Aronimink's Inspiring Rebirth

[TEPaul]

Craig:

Very fine questions! I'm very glad you asked and I'm sure Ron Prichard is too. Again, he likes this website very much and reads it when he can but doesn't really have the time or inclination to type a lot on here. He did leave me with a couple of very extensive phone tapes on all this and I'm sure he'd be happy to follow them up with answers to your questions.

I live very near Aronimink and have also known Tom Elliot for years so I did spend some time (maybe three of four times) watching the restoration in progress with Ron, Tom and a shaper (from MacDonald & Co who Ron said was really good!).

Ron draws very well, it seems to me, and if the shaper was actually following Ron's drawings or a plan of Ron's, I didn't actually see him do that! But I'm sure he must have or I can't really imagine why Ron did the drawings!

But I think the most important thing Ron was trying to explain to me on those phone tapes--which he did so I could put what he said on here--was how restoration architects--even a restoration architect such as himself has to interpret things in the field even when he had extremely good drawings from Donald Ross!

I hope you understand exactly why Ron said he had to "interpret" those Ross drawings in the field because it is extremely fascinating why he had to do so!

But I'd be happy to ask him if he did that "interpretating" through drawings and plans and also how he communicated those drawings and plans and ideas to the shaper!

I do recall in the beginning of the bunker project though, that he said the shapers had done some of the bunkers wrong somehow and they had to go back and redo them!

Ron insists that he will never let work he does not approve of stand as the finished product!

Again, I'm very glad you're interested in this detail stuff, Craig! And I think it's great too that Ron is willing to offer any answers to detailed questions about this on here!

I think more contributors should be interested in this! It seems a rare opportunity to hear it from the field and in real detail!

[Craig Disher]

The more detail, the better. At Aronimink, Ron Prichard had the advantage of detailed notes left by Ross as well as old aerials and photos. His eye and drawing skill must have made it much easier for him to get his ideas across to the crew - which fortunately had a talented shaper. At my club, the material we have is a mixed bag - original drawings, few ground photos, and aerials taken 10 years later that show that important aspects of the original design weren't implemented.

During construction, was there negotiation between the shaper and Ron? Did the shaper gradually "get it", the more he worked from Ron's sketches and under Ron's guidance? Did the shaper/construction company have its own preferences that diverged from Ron's ideas? More to the point, what if someone without Ron's skill and experience had been the architect? (What I'm asking here is were Ross's detailed notes enough to allow a less experienced architect provide an acceptable result?) Were the club's greens committee members and superintendent observers or did they play an active role in the project?

[TEPaul]

Craig:

Again, very fine questions--even better than the last, in fact! These kinds of questions are just what Ron Prichard was hoping for on this website with the Aronimink restoration!

I'm a bit surprised there aren't more who are interested and contributing to this but I can certainly understand why you are with what you're doing at the moment with your club and what's being planned.

I'll try to speak for Ron Prichard on those questions from what I saw over there and the conversations I had with him on the phone later about some of the details of the Aronimink restoration! If I'm wrong about anything I'm sure he will see this and correct it!

I believe there has to be some form of "learning curve" when any architect works with a shaper on a restoration such as Aronimink's and on bunkers such as those that were done at Aronomink with Ross's original plans in hand.

And yes, I believe that mistakes were probably made to some of the bunker shaping early on in the bunker project. But the point, according to Ron, is it got corrected and done to his satisfaction, something Ron specifically said he insists on before he approves the finished product.

Personally, I feel this particular phase of restoration or new construction architecture is immensely important and is one of the primary reasons some architectural companies are better than others, ultimately.

Those that have their own crews would seem to me to be more foolproof in this way as there really isn't the need to get to know a shaper from an architect's perspective and vice versa! And I also believe the deeper the crew in this way the better it is!

Of the crews that I'm aware of it's my believe that Coore & Crenshaw and the "Boys" are probably the deepest of all and the most "symbiotic" in the way they work together. They've basically been together so long they know almost exactly what each other is thinking and explaining!

Other than that familiarity, I think just assembling a talented crew is important although they may not be that familar with each other at first.

A good example of that, I believe, was the Stonewall2 crew who appeared to have a good number of talented people on site although they may not have worked together before. For that the product obviously depended on Tom Doak to bring everything together during his site visits.

I certainly know Gil Hanse & Co. as he's doing my course's restoration right now and it's impressive to see that crew in action. Gil is doing most of the bunker shaping himself and I watched him redo one green and was really impressed with his talent both in concept and with the equipment.

Rodney Hine is there almost every day too to do shaping and the more detailed work and to really monitor the other people who work on the project!

I knew going into our project that having Gil doing some of his own work on the ground to a large degree would be important and frankly was the primary reason we hired him in the first place!

But as time goes by on our project the value of a guy like Rodney is reinforced every day. Rodney is just unbelievably good and a great guy to talk with about architecture and the many little details of it that ultimately show through.

I saw a little bit of the same thing from Jim Wagner out on the Hanse project at Rustic Canyon and how GeoffShac and he worked together!

Ron Forse and Jim Nagel I think are the same and that kind of coverage on their projects is very benefical!

But Ron Prichard has very definite architectural ideas on these restoration projects, I believe. Ron could be the most historically interested and in tune with the original architect and his intentions of any I've seen!

That's one of the primary reasons I'm so interested in his conversations about how and why even he must "interpret" the original architects plan's and intentions sometimes!

In essence, on the Aronimink project, particularly the bunker restoration (technically the Aronimink bunkers are not a restoration as they were never built to Ross's drawings!!), I believe Ron is saying that if he just handed the Ross plans to a shaper (he didn't know) that tremendous problems could have resulted on some of them--and not because of the shaper exactly, just that Ross's specs and construction instructions on many of the bunkers simply never could have fit the land in particular cases!! And so they needed "interpretation".

As far as I could see it was Tom Elliot (from the green committee) who was on site almost all the time and had a large amount of interreaction with Ron.

The chipping area connecting #8 & # 10 green, for instance, was Tom Elliot's own idea and eventually Ron approved it! Things like that are a bit more than they would seem, I'm sure, as one of the times I was over there drainage patterns and so forth through that chipping area had to be worked out in detail to make everything work out satisfactorily!

And so it goes!

But I'm of the belief that just having a committee or whatever tell any architect what they want and then having an architect tell those that actually create it what to do (who they may not know) is a potentially mistake-ridden process!

I've discussed this process with Pat Mucci on here and elsewhere about this kind of interreaction in architecture. Pat seems to be of the belief that if an owner or whatever just tells any architect what he wants it will happen to his satisfaction. I suppose Pat feels he can do this and may feel he has at Boca Rio!

And that may be true to an extent but my personal feeling is that it's little known how important the process is of the architect communicating really well with those that do the actual work--all of it!

And that's why I believe I prefer those companies whose architectural styles I'm personally in tune with but also the companies that have some depth and a certain "symbiosis" to the people in the field, if you know what I mean!

I think that particular aspect is just so important! So much more important than most know!

[TEPaul]

Craig, I'll give you a few brief examples of interreaction between clubs and committees, architects and shapers and such and how the communication process works sometimes! And I'm not trying to be facetious either.

During the planning and implementation of our restoration project one of the fellows on the green committee (who's one of my best friend and who considers himself an efficiency expert) insisted that Gil do a bunker behind a green if a piece of equipment was there to grade out a tree stump area!

I told him that wasn't exactly the progression or method that Gil used to do bunkering, but this fellow insisted it was more efficient and could save us plenty of money. He was of the impression that all Gil needed to do was dig a hole behind the green and dump some sand in it and the committee appeared to think this was an interesting idea! This was actually debated for a while in a green committee meeting--until I finally said; "Just cut out this talk! This isn't even remotely how bunkers get built!"

Naturally Gil would have told the committee the same thing but this is the type of discussion and potential decision making that goes on within club committees sometimes!

And I have a very strong feeling that Roger Hansen learned a great deal in the nuances and details of a particular style of architecture when he went with C&C on his third golf course project! He certainly talks about it that way now. Roger was spending the money and at first he may have thought they were way too slow and may have been upset about that!

There was a story that he came out to the field one time and the whole crew was just standing there silently staring! He said; "What's going on here, time is money, get to work!"

So Bill or someone else told him: "Oh we're just all conceptualizing something together here!"

There's no question C&C are the type that do real in the field interepretation as their architectural modus operandi!

And it's a treat to talk to Ken Bakst too about working with C& and some of the things that happened and ultimately what it all meant to him.

Ken Bakst is a guy who is extremely organized, efficient and has terrific specific and global ideas and opinions but on one hole he had an idea, a vision, and was extremely disappointed, nervous maybe, that C&C were not doing it the way he thought it should be. But in retrospect he says it was done even better their way, despite his orginal concern. The working relationship between architect and principle at Friar's may be the most interesting and impressive I've seen to date.

And personally, there were a few things at GMGC that were turning out in a way I sure didn't visualize and was hoping for. At first I was disappointed and actually nervous about it but on both of them after letting it sink in and considering all the reasons why, including the necessary and historic architectural aesthetics, it's why Gil Hanse is a great architect and I'm not!

But communication right on down the line is so important, more than I ever knew. And research is so much of what that communication is all about, certainly on restoration projects. You certainly don't necessarily have to be a complete purist, but if your not you do need to be very clear on the reasons why not, in my opinion!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I recently found an old photo of the 1st at Aronomink on the cover of Golfdom Magazine dated August, 1929. It appears the original bunkering at Aronomink were sand flashed and not grass faced. Well at least that was true with #1 (and another hole that appears in the background), I reckon the other 17 holes had similar bunkering.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

The original bunkering of Aronimink was different for  apparently an unusual reason! By that I mean it was not built to Ross's detailed construction drawings! Not just the faces as you mentioned but certainly the number and in some cases possibly placements.

Ross's plans and drawings called for approximately 70 bunkers but for some reason the course was constructed with over 200!

Why this was, no one seems to be completely sure now. The supposition is that possibly the foreman or project manager, possibly J.B. McGovern, simply made changes in the field.

Was Ross aware of this? Again, no one is completely sure but logically he must have been. Certainly we know his famous statement at Aronimink's Opening Day:

"I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built".

But nevertheless, despite the mystery and the fact the bunkering appears not to have been built to Ross's original plans and drawings the club and Prichard decided to restore all the bunkering to Ross's original plans--although they were never built that way!

And Ross's original bunker plans had faces that were grassed down.

It is impressive how roundly successful the restoration project at Aronomink has been from everyone I'm aware of and lots have seen it!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

From what I understand there is film of Ross on site during the construction. We know he was there after the course was completed - the famous quote. It appears Ross was very pleased with the result. I'm not sure why the original plan was ignored and much more extravagant course was built, but it seems odd to me that Pritchard would object to the flashed bunkering (that was actually built) when Ross apparently did not.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I realize you consider yourself an architectural purist in many ways and in many areas, and you do have some very legitimate questions about the way Aronimink restored their bunkering! These are the very same questions (about the bunkering) that Aronimink and Prichard struggled with for a good long time and over a good amount of research!

And that's fine to have those questions about why Aronimink was not restored to the way it was originally built--but I hope when you understand exactly why they did what they did in their bunker restoration you don't think they did something wrong in some kind of purist restoration way!

The bunkering was built in another way from Ross's original bunker plans and drawings but those original bunkers have been gone for many years--the result of a few redesigns at Aronimink by the Fazios and RTJ etc! Everything about those original bunkers was changed years ago!

If Prichard and the club wanted to go back to the way the bunkering was originally done I really don't know what they would have gone by to restore them. Evidence of them is long gone on the ground and there are no drawings and plans of them.

So they decided to go with Ross's original plans that are some of the best Prichard has ever seen from Ross himself!

It's a unique situation but if any of us really think about it--the way they did it had to be the most logical way to go!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Don't you think that a picture taken from the first tee would provide a perspective, totally absent, from the fairway ?

Let's have someone scan the picture in, to determine the angle and elevation it is taken from.

It's difficult to imagine that it is taken from the middle of the fairway in the drive zone on that hole, and still shows the features Tom MacWood describes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well...there is that stunning aerial photo that appears in Geoff Shackelford's book to go by if they chose to.

However, I really don't object to what was done, and Prichard's work is really, really good, even if some of the bunker construction is not quite to spec, apparently.  

I do know that Ron struggled with the correct course of action, and I don't think one can go too wrong with Ross's original plans.

On the other hand, I do see a problem with this general stereotyping of Ross's bunker style being solely grass faced.  The historical record doesn't support it, Ross's own words and book don't support it, and although I never saw the pics Tom MacWood has seen, I think that the propagation of this myth is prevalent on various restorations and the net result is that the variety of Ross's design work is ultimately diminished, somewhat.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

The nice thing about these Aronimink threads is we probably can have the detailed input from the restoration architect (if not the club). And the beauty of getting the architects input is it potentially can put to rest some of the assumptions that contributors like us may make without understanding all the details of the original bunker construction of Aronimink, possibly its early evolution, and most particularly the details of the problems and very detailed solutions of the bunker restoration project!

You mention the stunning aerial in GeoffShac's book! Frankly, that aerial (or a very similar one of that almost exact year) was the very thing that started the identification of the mystery that the bunkers were originally constructed very differently from Ross's very specific bunker plans and drawings for Aronimink!

That set off what I consider a great deal of search and research on Ron Prichard's part; enough research that he even called ME a few years ago to ask what my feeling was on this apparent anomoly! And if he bothered to call me I consider it obvious that he spent a good deal of time doing real research on this mystery!!

At first there was the assumption that possibly from Aronimink's original construction (Opening Day) the bunkers had all been redesigned just a few years later for some reason! As the timespan from Opening Day to the aerials was just a couple of years Ron's feeling (and mine) was it was NOT likely that a massive bunker redesign had taken place during the beginning of the Depression!

So Ron and the club settled on the assumption that the original Aronimink bunkering had simply been done very differently from Ross's Aronimink bunker drawings, plans and specs, for some reason!

Since J.B. McGovern was apparently known to be the man on the job in Philadelphia, it was assumed that he may have changed the bunker scheme during construction, for whatever reason.

Plus Ron had never seen a Ross course with these "multi-set" bunker schemes that showed on the aerial, with the notable exception of Jeffersonville apparently where McGovern was known to have worked (and Ron Prichard also had previously restored!).

[TEPaul]

And fortunately being in possession of some apparently phenomonal original Ross "field" drawings (the best apparently Ron ever saw of that type) the dilemma of which bunkers to restore to was a most interesting question!

I realize some of us consider ourselves real architectural purists of sorts on these types of things and therefore probably have our strong opinions on some of this detailed decision making!

However, one of the things that some of us seem to forget, overlook, or seem not to be concerned about is the thoughts and decisions of the club itself in these questions! It is my firm belief now that if we wish to be realistic purists in architecture instead of total dreamers it would be worthwhile to also consider subjects such as this from the perspective of the club itself! And the simple and logical reason for this is if we don't consider that probably little we say now or in the future will ever be taken seriously by any golf club anyway!

Naturally things like restoration expense, ongoing maintenance expense etc are going to come into the equation with this type of decision making, particularly in this case with a really good set of original Ross bunker drawings!!

When you are looking at restoring perhaps 70 Ross bunkers as opposed to perhaps three times that many these details are not of little consequence (as much as some of us purists might like to think they should be!). I have little doubt without those Ross drawings, Aronimink and Ron would have decided to go with the aerial as the guideline for the restoration!

[TEPaul]

The actual detailed restoration decision making in the field is or should be of real interest to any of us who might consider ourselves architectural purists, as Ron Prichard considers himself (and I certainly consider him to be)!

The extent a restoration architect like Ron needs to "interpret" available research material (certainly Ross's original drawings) in the field is an extremely interesting subject and one we should all face squarely if we really do care to understand the details of what went on back in the Golden Age when Aronimink was created as well as recently during restoration!

Unfortunately, when we start to understand some of those details it's likely that some bubbles may be burst about the way Ross may have worked and the way his crews may have worked!

Understanding these things is one of the reasons I think these Aronimink threads are excellent ones because we can have some really detailed input from a restoration architect on a significant project probably for the first time on GolfClubatlas!

[TEPaul]

Having made the decision to restore to bunkers and bunker schemes of Ross himself that may never have been built at Aronimink, the problems and solutions arose of how to "interpret" those detailed drawings and even "construction instructions" onto the topography of their hole placements!

Some restoration architects who know Ross's design and drawing style far better than we do say (even joke actually) that he tended to write the very same "construction instructions" on almost all his bunker designs (the joke is they almost always called for 4 1/2 ft depths)!

Part of the problem is the scale of the drawings, if some of them even were in any kind of scale! Some apparently just don't always fit properly on various topography in relation to their placement! So that requires Ron to "interpret" the drawings and specs to make them fit properly on various topography to stay as exact as possible to Ross's placements on the holes!

Mike, it's my belief that if Ron had gone with that aerial and those bunkers and bunker schemes (McGovern's?) the job of "interpreting" the exact specs of those bunkers back onto the ground (since they have been gone for decades) could be far more difficult than relying on Ross's original drawings!

And in that regard, that kind of thing very well may have been one of the inherent problems of the Merion bunker restoration project! It's possible that Merion's restorers were relying heavily on aerials (from 2000-5000ft) to recapture the look of Merion's bunkering from 1930 (app.).

Anyone can imagine the difficulty of doing something like that even with the bunkering at Merion being in the very same positions it's always been in (not so in Aronimink's case).

And since you seem to be no fan, Mike, of the onground look of Merion's restored bunkering you can imagine how this aerial restoration process may create problems with duplicating the look of the 1930's bunkering at golfer eye level (on ground)!

I dare say if an aerial was taken of Merion today from 2000-5000ft the similarity of the look of the bunkering between 1930 and today (the Fazio/MacDonald bunker restoration) would be remarkable!

Clearly you don't think the bunkering on the ground is similar to the 1930's bunkers though! The puffy and upholstered look of the present bunkers that has been talked about so much on here would not show up one iota from 2000-5000ft!

So I think threads like this will hopefully begin to show how restoration problems and solutions and techniques using available research material (or not!) really do work from an architects perspective, and even a very good and purist restoration architect!

Whatever I've said on these threads that may be inaccurate and an incorrect analysis of the Aronimink bunker restoration project can and probably will be corrected by Ron Prichard when he has a chance to read them and that again is a very good thing for all of us on GCA who are interested in these kinds of things and these kinds of details!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'm confused, is the current restored golf course the design Ross submitted with 70 bunkers that was never built?

I don't know Ron Pritchard, every thing I've heard is very positive and by all accounts the work he did at Aronomink is fabulous.

At this point I don't think any of us would have our bubble burst about Ross's methods. He was blessed with some very talented associates; there are quite a few Hatch/Ross plans floating around Ohio. I think one Ross's greatest strengths was surrounding himself with good people - that's true with many past & present architects. As a tremendous admirer of Ross, it is a little disconcerting that some of his most amazing and daring designs -- Aronomink, Oyster Harbors, Seminole (and you should probably add Pinehurst #2) -- have been homogonized to a certain extent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If there isn't much you can tell from an aerial taken from
2,500-5000 feet, imagine how little you can tell from an aerial taken from 6,000 feet, in 1939, which is the altitude and year of the photo that appears in Geoff's book on page 123.

You will also notice that the photo was taken early or late in the day.  I forget the directional lay out, and if I knew the compass points I could tell you the approximate time.

Pictures taken early or late in the day can be more revealing of the contouring, but at 6,000 feet with 1939 grade film and technique, it would be extremely difficult to gain a thorough, comprehensive understanding of each bunker's configuration.

When a dilema exists, a decision, to follow the original architects renderings, or subsequent initial aerials, in the ultimate, the club has to decide what they want, and I don't think there is an absolute right, or wrong solution.

I enjoyed the architecture of the golf course, the result of Ron's work and I enjoyed playing there, but it is a very demanding test of golf.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Thanks for the detailed analysis.

Just a couple of quick points as I need to run my daughter out for breakfast.

I pointed out the aerial in Geoff's book simply to mention that there was some photographic evidence available, as Tom MacWood mentioned, as well related to ground photos.  

However, I also completely understand what you're saying and the night at Jeffersonville when we were talking to Ron Prichard, he did explain his dilemma of whether to use Ross's existing, original plans, or go with McGovern's interpretation of them, with the clustered bunker look.  

I think he probably made the right choice, and I've written a number of threads on here prior talking about the Aronimink restoration and citing it as excellent in many respects.

I also understand what you're saying about the risks of using only aerial photos in losing "three dimensionality".

Bottom line is I think Ron Prichard, et.al. have improved Aronimink markedly and remarkably.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You gave a pretty accurate summation of my four longer posts.

I do know the compass points of Aronimink and certainly Ron Prichard and the club do too, and the 1939 aerial (in GeoffShac's book) is very easy to analyze as to time of day.

From 6000ft, or any aerial altitude the contouring of the bunkering is not going to be anywhere near accurate enough to usefully recreate the on ground dimension (contouring) of bunkering for exact enough restoration specs! By that I particularly mean viewed from a regular aerial print. Even if it was near the very end of the day and there were no trees to distort or block bunkering by shadowing it would not be useful enough!

For that kind of "shadowing" analysis on ground photos would work so much better that is if the club had a complete set of them for every hole and every bunker and every angle of every bunker!

However, there are certain ways even an aerial photo can be enhanced and made somewhat useful for these purposes.

Probably the best way would be to take the aerial print and commercially use a roll or drum scanner to scan it into a computer application through which you can work with the aerial photo particularly by enlargement and measurement of known fixed points on the course (that have never changed) to recreate a more exact "scale" anyway.

We have that capacity from the aerials in the design evolution report aerials in the book we did for GMGC. All those aerials are in a computer application that can enhance anything from that era if need be (but only in two dimensionality!).

In this way you can just enhance what an aerial does in the first place which is to depict (in a general sense) bunker placement, size and relative size, general outine (sand) and general shape from the air (not from the ground)!

But even this interesting technological enhancement (the computer application) doesn't do that much from an on-ground or eye level perspective and without that much can be lost in the finished bunker restoration project with exact on-ground specs, dimension and overall eye level look, like sand upsweep into grassing lines of the surrounds etc.

This is the type of thing that is sometimes mentioned as two dimensionality (aerials) vs three dimensionality (aerials and on ground analysis).

Of course. original drawings, plans and specs ("construction instructions") can give you all this provided the specs fit on the particular topography correctly which in the case of Ross's original Aronimink drawings they didn't very well in some cases!

All these things are the details of research that Ron and Aronimink analyzed and considered in their decision of which type of bunkering to restore to!

Or put another way, there isn't much I can see that any of us can tell them as to how they should have arrived at the decision they made. But if we consider the details, architectural and otherwise, that Ron has supplied so far and very well may continue to do so, we can certainly learn a lot about this kind of thing from him!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Yes, that's what I've said on here a number of times that the club restored to Ross's original bunker plans for Aronimink of app 70 bunkers as well as that particular bunkering scheme instead of the nearly 200 bunkers and their scheme that were apparently originally built!

The primary reason there were app three times as many in the original creation of Aronimink is because McGovern (or someone) apparently altered the plan to include 2-3 bunkers in the placements where Ross originally called for one!

I hear what you're saying about homogenizing Ross's work but are you suggesting by that that restoring to Donald Ross's own original bunker drawings, plans and specs and scheme was "homogenizing" the bunkering of Aronimink?

I realize that some may think there's additional interest to some of Ross's courses from the unique styles of some of those foremen and project managers who worked for him (such as Hatch and McGovern) but one should probably not forget the interest in Ross's own plans either!

Some light surely can be shed on this "modus operandi" by Ross's own Opening Day quote about Aronimink!

"I intended Aronimink to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I'd built!"

You can certainly draw you're own conclusions from that remark Tom, but my own conclusions would certainly include the question;

"Well, where the hell were YOU Donald during some of the details of the construction of Aronimink?"

It certainly appears to me that something about the course on opening day surprised him--maybe pleasantly so--but surprised him nonetheless!!

[Dave_Miller]

Tom and Tom:

Do we know if Ross really made that remark.  As a long time member at Aronimink I know that is the legend but does anyone really know where it came.

I realize it is in the book, Golf has Never Failed me,  but do we know for sure that these are the words of Donald Ross.

If is,I also ask, Donald where were you during construction and did you approve the changes.  

Some of Ross' other courses such as Charles River had around 70 bunkers (72 at the River) and photos from opening day show grass faced bunkers.  So it seems to be a Ross trademark form around that particular era.

Best,
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your question is critical to the answer with respect to Aronomink's bunkers.

Where was Ross from the time he turned over his renderings to the construction supervisor/club until opening day ?

The remark, if true, would seem to lend credence to his absence.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'm looking at the original 1927 sketch for the first hole (rendered by Johnson I assume) accompanied by Ross's notes. It appears that he intended these bunkers to be sand flashed - the lines indicating their slope is within the bunker, as opposed to behind (or outside) the bunker which would indicate the steriotypical grass facing. But that's my layman interpretation.

Ross's original sketch had three bunkers - one thirty yards short of the green (that bunker was built along with an additional three bunkers), one left of the green (changed in two bunkers), and one to the right of the green (built as indicated). There were two bunkers added behind the green. It is also interesting that Ross notes the stream will be left as is "for the present" - an indication that he may later alter the plan.

But whatever the plan indicates, what was ultimately built was one of Ross's most unique designs. And one of his last great designs; his ouput declined considerably with the Depression. His other bold designs - Oyster Harbors and Seminole - were also in this time frame. And the revised #2 occured a couple years later. All possibly indicating an evolution of sorts.

I do not believe that anyone knows why the plan was changed, but we do know Ross was pleased with the result. That's good enough for me.

Dave
Ross designed a variety of differing types of bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What's good enough with you? That Ross was apparently pleased with the bunkering at the opening of Aronimink? Does that mean or imply then that you feel Prichard and Aronimink made an incorrect decision to restore to Ross's original drawings that the club and Ron were in possession of? Of course, we don't know what Ross would have said at opening day if he showed up and had seen bunkering constructed to his own original drawings, do we?

Dave:

I don't know if Ross actually said that. I only know what I read in the Book "Golf Has Never Failed Me" which includes the quotation but not where and when he said it. I believe all the regular print in that  book indicates Ross's hand in the manuscript that had been both in J.B. McGovern's possession and then in a drawer for many decades, then found and published by Whitten as well as other notable things Ross was known to have said (again compiled by Whitten).

I also know that the quotation is displayed somewhere at Aronimink and I believe I recall it indicates it was spoken by him on Opening Day (which sounds logical from the quote).

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

As you know, the fairway in the landing zone is far below the level of the green, hence it would seem extremely difficult or impossible to flash those bunkers back toward the fairway landing zone without having them have almost vertical walls.

As you know, two dimensional images can be difficult to interpret.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't understand what you're talking about! Is it the 1st hole of Aronimink? if so, the first hole is certainly uphill from the landing zone for the drive but if it's the greenside bunkers you mean it certainly wouldn't be that difficult to flash sand into the faces for the golfer's approach shot! It's uphill but a gradual incline!