OSU Scarlet restoration

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

It is for all 27 holes.  It looks like a presentation copy with India ink on linen.  I'd say it was done by the same fellow that did the drawing you posted. Johnson, right?

[Paul Richards]

Been away for most of the week.


I cannot believe this thread is STILL going.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul,

But the good news is despite some tense (not terse) dialogue, we certainly all know much more about the original design and course at Aronimink than has ever been uncovered before.

We also know more about Ross and his penchant for a variety of bunker styles than ever before.

Those are very good things!

I still believe that the club and Ron Prichard acted prudently and sensitively based on the information at hand when they were making decisions.  

Still, I can't help but wonder if they would have done anything differently if this thread had preceded the restoration work.  

[Paul Richards]

mike

>I still believe that the club and Ron Prichard acted prudently and sensitively based on the information at hand when they were making decisions.


Agreed.

I was VERY impressed by Ron's work there.

>I can't help but wonder if they would have done anything differently if this thread had preceded the restoration work.


Seeing as this thread may never end, I'm glad Aronimink completed the restoration when it did ....

 

[Paul Richards]

BTW

Wasn't the thread called

>OSU Scarlet restoration


?

 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'm not sure I see the point of all those posts about Seminole being flat. Frankly I could hardly read through them all. Is the point simply to determine if the raw Seminole and Gulf Stream sites were not or are not flat?

If so, I've been all over the east coast of Florida all my life and Seminole G.C.'s natural site is one that cannot possibly be considered a typical "flat site". Gulf Stream does not have quite the elevation change Seminole does but Gulf Stream is not exactly a "flat" site either. The elevation change at Gulf Stream naturally would be at least 25 feet. It really doesn't matter at all how anyone on here parses a comment by Donald Ross about either Seminole or Gulf Stream being flat, those are just the facts of the topography. Seminole and Gulf Stream I've known for about 40 plus years each. Played the former about 250 times and the latter about 1,000 times. Believe me neither one could possibly be considered entirely flat.

[TEPaul]

As far as the 4A drawing of Aronimink, it'll be a snap to find out what that was and where on the property it was. But what's the point of all this? If it's to prove 4A is not another iteration of the present 4th hole on basiclly the same landform that will not be hard to determine. But what's the point here?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I've studied the topo map...like all built up sand bars up and down the eastern seaboard, you will find a primary dune and a secondary dune...those are the ridges you are referring to.

Seminole backs up against the western side of the primary dune and the secondary dune intersects the western section of the property.

Wrong.

Go back and re-read the topo.
Your research and conclusion are flawed..... again.[/color]

The high point of the dunes is 25 feet. Most of the property is between 5 and 10 feet ASL, for a maximum elevation change of 15-20 feet.

Wrong.

Go back and restudy the topo map.[/color]


The dunes/ridges no doubt give interest to the golf course and relieve the level plain...on the other hand I don't think anyone would mistake Seminole for Cape Breton or the Cascades.

Noone would mistake Seminole for FLAT.

It's amazing, now that you've looked at the topos  you're an expert on Seminole, which is anything but FLAT.

Try visiting it one day, perhaps you'll see for yourself how wrong you are about the site and Ross's alleged comment.[/color]

The land in between the dunes is relatively flat, in fact 75% of the site is realtively flat.

WRONG AGAIN.

Holes # 1, 8, 9, 10 and possibly 16 with the exception of the green could be considered flat, that's about 25 % of the holes, not 75 %.

Why don't you just admit what everybody knows,
that you don't know the first thing about Seminole having never seen it.[/color]

I'm sure that is what Donald Ross was referring to when he said "it is possible to do wonderful things on flat, level country.

Oh, so now you're sure about something else.

If the terrain in the middle was FLAT, and it remains FLAT today, I guess he didn't do much with modern earth moving equipment as you now allege[/color]

I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on level land. The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with the type of terrain."

As I said, I have my doubts as to the object of Ross's alleged comment.  Seminole is anything but level, despite your absurd contention that it is FLAT.[/color]

DJR made a benign statement IMO about what can be done with modern earth moving equipment, he did not say the entire property was flat or level...

According to your quote and strident defense, you said the entire property was FLAT.  Now, you've modified your position in the face of overwhelming evidence that Seminole is NOT FLAT.  How convenient.[/color]

your bombabstic reaction to his innocent statement (and your strange attempts to attack and intimidate me) are both comical and pathetic. An extra helping of brand might be in order.

Now, it's an innocent statement.
You sure are trying to weasel out of your own pronouncements
First you claimed it was a fact that it was FLAT, citing Ross as the expert on the entire property.

Now, you indicate that portions of the property are flat and that your interpretation of Ross's comment is that it was a benign, innocent statement concerning limited areas of the property and the use of modern earthmoving equipment.

I think characterizing your commentary on the subject of Seminole being FlAt, as fraudulent, was accurate.

What were Ross's instructions for the material excavated from the lakes?

He was clear, he said: "Make the water FLAT, so that that fool, Tom MacWood, can claim some semblance of victory in defending his statement that areas of Seminole are FLAT".

Good olde Donald, he was ahead of his time.

The next time you cite a quote as gospel, try researching the subject matter first, because you're not good at weaseling your way out of your absurd position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacW:

I'm not sure I see the point of all those posts about Seminole being flat. Frankly I could hardly read through them all. Is the point simply to determine if the raw Seminole and Gulf Stream sites were not or are not flat?

If so, I've been all over the east coast of Florida all my life and Seminole G.C.'s natural site is one that cannot possibly be considered a typical "flat site". Gulf Stream does not have quite the elevation change Seminole does but Gulf Stream is not exactly a "flat" site either. The elevation change at Gulf Stream naturally would be at least 25 feet. It really doesn't matter at all how anyone on here parses a comment by Donald Ross about either Seminole or Gulf Stream being flat, those are just the facts of the topography. Seminole and Gulf Stream I've known for about 40 plus years each. Played the former about 250 times and the latter about 1,000 times. Believe me neither one could possibly be considered entirely flat.

TEPaul,

How could you possibly disagree with Tom MacWood who's never seen Seminole ?

And, how could you take odds with the quote he cited, the one alleging that Ross stated that Seminole was FLAT ?

Perhaps, Ross was misquoted, or quoted out of context, but, it's obvious, Seminole ISN"T FLAT by anyone's standards.

That's why I referenced Boca Raton, which is FLAT.

Seminole and Jupiter Hills enjoy marvelous elevations that no courses on the southeast coast of Florida  enjoy.

But, you couldn't tell that to Tom MacWood, he's a self proclaimed expert on Seminole and it's terrain.

False in one, false in many.[/color]

[HamiltonBHearst]

Macwood/Dugger


It seems to me that Pat is pointing out flawed interpretations of Ross statements rather than bashing Ross.  

[TEPaul]

"Pat
I'm looking Ross's plan for the 2nd hole...what are the elevation changes, and are they natural or man-made?"

Tom:

I'm looking at Ross's drawing for #2 as well. Do you see those parallel lines on a slight diagonal completely surrounding the green? Those show the position of the 2nd green as it sits substantially above the fairway on the natural western ridgeline. There is nothing remotely flat about the area that green and its approach sit in.

The only reason I question why all these posts continue is because it's completely obvious the entire site of Seminole is definitely not naturally flat.

[Paul Richards]

Tom's


Is that photo of the two of you fighting over a flag???

 

[Lou_Duran]

Has the OSU Scarlet restoration discussion been exhausted?

I was out there a couple of weeks ago and had a quick tour with one of the assistants.  Work was proceeding at a good pace (the crew was working well into the late evening), and the scope of the project appears to be expanding.

The young man who drove me around gave me the party line.  He had read TMacs essay on the course, but was not aware of the existence of a handful of green complex sketches apparently drawn by MacKenzie (his map of the course just inside the entrance of the clubhouse has been long removed, several years by one member's account).

In conjunction with the major bunkering work, a decision was made to strip the greens and seed them with a modern strain of bent.  It does not appear that they are being recontoured nor rebuilt from the ground up (as far as I know, all but the 17th green still have a clay base, which was the material dug up along the natural creek to make the irrigation lake when the course was built).

The course will be over 7,500 yards long, with a couple of tees used only during important collegiate competitions (eg. a potential tee location for #18 near the boundary fence with Kenny Rd. behind (south) the 17th green).  Unlike ANGC which took out some of the former back tees, it appears that OSU will keep and maitain theirs.

By far the most benificial aspect of the project that I saw was the removal of a huge number of trees, primarily the spruces.  If the University chooses to maintain the rough like ANGC currently does, the recovery shot will be once again possible and the course will be that much more fun to play.

All-in-all, I came away with the feeling that the Scarlet course will be improved, though a huge opportunity may have been wasted.  The change to #4 does not appear to add much to that hole and results in an akward walk-back to the 5th tee.  #11 was a fun hole with numerous options on very interesting terrain.   With the continual addition of length to this hole, it appears to have become brutish and perhaps boring.

Probably my biggest disappointment is that the green complexes and bunkering schemes are not being modified in a manner that would bring them closer to what MacKenzie had envisioned.  It doesn't seem like they have attacked the biggest weaknesses of the course.  Rather, they are mainly just making an already long course for most people even longer.

With most of the older members up in arms about being kept off from their beloved course for a year, what a shame it is that OSU is not tackling these very important issues.  It may be a long time again before the opportunity to redo the greens presents itself.  I am hoping that Nicklaus and the university's sports administration have greater knowledge and insights than I do.  No doubt that they are properly motivated to do what is best for the course.      

[Kirk Gill]

Many pages ago, I asked about the Scarlet restoration, and was told that they are installing bunkers that spell out "OSU."

Mr. Duran, is this true? Did you see these bunkers? Now, if they're putting in decorations in front of the clubhouse, that's one thing, but if something like this is in play..............

I also quoted an article in the OSU student paper that said that the university was in possession of MacKenzie's detailed plans. How could they be ignored?

[Lou_Duran]

Kirk,

I am fairly sure that the OSU bunkers are a reality, perhaps around #6 on the left guarding the tee shot.  It seems that the assistant took me over there and commented on it.  The bunkering is being roughed in as we speak so it did not make a big impression.   From what I could tell, the overall bunkering style appeared rather ordinary, at least in comparison to the work I watched being done by Doak's crew at the Rawls course in Lubbock during its construction.

As to the front area of the clubhouse, well, the same assistant that took me around told me that he was responsible for all the signage there and around the pro shop.  It was a bit garrish, more fitting for a strip center in a non-descript area of town than one of the nation's finest true collegiate golf courses.

I am unaware that OSU has any detailed plans of MacKenzie's work there.  Perhaps the authority on this, Tom MacWood, will chime in on this.  I know of the existance of the old routing map/site plan that was displayed in the entry way of the clubhouse, and a handful of sketches of greens and surrounds.  To the extent that the University didn't make full payment to MacKenzie nor to his widow following his death, it serves them right.  It would be rather cool if the family found an OSU box with complete plans for bunkers and greens, much like the manuscript for the "Spirit of St. Andrews" was eventually discovered.  It would be ironic if the family would hold the documents back for full payment with interest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is the topo for all to study. The highest elevation is 25'...the lowest outside the ocean is 5'.

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=17&X=1485&Y=7428&W=3&qs=%7cpalm+beach%7cflorida%7c

'One only has to look at his profile drawings and the specific hole by hole drawings at Seminole to see the elevation changes acknowledged by the hole by hole, graphed designs."

Pat
I'm looking Ross's plan for the 2nd hole...what are the elevation changes, and are they natural or man-made?

The fact that you ask that question indicates how totally unfamiliar you are with the site.

The elevation change from tee to green is natural.

Do you see where the Ross notes make the comment about cutting the bunkers into the slope ?

If the land was FLAT, as you claim, there would be no SLOPE.[/color]

From the sounds of it Ross may have taken the extra material from the lakes and jammed them up your ass.

You're WRONG ..... AGAIN.

And, it's apparent that you don't know the difference between marl and sand, and their respective properties for retaining water.  You've made a colossal blunder and you can't admit that you're dead wrong on your claim that Seminole is Flat.  You're a fraud.[/color]

Your Ross bashing has reached a disturbing level.
I'm not bashing Ross, I'm bashing you, and your arrogant, self proclaimed expertise at being a historical researcher, one who's uninformed enough to claim that Seminole is FLAT, without bothering to research the issue.

I was the one who supplied you with the terra server topo.
Remember me, the one who you claim can't research anything.

P.S.
How much are you willing to bet that there's more than a 25 foot elevation change on that property ?[/color]

[Don Herdrich]

It is pretty scary that Tom M declares himself a Ross expert........I think Pat is right, he is a fraud!

[Kirk Gill]

Lou - here's a quote I originally posted some time ago on this thread, from the University newspaper. The first quote is from Greg Letsche of Nicklaus Design:

" "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."

The question is, are the designs mentioned the map you previously described, or are they more elaborate? If the rep from Nicklaus that you spoke with was unaware of them, does that mean that ND is not availing themselves of the original plans? Needless to say, those original plans probably did not include the OSU bunkering scheme..........

And, for what it's worth, Mr. Morrissett's description of Seminole's topography: "The course occupies a flat-bottomed bowl set between a high ridge of dunes to the west and the dunes along the Atlantic Ocean to the east. In the middle lie the necessary ponds to handle the drainage. Somehow Ross managed to have 14 holes touch these two lines of dunes (the 1st, 8th, 9th and 10th do not). Like Merion, Seminole is a course where one would be hard pressed to come up with a superior routing."

[Lou_Duran]

Kirk,

I have not spoken to anyone from Nicklaus's organization.  The young man that toured me around the course is one of the assistant professionals at the club.

Other than what Tom MacWood wrote regarding the course's history, I am unaware of more detailed plans and sketches.  Tom and I are in somewhat of a disagreement regarding the type of equipment used to dig out the lake and for feature shaping and building.

Two professors I played with from time to time in the early 1970s at Scarlet claimed to have worked on the construction crew after graduating from OSU when they couldn't find jobs in their fields of study.  These two old gentelmen then (most likely deceased now), seemed to be in full control of their faculties, articulate, and knowledgeable about agronomy and construction.  They both claimed that the work was largely done with mules/horses, scoops, shovels, wheel barrows, a few trucks and a whole bunch of sweat and tears.  Apparently, the WPA funded much of the work and there were large numbers of laborers on the site.  They didn't remember whether original, specific plans were available.

As to the bunker design which the Nicklaus rep. alludes to, I am not sure if he is talking about existing bunkers (which apparently were not MacKenzie bunkers), the course map previously alluded to, or bunkering at other MacKenzie courses which have retained their original characteristics or restored sympathetically by one of a few qualified architects.  It would have made considerable sense to me that if they have a good MacKenzie routing, that they would try real hard to bring in an archie like Doak or DeVries to complete the work correctly.  I know that Tom was not interested for obvious reasons, but given his collaboration with Mr. Nicklaus in Long Island, it is a shame that his arm was not twisted to at least consult on the project.

I do look forward to coming back up in a couple of years and seeing the new course.  It was very meaningful to me during an important period of my life and I hope that they do it justice.  

[PThomas]

I go to Ohio a lot and always wanted to play the Scarlet, but never have

with what seems to be happening there now, I don't think I want to anymore

what a waste

[Lou_Duran]

Paul,

Don't be too quick to judge.  I didn't mean to paint such a bleak picture.  For all I know, the Nicklaus group is incorporating some of MacKenzie's vision for the course.  Hopefully it will turn out well.  If not, then it will be a real shame to have taken this excellent course out of play for a year without exploiting the opportunity to do it right.  Scarlet is revered by many of its old members, a few who probably won't be around to see the finished results.  Jack Nicklaus is known to be a thoughtful man, and I am told that he's been out to the site on numerous ocassions.  

[TEPaul]

"TE
Is that elevation change at #2 natural or man-made or a combination?"

Tom:

#2 green and a good deal of the approach is sited on the eastern side of the Western ridge of Seminole. The approach shots on #2 and #11 are to substantially elevated greens, certainly for Florida.

[TEPaul]

From Mike Cirba:

"I still believe that the club and Ron Prichard acted prudently and sensitively based on the information at hand when they were making decisions.  
Still, I can't help but wonder if they would have done anything differently if this thread had preceded the restoration work."

MikeC:

According to Ron Prichard in the last week or so, no they would not have done anything differently with the bunkers. I'm quite certain the reasons are;

1. There is no evidence of design changes from Ross from the bunker drawings by him they have. The club wants to be sure what they did were Ross's design.

2. The decision to do bunkers from Ross's drawings was never a controversial or contentious one at Aronimink or amongst its members.

3. There was virtually no support to do those multi-set bunkers but obviously that was to some extent because at that time they did not think the course was built that way.

4. Building and maintaining app 200 separate bunkers vs app 90+ was not a popular economic choice. It's fine for people who don't belong to Aronimink to overlook that consideration but generally golf clubs always consider economic and budgetary factors.

5. I do not believe that Aronimink or Prichard really feels those multi-set bunkers are as good as Ross's drawn bunker design.

We should not forget this issue that's run so long on Golfclubatas.com and has been controversially and contentious on here was never remotely that way at Aronimink golf club. Aronimink appeared to be comfortable with the decision they made and the result they got. Golfers who know the course in Philadelphia seem to overwhelemingly endorse the bunker decision and the bunker project.

If this issue on here and these long threads on it preceded the bunker decision and the project I doubt it would've had much if any effect on Aronimink's decsion as to what kind of bunkers they wanted to do. I realize that may deflate the egos of some of us on here who think we're expert researchers and consequently clubs will automatically listen to us but I think that's a realistic evaluation and expectation.

Again, this bunker issue at Aronimink was never a controversial issue before the project or after it. It became a controversial only on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, and basically it emanated from people who have little or nothing tol do with Aronimink golf club.

There's no question that those involved in restoration projects want to make as many people as possible satisfied with what they do, and Aronimink is no different but like other clubs their first order of business was to make those who belong to the club and play it satisfied with what they decided to do and did.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I wasn't really suggesting that we here on GCA have influence beyond our own choir; what I was suggesting is that a lot of new material on the history of the building of Aronimink has come to light through this thread and had the powers that be involved in the decision-making process been aware of those facts, I'm wondering if it might have caused some additional thinking influencing the ultimate decision.

The primary fact that's been uncovered, of course, by both you and Wayne, is that the course was built with the multi-set of bunkers, a fact that was clearly unknown at the time the club and Ron Prichard decided what to do.

Perhaps the cost involved, and the other factors you cite would have been the overriding factors afterall, and I do think Prichard did a fine job.  Both he and the club were prudent and cautious and it's tough to argue with the results, even if the course was never built that way in the first place.

[TEPaul]

MikeC said;

"The primary fact that's been uncovered, of course, by both you and Wayne, is that the course was built with the multi-set of bunkers, a fact that was clearly unknown at the time the club and Ron Prichard decided what to do.
Perhaps the cost involved, and the other factors you cite would have been the overriding factors afterall, and I do think Prichard did a fine job.  Both he and the club were prudent and cautious and it's tough to argue with the results, even if the course was never built that way in the first place."

MikeC:

As you may've guessed Ron Prichard and some central characters at Aronimink read GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and have followed these Aronimink bunker project threads for the last couple of years. Much of what I've said on here comes from them (we have talked about how these threads have evolved regularly). Actually Ron Prichard is a big advocate of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com---always has been and continues to be.  

I've only spoken with Ron Prichard on the phone briefly (since Wayne went to the Hagley and looked at those early Aronimnk aerials) to tell him that I found out the Hagley had aerials of Aronimink for 1929 and previous and that Wayne looked at them so Ron is now aware how the course's bunkers were originally built, and so is the club.

I don't want to get ahead of Ron on this because he told me a few days ago he would send me an email summarizing his feelings about all this but he did mention on a message or email that knowing what he knows now about how the course's bunkers were originally built he would still recommend that the bunkers be done to Ross's drawings.

Obvously it's hard for some on here to appreciate how he and the club feel about those Ross hole by hole drawings, including the bunkers. He thinks those drawings are some of the best he's ever seen from Donald Ross himself. While some on here may not understand or appreciate that it does matter to them.

And despite what some, or at least one on here says to the contrary it just is not conclusive why those bunkers were changed from Ross's drawings and it may never be conclusive.

I remember the feeling well amongst those involved in that project. First and foremost they wanted to do bunkers in this recent project that they were sure were Ross's. At the time, obviously, I thought that was an admirable restoration sentiment and goal. So it does seem ironic that such a big deal has been made out of this on this website.

You and John Goesselin (former asst super at Aronimink) have said you think it would've been neat if they had restored those multi-sets although you both said you thoroughly understand and support why they did what they did. I'm not sure I know of anyone else who thinks that would've been a neat thing to do.

I've never heard one person say they thought Aronimink made a mistake in their decision or on their recent bunkers except Tom MacWood.

On the strength of that fact alone there's really no reason at all to suppose knowing what they know now they would've done anything differently.