Baltusrol GCA get-together last winter that Ron Prichard just may be the most passionate there is about the actual "purity" of classic archtiecture and golf, and also the most knowledgeable about and dedicated to true research on the projects he does. Just ask anyone who heard him speak at that get-together and they'll all tell you the same thing including Ron Forse and Gil Hanse.

Ron reads GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, he loves the site because he loves to see so many people take an interest in the thing he loves so much. When you started knocking the decisions he and Aronimink made about this bunker situation I called him. Ron's also an extremely nice man---Ive never seen him get pissed at someone who questions architecture or the restorations he's done. But he did say to me---"Tommy, that fellow from Ohio should just come out in the field and watch me or some of us and he might learn something very valuable about the way all this works and sometimes has to work." He said he's been doing this stuff practically everyday for the last 30 years and what is it that you know sitting there looking at pictures and old newspaper articles that he doesn't know? He also said yesterday, that as much as he loves Golfclubatlas, he's always noticed a sort of one dimensional way of thinking amongst many of its contributors that unfortunately seems to make them think in "awareness blinding absolutes" regarding the way things really were and really are now.

He wasn't in the slightest upset when he said it---he was simply stating the most obvious fact imaginable. He does not base his restoration on speculation, he bases it on tremendous research, the realities of what sometimes has to be done in the field (that hopefully some day you might get off your ass in Ohio and go find out about first hand!). RonP even used to have a bit of a reputation with sometimes really going to town on his restoration clients if they needlessly questioned what he knew to be restorative purity. Today he's less that way, I think, mellowed maybe, and much better at educating them in interesting ways.

So don't you tell me or anyone else on here that Prichard needlessly bases his restorations on speculation. If he doesn't have historical information or material on a course no matter how hard he tries to get it he goes with his decades old incredibly deep experience on this entire subject!

So don't accuse Ron Prichard, particularly, of basing restorations on speculation and don't remind him that's not what restorations should be based on. When a person like you, with so much less experience in this business than he has says something like that to him it only exposes both your ignorance and your arrogance, and that's what you're doing now.

Ron Prichard would probably be happy to teach you some of this. He probably would be glad to have you come visit him on a restoration project. Maybe he'd even talk to you on the phone. I'll give you his number---why don't you call him and do it? I guarantee you it'll be an education for you and a vast one.

Take this post as a personal attack if you want, as you seem to constantly do, or take it in the real spirit it's intended---as a suggestion of real education. I'm completely certain you'll be very grateful for the education you'll get because I do know without question how interested you are in all this and how passionate you are about it all.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Regarding your post #85 just get off this stuff now. You've gone far past wasting everyone's time and interest. You really don't need to try to inform Ron Prichard or me or anyone else who knows architecture and Aronimink what a grassed down bunker or a sand flashed bunker is and isn't. We all know that better than you do and we also know Aronimink G.C better than you do since you've never even been there. I've played that course maybe a 100 times and I live about 5 minutes from it and Ron spent months there and I spent some time out there with him on that restoration project. I'm sure he knows every inch of that property and you've never seen it!

So just get off this ignorant and arrogant mission of yours, it's not doing anybody or anything any good, and get outside and go watch a good restoration---you'll learn something---hopefully at least to stop acting the way you have been. You're not the advocate for dead architects you're just a pain in the ass! You're not really doing a thing in the interest of good architectural restoration or even preservation. All you're doing is beginning to piss people off who don't need to be.

You can have the last word---it's not worth saying more to you other than, AGAIN, get out on a good restoraton site with a great restoration arcchitect like Prichard and learn something.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I've spoken with Ron...he is a very nice man. I've spoken to a number of restoration architects...not Ron Forse.

When I question historical accuracy its nothing personal (in fact I prefer not to even bring up the architect's names)...I try to avoid personal attacks. I can appreciate your frustration, defending the work of someone else, while not really having any solid historical amunition to help you. I'm sure, like me, you are anxious to see Ron's proof. Did you ever get an answer on what happened at the 13th at Minikahda?

If I was in charge of restoring a Ross course built in his prototypical style and we had an abundance of evidence, I would not hesitate recommending Ron Prichard. The protoypical Ross style is his forte....the quality of his work undoubtedly is very good.

Unfortunately this thread got out of wack. Although I do question the historic accuracy of his work at Aronimink (and the 13th at Minikahda for that matter), I regret the general tone which one might interpret as a complete condemnation of his work (when you have passionate defenders and equally passionate critics, it often happens...the personal attacks add fuel to the fire). That's my fault.

[GeoffreyC]

I won't comment on the historical accuracy of the Aronimink restoration because I have no historical evidence.

However, the club was kind enough to allow me to play earlier this season.  It was perhaps my nicest surprise of the season to date.  The course in the ground as it plays today is absolutely OUTSTANDING. I did not find anything "prototypical" about it. The greens are the largest Ross greens I've played.  They are varied with complex internal features and they are unlike those at Plainfield, Pinehurst #2, Seminole, French Lick, Orchards, Metacomet and other Ross courses I know. It is a "big" course but in a different way then #2 or Plainfield and clearly different from his more "intimate" routings. The bunkering placement both next to greens and in the fairways works well from a strategic sense and they play well.

I'd go back tomorrow!

[BCrosby]

Geoff -

You ought to be more careful about what you say about Aroniminck. There are some guys from Philly who will think you are a wack job for liking it so much. Me, I may like it even more than you do. I think the front 9 at the Minck may be the best 9 Ross ever did. But, sheesh, don't tell anybody I said so. I've got a daughter in school in Philadelphia and I have to show my face up there from time to time.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The thing I've been trying to get across to you every which way to Sunday and I'll try again one more time is you really don't need to be telling Ron Prichard (or Ron Forse) about the need for historical accuracy in restoration projects or the importance of research material to determine the ways and means to historical accuracy in restorations. They more than know that, and the importance of it. You don't really need to be telling me that either because despite what you seem to think of me in that vein I truly do understand that and practice and utilize it, whether you realize it or not.

But once again, what you ABSOLUTELY NEED to do is get to know them and some of their projects because without that, my friend, you really will remain in a bit of a dream-world in this whole area and despite what you think of that, that can never be a good or benefical thing in the long run. You can truly take the word of all of us on that.

You seem to be criticizing them as they're out there in the real world, at these courses with real live memberships who are the overseers and/or guardians of these courses and they can often be adverserial and ignorant about the value of some of this architecture and the irony of it all is a guy like Prichard (Forse and Nagel too to my knowledge) are more passionate about that old architecture and just as much if not more of a purist towards it than you are!!

You need to both supply what you have to them and at the same time see what they do and learn from them. This notion that was floated on here by some or even you that that might somehow compromise you're critical position or your position from which to criticize in the future is simply the biggest load of garbage and backward thinking I've almost ever heard on this good website.

[GeoffreyC]

Bob

What you wrote is one reason Aronimink was my nicest surprise of the season so far.  I'd heard about a boring and difficult course with lots of straight holes.  I was expecting Firestone.  I'm told its vastly changed from the RTJ revised version of the past 3 decades.  Have you played the "restored" course?  If not you should get up this way again because I found it challenging and fun with variety I was not expecting.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby and Geoff Childs and anyone else on here who knows Aronimink:

Would you mind getting together and telling this Ohio homeboy, MacWood just how good that Prichard Aronimink restoration really is and what it did to bring that course back and that what ever point he thinks he's making about it is just not true or totally irrelevant. He's never even seen Aronimink in his life. I just can't imagine what it is that leads him to be so obdurate about some of your opinions of the course and restoration, not to mention mine.

[Sean McCue]

All that one has to do is look at the 17th hole to know that this is not a "true restoration".  The green and front right bunker are original Ross, but the rest is anything but.  The rest of the hole is the only remaining  evidence of the Robert Trent Jones disaster.  The left hand bunker was removed and the water feature that was only in front of the green was enlarged and pulled around to guard the left side of the green.  There was an approach area in front of the green that was reduced  to accomodate the new water feature.  What we have on this hole now is not what Ross intended.

[BCrosby]

Sean McCue -

Couldn't agree more about the 17th. I hope they let Prichard have at it in the next couple of years. It sticks out like a sore thumb. BTW, welcome.

TEP/TMacW

I'm not going to get in the middle of your food fight. Heck, I'm enjoying it. As an old Viennese philosopher once said, after a certain age the only way you learn anything new is through the give and take of arguing. So I hope you guys keep arguing. Just don't do it in a way that offends or denies the other guy the right to his opinions. Each of you is an important asset at GCA.

I can confirm that Aroniminck - as restored by Prichard - is a terrific golf course. Having grown up playing Ross courses in the SE, it feels right to me. That does not mean the restoration is as "pure" or accurate as it might be. About those issues I have no worthwhile opinions. But it is a heck of a course and a delight to play. At least at that level Prichard has been entirely successful.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Sean:

The pond on #17 is a good example in the realitiies of restorations. I forget all the details of the situation with that pond--the architect explained them all once when we were standing around the 10th green looking over that way but I forget it all. Of course he wanted to put that hole back as it once was and maybe the club did too but to do that would've created so many problems and potential ones it just wasn't worth the effort. That pond is not just some cosmetic RTJ feature, there's apparently a list of practical reasons it's there like that. Just another good example of some of the realities of restorations today.

Although that pond doesn't look like anything Ross it really does play pretty interesting as that entire bank along the left side filtering balls into the pond is on a nearly ideal architectural diagonal for thoughtful approach shots. To a front left pin on that hole that pond makes the shot very intense.

[TEPaul]

"So I hope you guys keep arguing. Just don't do it in a way that offends or denies the other guy the right to his opinions. Each of you is an important asset at GCA."

Bob:

I'd never think of denying Tom MacWood the right to his opinions--hey, I welcome him to say whatever he wants on here. You know me, I believe in the "Big World" theory in golf and I also believe in the "Big World" theory with discussion on here! At the same time whatever could be the reason to deny me calling him an ignorant, arrogant, sendentary Ohio homeboy, backward Indian jerk for his opinions?

Come on Bob, you know as well as anyone GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's discussion section isn't like a bunch of schoolgirls at a parlor dance, this is supposed to be like Dodge City on a Saturday night on here!  

[T_MacWood]

Here is a comparision of the RTJ redesigned course (with some of Prichard's early work) and the original course...did RTJ rebuild some of those greens?

I'm not commenting on the quality of the rebuilt Aronimink...I'm sure its excellent. I'm looking at it strictly from a historic standpoint, and in my view its not a restoration. Some people care about such issues others could care less....although I think there is a certain appeal today for courses that claim to be restored.

Obviously the quality of the course is a completely different issue...likely in the view of many on GCA the most important issue. You will find plently of support for the rebuilt ANGC, Bethpage and Sea Island, and who would argue these newer versions are not very good. The delema for those who study old architecture and architects...its difficult to argue that an accurate restoration of a long gone golf course would be superior to an existing golf course they are very fond of....especially if they believe the golf course is already accurately restored.

[Sean McCue]

Tepaul,

You say there is a list of reasons why the pond should be there? I would like to hear some of them.  As to your point about effecting the playabity of the hole i agree it is a more difficult shot into the green, but it is out of character with the rest of the course esspecially when you look at the slope of the grass line leading down to the water line.  It has modern day architecture written all over it.  It just does not fit in with the rest of the golf course.

Sean

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()