JB McGovern

[Patrick_Mucci]

When faced with the option: preliminary field drawings/notes vs the golf course as built by Ross, I'd opt for the golf course as built by Ross.  

Tom, here is where you drift into intellectual dishonesty.

How can you lie and state unequivically that you know that Ross built that golf course exactly as it appeared when it opened in 1928 ?  Especially when Ross himself was surprised at the results.

You want to believe that Ross built it that way, and he might have.  But, from where we sit today, noone knows that, including you.  So rather than make radical statements absent the facts let's find out how the golf course went from point A to point B.

Have you seen the identical type of detailed design drawings for each of the holes at Plainfield ?

Drawings followed to a T in the construction of Plainfield.

The detailed designs and notes are far from preliminary as you speculate in order to support your conclusion.  They are in the same format as Ross's FINAL designs.[/color]

Yours is an example of why conjectural restoration is normally a bad idea, you get someone with a vivid imagination making decisions based upon misguided speculation later shown to be erroneous.

Absolutely not.
I've made no speculation.
I've stated over and over that the mystery of how the golf course went from point A to point B needs to be discovered BEFORE any conclusions can be made, even your speculative conclusions.

It's you who has drawn rash conclusions, absent the facts that prove it.[/color]

Unless you have documentation of some strange circumstance, you have to go with as built rather than as planned....especially when the as planned is not the formalized plan and the architect was on site during construction.  [/b]

When I asked you when he was on site, you typically, refused to answer.  Either because you don't know, or because it would undermine your position.  So, I'll ask again, when was he on site ?   And, why was he SO SURPRISED at the results ?

To date, we KNOW what Ross wanted for Aronomink vis a vis his certified, detailed drawing and accompanying hole by hole notes.

We, and that includes you, DON'T know how or why the golf course was built differently from the detailed drawings.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I have not seen Plainfield's drawings. Are they rough preliminary sketches, like Aronimink, or the finished formalized plans?

I have no idea when precisely Ross was on site at Aronoimink, only that he was on site. I believe the only known film of the man was taken while he was on site inspecting Aronimink.

In Brad Klien's book he lists about 400 golf courses attributed to Ross, and notes if Ross was on site. He does not specify when exactly he was on site.

Do you know if Ross was on site at Plainfield, if so when and for how long? Mountain Ridge? Crestmount? The Sagamore? Do you know speficially when Ross was on site during construction of any golf course?

We also know Ross visited Aronimink after it was completed. He said, "I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew."

Some have argued that this is pure hyperbole, but I don't believe I've ever read Ross mention 'masterpiece' in describing one his designs. You believe it sounds like he was surprised by the design, speculating that the reason he was surprised was because the design had been altered. That is far fetched IMO, because that would require his oldest must trusted associate to have been complicit in a dramatic alteration after Ross left the site and without his knowledge....a pretty goofy consipiracy theory if you ask me. Perhaps it was done at gun point.

Before one goes about restoring a plan that was never constructed, I believe it would wise to have concrete information as to why you believed he intended to build the course as planned, but could not. In the absense of this information the most logical explanation is that he changed the plan. Add to this the fact that he was on site during construction and he was obviously quite proud of the final result.

[wsmorrison]

The last piece of the puzzle (unless information turns up that explains how/why the bunkers were built in sets of 2s and 3s) is whether or not the bunkers as built match the location of the bunkers on the Ross plan and if the size and depth of the sets of bunkers match the dimensions of the singular bunkers.  

The drawings that Ron Prichard used and that Tom Paul has copies of, can be compared to the photo in Geoff's book or better yet, the construction and course opening photos from the Hagley (which as I have).  If they do, and I suspect they will, the work that Ron Prichard did cannot be characterized as a "dramatic alteration" but rather a stylistic or aesthetic variation.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
Good summary above.
Mike

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
When restoring a golf course do you think getting the stylistic and aesthetic details right is important?

[wsmorrison]

Mike Y,

Thanks my friend.  Tom and I will take a look at the drawings versus as built photographs sometime soon and get back with the results.

Tom,

It is not so simple as getting the sytlistic and aesthetic details right or wrong.  I think practically speaking, you have to consider:

1.  Maintenance cost differences between 80 or so large bunkers and nearly 200 smaller bunkers.  Money matters to many clubs, maybe not Aronimink, but only they can say what went into the decision making process and we sure aren't privy to that.

2.  Are the stylistic differences consistant with the architect?  In this case, both results are consistant with Ross and all we can say for certain right now is the way it is today corresponds to the hole drawings and detailed construction instructions.

3.  What does the club want to do.  We should never underestimate the fact that they pay for the work and for the upkeep and it is their property to do with as they please.  I think it imperitive that historians present evidence and provide background and perspective.  But it is not our place to make decisions for them.  At best, we can educate and lead them to what we perceive as being right but I would rarely presume to know what's best, only what the historical record is.  As regards Flynn, perhaps I do know more than most

4.  What was designed and/or built by the classic era architects is not always what is best.  Agronomic advances and maintenance equipment allows a greater range of designs and interpretations.  Of course the likelihood of mistakes has been proven to be fairly high.  But that doesn't mean improvements cannot be made.  They can, especially with a team of experts including  Architect, Construction Crew, Maintenance staff, golf professional and membership must work together.  The added value of an historian is, as I have always said essential to making an informed decision.  There is a continuum of good and bad in each category...sort of the chain being as strong as the weakest link.  But if all parts are working well...great results can and do occur.

I do think it is important to get all the details right.  A Flynn bunker reconstructed by a crew that doesn't do them well and misses the aesthetic/style is bad and should be avoided.   Rebuilding bunkers in a different manner than originally as built can only be acceptable if it is according to plans and/or within the architect's styles.  

I think I would have built them, to be safe, as found in the original photos, but if they are only multiple sets rather than a single bunker, that's OK by me...there's far worse to consider and worry about.  I would not and do not feel that there was any failure at all.  In fact, I think its working out fine.

[TEPaul]

"Pat
I have not seen Plainfield's drawings. Are they rough preliminary sketches, like Aronimink, or the finished formalized plans?"

Tom MacWood:

Where have you seen what you refer to as Ross's 'rough preliminary sketches, like Aronimink'?

Is what you've seen of Aronimink's holes from Ross on plain paper or the more formal (boilerplate) hole grid paper? Do you have copies of those Ross Aronimink sketches or plans?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I thought you said you weren't going post anymore on this subject....you told a fib.  

I've seen the plans at the Tufts...I have a copy of the plan of the first hole, which I posted on GCA a few months ago. Those rough plans were normally taken back to Pinehurst (or where ever) and converted into formalized plans (including a large master plan) by Walter Johnson...one of the formilized sets would ultimately be presented to the club. That plan for Aronimink is AOL. Which plan does Plainfield have...the rough or the formalized?

Actually, I've spoken to Ron a couple of times on the phone, my guess the last time was about two years ago. I remember him asking me about my Alison essay (and my A&C essay if I remember correctly), and I told him I'd e-mail them to him...he then asked if I'd fax it (I can't remember why the fax, it might have been a printer problem, I don't recall). Which I did.....it was one big fax.

He told me he really didn't have the time, nor the resources to do thorough research...he went on to explain that he had no clue who did what on a project he had recently been hired to restore (or had just finished restoring)--Minneapolis CC. If I'm not mistaken he decided to give it the Ross treatment. I told him if he needed help doing research I'd help him. That was the last time I spoke to him.

An interesting note on Aronimink, when the club moved to the new site, they hired a new head pro--Joseph Capello. Capello was a top assistant for Ross at Pinehurst. It would appear the lines of communication between Newtown Square and Pinehurst were open and strong....which makes the Ross totally in the dark theory even less plausible.

[TEPaul]

"He told me he really didn't have the time, nor the resources to do thorough research...he went on to explain that he had no clue who did what on a project he had recently been hired to restore (or had just finished restoring)--Minneapolis CC. If I'm not mistaken he decided to give it the Ross treatment. I told him if he needed help doing research I'd help him. That was the last time I spoke to him."

Tom MacWood:

Thanks for that answer. Ron told me you called him and I just thought I'd ask you about that too. From the last two sentences of your answer I'm sure you see why I asked you that question. I'm sure others may see the reason I asked you that question too. It certainly appears to many of us that you have an ax to grind with Ron Prichard and that answer of yours just might indicate what it is---eg research and the fact that you may feel if he'd only taken you up on your offer some of these restoration projects would've been better, purer, more exact to Ross, or whatever.

You said:

"An interesting note on Aronimink, when the club moved to the new site, they hired a new head pro--Joseph Capello. Capello was a top assistant for Ross at Pinehurst. It would appear the lines of communications between Newtown Square and Pinehurst were open and strong."

True enough. In the tournament program from July 1931 you said I've mentioned on here for years and I now have and will make available on here there is an ad for the Aronimink Pro Shop with head professional Joseph A. Cappello displayed prominently in the ad. At the bottom of the ad it say;

         JOSEPH A. CAPELLO
            golf professional
Aronimink G.C.                   Pinehurst, N.C.
April 1st to Jan 1st             Jan 1st to April 1st

Just recently from a recent local article and from caddie Biil Fazio (expert on Jeffersonville G.C. and caddie at US Amateur in Newport for Buddy Marucci) I heard from his discussion with J.B. McGovern's daughter that Ms McGovern said for a time in her young life she lived in Pinehurst N.C.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Were those Ross sketches you refer to as 'preliminary' on clear paper or on hole grid paper? And how much less detailed would you say the drawing and text was compared to what Walter Irving Johnson generally produced for Ross?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Sorry, no axe to grind with Ron or Rees or any of the architects. I was questioning the thought process at Aronimink at least six or seven months prior to my first conversation with Ron Prichard. Nice try though. Here is an old thread...I suspect my Aronimink commentary predates this as well:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=8;start=msg251#msg251

Perhaps more detailed, certainly more clairity and precision, and of course finality...the formal plans are the final iteration.

[TEPaul]

“TE
Sorry, no axe to grind with Ron or Rees or any of the architects. I was questioning the thought process at Aronimink at least six or seven months prior to my first conversation with Ron Prichard. Nice try though. Here is an old thread...I suspect my Aronimink commentary predates this as well:”

Tom MacWood:

Do you? Then why did you say this today”?

You said:

“Actually, I've spoken to Ron a couple of times on the phone, my guess the last time was about two years ago.”

Tom:

The way I make it the remark of yours below on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com was just about two years ago and that was the last time you spoke to him? Ron seems to remember you called him to offer your research or research abilities or whatever you call what you do out there in that Ivory Tower in Ohio. He seems to recall that never happened for whatever reason. I was just wondering if you felt he rejected you or your offer and that’s the axe you have to grind with him.

You said:

“Actually Aronimink is a good example of the problem of guessing about the architect's original intent. No one knows  the true story surrounding the found Aronimink plans.
We're they a plan that was later rejected--a first draft so to speak? We're they a plan that Ross intended to have constructed--but a rogue constructor ignored? We're they a plan that was ultimately changed in the field under Ross's direction?
Your guess is as good as mine. The problem is it is a guess--we don't know what Ross's intended. We do know what was built. And the course as constructed was certainly not restored...a course Ross was evidently proud of.”

Tom:

This remark of yours from June of 2003 (two years ago) is no different from the situation today, except as of last week we were finally able to actually prove that those multi-set bunkers were originally built (due to the 1929 and earlier aerials Wayne looked at in the Hagley last week).  But the same problem exists today that existed back then. Even if those multi-set bunkers were originally built that is by no means proof that was the way Ross intended them to be built, and no amount of insisting on your part that since they were built it’s proof that’s what he wanted can make it proof. That’s what Prichard, Aronimink and practically everyone seems to understand and did back then when their decision was made. What they knew is they likely couldn’t be sure of that and perhaps never could, and so they did the reasonable thing and created bunkers that they at least knew really were Ross’s design and construction instructions in his own hand. The fact that you seem to conclude that when something is built one can positively conclude that’s proof that the architect of record intended it to be that way is what basically defies common sense on you part, in my opinion. A case like Dick Wilson at Shinnecock under William Flynn is ample proof of that type of occurrence. Of course someone like you might say that instance at Shinnecock was the only time that ever happened but of course that too would defy common sense on your part, as I sure everyone would common-sensically understand.

[TEPaul]

In a way, I'm very sorry any of us, certainly including me ever got involved in the discussion of this bunker project at Aronimink that you've made such an issue over as a mistake for so long. As far as I can tell you may be the only one anywhere who’s done that.or who feels that way. And so the interesting question here is why did you do that and continue to maintain the decision in the bunker project was a mistake? I’ve asked you three or four times now what it is about those multi-set bunkers that leads you to claim they made Aronimink remarkable and what it is in your opinion about Ross’s single bunkers on his plans that lead you to maintain creating them now is a mistake. You’ve never bothered to try to answer that and I’m wondering if you even know how to logically answer that or perhaps you can’t answer it without virtually admitting it’s simply because you have some axe to grind with Ron Prichard.

Here's a real irony within this entire ironic situation of the Aronimink project on this webstie that should probably be an excellent example of how you made a mountain out of a mole-hill here over how the bunkers of Aronimink were built and whether or not Ross approved them and how creating recently the bunker scheme on Ross’s own plans was a mistake.

Wayne asked you yesterday why you think there’s such a significant difference between those two bunker schemes (on Ross’s plan and what was built), particularly if it’s basically the fact that 2 or 3 smaller bunkers were created where Ross’s plan called for a single. Is it the fact that Aronimink once had 200 bunkers in basically the same spaces Ross called for app. 80-90 bunkers that makes you think that was so remarkable? Is simply the number of bunkers on the course what makes you think it was so remarkable? If that’s all that makes you think Aronimink was remarkable then how do you judge the original ANGC that only had about 22 bunkers originally?

Apparently others don’t see any big deal between the two bunker schemes and apparently never did. Shortly I’ll try to present on here that Tournament program from July of 1931, almost three years after the original bunkers were built. The very professional hole by hole drawings by artist William Herbert Sickels show the bunkers in 1931 as almost identical to Ross’s plan. We now know that the bunkers at Aronimink at that time were the app 200 multi-sets in 2s and 3s basically in the same places where Ross called for single bunkers.

The program also has text explanations of each hole by club members Norman H. Maxwell and J.B. McGovern. Obviously we know that McGovern was the project manager for Ross at Aronimink. The irony in this entire years long issue you’ve made over the difference in bunkering is if they didn’t mention it or apparently even notice that Sickels copied the Ross scheme instead of what got built, then why are you questioning it so strenuously now, and making such an issue over the fact that Ross’s plan as created recently is such a mistake?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I first contacted Ron in December of '04...we connected sometime around the holidays. A very nice gentleman.

Its pretty interesting to go back and see who was saying what two years ago.

“Again, in the case of Aronimink the club had Ross's original drawings and a later aerial showing fairway bunkering unlike anything Ron Prichard had ever seen from Donald Ross. That right away made him suspicious as to whether it was something Ross was involved in or even whether it had been altered after the course was built. Both Prichard and the club really wanted to restore fairway bunkering that WAS Donald Ross so they decided to go with what they really did know was Ross's. It was something they pondered over for quite a time and did all the research they could. There were other factors that led them to believe it may have been J.B. McGovern and they really didn't want to restore J.B. McGovern bunkering rather than Ross bunkering.” ~~TEP 6/03

This illustrates what can go wrong when the research is incomplete, and you're forced to rely upon speculation (educated guessing). Obviously Ross was involved, and we now know conclusively (thanks to Wayne and the Hagley) that the course was not altered right after being built.

In the process of creating this hypothetical chain events based upon erroneous guessing, unfortunately JB McGovern was dragged through the mud….he was made more or less the scape goat to make the story work.

“What am I missing? I just went through the different interpretations of the research and frankly the conclusions don’t hold water from a historical point of view....” ~~TMac 6/03

We now know conclusively why the interpretations (speculation) did not hold water…because they were based on wacky logic and incomplete research. Its unfortunate they didn't look for those old photos at the Hagley (why they didn't is a mystery)...if nothing else at least McGovern's reputation would have been spared.

[wsmorrison]

"we now know conclusively (thanks to Wayne and the Hagley) that the course was not altered right after being built."

To be fair, I would never have gone to the Hagley to look for early aerials of Aronimink (construction and course opening) except that Tom alerted me.  The proof was in the photos though.  It is an outstanding resource.  I'll get around to listing all the courses they have photos of sometime soon.

[Pat_Mucci]

Pat
I have not seen Plainfield's drawings. Are they rough preliminary sketches, like Aronimink, or the finished formalized plans?

They are anything but rough, preliminary sketches.
They're detailed and precisely graphed, and, the golf course reflects their resemblence.[/color]

I have no idea when precisely Ross was on site at Aronoimink, only that he was on site.

Then how can you make the allegation that he was on site, implying that he oversaw every detail of construction ?[/color]

I believe the only known film of the man was taken while he was on site inspecting Aronimink.

For public relations, construction status or opening day ?[/color]

In Brad Klien's book he lists about 400 golf courses attributed to Ross, and notes if Ross was on site. He does not specify when exactly he was on site.

So your sole point of attribution is Brad Klein's vague reference that Ross was on site ?  And, you don't know if it was for an hour or a day or when ?  That's some data base to use to draw absolute and comprehensive conclusions.
I'd call it intellectual dishonesty.[/color]

Do you know if Ross was on site at Plainfield, if so when and for how long? Mountain Ridge? Crestmount? The Sagamore? Do you know speficially when Ross was on site during construction of any golf course?

That information isn't relevant to the topic and issue at hand, Aronomink.
You were the one insisting that Ross oversaw construction and that he was on site, implying that the entire project was under his direct supervision, from A to Z, start to finish.

You made the broad or wild claims and now, under scrutiny, you can't back them up with the facts.[/color]

We also know Ross visited Aronimink after it was completed. He said, "I intended to make this course my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew."
That would indicate he was surprised with the finished product.  He was an architect of unparalleled ability, and he's surprised at what he built ?  Sounds to me like he mailed it in.
[/color]

Some have argued that this is pure hyperbole, but I don't believe I've ever read Ross mention 'masterpiece' in describing one his designs. You believe it sounds like he was surprised by the design, speculating that the reason he was surprised was because the design had been altered. That is far fetched IMO, because that would require his oldest must trusted associate to have been complicit in a dramatic alteration after Ross left the site and without his knowledge....a pretty goofy consipiracy theory if you ask me. Perhaps it was done at gun point.

Once again you drift to wild, extreme examples in the hope of making your point.  You don't know what happened between point A and point B.  Admit it.

And, your support of "hyperbole", is as speculative as anything else.

If Ross was involved with 400+ golf courses, it's not unlikely that individuals other than Ross built the golf courses, and with that process, deviation from the actual plans is more of a reality than an impossibility.[/color]

Before one goes about restoring a plan that was never constructed, I believe it would wise to have concrete information as to why you believed he intended to build the course as planned, but could not.

You don't know that he couldn't.
That's one of your faults, you jump to conclusions to the exclusion of all other possibilities.[/color]

In the absense of this information the most logical explanation is that he changed the plan.

That is not the most logical explanation.

That's YOUR conclusion.
I'd rather build to his known plans, plans which he evidenced at almost every club he built, rather than a product that doesn't have an identifiable author.[/color]

Add to this the fact that he was on site during construction and he was obviously quite proud of the final result.

When was he on site Tom ?

You've already admited that you don't know.

and you reference a vague asterik from Brad Klein as your unimpeachable source, hardly expert data and research.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Regarding why I think the original Aronimink was remarkable...I've answered that question many times in the past, evidently it didn't register so I'll answer it again.
 
As far as I know Ross rarely built a golf course with 200 bunkers...in fact Aronimink is quite possibly the only one (Seminole and Broadmoor may be close). But considering the time and place, its understandible why Ross would turn it up a notch at Aronimink. (An other interesting note about Aronimink were the type bunkers, flashed as opposed to grass faced, it must have given the course a very interesting aesthetic....stylish, and was quite appropriate for Philadelphia.)

Merion had hosted the US Am in 1924 and recieved critical acclaim (and would host the championship again in 1930). The improvements made by Wilson and Flynn had made it one of the premier courses in the US.

Pine Valley was Pine Valley, and the course was at a state of near perfection at that time (after years of touch and go).

And you can add Delaware Water Gap, it was getting a lot of publicity as Tilly's dream project.

It was a tough neighborhood, and Ross created a bold and challenging design to match the neighbors--heavily bunkered, stylish bunkering, bold greens and 6600 yard par-70. I've always advocated that the unique and most interesting designs of these great architects should be preserved and protected.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Are the Plainfield plans drawn by Ross or Johnson?

The film was during the constuction phase.

What broad or wild claims are now under scrutiny?  

That the course was altered during the Depression right after it was finished or that "an individual, be it the club President, Superintendent, construction chief, project manager or job foreman altered the original plans and built the golf course to his liking"?  

Is it your position that for Ross course to be considered a Ross course one must document the precise number of days Ross was on site?

For a guy who doesn't have any research abilities of your own, you sure demand alot. If I told the dates he was there you'd ask me what hours of the day was he there....if I told you the hours of the day...you'd ask if he actually went out over the site...if I told he did...you'd ask if he spoke to anyone....if he spoke to his men...you'd ask do we know if they could understand what said with his strong Scotish brogue...etc etc etc etc etc etc...

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood at 11:23am 6/30/05

“Actually, I've spoken to Ron a couple of times on the phone, my guess the last time was about two years ago.”

Tom MacWood 6:57pm 6/30/05

“TE
I first contacted Ron in December of '04...we connected sometime around the holidays.”

Tom MacWood:

That’s pretty indicative of this entire Aronimink bunker restoration discussion with you that’s been going on for a few years now. This morning you said the LAST time you called him was in June ’03 and this evening, a few hours later, you say the FIRST time you called him was Dec ‘’04 (just six months ago)??

My God, man, is there any wonder I keep questioning the accuracy of the things you say, assume and conclude on here?

[T_MacWood]

TE
You really are desperate to show me up. You asked me when I spoke to Ron Prichard, I said "I've spoken to Ron a couple of times on the phone, my guess the last time was about two years ago."

A vague recollection of the time of our consversation of some time ago....see 'my guess'...'about two years ago'.

When in the next post you suggested that our converstation sparked a bitter interest in the Aronimink 'restoration'...I checked to see when the conversation took place. If Ron doesn't have the message I sent him dated December 4, 2004, let me know...I'll send you a copy. Once again another of your theories leaking water...incomplete research.
 
Carry on.

[T_MacWood]

TE
My mistake....the message is dated December 4, 2003. Sorry.

I was critical of the historical/restoration logic at Aronimink at least six months prior to my first conversation with Ron.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You really are desperate to show me up"

Tom MacWood:

Call it that if you want but I prefer to call my challenging and questioning of your opinions of Prichard and the Aronimink bunker project simply persistence.

Perhaps you're not aware of it but during this entire years long discussion on Aronimink's bunker project Ive simply been attempting to present the chronicle of the bunker restoration project on here for Ron Prichard, the club, and those around here who have an opinion on it. The fact that I was actually there during it is important to know, I think, certainly when comparing what I've said on this subject to some of the things you've assumed, concluded and stated on here. To point out you've never even been to Aronimink---to point out you've never seen it before, during or after the project is pertinent, to say the least. To point out you may be the only one to feel a mistake was made in their decisoin-making and in the project leading them somehow to denigrate or fail to respresent Ross's architecture is pertinent too.

Am I trying to show you up? Yes I am. I think that very much needs to be done on here stemming from some of the things you've said, particularly about Prichard and Aronimink. On this thread you suggested that clubs should be aware of this kind of lack of research and poor decision making---you've called it 'guess-work' or 'dangerous guess-work'---in their future decisions on restorations and architects to hire. Obviously to you that means Ron Prichard.

I will question and challenge you on that given the reasons you've presented which I believe are poor reasons, poor assumptions and poor conclusions----three things I believe you are not infrequently prone to. My personal feeling is you criticize research and an architect such as Prichard and a project such as Aronimink's to put yourself in a better light as what you refer to yourself as----eg "an expert researcher".

I see you modified your last post when you removed your question to me of whether I will tire of questioning and challenging you. But since you asked, I'm more than willing to tell you that me tiring of questioning and challenging you is not likely if you continue to say on here some of the thngs you have about an architect like Prichard and Aronimink's project. I simply believe you are wrong in what you say on those subjects, and I believe your motivations in saying those thngs are self-serving, and I feel the contributors and those who read this website should know that.

You also asked me on here if I'll ever tire of having my existence on this website revolve around challenging you (although you may have modified or removed that remark). I doubt that kind of remark is worth much of an answer on my part other than to say I feel it's just another example of your tendency to be self-serving and to be self-flattering.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

May I ask you why your posts are now labeled "Snowman MacWood"?

I realize you're not as old as I am but the interesting etymology and meaning of the word "snowman" when I was growing up was someone who took certain liberties with the truth. Keep the label---I'd say it's appropriate.  

[Pat_Mucci]

Pat
Are the Plainfield plans drawn by Ross or Johnson?
Let's stay on Aronomink.
If you want to start a post on Plainfield, I'll participate.[/color]

The film was during the constuction phase.

Wasn't construction a three year project ?
At what specific time, and at what stage of the construction was the film taken ?
You still don't know when Ross was on site, and what his role was when he was there.[/color]

What broad or wild claims are now under scrutiny?  

Your conclusion that Ross and Ross ALONE altered his design and built the bunkers other than as depicted in his detailed plans.[/color]

That the course was altered during the Depression right after it was finished or that "an individual, be it the club President, Superintendent, construction chief, project manager or job foreman altered the original plans and built the golf course to his liking"?  

Do you have absolute proof that that didn't happen ?[/color]

Is it your position that for Ross course to be considered a Ross course one must document the precise number of days Ross was on site?

NO

And, this isn't a question of whether it's a Ross course.
Ross did the routing and the individual hole design.
The question is, how did the bunkers go from
Point A to Point B ?  Who did it, and why ?  And, you don't know.[/color]

For a guy who doesn't have any research abilities of your own, you sure demand alot.

This is a perfect example at your jumping to conclusions absent the facts, conclusions you want to believe to support your position.  You don't know the first thing about my research abilities.   I don't demand anything, I just asked you critical questions which you typically avoid because you don't know the answer, or the answer which you do know undermines your position.

TEPaul has asked you a question about which drawings you've seen time and time again, and you refuse to answer them.   My guess is, that at the point the question is asked, you don't know the answer, and scramble to find it, AFTER THE FACT, to make it look like you knew it prior to the asking of the question.

And, it was my idea to locate photos taken at or around the day the golf course opened, and not rely on the 1939 photo as you did.  It was TEPaul and Wayne Morrison who found the photos, not you, so you can stop patting yourself on the back.
[/color]

If I told the dates he was there you'd ask me what hours of the day was he there....if I told you the hours of the day...you'd ask if he actually went out over the site...if I told he did...you'd ask if he spoke to anyone....if he spoke to his men...you'd ask do we know if they could understand what said with his strong Scotish brogue...etc etc etc etc etc etc...

That's bullshit and you know it.
That's you way of saying YOU DON"T KNOW THE ANSWER

You don't know when he was there even though you stated that he was there, implying that he was overseeing the entire process of construction, including the bunker work, when actually, your claim was based solely on a vague reference, an asterik, in Brad Klein's information.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"TE
Its pretty interesting to go back and see who was saying what two years ago.

“Again, in the case of Aronimink the club had Ross's original drawings and a later aerial showing fairway bunkering unlike anything Ron Prichard had ever seen from Donald Ross. That right away made him suspicious as to whether it was something Ross was involved in or even whether it had been altered after the course was built. Both Prichard and the club really wanted to restore fairway bunkering that WAS Donald Ross so they decided to go with what they really did know was Ross's. It was something they pondered over for quite a time and did all the research they could. There were other factors that led them to believe it may have been J.B. McGovern and they really didn't want to restore J.B. McGovern bunkering rather than Ross bunkering.” ~~TEP 6/03

This illustrates what can go wrong when the research is incomplete, and you're forced to rely upon speculation (educated guessing). Obviously Ross was involved, and we now know conclusively (thanks to Wayne and the Hagley) that the course was not altered right after being built.

In the process of creating this hypothetical chain events based upon erroneous guessing, unfortunately JB McGovern was dragged through the mud….he was made more or less the scape goat to make the story work.

“What am I missing? I just went through the different interpretations of the research and frankly the conclusions don’t hold water from a historical point of view....” ~~TMac 6/03

We now know conclusively why the interpretations (speculation) did not hold water…because they were based on wacky logic and incomplete research. Its unfortunate they didn't look for those old photos at the Hagley (why they didn't is a mystery)...if nothing else at least McGovern's reputation would have been spared."

Tom MacWood:

You asked me this morning if I'll ever tire of trying to show you up. The answer to that is very clealy no! And the reason why is because of posts like the one above from you.

Do you want to rerun this entire two or so year discussion of what you continue to claim went wrong with the research and bunker project at Aronimink? Because if you continue to keep making posts like the one I quoted above from you yesterday I never will stop questioning you and challenging you on this particular subject.

You said:

"Obviously Ross was involved, and we now know conclusively (thanks to Wayne and the Hagley) that the course was not altered right after being built."

Do you think if you say something enough times on here it's eventually going to be seen as fact? Apparently you do. We now know that those multi-set bunkers were built originally at Aronimink but we do not know that Ross was involved in the alteration of Aronimink's bunker scheme from his plans no matter if they were originally built that way.

You now apparently are trying to float the theory that if something is originally built or what you call "as built" that must mean that's precisely what the architect of recorded wanted built. I don't care who you think you are Tom MacWood, research-wise or otherwise, that is simply a false statement to make on here or anywhere else. But pointing that out and supplying extremely credible reasons why that may not be true does not seem to phase you and your point in the slightest, and that to me is either nonsense, obduracy or idiocy.

Why don't you try at least acknowledging the example we gave you of Shinnecock and Dick Wilson and the change he made to Flynn's plans on that course---a change that had to be altered back to plan to the consternation of Toomey and Flynn and William Gordon? Apparently you don't choose to answer that example and that point because it doesn't fit in very well with your assumptions and conclusions on this Aronimink bunker project thread and McGovern thread.

How many times do I need to tell you that Aronimink and Prichard wanted Ross's own bunkering for Aronimink put on that course and the fact is they had precisely that in very detailed form right in their hands. Since there was nothing else extant and still isn't explaining why or showing why changes were made to Ross's design plans they decided to go with what really was Ross's design and to forego any guess work of whether what was on that course was someone else's.

When are you going to give up this ridiculous mission of yours to prove Prichard and Aronimink wrong in their research, their decision-making and their bunker project? When are you going to stop doing things on here like trying to float and prove some wacko theory that what gets built on a golf course has to be what was intended by the architect of record?

We gave you an excellent example of how that failed to happen with Toomey and Flynn and I think we can pretty much guarantee that Flynn with his app fifty career projects ran an helluva lot tighter construction operation than Ross did with his app 400 career projects. It's pretty significant too, to say the least, that these unintended liberties were taken by crewman Dick Wilson on what's clearly Flynn's flagship golf course, and perhaps one of the best ever done----Shinneock.

Continue to fail to acknowledge things like this if you want to but it sure does undermine the things you try to maintain on here, in my opinion.