OSU Scarlet restoration

[Dunlop_White]

I simply couldn't read-up on all 17 pages of posts but did want to add that I'll be meeting with some shapers from National Golf Builders and some of Nicklaus' design team at Old Town Club in Winston-Salem tomorrow, who say they want "to try to pick-up on some of Maxwell's design features so they can replicate them at OSU". Thus, I'm going to show them around.

[Lou_Duran]

Dunlop,

Can you ask them politely how they might make the changes to the greens without hollowing them out and starting over?  To the best of my knowledge, they've killed off the old putting surfaces, but weren't going to go beyond that (with the possible exception of #4 which is being sited further east than the "old" green).

TMac can correct me if I am wrong, but except for #17, I think that all the others are of the pushed-up type with a clay material base.  If they just pile more green mix at different depths, won't the high spots in particular be susceptible to dryness and/or the low spots to problems associated with saturation?  I would think that Maxwell greens would require much better green construction.

Also, won't their ability to make substantial changes on the greens be impacted by the scheduled NCAA women's championship late next spring?

[Dunlop_White]

Tom MacWood,

Yes, your material evidently has been very helpful to the Nicklaus design team, specifically Greg Letsche. I told him that he should contact you and he said he would.....and should have before now.

Lou Duran,

Yes, they intend to redo all of the greens, but not from scratch.....by de-sodding the surface, scraping away 3 to 5 inches of excess (the loose numbers account for some softening where necessary) ......on a tight laser grid to capture the intimate contours.....expanding out to lost locations with the fill to tie-in, instead of scraping the edges like they did at Pinehurst #2. Then, implementing a new bentgrass(forgot?).

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I sure don't know any of the details of what's going on at OSU and the Nicklaus company but it seems to me now is your opportunity to really get involved----vis-a-vis what Dunlop said. Are you going to do that and take some responsibility for what gets done on that course or are you going to just continue to sit on the side-lines so you can blame someone later? Now's you opportunity pal----get involved---take some responsibility to get something done you believe in on that golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think a better method for Tom MacWood to have some influence at OSU Scarlet would be for an interested third party to make a formal introduction.

Someone like Jim Lipe or Tom Doak.

Tom MacWood obviously cares for OSU Scarlet and has the golf courses best interests at heart.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Nicklaus Organization may be on a different plane and have a different agenda, and if Tom MacWood thrusts himself upon the Nicklaus Organization he may be deemed an inteloper and given the cold shoulder.

But, Tom should seek assistance and an introduction to the Nicklaus Organization.

As I've said before, all that's needed for (insert preference)  to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

I hope he succeeds.

[Dunlop_White]

Tom,

I think I have already made that informal introduction today when I stressed to Greg Letsche, senior designer, on the project, that he needed to talk with you. He wholeheatedly agreed! Please give Greg another call (561) 227-0300. He appears bright and certainly talks the restoration game well, actually alot better than many who specialize in this area. Perhaps he fooled me, but he showed a very genuine respect for MacKenzie and Maxwell's work.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps it is too late for the OSU Scarlet project.  Yet maybe not as the finished product may be years away.  Do you have a sense that all work will be completed in this phase?

Even if the final work is complete, I don't think it is too late for the next project they work on.  Maybe your efforts to speak about the value add of an historian consulting with a restoration team (and the historian a member of the team) will have a positive impact on their next work.  Your late but compelling conversation with Greg Letsche may have influence their work on future projects.

If you don't mind my saying so, the passion you have in finding materials should equal your willingness to see it put to practical use.  This makes searching through dusty attics and moldy basements even more worthwhile than the search for knowledge.  Please reconsider calling this fellow.  It only takes changing one mind in that organization to have a ripple effect.  You can still change things for the better in a macro sense even if the micro opportunity is lost.

[wsmorrison]

Why would a phone call from you advising them of  the value add of historical and archival information encourage them to do more restoration business?  Tom, are you saying a few minutes of your time is not worth the potential benefits?  It is hard to believe you are laying down so easily when your energies are so evident and importantly they've expressed an interest in talking to you.  By the way, there is a Nicklaus Design Renovation Service segment of their company.  I think if you convince yourself this is a one shot restoration deal you are mistaken.  Make a difference.  Trying and failing is better than not trying at all.  The chance to try and succeed makes it worth the minimal effort required.

Do as you like but if you choose to be an expert on something, I think you ought to put it to good use.  In an area of endeavor which you like to critique you can make a difference.

[wsmorrison]

Don't do me any favors, Tom.  I thought you'd be doing yourself a favor and maybe some courses around the country as well.  You already have your mind made up.  I guess you really don't want to get dirty.  Too bad.

"they don't do restorations and never have"

Is that a true statement?  It doesn't seem so.  Why do you think they have a design renovation service which includes restorations if they don't do them?  Take a look at their website, they even list courses where they're doing renovation work.  I'm sure a lot are Nicklaus courses, but do you really think they'd avoid a large market segment?  They are a business that is expanding.

"A decade from now when Daniel Wexler comes out with a third volume: The Nickalus Years. I will insist he dedicate it to you"

I am sure Dan will bend to your insistance.  And you can tell everyone that you warned us that this would happen.  I'm sure you will be gratified.  It'll make a nice In My Opinion piece.

If you like to insist, why don't you insist that Nicklaus's team listen to you?  Why didn't you meet them out in the field and bring documentation?  Why didn't you insist that there's another approach and present a compelling argument?

[wsmorrison]

I guess it did come off as a lecture.  I shouldn't take that approach.  However, you have discussed your fondness for the course and your clear vision for what could have happened.  My response was based upon that.  I have no emotional investment at OSU Scarlet at all.  I do care in general for the value of classic courses and taking into consideration a big picture view of classic courses in making informed decisions.  It does not appear that they did.

"Have you been following the history of this project, and what I have done and what others have done? It doesn't sound like you have any idea what has transpired. "

I have some idea as to what transpired, although only second hand through this site.  I disagree with some of your actions none the less.  It shouldn't surprise you that we can look at a similar set of facts and draw different conclusions.  

Why would your questioning of Aronimink have anything to do with my stance on OSU?  There is no connection whatsoever.  If you think it does, it serves your purpose not mine.  I am not so small-minded to make those sort of connections.

I don't have to do research into either MacKenzie or OSU to know the value of historical materials and the need to bring them to bear even if it means getting out in the field and making them available whether their mindset is open or not to it.  If it means that much to you, it surprises me you didn't go further in your efforts.  A few phone calls and missed opportunities.  Are you saying you wouldn't have done things differently?  

I've been a part of the process...a member of several teams doing this sort of work.  I do have an idea about what goes on.  Fortunately, the circumstances seem conducive to allowing the historical perspective to be strongly considered.  I think some of that has to do with the outstanding members and administrators involved and the ability to demonstrate the value add of archival materials and a method of using them.

"They don't do restorations. If you think they should get involved in that large market segment...maybe you should call them. "

No thanks.  I'd rather not abet their efforts.

[Lou_Duran]

Just a few minor points in between the tussle.

The folks at OSU do appear to be an obstinate bunch.  I have no doubt that TMac went well out of his way to provide his assistance and knowledge.   If not rebuffed altogether, he was at least ignored.

Much earlier in the cycle, I was in contact with the AD, and offered a plan to review the entire process (taking a historical perspective for restoring the course and updating some aspects so that it could hold important tournaments as it has in the past).  The basis of my proposal was to set up a small committee, say five to seven "recommendors", who would have the relevant expertise but no conflicts of interest, to conduct a serious, thourough review over a period of three to six months.  The members of this group would have diverse interests and backgrounds, though no specific constituency to represent.

At the conclusion of the review period, a detailed recommendation would be provided to the athletic department where the final decisions would be made.  To help the AD escape some of the heat, I suggested that a unanimous or super-majority recommendation be put on a fast-track through the decision makers.

Not long afterwards, I received a two to three sentence letter from the AD thanking me for my concern, and declaring in no uncertain terms that he was perfectly capable of making important decisions on his own.  This was a couple of years ago.

My attempts to get the alumni publication to do a feature article on the course, its history and its future, also didn't bear fruit.  I even offered TMac's valuable assistance and whatever I could do to bring an accurate portrayal to the readers' attention, but was met with the same indifference.

Unlike TMac, I am not as pessimistic regarding the work currently underway.  I certainly give the Nicklaus group much more credit and respect.  Ultimately, the architects, working pro-bono on this one, will give the decision makers at the university what they want.  I'd like to think that with TMacs and my input, it (what they want) would have been better, but I am not sure that this is necessarily the case.

I've played Scarlet several hundred times during my time in Columbus between 1970 and 1978.  I was active in club events, and played in local and regional tournaments.  I worked as a starter at the Scarlet & Grey Club for most of one spring season, and knew most of the regulars by name.

I am only mentioning this because we put considerable weight here on experience on the ground.  Possibly to my professional detriment, I spent way too much time out there, but loved most every minute of it.

My views about Scarlet appear to be considerably different than TMac's.  While I greatly appreciate his fine piece on Scarlet's history and admire his work on the Arts & Crafts influence, I seem to be much more of a fan of the course from an architectural standpoint as it was.

I have no major issues with the green complexes and overall bunkering schemes.   Playing firm and relatively fast, the course could hold its own quite well (I remember a Kepler Invitational when only well struck irons from the fairways would hold the greens and some D1 players were having a hard time breaking 90).

My biggest problem with Scarlet was how it had been allowed to shrink due to tree plantings and poor maintanance.  The course was abused by nearly every stakeholder, yet it was still a joy to play.

In my opinion, Scarlet under the management regime like that at Chicago Golf Club would not require major renovation.  Cut the tree lines back as Nicklaus appears to have done, maybe introduce some diagonal bunkering here and there, expand the greens to their original pads, and follow prudent agronomical practices (including limiting play to some smaller extent), and it can play with many of the best.

Putting Perry Maxwell greens on such a beefed up golf course is not, in my opinion, neither MacKenzian nor representitive of Maxwell's work (whose three major works- Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes, and Colonial- are much more finesse courses, and whose greens resemble Scarlet's much more than Augusta National's or Cypress Point).   Those who believe that the "old" greens at Scarlet were too bland or simplistic are either accomplished putters, have not played the course in varied conditions, or have a need for a chemical stimulant.  

The bottom line, OSU may have a nice MacKenzie routing, but it has not been a MacKenzie course from the begining.  Can something be restored to what it never was?  As morning after/easy chair architects, do we have justifiable grounds to question the university and the Nicklaus organization?  And when the work is done, will it be fair to criticize JN for having failed to perform a faithful restoration of what some third parties envisioned as MacKenzie's design intent (which had not been finalized at least on paper)?

Finally, I see a problem with the argument that even if MacKenzie had not finished his design, we can impute or borrow from his other courses which would then earn Scarlet the Doctor's label.  This, it seems, implies that there are common, basic design elements or characteristics in his courses.  Would that not open Dr. MacKenzie to the same criticism so often aimed at Tom Fazio of being repetitive?    
 

   

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
Before you start criticizing me and telling me what I sould have done maybe you should familarize yourself with MacKenzie, his design for Ohio State, what historical documentations exists, the architectural history of the golf course, the interworkings of the University, how the Athletic department works, the modus operandi of the athletic director, the history of this renovation project, my efforts regarding this project and the restoration background of Nicklaus and Co."

I don't think it is necessary.  If you say you did all you could, I'll take it on your word.  Too bad it wasn't enough.   Surprising that a Penn man (Andy Geiger) as AD would not listen to a cogent argument.

[TEPaul]

The exchange in the last few days on this thread between Tom MacWould and Wayne Morrison is typical of Tom MacW, in my opinion. Just crticize restoration architects after the fact without making the effort of doing anything about it in the field. In some cases without ever having seen certain courses he criticizes the restoration of-----

And then when someone like Wayne tells him he could be a help if he got involved he accuses Wayne of lecturing him. He then gets defensive and asks Wayne this;

"Are you really interested in the Ohio State design and MacKenzie (have you done any research into either) or does this have to do with my questioning what was done at Aronimink?"

I don't know about Wayne but I've told Tom MacW a bunch of times that his criticisms of Aronimink's bunkers without even having been to that course is the single best reason I'd lecture MacWould to get out in the field more before he starts criticizing architects and others who do. What has Tom MacWood ever seen of those bunkers anyway other than a 1939 aerial from 6,000 feet and some bunkers on the first hole from a photo taken from about 375 yards away. Tom MacWood either won't or can't answer why he thinks 200 bunkers are so much more interesting to induce him to calling the course "remarkable" but the creation of Ross's own bunkers a "mistake".

In my opinion, this kind of constant avoiding of getting  involved in projects, particularly if some architect actually asks him to is just a lack of guts to take some responsibility. And why won't he get involved? Probably because it might subject him to criticism for actually making some mistake himself. Without ever getting involved comes a distinct lack of credibility, in my opinion. If he, or anyone else, is going to criticize anyone else who gets involved he should at least try doing it himself first.

[Lou_Duran]

"If he, or anyone else, is going to criticize anyone else who gets involved he should at least try doing it himself first"  TE Paul

Tom Paul,

I am assuming that your tag team thing with Mucci against TMac is some of the good-natured ribbing that you guys are known for in your select group.  Certainly you jest that TMac hasn't gotten involved at OSU.

Andy Geiger was the AD who I contacted and his letter, possibly still in my files somewhere, was very clear that no "outside" assistance was needed or wanted.  BTW, from my experience, this is not unusual in academia which has more than its share of extremely smart, know-it-all types with unduly large egos (no, I am not suggesting that Mr. Geiger falls into this group).

If we were to follow your advice (doing before criticizing), this site would collapse, as there are far, far many more talkers here than doers.  I too put more weight on the field experiences of guys like DeVries, Doak, Richardson, Mahaffey, Beck, Galea, etc., but that doesn't make me dismiss the observations and opinions of guys like Goodale, Cirba, Moriarty, and Goldman who may not have built or maintained a course.

In actuality, since the latter group may better represent the paying customer with perhaps fewer biases involved (no dog in the hunt), maybe I am wrong to weigh their opinions lower.  Back in my old days in the corporate world, when Frito-Lay tested new products, it didn't set up a taste panel of  other chippers or commodity growers.  It went directly to consumers.  And no matter how much the scientists and marketeers liked a product, if it scored badly with these consumer panels, it never saw the light of day.

Golf is not analogous as simply in the short run.  Over the longer haul though, it might very well be.  It is nice to see that the consumer still calls the shots and he is "sophisticated" enough to recognize a variety of styles and designers.  Critics, raters, complainers, etc. have their say, and no doubt this information is processed along with that of architects and industry insidedrs who toot or blow their own horns.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

Tom MacWood has criticized my approach and/or methods on several occassions, but, at least I made the effort to become involved and had varying degrees of influence over the finished products.

It's like the old saying,
" Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

This is one of the issues TEPaul and I were trying to make him aware of, namely, that the best of intentions, or the most prudent advice and soundest plans aren't always well received by those in charge of a project at a golf course.

And, even if you get involved, compromises to your ideas or plans may have to be made in order to move the project forward.

Clubs and architects don't look at an 80 year old aerial photo and decide to replicate it in the absolute.

Tom MacWood tends to have a rigid position when it comes to this area, and as Brad Klein stated, that's why purists don't get anything done, they're too inflexible.

I have no doubt that Tom MacWood would like to see the OSU Scarlet course reconstructed to MacKenzie's plans, but, that was NEVER going to happen.  And, it certainly wasn't going to happen if he didn't make the efforts necessary to become part of the process.

Everybody wants to be a critic of an idea or project, but few are willing to offer better solutions and even fewer are willing to make the ongoing effort to get involved.

Talk is cheap.

TEPaul doesn't need a lecture from you.
That's my job.

[TEPaul]

Lou Duran:

I agree with Pat about Tom MacWood's modus operandi on his criticisms on some of these restorations, certainly Aronimink. MacWood's position seems to be that some of these restorations shouldn't have happened because there's some chance some mistake will be made along the way. What he doesn't understand is Aronimink's restoration, like so many of these restorations, such as my own course and numerous other recent restorations have made many of these courses a whole lot better than they were before these restorations and a whole lot better than they'd be if they never happened.

As Pat said, there generally are some compromises along the way but that doesn't mean these restorations should not take place despite that as Tom MacWood seems to believe and imply on here. If someone thinks they have to be an all or nothing situation it shows me that person doesn't have enough experience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Finding information and sharing it is my greatest strength.
I would agree.
You do a superb job in acquiring information, even if you dispense it selectively.
It's some of the conclusions you draw that I take exception to.[/color]

I really don't get caught up in the politics or worrying about offending an architect...

Then your valueable time and efforts are doomed to failure.

Politics drives the architecture, architecture doesn't drive the politics.

If you want to get the "right" things done, then you have to learn to navigate the political waters and be flexible in reaching a compromise[/COLOR]

I stay away from personal comments, but sometimes an expose is looked upon as a personal attack.

The problem is that some of your conclusions aren't supported by the facts.

I wouldn't call supporting the statement that Seminole is FLAT an expose.

The same could be said of your conclusions regarding the bunkers and restoration work at Aronomink.

I think you have to be careful about making a declaration that you present as ..... an infallible conclusion.[/color]

Ross, MacKenzie, Travis, Tillinghast, Strong, etc. are dead, they need advocates.

I don't think that anyone disagree with that statement, but, you can't be a radical advocate who turns a blind eye toward reality, flexibility, compromise and politics, IF you want your efforts on their behalf to be successful. [/color]

Bringing to light how their important works have been altered is well worth a few barbs from Pat and TE (the ultimate rainmakers).

That's where TEPaul and I have a problem.
You proclaim that your view and your conclusions are the only possibilities, when in fact, they're not.
You still haven't explained how the bunkers at Aronomink went from Point A to Point B.
The fact is, you don't know.
None of us know.
But, you hammered Aronomink and Ron Prichard for constructing their bunkers exactly as Ross designed them.

You say that you're an advocate for Ross, yet you advocated constructing Aronomink's bunkers other than how Ross designed them.  That's a conflicted position.
To bolster your position, you speculated how they might have been altered from their original design, yet you have NO FACTS to support your conclusion.  And that's where TEPaul, Wayne Morrison, myself and others take exception to your conclusions.

You hold yourself out to be "infallible", and therein lies the rub.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Ross, MacKenzie, Travis, Tillinghast, Strong, etc. are dead, they need advocates. Bringing to light how their important works have been altered is well worth a few barbs from Pat and TE (the ultimate rainmakers). I can take it and I know many find the information interesting and useful...but it is also sometimes threatening."

The real trouble with you, Tom MacWood, is you need to stop looking at people like me and Pat Mucci as some kind of enemy of yours, or some kind of enemy of restoration or preservation----we are not that by any means. We are all pretty much in the same boat here in our architectural, restoration and preservation mentalities and goals and if you can't see that for some reason I think we feel your modus operandi will be pretty ineffectual in the end.

You can continue to say that you have no interest in getting involved in club politics or whatever, and that type of statement may even sound good to some of the contributors on here.

But club politics is a reality----and they are part of virtually every golf club whether you or we like it or not. Failing to realize that and deal with it effectively is definitely half the battle of accomplishing a successful restoration or preservation project.

There're a lot of good architecture analysts on here but the best of them are the ones who've been through the entire process (both with research and the clubs themselves) and not just those who only do research. We all admire your ability to do research---we're only saying you should not stop there as you do with the types of rationalizations you give us on the club side. You need to try to get involved more on the club side of restorations when you offer research. You need to understand that intelligent compromise is better than no project at all in most to many cases.

And until you start doing more of the latter I don't believe someone like you deserves the credibility you seem to want with or through your criticisms. And lastly if you are going to criticize a restoration project as you have some, you really do need to at least visit the course your criticizing. That's such an obvious no brainer as to hardly be worth stating. Getting really into the details of a restoration project takes a whole lot more intimate knowledge of a golf course than some rater or whatever who simply goes there once and offers his opinion of the golf course. So it's obvious that if anyone is going to effectively criticize a restoration project they have to have at least seen the golf course. You can continue to avoid that fact or deny it but that'll never change the importance or necessity of it.

And lastly, you should stop being so defensive of these things we say to you, it doesn't have anything to do with you personally, I don't even know you and I doubt Pat does either----it would be the same for anyone.  

Again, we're all basically in the same boat on the issue of restoration or preservation and if you can't see that I doubt you'll ever be very effective or influential in this area.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

No we are not limited beyond GMGC and Boca Rio as you said--not at all.

I realize the Flynn material has been most helpful as an entre but we have gotten involved with clubs because of that.

And I will never agree with the way you present yourself regarding Aronimink. You've never been there, you never got involved in a timely way and you certainly never produced anything they didn't have long before you produced it. You were merely critical of what was carefully considered by them and for very good reason you just happen not to agree with. You don't even accept the reasons and rational they used regarding McGovern, and the Ross drawings. You don't even acknowledge other realistic reasons for their decision such as cost and maintenance. All these add up to a lack of credibility with your opinions and criticisms on the part of most anyone who was involved and part of the process. And you actually call what you did a help? Hardly.

With other golf clubs who've never seen or who've never been aware of what you might or can produce I can see your point but even then if you're going to be critical of what they end up doing you need to be aware of the process within the club of why decisions are made. Without that you'll never be dealing with any of those restorations realistically and that's not good.

You can continue to cast this anyway you want to but it all boils back down to the same thing in the end----eg if you're going to be credibly critical you need to get involved particularly if they're willing to let you be involved.

As a for instance, the Merion bunker project---a few of us did get involved before the decision or the project got underway. A few of us went over there at their invitation and told them to do the sanding and drainage but to merely repair the surrounds and not completely take them apart and start all over again. They didn't listen and they took them completely apart and started all over again with machines. At first they looked awful and we had good reason to be critical. We should have given the bunkers time to grass in before completely slamming the bunker project because that most certainly makes them look far more natural and rugged now----even if they look very little like anything Merion East ever had before grass-surround-wise.

But we did get involved---they allowed us to and we did. You on the other hand never got involved that way---you only criticized them after the fact and still today you've never been there to lay eyes on that course either although that sure never stopped you from conjecturing on who was responsible for the course being designed and how they should treat it now. Perhaps you think you have some way of becoming intimately familar with these courses you've never seen from a state over but I sure don't see it. Who would if they really think about it?

[TEPaul]

"TE
You don't have to be in Philadelphia to see obvious differences between Aronimink as built and the golf course as restored. You don't have to have played ANGC in 1935 to see obvious differences in the course today. You don't have to have seen the 12th at GCGC in 1936 to see today's version is different. You don't have to have visited Hirono, Bethpage or Ohio State to see how these courses differ from their original design."

Tom MacWood:

Frankly, I wouldn't even agree with that. But you do have to be at those places and involved with those projects and familiar with those courses to understand WHY there may be those differences. Otherwise why would restoration architects and others who do get involved even bother going to the courses they work on? Why wouldn't they just collect research material, construct a plan off that and mail it in without ever seeing the course? The reasons they can't or don't do that is patently obvious to most everyone but perhaps not to you. This is precisely what you seem not to understand or even care about and as we've been telling you for so long that makes some of the things you say and some of your criticisms unrealistic. Of course you may continue to argue otherwise but the fact is you're not aware of perhaps half of what it takes to get a good restoration project done because basically you can't or don't acknowledge approximately half of what it takes to do one.

[TEPaul]

"I don't see bringing to light these differences as being incredibly critical. Restoration architects who present their work as historically accurate may look upon my fact finding as incredibly critical, but I can not help that."

Tom MacWood:

On the Aronimink bunker project you didn't find any facts that were not previously known by the club and others. All you did is offer your opinion that what was done was not historically accurate and a mistake. That's an opinion you seem to hold virtually alone. Although it seems to be nearly impossible for you to understand or agree with, in retrospect the club and Prichard are happy with the decision that was made to create Ross's own bunker drawings. You may think you've proven that he approved or was even aware of the change but of course you have done nothing of the kind. That too is not factually known---it's merely your opinion. Most, who know the club, the course and the history of the place and those who worked on it disagree with some of your assumptions and conclusions. I don't expect you to even acknowledge that---but again that's part and parcel of what getting involved in restoration projects is all about----eg not everyone agrees with your assumptions and conclusions. That may be the primary reason you never do get involved---that's probably a reality you either can't or don't know how to deal with. But that's life----that's the realities of restoration projects.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

With that single photo you produced on here (which the club had) attempting to prove that the bunkers near and around the 1st green that could not be very well seen from the tee, as well as the fact that the bunkers on #3 that could basically not be seen PROVED the course was built with 200 bunkers instead of Ross's app 90 from his original drawings is a bunch of crap. Basically you had nothing to prove how that course was built. You simply got lucky in your supposition that it may've been built that way---a supposition, I might add, that had occured to the club, Prichard and myself for years. The fact was that neither you nor anyone else at that time could prove how the bunkers were originally built. That proof was not established until June of this year when I realized while talking to the Hagley that earlier Aronimink aerial photos are available (at least ten years earlier, I might add!). Wayne Morrison went down there and got them and proved how those bunkers were originally built. It was most certainly not you. Yours was only part of the suppositions up until that point.

If simply extrapolating how the bunkers on a golf course originally looked from a single hole photograph and not a very good one at that is your idea of really good research material I'm afraid your modus operandi is a lot shoddy or else you're being a bit hypocritical in the way you try to present yourself and what you can do research-wise.

We're the ones who finally proved how those bunkers were originally built---not you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You certainly don't have to be in those places to document the changes...which is what you've characterized as incredibily critical.

Tom, this is part of your problem.
You believe that every change and the reason for the change is clearly documented, when they're not.  
Show me the documentation with respect to why the right greenside bunker on # 17 at GCGC was split into four (4) bunkers.  It doesn't exist.
And, that was only done a few years ago.

Sometimes you have to be on site to understand the change and the reason for the change because you won't find the documentation that details the reasons or the results.[/color]

You don't even have to be in those places to find the rational for the changes...ANGC, GCGC, Bethpage, Yale, Riviera and Ohio State are well documented.

That's not true.
What was the rationale for GCGC to change the right greenside bunker on # 17 a few years ago ?
Try to find the documentation and rationale for the changes to # 12, # 14 and # 5.  It's not an cut and dry as you would like to believe, and that's part of the problem.

Just because you find documentation related to an alteration doesn't mean that that documentation is all encompassing in the revelation of the circumstances and facts regarding that alteration.  And, that's part of your problem, you take that one scintilla of evidence and expand it to a universal.
That's why I'm critical of some of your conclusions, they're flawed because they're based on limited evidence, coupled with your desire to reach a preset conclusion[/color]

I was told the course was built with single bunkers and then altered, most likely by the rogue McGovern.

Who told you that ?[/color]

When I intitially showed the first hole (and the third) circa 1929 had multiple bunkers, I was told, that the picture did not prove anything. You don't have to be in Philadelphia to know that kind of thinking is completely illogical.

Yes you do.
You have to understand the topography of the land and the angle of the photo.
Both of which you weren't familiar with because you've never seen the land.
The same thing occured at Seminole.
If you had ever been there you would never have supported the statement that the golf course is FLAT.[/color]

The problem with many restoration projects today is lack of historical documentation. The result of this lack of knowledge is you've got far too many advocates of restoration/redisign aligning themselves with restoration/redesign specialists instead of aligning themselves with original architect. If you are looking for the root of our disagreement (Pat and you, and myself) that is it from my point of view.

This is where you go wrong.

First you assume that the club is embarking on a "pure" restoration, when in most cases, nothing could be further from the truth.

Second, you assume that the membership has no say in the direction and outcome of the project.  Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

Third, you forget that it was the club that reached out to the architect.   The architect didn't reach out to the club.
Thus, in most cases, the club has a preset mindset on the direction and scope of the project.
Sometimes, they're dissatisfied with their golf course and want to change it.  And, they arrived at this conclusion long before an architect set foot on the property.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

You don't have to be in Philadelphia to see obvious differences between Aronimink as built and the golf course as restored.

Correct.
And, you don't have to be in Philadelphia to see the obvious consistency between Aronomink as designed by Ross and the golf course as restored to those designs.

This is what you fail to understand.
And, since you can't document how the bunkers went from Point A to Point B, Aronomink made a prudent choice in building them as Ross himself designed them.[/color]

You don't have to have played ANGC in 1935 to see obvious differences in the course today. You don't have to have seen the 12th at GCGC in 1936 to see today's version is different. You don't have to have visited Hirono, Bethpage or Ohio State to see how these courses differ from their original design.

There's more to understanding what took place, and what's possible than comparing two dated photos, and again, that's part of your failing when you draw conclusions.[/color]

I don't see bringing to light these differences as being incredibly critical.

I do.
And, I see the issue of establishing why the alterations took place and what the current membership is willing to do, going forward, as critical.  You continue to ignore the influence of the membership when they're the ones making the decisions and funding the projects.[/color]

Restoration architects who present their work as historically accurate may look upon my fact finding as incredibly critical, but I can not help that.

You hold yourself out as an infallible expert, when in fact, you get your facts and your conclusions wrong.  AND, despite evidence to the contrary, you're too inflexible to admit that you're wrong.

Your support of the alleged statement that Seminole is FLAT is a perfect example of your not having the facts and drawing flawed conclusions.

The same applies to Aronomink's bunkers.
You don't know how they went from Point A to Point B
Yet you excoriated Aronomink and Ron Prichard for their decision despite the fact that you NEVER provided any facts to show that Ross himself redesigned and rebuilt those bunkers.

I've also felt that you're selective in the revelation of your research.[/color]

Even if I did not have a real job and could travel at will, I'm not sure trying to involve myself in every potential restoration project would be practical. My interest goes beyond a single architect, it would be physically impossible to insert myself around the globe.

That's B.S.
The title of this thread is "OSU Scarlet Restoration"
Columbus, Ohio isn't halfway around the world, it's your own backyard.
If you love OSU, architecture, MacKenzie and pure restorations as you claim, you had the obligation to expend the efforts required to exert influence on the project.

Before being critical of our efforts you should examine your own methods and track record.  As TEPaul said, we're all on the same general wave length, but you seem to be on the extreme part of the spectrum.[/color]

Under my current circumstaces I believe I can have more impact doing what I currently do.

Noone doubts that you can't be a valueable resource, it's some of your inflexible views and flawed conclusions that are called into question.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

We sure don't need to get back into the Aronimink or Seminole thing. My (or our) objections to the way you establish reasons for your critical comments of some courses that have undergone restoration projects have more than been covered on here, that's for sure. To me, if anyone at all wants to try to speak authoritatively about any golf course and their restoration project they do have to at least have seen it. That should be so obvious to anyone as to be almost not worth mentioning. For you to continuously deny that say a lot in the general scheme of things.