OSU Scarlet restoration

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don’t know the why, but I do know the how….and that is good enough for me.  color=green]

NO, you don't.[/color]

Donald J Ross & Associates built the golf course….that is not speculative. Agreed.[/color]

Long time associate JB McGovern oversaw the construction…that is not speculative.

You don't know to what degree and if he was the one who deviated from the detailed design plans.
His role remains speculative.[/color]

Ross was on site during the construction…that is not speculative.

YES, it is, because you don't know when, for how long, and what he did when he visited the site.  His role remains speculative.[/color]

Ross stated he was pleased with the results…that is not speculative.

NO, he stated that he was surprised by the results, as to whether he was pleased, we'll never know.[/color]

“Do you really think he would have expressed his disappointment or displeasure at the outcome ?”
 
No. But I find a distinction between expressing disappointment, saying nothing and offering praise.
That's strictly conjecture on your part.[/color]

From what I gather you feel Ross was being DISINGENOUS. He designed or redesigned close to 400 golf courses, what are some examples of his disingenuousness?

Once again, you draw a conclusion, a false conclusion, and you draw it on my behalf.

You don't know if Ross was sincere, surprised or just diplomatic.
He may have been disengenuous.
How would you react if a sub-ordinate in your company deviated from your designs and you showed up for the ceremonial opening ?[/color]

Why don’t you respect Ross's opinion of Aronimink?

Who said I didn't respect his opinion ?   YOU.
I questioned it in the context of: "would he say anything that wasn't complimentary", and you agreed with me, that he wouldn't.

So, you don't know if he was satisfied or dissatisfied with the results in the context of the deviation from his original detailed hole by hole, feature by feature design.

If Ross was surprised with the results, why shouldn't I be ?[/color]

I researched the architectural history of the golf course (and Alister MacKenzie) and wrote a (comprehensive I hope) essay sharing the architecrtural history and my thoughts on what should happen. I sent the essay (and my personal thoughts) to the AD, the pro/golf coach and the superintendent, as well as a number of golf architects intimate with either Ohio State or MacKenzie. And met or spoke with most of them to share my thoughts on the project.

I met and spoke with all the principals, sharing my vision of what MacKenzie planned and what I thought should happen….unfortunately Nicklaus was not one of those, he only expressed an interest in the project at the 11th hour.
Why didn't JUST ONE of the many people you spoke with listen to you and influence the outcome ?[/color]

TE
“So, in your opinion, there is no way at all those cluster bunkers could've been built without Ross's authorizing the change before they were built?”

Based on all the evidence extremely unlikely.
What evidence ?[/color]

“What do you make of Dick Wilson's alterations to Flynn's plan at Shinnecock?”

A young, maverick underling making unauthorized alterations that were ultimately reversed.

And McGovern couldn't fill the same role ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

"There is no reason for your recollection of what happened in 2000-2001 to change in 2004-2005 unless your memory is shot or you alter your story as new facts are introduced. You worry me."

Tom MacWood:

My recollections of what happened in 2000-2001 did not change in 2004-2005, no matter how much you try to cut and paste to prove that. What changed between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 is my understanding of what happened at Aronimink between 1929 and 1939. The same is true with Ron Prichard, the club and probably everyone else who's been involved in this.

What also changed in 2004 is I learned of that tournament program and the signifcance of it to Ron Prichard. The reason I learned that is obviously as a result of these discussions I called him up and spoke to him again a number of times about the entire bunker project at Aronimink. And of course all of us learned something about three weeks ago that no one I know realized who was involved in the project (the 1929 Dallin aerial).

Some of the original questions concerning Ron Prichard and the club in 2000 have been answered. The question that hasn't been answered and probably never will be is why those bunker designs were changed from singles to clusters. No one may ever know if that's what Ross intended. And to go back to original point of all this---Aronimink wanted bunkers that they were certain were Ross's, I'd have to say they accomplished that goal as well as they could have.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood asked Pat:

"From what I gather you feel Ross was being DISINGENOUS. He designed or redesigned close to 400 golf courses, what are some examples of his disingenuousness?"

Tom MacWood:

Maybe Pat feels Ross was being disingenuous, I really don't know. I don't feel that some of the things Ross said about his projects were disingenuous but I certainly do think a few of them were or may have been hypebole to the extent of being frankly laughable.

What he said at GMGC is certainly an example of that and the famous Aronimink remark has been thought of for years as possibly that.

I realize a guy like you tends to almost automatically glorfy almost everything about an architect like Ross. He certainly was talented, some of his architecture has pretty much proven that through the decades long "test of time". But not all his architecture under his name was at that high level for obvious reasons---eg high production.

It's no secret that a large slice of the golfing public has correlated high production with talent. In a sense popularity has almost become synoymous with talent in the minds of many. Is popularity and constant quality of architecture really true? Of course not.

There's no question in my mind Donald Ross was very likely a self-promoter and basically a sophisticated super salesman to an extent that may have even topped the quality of his architecture. It probably worked even better because of his basically avuncular aura.

But if you take as gospel and as evidence of fact everything Ross said and certainly some of the things Ross sometimes said about his projects you are truly naive, in my opinion. The interesting thing is a sophisticated salesman prone to the type of occassional hyperbole evidenced in some of Ross's remarks about some of his projects pretty much counted on people like you.

Who would deny that Ross would be delighted to see his "glorification" continue to build the way it has in recent times. After a while, and perhaps on sites like this it can get to the point he can basically do no wrong.

Is that an intelligent way to accurately analyze and evaluate his architecture and the things that went on when it was being designed and created? Of course not. But perhaps you haven't realized that yet.

[TEPaul]

"You first recollect that Ron and the club thought the course was originally built with clusters of bunkers. A few days later Ron corrects your recollection…he says he never believed the course was built with clusters. Your most recent recollection is Ron assumed that the course was originally built with clusters. That is not changing your recollection?"

Tom MacWood:

There certainly is an inconsistency in that statement on my part. The only inconsistency seems to be I should not have used the word "never" in that post above.

Ron did not say that to me. What he did say on 9/9/05, I guess it was, is that he felt the course was built with those singles originally.

The reason he told me that in Sep '04 is because of what he considered to be the significance of those drawings in that tournament program. If he ever told me about that tournament program before I did not realize until Sep '04 the significance it had to him. That is precisely why I mentioned in Sep '04 that I was making a "correction" in the chronology of that bunker project. I did that because of what he told me about that tournament program in Sep '04.

And, as I've said many times on here I do not know when he found that tournament program and I still don't. I do know that it was never mentioned in 2000-2001. If he had it with him then I certainly never saw it or was aware of it, and as far as I know no one else was aware of it then or of its potential significance. It was never discussed to my knowledge. My assumption has been he found that program at some point after 2000-2001, but again I don't know when he found it or considered it.

Obvously if Ron Prichard was as sure in 2000-2001 that the tournament program meant the course was very likely built with single bunkers why do you suppose he called me back then to ask what I thought of the difference between Ross's plans and that 1939 aerial?

Back then he showed me the Ross plans and the 1939 aerial. If he had that tournament program then I did not know that and I still don't. I have no idea where he found it or when.

I watched them go through this dilemma back then and I watched them make the decision of what to do with the bunkers. If Ron had that tournament program back then maybe it was just added justification for the decision they did make.

I then watched the bunkers being created from time to time. Everyone thought it was the right decision to make and they all think that today as far as I can see. I have not seen a single person disagree with that decsion or call it a mistake. The only one I know of anywhere who has ever questioned that decision once it was made and executed is you. John Goesslin did say on here he would have preferred to see those cluster bunkers done in the bunker project even if he considered it a 'radical decision' and he also said he completely understands why the singles were done in the bunker project and he does not disagree with that.

There never was an issue with any of this after the decision was made and the bunker project done. The only one who's ever made an issue out of any of this is you---and on this website perhaps a year or two after it was done.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder why any of us are going through any of this or ever did just for your benefit. You appear to be the only one who thinks a mistake was made. Aren't you the one who keeps saying anyone should do there own 'independent research"? Then why didn't you do that either before, during or after the project without questioning the hell out of all of us this way? You're the only one who seems to have a problem with it. Why didn't you get on the phone and ask Ron and the club all these questions? Why didn't you call the Hagley? Why didn't you go to Aronimink to see what they had or have?

One begins to wonder why exactly it is you're so fixated on this when no one else seems to care a wit. I think it's because you constantly try to criticize and point out that trivialities are massive architectural mistakes on the part of others after the fact to make yourself look like some expert researcher.

Hindsight is always easier, as everyone knows, Tom MacWood. Anyone on this board should watch to see if it's always hindsight you deal in. I think it is and that's another good reason you should get involved in these projects, even if it's with your supposedly "expert research" whilel they're been planned and being done.

I sort of feel like an idiot to have ever gotten involved in this issue which you alone made a mountain our of a molehill over on here.

I should've said on here a couple of years ago when you alone made such an issue over the Aronimink bunker project being a mistake---"Who really cares what you think, since you've never been there, you don't know the facts, and no one appears to agree with you anyway?"

Your only response probably would've been you're the only one who's protecting Donalld Ross and his architecture. Bullshit!

The question remains---why were Ross's plans changed so swiftly between him doing them and the bunkers being built. No matter what you try to come up with on here as proof of why that may've been done the fact remains you just don't know.

Aronimink was dedicated to creating what they were sure were Ross bunkers from the very beginning of this project and that's what they did.

They made the right decision. If some self-server from Ohio who's still never even been there disagrees--so what?


 

 

[TEPaul]

"What exactly did Ross say about GMGC? Considering the timing of his remarks and the state of golf in Philadelphia at that time (in particular Merion and PVGC), do you think his comments were insincere?"

Tom MacWood:

I've put what Ross said about GMGC on this website four or five times. Why don't you conduct some of your famous "independent research" and find it yourself? I'm sick of doing research for you so you can gratuitously criticize people for no good reason in the hopes of trying to make yourself look like you know what you're talking about.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Your recollection of that conversation is better today (10 months later), than it was the day he spoke to you?"

Perhaps. The use of the word "never" really was a catosrpophic inconsistency, right? I doubt is was to anyone but you.

"Mike Cirba also recently said he would have preferred they restore the course as built."

I've certainly never seen Mike Cirba make remotely the issue out of this you have. My feeling is Mike Cirba thinks the Aronimink restoration is a success and not a mistake.

"Why didn't Ron search the Hagley...to see if there might be some old photos that might assist the project?"

He did. I mentioned that on these threads too but I guess you missed that as well.

"Since you are using Ross's comments to prove your point about his salesmanship and hyperbole, the least you could do is post his remarks for all those following this discusion. And post any other examples you might have uncovered that lend credence to your theory."

Ok, I will. Too much trouble for you to do your famous "indepedent research" on this website and post it for all to see, huh. How ironic!  

[TEPaul]

""TE
I understand your defense of the club and of Ron Prichard's work there.  

I also understand that MacWood would rather the club had restored to what was originally on the ground and with the knowledge gained with this thread, I'd concur.  
There are pros and cons to each and at some point the club had to make an educated guess and so did Prichard.  I think Tom MacWood has a right to question their assessment, however." ~~Mike Cirba 7/1/05"

Tom MacWood:

OF course there are pros and cons. It wouldn't have bothered me at all if the club and Prichard restored the course to those cluster bunkers. But the point is the club wanted to be certain the bunkers they did do really were Ross's and that's one of the reasons they made the decision they did. I certainly can understand that and agree with it. From the knowledge gained from this thread maybe they would have done the cluster bunkers and I would concur to but unfortunately it's four years after they did the project and I doubt they want to do it again. There still is the question of why those bunkers were changed from Ross's plan and whether he had to do with it.

"You said Ron picked up the 1939 aerial at the Hagley....I believe you are mistaken. The 1939 aerial was not a Dallin photo...it came from the National Archive."

I don't know if he picked up the 1939 aerial but he did say he either went down there or was in touch with them and they had the 1939 aerial but they could not find the others.

I went over to the maintenance building and looked at the aerial John Goesslin mentioned. It's probably Dallin's 1939 aerial that I beleive was taken in May 1939. All those small trees that you can see in the 1939 aerial that Ron used are basically the same size. That aerial is definitely not 1929 and Dallin's collection has a ten year gap from 1929 to 1939. The aerial Ron used may be from the National archives, I really don't know. He had it when I first became aware of all this. I have it on my desk now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You keep avoiding the critical issue.

Do you know exactlly how Aronomink's bunkers went from their configuration as depicted in Donald Ross's detailed design plans to their as built form as evidenced in 1928 ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Do you know the details of Donald Ross personal and actual involvement in that transition ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

If McGovern deviated from Ross's detailed design plans and built them as depicted on opening day, would you vote to restore the golf course to McGovern's work or Ross's plans ?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood;

From GMGC records;

Donald Ross the preeminent golf course architect of his time, was contracted by the Organizers to build what he promised to be ".....one of the best inland courses in this country and that it will be a much superior course to any around Philadelphia."

Tom MacW:

Of course there's nothing remotely wrong with you accepting  everything Ross said and which was recorded in writing as gospel but there's nothing remotely wrong with any of us stating that we believe by doing so you are a little bit more than naive---and perhaps a good deal less than realistic.

I certainly do know what Ross did at GMGC and also who else was very likely responsible for some of the details of the golf course (the look of the bunkering and such) and it certainly may not have been Ross in the details of the final product. (actually the overseeing of the construction of our course was by a founding member who could vaguely pass as our little Crump---a man by the name of Weston Hibbs---eg he spent app three years overseeing construction of GMGC).

If you can't see blatant hyperbole in Ross's statement about GMGC when there already was the famous Merion East and PVGC which are definitely 'around Philadelphia' I guess it's just not possible for you to recognize blatant hypebole at all. No problem there really, but I sure wouldn't be very interested in the opinions of someone as an interesting and accurate historian on golf course architecture who thinks that way.

[TEPaul]

Pat asked Tom MacWood;

“If McGovern deviated from Ross's detailed design plans and built them as depicted on opening day, would you vote to restore the golf course to McGovern's work or Ross's plans?”

Tom MacWood’s response:

“Yes,
Donald Ross designed the golf course. Donald Ross & Associates built the golf course. Donald Ross was on site during construction. Donald Ross was pleased with the results. These are known facts.
I'm very interested in your conjecture...present your theory.”

Tom MacWood:

Pat, may not know the story of Jeffersnville G.C but Ron Prichard certainly does and I do too, to an extent. Do you?

[TEPaul]

"The last question was based upon speculation. There is no evidence McGovern deviated from the plan. The answer to the question...I would not base a restoration on speculation. Speculative restoration is redesign....that is one of the reason's I question what occured at Aronimink."

What last question? There's no evidence that McGovern deviated from the plan? No there isn't but there was a lot around here that would indicate he certianly may have deviated from Ross's plan---not the least of which is the example of Jeffersonville. I don't blame you for not wanting to consider that Tom, as Prichard and the Aronimink did---it just doesn't fit into your "after the fact" opinion. Talk about looking at a decision with blinders on---that really is you on this issue.

It's ironic that you would say what you just did about speculation. There's also no evidence of Ross approving or even being aware of that bunker change either. Once again, why would he have drawn those single bunker plans so elaborately if they weren't what he wanted at Aronimink? Speculation is precisely what Aronimink wanted to avoid and they did that. They knew those plans really were Ross's. The rest, including those cluster bunkers was speculation.

"The course as built by Ross was one of his more unique designs. I'm surprised you fellows don't see the same thing Mike Cirba, John Gosselin, myself and others see from an architectural point of view."

The course as built was one of Ross's more unique designs? Oh really? Why is that? Because it had those multi-bunker sets? What would you call that unique style then---the McGovern/Jeffersonville style? I don't think Aronimink was as interested in that as they were in Ross's  own plans for Aronimink itself. Are you aware of other courses with McGovern as foreman with those clusters? I think we are. Have you seen Ross drawings with those clusters? Maybe you have an if so produce them to prove it. And once you've done that produce cluster bunkers at Aronimink drawn by Ross. That would constitute proof. Anything less does not.

Read again what John Goesslin said and you might see he said he does not disagree with the decision they made.

And so Tom MacWood and Mike Cirba disagree with the decision that was made after the fact? A lot of people from the club were involved in that decision and I think they got what they wanted which were undeniably Ross bunkers. Those multi-bunker sets were not as undeniably Ross as some like you seems to want to continue to say they were. Of course you can just continue to say that endlessly but that doesn't prove a thing.

They got Ross bunkers and they got what they wanted. If a Tom MacWood or a Mike Cirba disagree with it after the fact, so what? That certainly would not remotely constitute "a mistake".

Your opinion, Tom, in this long Aronimink bunker project discussion has been found to be what it always was---eg essentially baseless.

Next subject!?

[TEPaul]

"TE
When did Ross make that remark, and what was the architectural state of Merion and Pine Valley at the time?"

Likely between late 1916 and early 1917. At that point Merion had held a national championship and was famous and PVGC while still under construction was perhaps even more famous in the world of golf architecture then. Perhaps you are unaware of that though. Certainly Donald Ross wasn't as he'd been to PVGC under construction and was known to say only to the person he went down there with that PVGC may be the best golf course in the world.

"Did you find any other comments that Ross made that support your theory that he was prone to hyperbole?"

No, I would say those two examples are pretty damn good examples of hyperbole. Why don't you check with the Tufts, Brad klein or the DRS? I'm sure they could supply you with plenty of the things Ross said while competing for projects or on opening days.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You keep avoiding the critical issue.

Do you know exactlly how Aronomink's bunkers went from their configuration as depicted in Donald Ross's detailed design plans to their as built form as evidenced in 1928 ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Do you know the details of Donald Ross personal and actual involvement in that transition ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

If McGovern deviated from Ross's detailed design plans and built them as depicted on opening day, would you vote to restore the golf course to McGovern's work or Ross's plans ?

Could you answer each of the above three questions without altering their form or content ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TE
Merion did host the national amateur in 1916 (CC of Detroit in 1915), but the course did not receive much attention from an architectural point of view until it was redesigned in the 1920's (CC of Detroit was rebuilt in the 20's as well). From what I understand many of the principals involved in the creation of GMGC left Merion. 1916 was not a particularly good year for Pine Valley either.  

If you look his comments from a 2005 perspective, he was way off the mark. If you take his comments in context, looking at them from historical view point, I do not believe his comments were out of line or hyperbole.

IMO it is a sad affair when you have to drag Ross and McGovern down to rationalize a questionable decision."

Tom MacWood:

From where I sit in Philadelphia, having been part of this scene and a student of the history of it's architecture what you just said about Merion East and PVGC is simply not true, historically or otherwise.

The point is those two courses were incredibly respected for the quality of their courses and architecture in 1916 and 1917 despite the fact anyone who knew or knows now anything about them understood and understands they were not finished. Merion East took just about 20 or 22 years to finish and PVGC approximately ten. Those facts in no way detered from their instant fame and the preception of them at that time (1916 and 1917) as perhaps two of the best golf courses in America.

As you know, I have little use for your occasional revisionisms of historical fact and I'm most definitely not going to let you try to persuade anyone on here of what you just said. You're just wrong.

And consequently if you took Ross's comments about GMGC in the context of 1916 or 1917 he most certainly was "off the mark" and given to hyperbole on that remark.

Lastly, no one is trying to drag Ross or even McGovern down to rationalize a questionable decision. First of all the decision Aronimink made regarding their bunker project is not considered a questionable one.

How could that be if the bunker project has enjoyed almost universal acclaim? Are you really so arrogant and blind as to think that this practically lone opinion of yours that the project was a "mistake" matters?  

I realize for some odd reason it's hard for you to come to grips with the general opinion of McGovern around here as not a bad golf architect necessarily, just not a particularly good one. That you automatically assume that anyone who worked for Ross, such as McGovern, had to have been good to great is simply laughable. You say we're assasinating his character after you put a thread on this board asking about McGovern since you claimed you knew virtually nothing about him? That's almost bizarre. What kind of blind preconception did you have of him anyway? The fact that you can't even listen to those around here who've known his architectural work for years is really amazing to me. First you say you know virtually nothing about him and then you accuse those who do know about him and his work as assasinating his character for expressing their honest opinion about him and how he's been preceived around here by golfers and local architects alike? That's simply amazing.

You just slough off a legitimate remark about McGovern by Flynn from Flynn's daughter?! What are you thinking? Are you thinking that because you haven't found that fact mentioned in some of your magazines and newspapers that Flynn's remark is just competitiveness or crap? Give Flynn's daughter some credit for knowing a bit more about her father and his opinions than you do. Well, forget that, it seems you have little idea how to give anyone's opinion who doesn't agree with you any credit or credence.

And you call yourself a competent golf course architecture analyst? What you are is a blind and automatic glorifier of architects with famous names that oddly seems to include all that worked for them as well.

Try to be a bit more objective and honest about history. Everything those men did was not a winner. Anybody who understands this subject certainly knows that if they're any good at it.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #119 why even bother to ask MacWood those questions any longer? He may even say he does have proof that Ross wanted those Aronimink bunkers built as clusters. The point is he just does not have it and this discussion has made that patently obvious long ago.

The fact is Aronimink wanted Ross bunkers and they constructed them to Ross's own Aronimink bunker plans. Obviously Tom MacWood will never cease labeling that decision and result a mistake. Can the lone opinion of a man from Ohio who's never even been to Aronimink really constitute a "mistake" when practically everyone who knows and has to do with that golf course approves of the results, not the least reason being the bunkers were constructed from Ross's own plans?

Of course not---not even close.

[wsmorrison]

Holes 1-9 (10-18 to be analyzed later) comparison between the Ross and Sickels drawings and 1939 aerial photograph (Tom P has the 1927 and 1928 photos):

Hole 1

McGovern mentions a group of bunkers 75 yards short and right of the green to catch a sliced second shot.  The bunkers were built but the diagram in the Delaware County Times shows a single bunker.  The diagram also shows a single bunker short left, but the as built was 2 bunkers.  The two bunkers built behind the green are not depicted in the Sickels drawing.

Hole 2

The Ross drawing shows two single fairway bunkers short left, a left greenside bunker short and a long bunker short and right of the green.  The aerial photograph shows the first Ross bunker on the left was built as 3 bunkers and the second as 2 bunkers.  There were a cluster of 3 bunkers built on the right side opposite the middle of the two bunker groups on the left not on the Ross drawing.  The long bunker short right of the green was built as 2 bunkers with a large space between.  

Hole 3

The single short right fairway bunker was built as planned.  The single short left fairway bunker was built as 2 bunkers.  The two single bunkers at the turn of the fairway short of the green were built as a series of three linear bunkers and not as the indicated bunkers simply broken up.  The right fairway bunker short of the green was built as 3 bunkers perpendicular to the line of play rather than as drawn; a single bunker on the line of play.  The single greenside bunkers were built as planned.

Hole 4

The three short single fairway bunkers were all built as clusters of three bunkers.  The single bunker short left of the green was built as a single bunker of different design.  The single right greenside bunker was built as planned.

Hole 5

Three bunkers fronting the green were built as four bunkers, removed rather than abutting the green.

Hole 6

The Ross drawing does not have a short left fairway bunker as depicted in the Sickel's drawing.  There was a short left fairway bunker built with three bunkers.  The two short right fairway bunkers were built as 5 and 4 bunker complexes.  The left and right fairway bunkers short of the green were built as 3 bunkers on the left and 4 on the right.  The long right greenside bunker does not appear built although there may be a small bunker just beyond the group of 4.

Hole 7

The single short right fairway bunker was built as three bunkers covering a larger area.  The long left greenside bunker and short center bunker in the Ross drawings were built.  A right front corner greenside bunker not on any drawings was also constructed.

Hole 8

Two single bunkers built as per plans, except left bunker has a small grass divide.

Hole 9

The short left and right fairway bunkers were not built.  The small field of 4 traps between the tee and fairway are only on the Sickels drawing and were not built.  The single middle left fairway bunker on the Ross plan was drawn as 2 bunkers on the Sickels plan.  The 1939 aerial shows a complex of 6 bunkers shared with the 18th hole.  The single right bunker short of the green was built.  The single bunker at the front left corner of the green was built in conjunction with bunkers short right of the 18th green.  

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Why do you suppose McGovern added commentary to the Sickels drawings for the 1931 PA Amateur and didn't mention the differences between as built, the Ross drawings and teh Sickels drawings?  Maybe he submitted the commentary independent of the drawings, who knows?  But it is another odd piece of this puzzling history.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Look, I know how the course was built, I saw a construction era photo and a photo of the course right before opening.  I just find it interesting to wonder why Sickles drew it the way he did and why the as built differs not only in number but size and orientation of bunkers.  The Sickles drawings were obviously very intricate and probably meant to accurately portray the course.  It did not however.

It is worth looking at the Sickles drawings as they are remarkably close to Ross's drawings with some differences.  What were they based on?  Certainly it is not a waste of time to compare the Ross drawings to the Sickles and to as built.  

There aren't any dates on the Ross drawings.  Again, I have to look at the routing map in the hallway (I'm nearly certain it matches the Ross hole drawings on grid paper) of the clubhouse and also see the date of the drawing.  It may be that the Ross drawings were to redo the course from the sets of multi-bunkers so these represent a later design iteration.  Can that be discounted at this point?  There are detailed construction instructions but I'm having a difficult time reading them.  What I have deciphered doesn't preclude the possibility.  I'm sure it is not the case, but it has to be answered.  

[TEPaul]

"When did Ross make his statement about GMGC....what is the source?"

Ross made that statement in 1916. The source is W.J. Hibbs, the secretary-Treasurer of the club who was with Ross on the site when he made that statement. Ross's remark is contained in a letter from Hibbs to the Board of Directors of GMGC. Hibb's letter is in GMGC's archives which luckily contains the minutes of every board meeting from 1916 to date.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I pretty much deciphered Ross's hand writing in those construction instructions. He does have pretty lousy writing. No wonder W.I. Johnson typed Ross's construction instructions on plans, if he didn't foreman and crews would've probably taken forever trying to figure out what he wrote.

Here's an interesting question. Which of Ross's golf courses have bunker drawings by Ross himself that were departed from in construction as comprehensively as Aronimink?

I bet it would be hard to find one of his courses with drawings as detailed by Ross himself as Aronimink's are that was not done. And if so it just makes this question of why the change from Ross's drawings to what was constructed at Aronimink that much more interesting and mysterious. Also, since Ross mentioned that he intended Aronimink to be his masterpiece (assuming that remark wasn't blatant hyperole) why weren't there W.I. Johnson hole by hole drawings with Ross's construction instructions typed on the hole by holes as there were for Seminole and others? Maybe they're gone and maybe they were never done for some reason.

I have Ross's original hole by hole plans for Seminole and if I could find an early aerial I could compare them as to any differences between Ross plans and "as built".

There really do seem to be some interesting parallels between Jeffersonville and Aronimink. In an ad in that tournament program the unusual bunkering at Jeffersonville is mentioned. Who is it that's assumed to have done Jeffersonville? J.B. McGovern. Even McGovern's daughter mentioned in an article recently that she thinks architectural attribution should be given to her father and perhaps not Ross. The owners of the course who did so much research to prove they were a Ross course have pretty much concluded Ross was probably never there.

The ad in the tournament program also mentions how beautifully tree-lined Jeffersonville is. One can see in those early Dallin aerials of Aronimink that it was not originally tree-lined at all. But one can see in the 1939 aerial the planting of hundreds of little trees between the holes basically beginning the tree-lining of Aronimink (another project (tree removal) that was thankfully completed during the recent restoration). Who was responsible for that? Apparently J. B. McGovern was on some of Aronimink's committees---that tournament program states that too.

How often did Ross have a construction foreman who was also a member of the golf club under construction? I'd bet Aronimink and McGovern may've been the only one.

But what would be the point of considering any of that, particularly if you're Tom MacWood and it doesn't jibe with your opinion, point and criticism of what was done 75 years later?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
“Do you know exactlly how Aronomink's bunkers went from their configuration as depicted in Donald Ross's detailed design plans to their as built form as evidenced in 1928 ?”

Donald Ross designed or redesigned 300+ golf courses. To my knowledge we do not know precisely how Ross got from point A to point B with any of those designs. Why would you expect Aronimink to be the exception?

Let's stick to Aronomink.
Do you know how the bunkers at Aronomink got from Point A to Point B ?[/color]

“Do you know the details of Donald Ross personal and actual involvement in that transition ?”

To my knowledge no one knows precisely how Donald J. Ross & Associates operated from a design standpoint. Namely how Ross & Hatch & Johnson or Ross & McGovern & Johnson arrived at a given design or collaborated on a given design.
So you admit that you don't know the scope of Ross's actual involvement at Aronomink and how the bunkers he depicted in detailed design plans ended up beign built differently.  Neither do I.

That transition or transformation remains an important issue.[/color]

“If McGovern deviated from Ross's detailed design plans and built them as depicted on opening day, would you vote to restore the golf course to McGovern's work or Ross's plans ?”

What evidence do you have that 'the course as built' was McGovern’s and not Ross’s? Ross was on site during construction, it defies logic that he would be oblivious about the details of a design he intended to be his masterpiece. I would vote against a speculative restoration, especially when 'the course as built' was one Ross’s most distinctive.
Stop ducking the question.
Just answer it.
If McGovern took it upon himself and deviated from Ross's detailed plans and built the bunkers his way, should Aronomink restore them to Ross's detailed design plans, or to McGovern's hybrid deviation ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You're an "expert researcher", aren't you? At least you've told me that enough times. Why don't you do some of your expert research and see if you can find another course by Ross that has as detailed bunker plans drawn by Ross himself that were not built to his plans with no explanation why.

If you can find a couple of good examples like that then I think some of us can begin to seriously consider that maybe your point that it's totally illogical to think Ross may not have been aware of the change at Aronimink has some merit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I'm sorry you don't like my answer.

It's not that I don't like it, it's intellectually dishonest and contrary to your stated policy of restoring courses as the original architect intended them to be, vis a vis, OSU Scarlet.
[/color]
 
Dealing in unrealistic hypotheticals is not advisable when accurate restoration is the goal.

Your intellectual dishonesty exceeds your admirable reasearch abilities.

The question I posed, which you resist answering for reasons I understand, is a valid question.

If accurate restoration, and more importantly, carrying out the INTENT of the original architect is your goal, as it clearly is at OSU Scarlet, then, the only answer you can provide is one that is contradictory to your rhetoric on this thread.

As a purist, you have to endorse Ron Prichard's and Aronomink's decision to rebuild the golf course as Ross intended it to be, according to his detailed design plans, but for reasons that I understand, you want to restore the course to an adulterated form.

An intellectually honest answer would be to fulfill Donald Ross's intent.  And that intent is manifested in his detailed design plans.
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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,

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.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't recall telling anyone I am or was an expert researcher...including you. I do remember you calling me a fraud and liar however."

Tom MacWood:

That's probably because there's little as convenient as a selective memory such as yours appears to be.