[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It could be that a sketch labeled 4A merely leaves room for subsequent iterations, it doesn't automatically mean that sketch 4B exists, only that the potential for additional variations exists.  And that may be the format by which Ross chose to reflect his designs.

Your sketch is rudimentary and doesn't resemble or contain the detailed information contained in the detailed Aronomink and Plainfield design plans.

Ross's detailed design plans for Aronomink reflect detailed green contours, bunker configurations and depths, as well as other information.  Your sketch could in no way be used in the field, it lacks the pertinent or critical information necessary to be translated to the labor force for construction purposes.

You're misguided or misinformed or more likely, both.

[TEPaul]

"Seminole is a good example. The bunkering for the course as built differs on some of the holes from the plan. Holston Hills is another. The rough sketch/field notes of the 7th is completely different than the formalized plan drawn by Johnson. And the course as built differs slightly from the formalized plans. And of course Aronimink...here is an interesting example of a formalized plan being different than the rough sketch. I'm not sure why this hole is labeled as 4A. I do not believe Aronimink was ever planned as a 27 hole course. Perhaps there is a 4B somewhere out there."

Tom MacWood:

But you see the formalized plan by Johnson at Holstein exists doesn't it? If that were true with the alterations to the cluster bunkers at Aronimink logically the club probably would have restored to the clustered bunkers. Formalized plans by Walter Irving Johnson were undeniably plans approved by Ross. But where are those formalized plans by Johnson for Aronimink? That's the point you keep failing to appreciate---eg the club wanted to be sure the bunkers they were going to do were Ross's plans. Johnson plans certainly are Ross's plans in a formalized presentation. Aronimink does not have such formalized plans by Johnson for the present course. And so why the bunkers went from Ross's plans to clusters remains a mystery and the club did not want to create bunkers if there remained speculaton that they were Ross's.

Aronimink G.C. apparently was designed by Ross as a 27 hole club. The third nine was apparently slated for land on and behind the present practice range. I believe Aronimink may still own that land but I'm not certain. I believe I recall hearing about the original proposed third nine at Aronimink by Ross during the time Aronimink had the opportunity to buy the Harrison estate across the street for a possible additional 18 holes. They consdiered buying the Harrison estate (app 200 acres) about 15 years ago but decided not to do so.

That drawing you posted was likely for the third nine and has nothing to do with a different hole iteration on the present and original 18 hole course.

[TEPaul]

"TE
If I recall correctly, after you stopped screaming at me...I asked you if I'm a fraud and liar for claiming Crump killed himself, what would I be if in fact it turned out he did kill himself...after stammering a while, you said an excellent reasearcher. My memory is pretty good."

Tom MacWood:

Please try not to flatter yourself over the discovery that Crump shot himself. That Crump may have shot himself was a story that had been extant around PVGC from the beginning. Anyone who knew anything about the club knew of that story. The mention of that by me is all over this website for the last few years. I heard that story perhaps 30 years ago when I came to Philadelphia and got to know PV. I heard that story again from GeoffShac perhaps 7-8 years ago. He even mentioned back then that he may write about it someday. I asked him why he'd want to do that and he said just to write about a complex and interesting man's life other than the golf course he was so well known for.

When you and I got into a heated discussion about Crump's death it emanated from your contention that PVGC (and Philadelphia golf in fact) was in some combined conspiracy to glorify Crump to minimize Harry Colt. You know damn well that's what you and Paul Turner were trying to at first float on here, Tom MacWood.

When you mentioned on here that Crump committed suicide all I asked you (as did Wayne) was if you could prove that. You said you could and when we constantly asked you how it began that ridiculous run-around with you and those offiicials at the Merchantville township office during which you accused me of ruining one of those officials live's and reputations by revealing any contact with him.

The man was defiinitely not some reporter's secret source of classified information that required confidentiality. He's there for anyone to ask information of about Merchantville and any of its history including the circumstances of Crump's death. He was more than a little annoyed that you never even bothered to explain to him why you were asking him about Crump and his death. If you even considered writing about that you at least owed him the ethicial explanation that you may write about it. You never did that according to him.

When I asked you during that phone call what it was you planned to write about you told me you planned to write an essay about how an expert researcher/writer was harrased by writing about such a subject. And if you deny now saying that to me on the phone you really are a liar.

The next thing I know you wrote an essay about Crump's personal life and family history and the legend created by and around him as a result of what he did at PVGC. This is and was the very thing the club and those that know about Crump and PVGC have always felt about him. There was little to no mention in your essay about the glorification of Crump by PV to minimize Colt or any campaign on the part of PV to cover up the fact of his suicide for some odd agenda---the very things you'd been implying on this site previously. Isn't it interesting that you changed the theme of your essay so much. I wonder why that was.

I think your Crump article was very intereting and as I've said it probably will be an important additon to the history of the club now.

But one really does need to ask something about your essay about Crump's suicide, something that I've hestitated to ask henceforth. And that is why did you write it? Did it have anything to do with the architeture of PVGC, the kind of subject we deal with on this website? Did it try to explain why he committed suicide? Not really. Did it say anything we didn't already know about what Crump did there or what Colt did there that I hadn't already said on this website numerous times. No it didn't.

So why did you write it? Was it to prove that you could research and find the truth of the circumstances of his death? Was it to show GOLFCLUBATLAS that you could do it and prove that you're a great researcher? I asked some of my friends down there who are most closely connected to PVGC why no one ever bothered to take the time and make the effort to find out the truth of the circumstances of Crump's death when the rumor of a suicide had been around for almost 90 years.  

Their consensus response was why would anyone do that. The truth is we and all his friends knew he died suddenly and tragically whether it was from poison to the brain or a bullet to the brain. He was loved for who he was and respected for what he did for PVGC and what he accomplished there. How and why he died always seemed to all of us like a subject that should be just left with Crump at his death.

During the heated discussion with you over PVGC and if you could prove Crump's suicide I thought about petitioning the state and/or locality for his DC myself. I even went so far as to discuss with Merchantville and the state of NJ what I had to do if I wanted his DC. Then I asked myself why I'd do such a thing. What was the purpose of it? I asked myself why all those people from PV and others had never thought to do that before. I asked myself why, even knowing of the rumor of his suicide for the last thirty years, the thought to actually investigate if he actually had shot himself had never occured to me to try to do.

In the end I decided that to pursue the circumstances of Crump's untimely death would serve no positive purpose at all except for those who have an odd curiosity about that kind of thing.

Nevertheless, as I've said before, I think your essey was interesting although I can't really understand why you went to the lengths you did to prove that the 90 year old rumor was true except to say that you could actually prove it. Anyone could have done that in the last 90 years. That no one tried probably said a great deal about PVGC and particularly George Crump.


 

[TEPaul]

"The rough sketch/field notes of the 7th is completely different than the formalized plan drawn by Johnson."

Of what golf course?

[TEPaul]

"I believe you are mistaken, the formailzed plan above matches the topography for the present 4th at Aronimink."

Actually it does not. The entire green-end on the 4th is not raised as in that drawing.

"Aronimink G.C. apparently was designed by Ross as a 27 hole club."

"Go back and check it out....if the plan was to build 27 holes there must be record of it somewhere."

Tom MacWood, why in God's name don't you call the club and check it out yourself if you're so interested in this and such an expert in research as you're so fond of reminding us you are and so fond of reminding all of us that we aren't?

But I will check it out myself. Again, for over thirty years now I've heard Aronimink originally had a third nine planned by Ross on and behind the present practice range. A record of it somewhere? Where did you get that drawing that says 4A? My sense is that's a hole that probably is a record of a hole on Ross's third nine at Aronimink---a nine that was never done.

Philadephia Cricket had two 18 hole courses by Tillinghast that were never done. Philadelphia C.C. had a third nine that was never done (until Fazio did another one about 15 years ago) and I've always heard there was a third nine to Aronimink by Ross that was never done.

[TEPaul]

"The rough sketch above is rudementary like all the other Ross rough sketches (by the way this is the rough sketch for the 1st at Aronimink). The notes were to the right of this sketch but were cut off on the scan."

I realize that's Ross's sketch of Aronimink's !st. Ron Prichard sent them all to me and I gave them to Wayne last night to scan in if need be.

That is not a rough sketch by Ross either. It's probably as comprehensive a sketch as Ross himself ever did. That's certainly the way Ron Prichard feels about the Aroonimink Ross drawings and he's been doing this for over thirty years---a lot longer and a lot more comprehensively than you have. It would seem from the things you say about him and his projects though that you're out to prove you to someone you know more about Ross and Ross restorations than he does.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Tom MacWood,
I think you're confused.
The image above is a rough sketch, not the detailed design plans, which show exact yardages, depths, green contouring and other detailed information, including written instructions.
No wonder you don't get it, you're looking at the wrong drawings."

Pat:

That's hilarious. Yoiu're so right---Tom MacWood has just got things completely backwards but why would that surprise anyone? How would a foreman and crew construct a hole to that drawing he put up there calling it a formalized plan? No dimensions, no written instructions, no explanation of what he wanted. It's an interesting drawing though, likely for a hole on the proposed third nine at Aronimink that was never done. Of course Tom MacWood doesn't know that---he's trying to suggest it's another iterartion for the present 4th hole of Aronimink. Is there any end to the distortions and claptrap this guy will come up with about Aronimink?

By the way, someone told me Tom MacWood did a world-wind investigation of architecture in some region saying he saw 7 golf courses in a single day. When asked how he managed to do that he said he saw about 2-3  holes on each course. That's some real in-depth research don't you think? Maybe he ought to stop by Aronimink and at least look at the first hole from the first tee---the same vantage as the on-ground photo from 1929 he posted on here thereby explaining what the bunkers of Aronimink look like. He told us he could see the third hole and it's bunkers on that photo. Only trouble is if he botthered to go to the first tee at Aronimink he'd quickly figure out that's not possible now and it wasn't possible in 1929.   Just another good example of the fact that to begin to understand a golf course and it's architecture you pretty much need to go to that golf course and study it carefully.

Why would anyone take seriously the criticisms of a golf course at any time by someone who's never even been to that golf course?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said last night”

“I'm not sure why this hole is labeled as 4A. I do not believe Aronimink was ever planned as a 27 hole course. Perhaps there is a 4B somewhere out there”.

Tom MacWood said this morning;

“TE
Aronimink was planned by Ross to be 27 holes. The formal plan is over the ground of the present 4th, but the green is in a different location.”

Good gracious, and this man accused my chronicle of what happened during the restoration project of Aronimink of being inconsistent?!  Last night he’s telling me he doesn’t believe the course had a proposed third nine and this morning he’s trying to tell me all about it?! Did you happen to notice that I told you a couple of times last night the club had a proposed third nine, Tom McFud?

[TEPaul]

"The remarks about the rough sketch of the 1st hole were addressed to Pat. He was confused about what were field drawings by Ross and what were formalized plans drawn by Johnson."

Hmmm, yes, was he?

Which drawings do you suppose were used in the field to construct holes---the plans with the textual construction instructions on them or something else?  

"Hey look at this pretty drawing J.B that says 4B. What do you suppose that's for? You don't know either? Well, who cares, let's go out to #4 and change it. I don't see any construction instructions on here do you? Ok, well so what? What kind of bunkers do you think we should do---singles or clusters? You say you're not sure? OK, why don't we just flip for it?

[wsmorrison]

I am pretty certain that the routing map in the clubhouse either shows 27 holes or indicates an area near today's driving range that was to be additional holes.  I'll stop over there and take a look at the map and note the contents.  I do recall that there were to be more than 18 holes.  Now it seems Tom MacWood did locate some materials that prove it.  I'd say that is some backtracking of the kind he accuses others of taking.

Tom Paul,

You know the map I'm speaking of, right?  Near the trophy case in the transverse hallway.

Tom MacWood,

I would call the nice drawings by Johnson final presentation drawings to the club rather than formal plans.  The only purpose they could serve is to artistically present the holes to the board and membership.  

Flynn had W.S. Nicholls of Philadelphia make these kinds of drawings for his presentation hole drawings and routing map.  These were always in India Ink on coated linen.

Again, these were never intended to be plans that could or would be used in construction in any sense at all.  They would represent the final plan as the artist who took such great pains to draw these wouldn't do so for intermediate plans.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Do you really think Tom MacWood is going to agree with that? Why even bother to go over to Aronimink? If you do he'll probably start accusing whatever we report as being inconsistent and inaccurate and some kind of mistake about the proposed third nine at Aronimink.

By this evening he'll probably be telling us his expert research has uncovered the fact a third nine was proposed for Aronimink even though last night he wasn't aware of it!  

"Tom Paul,
You know the map I'm speaking of, right?  Near the trophy case in the transverse hallway."

Wayne:

I do. I've looked at all that material in the clubhouse over the years, although sort of cursorially and never exactly for some dedicated purpose such as doing a design evolution report or architectural history for Aronimink or anything. Maybe Tom MacWood will do all that for the club with one of his "expert essays". Perhaps he can do it all from what he finds out from us without ever setting foot at Aronimink or coming to Philadelphia.  

[TEPaul]

"Not quite the same as changing your recollection (at least a couple of times) of what transpired during the decision making phase. The last time contradictng (after the most recent discovery) a definitive correction by Prichard. Like I said at the time, either his memory is shot or he changes his recollection as new facts are discovered."

You're just flat wrong about that Tom MacWood. I never changed my recollection of what happened 4-5 years ago, even if you seem to be trying to go to extraordinary lengths to imply that. Other than the use of the word "never" in one post in Sep '04 there is no inconsistency in what I recall from 2000-2001. You posted all those remarks I made on here and there is no inconsistency in any of them with what I recall in 2000-2001. I guess you just think if you post them someone might assume there is. You must be so dense or so confused that you actually think something that I discovered in July 2005 creates an inconsistency with what I said about 2000-2001. Obviously the fact that I discovered it five years later has something to do with it but perhaps you haven't quite grasped that yet.    

This proposed 27 hole issue will be interesting. I can hardly wait to see just how much you can convolute this issue.  

I think all of us should begin to work to see that any golf course does not touch you and your self-proclaimed "expert research" with a ten foot pole. You're dangerous and you're a total pain in the ass. No wonder Ron Prichard declined your offer to help him with research. And it's also becoming very little wonder that that precipitated this on-going campaign of yours to prove him wrong and to prove he makes restoration mistakes.

Obviously you think doing this enhances your reputation somehow. Nothing could be further from the truth.  

[TEPaul]

"At first we are certain the course was built with clusters,"

How many times do I need to tell you on here if he was certain at first the course was built with clusters then why do you suppose he called me in the first place? How the bunkers were built was a question--a dilemma.

"Prichard then corrects your recollection, telling you he believed the course was not built with clusters,"

That's true and that was on and around Sep '04. How many times do I need to tell you I was not aware of that tournament program until around then. How many times do I need to tell you I do not know when he became aware of it previous to Sep '04?

"now were are back to recalling that the thought was the course was built in clusters."

Of course there was a thought in 2000-2001 that the course may've been built in clusters. There was also the thought that it may not have been. That's what created the dilemma, the question. Do you know what a dilemma and question is? That's why Ron called me in the first place.

What I found out in July of 2005 has nothing to do with 2000-2001. Until I found the Hagley had aerials of Aronimink from 1929 and before we all thought that tournament program was fairly conclusive that the bunkers were not built in clusters.

No matter how much you try you just can't find any inconsistencies out of the chronology of my recollection of that project.

I'm definitely not going to not make this personal any longer Tom MacWood. It is personal---very personal in what I believe and many others believe you're trying to do here and with an architect like Ron Prichard and his projects such as Aronimink. I believe you really are a total pain in the ass. So does he. So does Aronimink and a ton of people around here and elsewhere who''ve even moderately following the crap and the distortions you float on this website almost every day now. We believe you criticize some of these people after the fact simply to flatter yourself in the hopes some on here will believe you're good at research. Every time you do that on here in the future we intend to show you for what you really are---a self-serving pain in the ass who just doesn't have the guts to get out there and do something in any of these restoration projects before the fact and put your reputation on the line like the rest of us have and do.

I just think it's sad to see that you have any respect or crediblity at all, and there are a lot of us both in and out of the business who'd like to minimize that in the future if you continue criticizing people and projects the way you have been. Frankly. I'd like to do my very best to see to it that you're never welcome around here in any of these golf clubs. It's not worth it anymore. You add nothing at all. All you're doing is insulting and denigrating people and projects that are generally considered successful anyway. Few around here care what you think and I hope that feeling expands to other regions and other projects that are done and will be done.

Anyway, that's what I plan to continue saying on here if you continue to carry on the way you have been with Prichard and projects like Aronimink's.

[TEPaul]

"If your goal is to discover and learn new information about great golf architects and great designs, then this entire Aronimink thread has been a great success IMO....we discovered quite a bit of new information about the golf course (and hopefully we will continue to discover new information). Who knows, some of this information may be helpful to future restorations."

Tom MacWood:

Information is one thing and a very valuable thing and helpful and productive to clubs. You're oburate and carping criticisms of both clubs and architects over extremely trivial points, however are not. The success of architectural projects are determined and judged in certain ways generally through memberships and those who know, understand and use those clubs and courses. From where you sit your opinion is not intelligent nor realistic. In the future try to get involved in your critiquing of  projects during their planning or during their implimentation stages and not always after the fact, particularly if you choose to be as trivially critical as you have been about clubs and courses you really do not know. Whether it's before, during or after the fact actually knowing a course (and that means going there and really studying it) is essential. You need to begin to understand that at least---anyone does.

[TEPaul]

"PS: I have assisted a number of architects/clubs before and during the implementation stage."

Oh really? What are they? I think it's about time they all get put through the critical wringer after the fact just so we may be able to figure out if there is anyone out there who could possibly benefit from it. And of course it's extremely important that I find out from all involved what they think you did for them.

Can I have clubs, architects, dates, sources and phone numbers for each please?

Were there any mistakes? Could anything have been done better? Did anything go wrong and if so how could that possibly have happened with a researcher as expert as you say you are?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The issue remains.

At this time, no one knows how the bunkers got from Point A, Ross's detailed design plans, to Point B, the constructed bunkers as evidenced by photos taken around opening day.

Until factual details of that transition or deviation are known, how can you fault Prichard and Aronomink for duplicating what Ross clearly intended, as evidenced through his hole by hole, feature by feature, green by green, bunker by bunker detailed design plans ?

Or, do you think the project should have been put on hold until the answer to the question relating to the journey from Point A to Point B was discovered ?

What if it's never discovered ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Would you tell me how the labor hired to build the golf course would go about converting the above rendering from a sketch to a golf hole in the ground ?

Thanks.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci said:

"Tom MacWood,
I think you're confused.
The image above is a rough sketch, not the detailed design plans, which show exact yardages, depths, green contouring and other detailed information, including written instructions.
No wonder you don't get it, you're looking at the wrong drawings."

Pat:

That's hilarious. Yoiu're so right---Tom MacWood has just got things completely backwards but why would that surprise anyone? How would a foreman and crew construct a hole to that drawing he put up there calling it a formalized plan? No dimensions, no written instructions, no explanation of what he wanted. It's an interesting drawing though, likely for a hole on the proposed third nine at Aronimink that was never done. Of course Tom MacWood doesn't know that---he's trying to suggest it's another iterartion for the present 4th hole of Aronimink. Is there any end to the distortions and claptrap this guy will come up with about Aronimink?

By the way, someone told me Tom MacWood did a world-wind investigation of architecture in some region saying he saw 7 golf courses in a single day. When asked how he managed to do that he said he saw about 2-3  holes on each course. That's some real in-depth research don't you think? Maybe he ought to stop by Aronimink and at least look at the first hole from the first tee---the same vantage as the on-ground photo from 1929 he posted on here thereby explaining what the bunkers of Aronimink look like. He told us he could see the third hole and it's bunkers on that photo. Only trouble is if he botthered to go to the first tee at Aronimink he'd quickly figure out that's not possible now and it wasn't possible in 1929.   Just another good example of the fact that to begin to understand a golf course and it's architecture you pretty much need to go to that golf course and study it carefully.

Why would anyone take seriously the criticisms of a golf course at any time by someone who's never even been to that golf course?

[Kirk Gill]

Please forgive my interruption.

Earlier in this thread I sensed some dismay regarding the intention of the Nicklaus Design group regarding their impending work on the Scarlet Course. From a May 20th, 2005 article in the student paper The Lantern, Greg Letsche of ND says this:

" "The greens themselves have just become smaller over time, and we want to take them back to more of their original design," Letsche said. "We are also taking a look at some of the (Alister) MacKenzie bunkers and updating them to how his design might have been."

The Scarlet course was originally designed by Alister MacKenzie, a native of England and one of the chief designers of Augusta National Golf Course. McKenzie died in 1934 due to a heart condition, leaving work on the course incomplete. At the time of his death, the university was in possession of MacKenzie's design of both the Scarlet and the Gray courses. The remaining work and oversight of the project then fell to a group of university professors that saw the course to its completion in 1938."

Given both the fact that Nicklaus (et. al.) will have access to those original designs, and their stated intention as mentioned above, is this a situation where it might be inappropriate to concede defeat in battle that might not actually exist?

Am I making sense? Is it just possible that Nicklaus Design could be taken at their word regarding their intent? Does anyone have any updates regarding the work that has been done to this point? Has anyone visited the site, or seen the original MacKenzie (note the two different spellings of his last name above) plans, or compared those plans with what is happening out on the course?

[TEPaul]

Wayne and Tom MacWood:

I spoke to Aronimink's Rick Holanda (Super) today about the bunker project and also about the third nine at Aronimink that was designed but obviously never built. Rick has Ross's plan of the third nine and where it was, which was on the land that is today the practice range, swimming pool complex and rather large tennis facility. None of the holes of the third nine were on the land that is the present course. So Tom MacWood was incorrect in speculating that the drawing above of 4A may've been another iteration of today's 4th hole or anywhere near it.

[TEPaul]

I also spoke today with J.B. McGovern's daughter. She's definitely worth a further interview. She does feel that her father built Jeffersonville. The first two years of her life she lived in Pinehurst. She said the house/office of the Ross Co. in Wynnewood next to the train station was the office her father worked from and it was also the house Ross's daughter Lillian lived in for the first few years of her marriage. Ms McGovern remembers Aronimink well, she remembers when it was being built. She said Ross was there but never stayed long. She has extremely fond memories of Donald Ross calling him one of the nicest and kindest men she ever knew.

She said she didn't quite know when she was young what her father did, that in her memory children knew their fathers went to work but didn't really understand what they did. She said one of her best friends was the daughter of the Aroinimink superintendent and she spent so much time in that old stone house that the super lived in (the same house that is today the maintenance house and Rick Holanda's office). And then she said something perhaps very telling and certainly very funny---

She said her father was always working on drawings and working on plans and blueprints (Is this going to be another Burbeck story? ). She said she always thought Ross worked on the greens and her father worked on the fairways. When I asked her if she knew who worked on the bunkers she said all these men that seemed like a bunch of ants all over the place. Then she said she thought for the longest time that her father grew pickles. When I asked her why she thought that she said because those drawings he always worked on looked like big pickles to her.  

[TEPaul]

"Were there mistakes? I'm certainly not infallible, if I made mistakes why shouldn't I be criticized?"

I'm not asking you about mistakes in your research I'm asking you about mistakes in the restorations.

"Did he show you the plan for the third nine? What about the plan by the trophy case?"

I spoke to him on the phone. I'll go over there next week when I get back from New York and a little town called Clementon. I went over to Rick Holanda's office yesterday altough he wasn't there. I looked at the aerial John Goesslin mentioned in his office (and other later aerials and large site maps). It's probably the Dallin 1939 aerial. Not the same one Ron sent me and the one in GeoffShac's book. I spoke to Rick about the decision making for the bunker project back in 1999-2001. His recollections of the decision and all the reasons for it is identical to mine. Rick was not aware that the bunkers were originally built as clusters as apparently no one had ever seen Dallin's aerials from 1929 and before. (not before July 2005 that is).

[Kirk Gill]

I'm prettty sure that MacKenzie never planned on bunkers that spelled 'O' 'S' 'U'.

Hay-Zeus. You're kidding, right? They're putting in OSU bunkers. And I thought that the Mickey Mouse-shaped bunker in Orlando was overdoing it. That's depressing.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Huh? Haven't you been saying (alternatively and most recently) that it was thought that the bunkers were originally built in clusters?"

Tom MacWood:

You have just got to be kidding! You can't possibly be asking me this again. There's no conceivable way on earth you can be any good at research as you seem incapable of understanding what's been written even if it's about ten times.

There is no inconsistencies in this chronology, if you'd just bother to concentrate and read what I've always said about it on here. Let me try it one last time using numbers this time of what was felt about those bunkers from about 200-2001 to this date today.

1. The original question (and dilemma) was were those bunkers originally built as singles OR clusters. Ron, the club, Hollanda had a 1939 aerial and Ross's plans from perhaps 1926 or 1927. The bunkers didn't match. Can you figure this out so far??? They were not sure what was built and that's why there was a question about the bunkers in the beginning at least when I became aware of it around 2000 or so. They wanted to be sure they built Ross bunkers in this project, and the plans were positively ROSS BUNKERS! Rick confirmed to me today the importance that they be sure they did Ross bunkers.

2. At some point apparently after 2000-2001 Ron found that tournament program for the PA Amateur in July 1931 that showed Sickel drawings that matched Ross's plans (single bunkers). Can you figure out yet the significance of that to them? That led them to believe the bunkers were originally built as singles.

3. In July 2005 I became aware that the Hagley had Aronimink aerials from 1929 and before. Aronimink had never seen those they were not aware of them. Prichard became aware of them about two weeks ago. That PROVED the bunkers were built as clusters. Ron and the club and Holanda understand that now. Are you still grasping this? This is definitely not rocket science. Today Rick realized we'd proven the bunkers were built in clusters.

This is not something anyone but you seems to even think about. The bunker project has been a success for the four or so years it's been done. No one at all has even mentioned this other than you. No one but you thinks any mistake was made.

There are no inconsistencies in that chronology other than the fact you apparently can't read properly. If you can't figure it out by now don't ask me again get someone else to explain it to you who's read this on here, or call up someone else who was involved in it and find out for yourself. If someone else involved has some different story I'm not aware of it. Rich Holanda didn't know anything about this issue on here---he may not even know of GOLFCLUBATLAS. His recollection of what was known and not known back in 1999-2001 matches exactly everthing I've said about it back then on here.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Are you nuts? We've been over all this about a dozen times before. I have no idea if they had that Golfdom photograph back in 2000-2001. I certainly never saw it on Ron or anyone else out there. Where did that photo come from on this discussion anyway? It probably came from you. Who the hell knows what may be out there somewhere that was not found? Once again now, they had the 1939 aerial and they had Ross's plans. They didn't match. That's when Ron called me. At some point after that Ron found that tournament program. It showed the bunkers of every hole on the course as built the way Ross drew them. There were a few differences between the two but very few.

You can not see the bunkers on the third hole from that photograph. You can scarely see any of the third hole. Take my word or anyone who's been to that course on that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()