The restoring of restorations

[Mike_Young]

I have read this on FB and find it interesting.  since I have never been one to delve into the "micro" of ODG work I find this article and Ron Prichard's responses interesting.  Here is the article and I will post RP responses in first comment.  http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/golf/20160819_Get_to_know_the_new_Aronimink__coming_in_2018.html

[Mike_Young]

FIRST PART OF PRICHARD REPSONSE:

Some supplemental Comments pertaining to the recent
Article “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018’ by Joe Juliano, staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer – updated August 19, 2016.
First of all, I want to mention, I am not particularly eager to spend time clarifying portions of this long Article, (as stated, “Get to know the New Aronimink coming in April 2018), however since I was not contacted and interviewed by Mr. Juliano, I thought it might be helpful to address certain comments, and shed further light on certain conclusions which as a result of the Inquirer Article are now a matter of record and from my point of view are not accurate. It is my purpose as the most recent golf architect to work on the Aronimink Golf Club Golf Course to now and for all time correct the historical record.
In his opening paragraph, Mr. Juliano describes the inscription that is “embossed” on a metal disk that is attached to a large stone located behind the first tee. On it, the words attributed to Donald Ross (Note: this comment was uttered when he came to Aronimink Golf Club on his first visit, following construction of the golf course). It states, “I intended to make this my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew”. And when I first read that quote in 1994, the year I began to conduct serious research for a Plan of Restoration for the golf course, I initially questioned, why did you say that, at that time, so many years after the golf course was built? Where were you while construction was proceeding? Was it also true, (even though there is a film clip which showed Ross on the ground during early construction), that here also his constant travel prevented him from returning to Aronimink Golf Club as the course was under construction?
As the Article continues, Mr. Juliano goes on to say, “The recent discovery of photographs, an aerial shot and several from
ground level, from 1929 has unveiled some never-before-seen features of a Ross design that have disappeared over time”. I must say, I find that a very strange comment, for the 1929 aerials that Juliano refers to as, “a recent discovery”, have hung on the walls of the men’s locker room for over 20 years. These are photographs I first located over 25 years ago, which are all located, as mentioned, in the Dallin Collection housed in the Hagley Museum in Wilmington, Delaware. And every male member of the club has walked past these photographs for decades.
These very same photographs were hanging on the walls at the club in 1994 when I visited to make a Presentation to the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee of my proposed Plan of “Restoration.” This was a special meeting convened so that Jay Sigel, a well respected member, who was often away from the club traveling, could attend and hear the discussion of my intentions for the golf course.
It was at this meeting where I explained to the Committee that it was my suggestion; (if they approved), to reconstruct the golf course, (which was no longer a Ross Course), according to the appearance illustrated on Donald Ross’ original Field Sketches. The original sketches which had been provided for construction.
At that same time, I only briefly touched upon my strong personal belief that the bunkering of the golf course which was clearly indicated on the Dallin Photographs, (which as mentioned above were hanging in the club at that time), illustrated the architectural efforts of a then member of Aronimink named Mr. J.B. McGovern. The same J.B. McGovern, a resident of Wynnwood, Pennsylvania who was a long time employee – and associate – of Donald Ross. (I did not know at the time, but in a recent discussion with a very serious
authority of early American golf architecture, I subsequently learned that Mr. McGovern was not “just a member – he was in fact, Green Chairman”).
When I was asked by the Aronimink Golf Club Restoration Committee why I favored reconstructing the golf course according to Ross’ original Field Sketches, I stated, “In my opinion the drawings provided by Ross, are a set of quite probably the finest drawings I hve studied” and that “I feel it would be a better result if the superintendent had only 75 or so bunkers to maintain rather than a number approaching 200 bunkers”.
Following the meeting during which it was decided to proceed as I had suggested, Jay Sigel walked over, and said to me, “Ron in the last hour and a half listening to you, I have learned more about golf architecture than in a career of playing. (It was a wonderful compliment, - one I will always cherish).
As Joe Juliano proceeds with his article, he goes on to say, “those photos showed that Ross liked to improvise with bunker design and location, rather than follow the original plan on paper”. He does not mention who suggested such a thought, but in response I say, “In all the many years I have concentrated on the restoration of Donald Ross golf courses, I have found the actual bunker construction deviated from Ross’ original field sketches on only three other golf courses. Each of these was a golf course where J.B McGovern was the on-site construction associate. And interestingly, what these three golf courses had in common was clear evidence of McGovern’s proclivity to alter Donald Ross’ bunkering sketches and instructions. One of these golf courses was “finished by Mr. McGovern” a year after the death of Donald Ross. The result in each case was a golf course with double, or triple clusters of small bunkers precisely where Ross’ field sketches had specified a single large bunker.
In a subsequent paragraph, Mr. Steve Zodtner, Club President at Aronimink is quoted saying, “Comparing the Master Plan to the aerial, they, realized that the bunker complexes were much different than they were as they were drawn”. (This might refer to the original Ross Plan of the golf course, or the Restoration Plan I created in 1994). And indeed this is true. Juliano then further quotes Mr. Zodtner saying, “We think, and Gil believes, that Ross, when he went out in the field, made sort of game-time decisions about where to place bunkers. He was trying to do things more innovatively. So we’re going to restore it back to it’s 1929 look”. And although I respect that Gil Hanse has restored seven Donald Ross golf courses, I have restored perhaps seven times seven. (I do not keep count). And in my experience, and all the research I have pursued over 40 years; that was never the way Ross worked – not ever. Because of the difficulty of travel during the late 1920’s, (the choice was either auto, or rail), Ross only rarely visited one of his courses while it was under construction. And these were courses which were extremely close to one of his homes. It is my belief that at Aronimink, where Ross had an associate who was not only a member, but the Green Chairman, he felt little need to monitor the work.
At this point, you may still question what I discovered and therefore I have included a few of the original Donald Ross field sketches for the Brook Lea Country Club Golf Course, (Rochester, New York), where construction commenced in 1926 – a few years prior to the golf course for the new Aronimink Golf Club. The field sketches with field notes in the hand of Donald Ross, are for holes # 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18.

[Mike_Young]

2ND PART PRICHARD RESPONSE

If you chose to make the trip to Rochester, you will find the original field sketches for each of these holes which were drafted by Donald Ross, and they clearly show “in pencil”,
where J. B. McGovern modified the sketches to illustrate the separation of many of the individual large bunkers into a pair of smaller hazards. And if you carefully study the bunkers created at Aronimink, you will see that they were separations of the single originally sketched bunker, precisely within the original footprint of the Ross Bunker.
You can see this on the following pages:
Hole #10 – where three fore bunkers, (on the left – each labeled #1), were left unaltered, however the two approach bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.bunkers, (#s 3 and 4), were divided, (in pencil), by McGovern.
 
Hole #11 – Three left side fairway bunkers were left untouched, and the three beyond the 350 yard mark, (#s 4, 5, and 6), were altered by McGovern. Please note: for the most part, The Ross fairway bunkers are 4’ 6” in depth.
 
Hole #12 – Each of the leftside fairway bunkers were divided by McGovern as indicated by the narrow turf bridges – with a pencil.
 
Hole #17 – The first two bunkers were not altered from Ross’ design. The next four, (#s 3, 4, 5, and 6), were each divided by McGovern. (Again, notice all bunkers, except one was specified to be 4’ 6” in depth).
 
Hole #18 – Of the six bunkers illustrated by Ross, four, (#s 1, 2, 5, and 7), were split in half by McGovern, #4 is an “irregular mound not less than 5’ high”.
 
When later in the article, Gil Hanse is quoted as saying that, “we’re really focused on the original design character, the style of bunkering, and the configuration.” “He generally kind of put together in groups of three or four clusters as opposed to a singular bunker”. “He” should be understood to be McGovern – not Ross. Gil goes on to say, “that is different to Ross and I think a really interesting presentation’. I agree. What McGovern produced is different “from” Ross. And the bunkering shown on the Dallin photographs is the original design, character, and configuration created by McGovern.I know for certain, on a few courses, Ross might flash the sand further up the face of a bunker – always carefully stipulated in the field notes accompanying each of his field sketches, and in one incident, he specified that a hazard rather than being a concave pit of sand, should be a sand covered mound. But he did not call for groups of multiple hazards on his field sketches, nor did he embrace them on his golf courses. If that was his preference, he would have illustrated that on his “construction plans”.
As the Juliano article continues, John Gosselin the golf course superintendent at Aronimink Golf Club explains to readers, and perhaps members, that; “over the years most of the bunker clusters designed by Ross – (They were not designed by Ross), have been gradually merged into one bunker”. The real story of what actually happened, is: over the many years the course has been in existence, first – George Fazio, then, (I believe), David Gordon, and in 1987 Robert Trent Jones Sr. all worked on and altered the architectural character of the golf course. In fact I visited the Club in 1987 during the reconstruction of the golf course by crews under the supervision of associates of Jones. And due to those efforts, the golf course was significantly altered. Tees were added. And the course was completely rebunkered which in several cases required cutting away sizable portions of the green’s fill pads to gather fill
materials for construction of bunker surrounds. I still have many photographs of the golf course under construction at this time. It was for me a sad experience. And the golf course in play today was reconstructed, (by erasing most all vestiges of the Trent th Jones redesign with the exception of the pond fronting the 17 green), and utilizing the original field sketches, to reestablish the course Donald Ross illustrated on his General, (routing), Plan.
When John Gosselin mentions, and Gil Hanse concurs that several “Ghost Bunkers” were removed and three will be restored behind the 11th Green’s fill pad, I feel it is important to note: There were no back bunkers on that green on Ross’ original field sketches nor on the large routing plan. Any “game time” decisions were decisions made by McGovern. And forcing bunkers into that location “hanging up on the back slope” is far from anything Ross would suggest.
The fundamental point I have focused so much attention on: is in greater detail what I explained, (as stated above), in 1994; in several subsequent discussions over twenty years, and expressed in a long email I sent to Dr. Ned Ryan, the then Green Chairman, two years ago. - long before Mr. Juliano”s Philadelphia Inquirer article was printed.
I am sure Gil Hanse will produce a very fine result, and if as voted, the members of Aronimink Golf Club prefer the golf course created by J. B. McGovern in behalf of Donald Ross, I suggest they simply accept, and acknowledge this. Give your former member, Mr. McGovern due credit rather than proceeding under a series of convenient suppositions.
Now, one other comment I want to address is the statement by Gil Hanse where he comments that as a result of his bunker reconstruction, “some of the high shoulders in front of the
bunkers will be lowered significantly”. (I presume he means the back shoulders – between the sand base and the green). Gil goes on to say, “there will still be some depth,” to the bunkers “but it, (they) will be defined by the slope of the ground as opposed to (artificially) created slopes”.
What you, Gil, should understand is: Donald Ross never mentioned he was seeking some particularly “natural appearance”. That’s your preference. And what you should further understand is: When Donald Ross specifically called for rather large singular bunkers on his golf course he was anticipating that the fill materials gathered by shaping the base of the hazard would be used to properly create meaningful “back” shoulders. He did not haul soil away from his bunker excavations, nor did he import additional soil. And whenever I have shaped a Ross bunker I have never imported a “tea spoon” of additional soil to build the hazard. When Donald Ross repeatedly specified a depth of 4” 6”, he was seeking that the player be required to elevate a shot from the hazard approximately 11” or so below “your” eye level. (To clarify: 4’6” as you know, is 54”. And therefore: as I stand in a typical Ross Bunker – the type he sketched and called for at Aronimink Golf Club – my eye level is at 64”. That is only ten inches “above” the green side shoulder. That is the challenge “Ross” specified. He did not suggest lower, more easily negotiated back shoulders. And when an architect chooses to follow McGovern’s cute little clusters of bunkers; that also will be your preference.
If you reestablish the original Aronimink Golf Club golf course to the architectural appearance adopted by J.B. McGovern, you will create less soil at each bunker site because a fair amount of the potential soil will be utilized to create the separating shoulders. This without question will result in lower
shoulders, which may perfectly suit your search for “a natural look,” but it will alter Ross’ intentions.
In closing, I want to wish the Club, and you, Gil all the best. I have always enjoyed my visits to the club, and deeply appreciate the respectful way I was treated. The members of the Restoration Committee, which was headed by Mr. John Trickett were a treat to work with even when we had to remove the maple tree which had been planted on the original #1 putting surface, and reconstruct large portions of the third, sixth, and 14th green’s fill pads. My hope is that this response to Mr. Juliano, which also contains certain “conversations” with Gil Hanse, fully clarifies once and for all the proper history of the bunker construction on the original golf course.
Ron Prichard Golf Architect
PS: Mr. Juliano; where you mention in your article, that Ron Prichard “specialize(d) in restoring Ross courses -----“ I am presently restoring the Donald Ross golf course at: Riverside Golf and Country Club in Rothsay, New Brunswick, Canada, and the Ross Courses at Portland Country Club in Portland, Maine, and Northland Country Club in Duluth, Minnesota. Last fall we finished “restoration” of the only Donald Ross golf course in Iowa, at Cedar Rapids Country Club.

[Tom Bagley]

VERY interesting.  As someone who has known and worked with Ron Prichard for many years, I was somewhat taken aback when I first read the article about Aronimink. 

There will always be disagreement between restoration architects who view the original plans as primary versus those who prefer to "read the ground" to make design decisions.  Ron is certainly in the former camp and, through his career, he has consistently lamented those Ross courses that failed to fulfill their promise - failures caused, in his view, by Ross design associates' failure to follow or properly implement the master's plans.

At my home course, there are elements of Ross' plan that were never built (under the supervision of Walter Hatch).  But were those changes borne from necessity?  Problems encountered on site?  Unforeseen conditions?  A lack of money?  A change of heart by Ross that was not otherwise documented?  Or was it simply Hatch doing his own thing? 

We will probably never know.

[Tom_Doak]

I loved the "I do not keep count." 


I don't know the details of Aronimink; I was there with Jay Sigel just before Ron Prichard was hired, and I didn't have an interest in getting involved at that time.


In general, though, it's fair to say that all restoration is subjective, because there are three possible goals:


1 - We are trying to restore what was on the original drawings, as Ron P. did at Aronimink;
2 - We are trying to restore what was actually built, using aerial and ground photos;
3 - We are trying to update the course to what Donald Ross [or other original designer] would build today after seeing players with modern equipment


My preference is for #2 because it's the least subjective of the three.  In #1 you have to visualize what was intended to be built and you are assuming that the architect didn't want to make field changes -- whereas, the field changes I make when I am on site are much more an expression of my design ideas than the original drawing that someone else in my office may do.  But if Ron went for approach #1 and Gil is going for approach #2, that's just a difference of opinion.


Perhaps the club could keep changing their mind back and forth and keep both architects employed for years to come ... I've seen it happen.

[V_Halyard]

Well then. I am intrigued by this entire exchange. I am not an architect but battle tested in golf course restoration. 

In our case, the chain-of-design is compound as Ross actually incorporated holes, routings and elements from the previous architect. Ross was hired to expand a 9-Hole 1904 Tom Bendelow course to an 18 hole Donald Ross track. From our perspective, we have to two golden age names, Bendelow and Ross who both did tremendous work for their era. Ross used entire holes crafted by Bendelow. We give great credit to Ron who exorcised a number of hideously disfigured modern additions, reclaimed lines of play and sunshine while recapturing and delivering a tremendous golden age golf experience for contemporary play.


He improved and respectfully enhanced the work of Ross who respectfully enhanced and improved the work of Bendelow who scratch built a great 9 hole routing from a cow patch / police shooting range.  Point being, our course has been a work in progress before, during and after Ross. We give architectural credit to those that expertly, respectfully and artfully improved upon the routing with respect for authenticity and where possible, architectural accuracy.  Most importantly, the members, those that appreciate the architecture and those that play the final product are in agreement that the end product is outstanding aesthetically, architecturally and experientially.  This was delivered by Prichard. 
 
So we claim a Bendelow/Ross repaired and resuscitated by Prichard.  The excellence of our particular end result justified the process and Bendelow/Ross/Prichard architectural credit.

[Mike_Young]

I agree with TD that it is a matter of preference.

But doing such is a luxury only a few courses can afford when they already have a perfectly good golf course. I fear the lack of new work out there may influence how much good stuff is reworked based on a new preference.

the other thing I notice here is IMHO the Juliano writer did not know what he was talking about and that seems to happen often in the revisionist history of the ODGs.

And lastly, was Aronimink a McGovern course or a Ross?

[MCirba]

There is a film showing Donald Ross on site during construction. I'll try to link to it later.

[Mike Sweeney]

And lastly, was Aronimink a McGovern course or a Ross?

Sounds similar to Yale:


https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/Eras/1923-1926/who_designed.html

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating thread.
Candles in the Wind, it seems.
With too much money, and an adolescent's need for approval.
Poor architects: they have to be part-time psychologists, and someone is always looking over their shoulder.
Maybe they should start charging 10xs as much -- it might be the only way to get some genuine respect.
Blah.   

[Niall C]

It seems to me that Ron P makes a valid point and defends himself against implied criticism that he didn't know what he was doing. His point being that what they are doing now may be fine but they (club/architect) are not doing what they say they are in terms of restoring Ross's work.

Whether approach 1, 2 or 3 as per Tom D's post is the best is another discussion.

Niall

[Tom Bagley]

Certainly Ross, if alive,  would be updating his own courses to account for the modern game -as Ron Prichard has done in his restorations. 

What I find interesting is the constant need for golfers, clubs, and greens committees to tinker with golf courses.  Beginning in the late 1980s/early 1990s the work was often done under the banner of "restoration,"  - and was touted here as a holy pursuit as opposed to the work done by the previous generation of heathens who destroyed the classic courses with "renovations." 

Now, it seems, we have entered a new era of restoration, perhaps driven by the lack of new course construction available for architects, and boredom with the status quo within affluent clubs.  The neo-restorationists still fly the banner of fealty to the original design, but argue that it's time to redo the restoration - because the first architect/committee didn't get it right!

[BCowan]

“those photos showed that Ross liked to improvise with bunker design and location, rather than follow the original plan on paper”. He does not mention who suggested such a thought, but in response I say, “In all the many years I have concentrated on the restoration of Donald Ross golf courses, I have found the actual bunker construction deviated from Ross’ original field sketches on only three other golf courses. Each of these was a golf course where J.B McGovern was the on-site construction associate. And interestingly, what these three golf courses had in common was clear evidence of McGovern’s proclivity to alter Donald Ross’ bunkering sketches and instructions.

This is very important piece and I'm curious how many field guys from the Golden age ''improvised plans'' and that might possibly remove stagnation by the same Archie from course to course.   There are instances in which going by plans can turn out bad IMO  For example the shelf on the 9th green at Barton Hills.  I do however like how Prichard said that 200 bunkers weren't needed when maint of bunkers is one of the if the most expensive part of Golf course maint. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

I have to believe that in lower tech and harder travel days, there was much less fear among associates in changing things around to their taste, figuring the chances of the boss showing up again to possibly chew them out.

As to changes, I did see the Ross field notes for Franklin Hills in Detroit.  They looked very much like a modern architects, from memory (would have liked to scan them or copy them, but couldn't). They moved the second tee, raised a green for vision, lowered another one, etc.  Don't specifically recall moving bunkers on those notes, but it was clear that if something didn't work out vision wise like they thought on paper, Ross had no compulsion to stick with the plans.

That, of course, argues TD's case for option 2.

That said, we have to recognize that architects in all eras were subject to non-functioning holes or design elements, as Ross notes show.  (See the other thread)  Then, the restoration architect has to make a choice in group 3B or 4 - Build the hole that eventually worked (considering safety, drainage, etc.) with renovation, or build to option 2, knowing you are consciously building something worse than it might otherwise be.  It's not like subsequent architects didn't renovate at least some things for a good reason other than Tour Pro length......

As mentioned, all are value judgements.  A few architects have gotten the reputation for making more good than bad value judgements in this area.

[Brad Tufts]

Certainly Ross, if alive,  would be updating his own courses to account for the modern game -as Ron Prichard has done in his restorations. 

What I find interesting is the constant need for golfers, clubs, and greens committees to tinker with golf courses.  Beginning in the late 1980s/early 1990s the work was often done under the banner of "restoration,"  - and was touted here as a holy pursuit as opposed to the work done by the previous generation of heathens who destroyed the classic courses with "renovations." 

Now, it seems, we have entered a new era of restoration, perhaps driven by the lack of new course construction available for architects, and boredom with the status quo within affluent clubs.  The neo-restorationists still fly the banner of fealty to the original design, but argue that it's time to redo the restoration - because the first architect/committee didn't get it right!

Hi Tom,

Good stuff here!  Restoration/renovation is a question we have grappled with over the last few years at Tedesco, but perhaps without the implied "holy" nature of a Ross-designed course like an OH or a Concord that Ron P. did.  While outside-the-club historians would love to connect us with Ross from the start, there is currently no proof of that.  Ross did a workup for us in 1938, but only one minor change (moving the 12th greensite up the hill) was followed.  He even listed us in his marketing booklet as "Tedesco CC, one hole," which might have been tongue-in-cheek, or a shot at us for not using his recommendations on the other 17 holes!

The fact that we are primarily a Wayne Stiles/Skip Wogan/Tedesco members layout, there has not been a push to "restore" to any ideal per se.  We are undergoing a two-year Ron Forse tree removal/green expansion/bunker renovation project currently (tree removal happened this past week), mainly as the result of our bunkers being well past due for renovation condition-wise.  I was part of the committee and we had grander "resto-reno" plans at one point, but this was generally limited by funds and the desire of members to maximize playability as opposed to historical values.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as we keep our golden-age feel, and future changes are in the name of retro shot values and design principles, I'm all good with it.  I hope our changes bring future ideas for more tree removal and bunker additions that bring us back a bit to a more historical Tedesco, but that will always be an uphill battle.

[Tom Bagley]

Brad:
You and I have seen and played enough "Ross" courses in New England to know that the origins of many are uncertain, especially as to the degree of involvement Ross may have had.  Plus, Ross courses were often altered - sometimes by Ross himself.  It also begs the question when it comes to restorations - restore to what?

At Oak Hill, the course continuously evolved - from the 1921 Stiles 9-hole layout; to Ross' second nine in 1927; to Ross re-designing the first nine in 1928-29, completely rebuilding six of the nine Stiles greens; to Ross subsequently rebuilding the remaining Stiles greens in the 1930s (perhaps with the work done by Orrin Smith). 

Ross was evidently satisfied with the Stiles routing of the original nine and must have been reasonably satisfied with the three Stiles greens he did not initially reconstruct.  And yet, in a 1937 letter to the members of the club looking for subscriptions to fund the rebuilding of the 5th and 8th greens, the club's President wrote that Ross "expressed the opinion to me that No. 5 was one of the worst golf holes he had ever seen." The funds were raised, the work was done in 1939 and the new greens were opened in 1940.

Perhaps the club President was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to motivate the members to fund the project.  Nevertheless, it shows how times and thoughts can change.  It seems strange that "the worst golf hole...ever seen" would not have been on the chopping block in 1928 when Ross was superintending other MAJOR changes to the original nine, necessitating the closure of those holes.

You can always find something that someone is unhappy about with his golf course, and from that, change happens - and sometimes for the better.  MacKenzie wrote about "finality" in constructing a golf course - good luck with that!

[Brad Tufts]

I've always thought there is an "ideal Ross" course like the mature-career Ross layouts at Charles River/Winchester/Salem, then others that have been modified or those that have fallen by the wayside without careful stewardship...but in recent years I've come to know there is no such thing.

There are Ross courses built by Ross, by Hatch, by McGovern, by Walter Johnson, then those restored to varying degrees by the modern specialists, and now those who are doing more restoration as new 18-hole projects are not as plentiful.  There is just a variety, and this variety is probably what makes his career and remaining courses so interesting.

I have still yet to flesh out Tedesco's early design history, but it's interesting to note that we had 36 holes for a brief period in the early 30s.  Tedesco was incorporated in 1903, but golfers were playing rudimentary golf at Phillip's Point in Swampscott a couple years before that.  In 1906, we moved to our current location, with 9 holes on the clubhouse side of Salem St.  In 1912 we added 9 more on the far side of Salem St., using about half the land of the current back 9.  There is record of the 1912 construction company ("Miller"), but no Ross proof.  Wogan was only 22 in 1912, and had moved to Essex to be Ross's apprentice two years before, which makes it dubious he was the designer of record at this point.  Ross was getting into mid-career at age 40 in 1912, so he's still a candidate, but this seems unlikely due to his "one hole" reference.  Stiles was 28 in 1912 and could have been the one, but we know he was on property revamping the course and adding a third 9 that opened in 1930. 

There was another 9 across Tedesco St. called the "Gun Club Nine," and this opened in 1927.  I'm not sure who designed this course, but it became Tedesco property in the early 30s before we sold it 5 years later to become the public "Sunbeam Golf Course," which closed in 1953.  My grandfather actually played this course in his 20s, which would have been just after WW2.

The 3rd (definitely Stiles) 9 was in play for 6 years before going back to nature.  The current layout uses most of the original course going back to 1912, save for a few pieces taken from the "Third 9" like the current 13/14/15/16.  Ross made recommendations in 1938, and we moved the 12th green up the hill.  Superintendents early and modern moved bunkers, planted trees, removed trees, and modified the 9th/11th/12th greens to their current incarnations.  The current bunkers are Steven Kay creations circa 1990, which have not stood the test of time. 

So we still have a number of mysteries, and I have not found the resources to research this fully...

Who was responsible for the second 9 in 1912?
What did Wogan do?  We have record of some work in 1924...maybe this was Wogan?
Who designed the Gun Club 9?

[Ben Hollerbach]

In his opening paragraph, Mr. Juliano describes the inscription that is “embossed” on a metal disk that is attached to a large stone located behind the first tee. On it, the words attributed to Donald Ross (Note: this comment was uttered when he came to Aronimink Golf Club on his first visit, following construction of the golf course). It states, “I intended to make this my masterpiece, but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew”. And when I first read that quote in 1994, the year I began to conduct serious research for a Plan of Restoration for the golf course, I initially questioned, why did you say that, at that time, so many years after the golf course was built? Where were you while construction was proceeding? Was it also true, (even though there is a film clip which showed Ross on the ground during early construction), that here also his constant travel prevented him from returning to Aronimink Golf Club as the course was under construction?

What potential is there that this comment was a tongue-in-cheek poke at J.B. McGovern?


I read this as Ross saw what McGovern did to his bunker plan, appreciatively or unappreciatively recognized the changes, and subtly told McGovern that any "improvements" made during construction, the praise would be Ross's and Ross's alone.

[John Gosselin]

Just a couple of quick facts. This is not a "restoration of of a restoration" rather a continuation of a restoration. Ron's MP was never completed with regards to items such as; green surface reclaiming and tee work. This latest effort is merely making the course as authentic as possible to the Ross as built course. Reclaiming all lost green space, reclaiming as much fairway width as possible, return the tees back to the original style/shape, and putting back the original bunkers in both style and scheme. Doesn't get more basic than that. 


The driving force behind the work was the fact the bunkers were failing and at a minimum needed to be partially rebuilt to replace drainage and replace the sand. At this point the club had to decide to, rebuild in place the current bunkers that were never part of AGC's history until 2000, or return the bunkers back to the original scheme and style that served the club for many years. All I can say here is the decision to go back as built was not void of years of research and discussion. The members did not blindly accept the recommendations of anyone involved.


Again, this work was initiated by the need to repair infrastructure through normal maintenance and renewal of a declining asset. To suggest it is being done as luxury or just to change do for the sake of change is plain wrong. 

[V_Halyard]

Certainly Ross, if alive,  would be updating his own courses to account for the modern game -as Ron Prichard has done in his restorations. 

What I find interesting is the constant need for golfers, clubs, and greens committees to tinker with golf courses.  Beginning in the late 1980s/early 1990s the work was often done under the banner of "restoration,"  - and was touted here as a holy pursuit as opposed to the work done by the previous generation of heathens who destroyed the classic courses with "renovations." 

Now, it seems, we have entered a new era of restoration, perhaps driven by the lack of new course construction available for architects, and boredom with the status quo within affluent clubs.  The neo-restorationists still fly the banner of fealty to the original design, but argue that it's time to redo the restoration - because the first architect/committee didn't get it right!


A bit of an over generalization. In some cases perhaps, in others, the original is broken. If the trees or bushes are breaking through the windows of your house, you fix it. If a classic course's multiple floods and overgrown trees have rendered moss covered greens and the trees have grown into tunnels over the tee boxes to a point you can't hit a ball without tagging a branch... you fix it.  Touch up, tweak, redesign, restoration, renovation, fix... call it what you will. You cut the lawn and fix the window.

[Ian Andrew]

It seems to me that Ron P makes a valid point and defends himself against implied criticism that he didn't know what he was doing. His point being that what they are doing now may be fine but they (club/architect) are not doing what they say they are in terms of restoring Ross's work.

Whether approach 1, 2 or 3 as per Tom D's post is the best is another discussion.

Niall

But I think that "is" the discussion.


I find it interesting that all the other restoration architects I've ever talked to favour the second option Tom outlined. Ron is the exception, not the rule.


Of all the new projects I have been on site for - mime and others I worked for - none have been built to plan. Almost every hole was adapted or changed dramatically to meet the field conditions.

[Tom_Doak]

Of all the new projects I have been on site for - mime and others I worked for - none have been built to plan. Almost every hole was adapted or changed dramatically to meet the field conditions.

I've had the same experience, and that is certainly why I favor the "as built" approach to restoration, as most others do.  In fact I've imitated Mr Dye in trying to leave as few plans as possible, so that no one can make the mistake of trying to use them to change my work someday!  It's the changes we make between my drawing and seeding that are the most considered features of my work, and that's also the place where my associates have a chance to contribute their own ideas.  The worship of Ross today marginalizes a lot of guys who contributed mightily to his success.

[Mike_Young]

Ian and TD,

I agree with what both of you say above.  And using that same logic I often don't see the need to take a perfectly good golf course and restore what was restored just a few years ago unless there are some technical issues that need to be repaired as JG mentions above.  Using Aronimink as an example, I could play it everyday as it is now.  I would assume usual bunker repair etc would take place even on the existing bunkers as well as other systems within the golf course.  I see what is taking place as a luxury not many courses can afford.  That is not an attack on anyone involved.  I just think we are seeing more and more of such.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Of all the new projects I have been on site for - mime and others I worked for - none have been built to plan. Almost every hole was adapted or changed dramatically to meet the field conditions.

I've had the same experience, and that is certainly why I favor the "as built" approach to restoration, as most others do.  In fact I've imitated Mr Dye in trying to leave as few plans as possible, so that no one can make the mistake of trying to use them to change my work someday!  It's the changes we make between my drawing and seeding that are the most considered features of my work, and that's also the place where my associates have a chance to contribute their own ideas.  The worship of Ross today marginalizes a lot of guys who contributed mightily to his success.

In building construction, compiling a set of as built drawings that are delivered to the client at the end of construction is a common practice. This provides true drawing to the building owner that can be used to diagnose future issues as well as plan for expansion/renovation


I wonder, with the fluidity of the design process and the potential of course work in the future of the club, is this a practice that more golf course architects should adopt going forward. In situations like this where there is a difference in drawings and implimentation, true as build drawings would help the club make these decisions in 100 years time.

[Ian Andrew]

In building construction, compiling a set of as built drawings that are delivered to the client at the end of construction is a common practice. This provides true drawing to the building owner that can be used to diagnose future issues as well as plan for expansion/renovation

I wonder, with the fluidity of the design process and the potential of course work in the future of the club, is this a practice that more golf course architects should adopt going forward. In situations like this where there is a difference in drawings and implimentation, true as build drawings would help the club make these decisions in 100 years time.

In today's digital age, you don't need anything like that. Everything has locator wires for green edges, drainage, irrigation, etc. (all for very practical reasons). It's all photographed from first day till opening day and the resources are astronomical for every job. Interestingly enough, I expect the evolution of places like Bandon Dunes is being enjoyed by the architects rather than causing concern.


Btw, if I live to 150 years old (not looking promising), I'm quite confident that I could restore Tom's work. 
There's more than enough information available.