The restoring of restorations

[Joel_Stewart]

Really good thread.  I know it focuses on Rons work at Aronimink but the list is getting long.  Perhaps C&C fixing Pinehurst was instrumental.


It's well known Gil has fixed TCC, Quaker Ridge and Merion to name a few. On a much larger scale he redid LACC after Harbottle botched it. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting discussion. We grant Hugh Wilson design credit for Merion in part because his were the last hands to alter/add features to the course before it opened. The initial plan/routing was not *solely* Mr Wilson's, and was in place/laid out before he returned from his study tour to finalize the course; but it is this 'as opened' course that was recognized as 'Merion' and that Wilson got credit for. Which is to say, I think an argument can be made that *either* you restore the course to Mr Ross' *plans* and choose to call it a Ross design *or* you bring it back to its 'as opened' state and accept that Mr McGovern's hands were the last to alter and add to the course and thus it is *he* who should get the credit.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Merion East is a fine example of what I was talking about earlier.  You neglected to note that holes 1,10,11,12 and 13 were all re-routed completely by William Flynn in the early twenties, so they would no longer cross Ardmore Avenue.

[Mike_Young]

And so after reading all of the above, I think that ODG golf design is just as I have always thought.  Clubs often use the name of the architect or pro golfer who provides them the most hype.  It doesn't matter whether he did one hole or 17.  It's easy and cheap when the guy you use is dead.  After reading PP's post above I wonder if McGovern would have been Flynn, would Aronimink be considered a newly discovered Flynn course today?  AND,not that it matters.  I'm uncomfortable even using Aronimink as an example because I have no issue with any of the parties involved and I love the course as it is as well as the maintenance level it enjoys.  If the course fits I don't care who designed it or who reworked it.  In so many cases we have hyped the ODG crap to a ridiculous level.

[Ian Andrew]

In so many cases we have hyped the ODG crap to a ridiculous level.

Why ... because time has proven that the best of that era was MUCH better than the best of the last two eras.
Restoration took off- partially as an interest in history - but just as much as a reaction to boatloads of awful Modern work.

[Mike_Young]

In so many cases we have hyped the ODG crap to a ridiculous level.

Why ... because time has proven that the best of that era was MUCH better than the best of the last two eras.
Restoration took off- partially as an interest in history - but just as much as a reaction to boatloads of awful Modern work.

Ian,
You've missed my point.  I'm not talking about the awful modern work.  I'm saying if the old stuff is good and is restored or repaired in a way that is good then great.  I could care less who they say was the original....but so often we exaggerate the original for the sake of hyping a place.  I can show you many Southern courses which are very good classic courses and if you read their hype they will say Donald Ross was the architect and yet if you research it he was there for a day when he came thru town and the course was 10 years old etc..they have zero Ross features but nevertheless are good classics....it's just too easy and it fits the story line without being questioned...I have my own thoughts on how we got so much awful modern work in the 50's and 60's...

[Sven Nilsen]

I can show you many Southern courses which are very good classic courses and if you read their hype they will say Donald Ross was the architect and yet if you research it he was there for a day when he came thru town and the course was 10 years old etc..they have zero Ross features but nevertheless are good classics

But that has nothing to do with the Ross/Flynn/McGovern story you crafted above.


There is a vast difference between hanging on to the Ross name at a course like Aronimink as opposed to a course that may have a few of his bunkers.

[Mike_Young]

I can show you many Southern courses which are very good classic courses and if you read their hype they will say Donald Ross was the architect and yet if you research it he was there for a day when he came thru town and the course was 10 years old etc..they have zero Ross features but nevertheless are good classics

But that has nothing to do with the Ross/Flynn/McGovern story you crafted above.


There is a vast difference between hanging on to the Ross name at a course like Aronimink as opposed to a course that may have a few of his bunkers.

Sven,
I think it has everything to do with a course like Aronimink or a Merion etc.  ( and I did not "craft" the above story.  I read it and reposted).   I'm saying that for myself I don't care who was the architect and if we let the mission to define the architect consume so many courses then we have lost the way.  I love Aronimink today.  If you tell me it is a McGovern or a Doak or a Ross, I don't care.  And in so many cases the reason we like these old treasures that are identified by the archie is not due to the archie as much as the caretaker.  John does a great job at Aronimink and will do a great job with it whomever works on it or "takes it back to a specific time" etc.  It just doesn't matter.  I'm not judging whether a club wishes to spend the money to do such. I'm saying in most cases it is a luxury.  No different than reworking a locker room or a dining room in a clubhouse and yet the food remains the same. 

[Sven Nilsen]

After reading PP's post above I wonder if McGovern would have been Flynn, would Aronimink be considered a newly discovered Flynn course today? 

Mike,


Just so we're clear, this is what I was referring to regarding the story you crafted (not the article you linked to).


As to whether or not any of this matters or not, it depends on how important respect for the truth is to you.  I happen to be a bit of a conservative on that front.


Sven

[Dan Moore]

    "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”). "
 
"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”). "  RP
I'm curious as to when McGovern became an associate of Ross and if that relationship might have grown out of what happened at Aronimink. Was Ross aware he was making changes in the field?  Did Ross then or later approve, disapprove? I think this fact situation is unique and emphasizes the need for a Club to fully understand their architectural history and why things progressed the way they did before making restoration decisions.

[Mike_Young]

After reading PP's post above I wonder if McGovern would have been Flynn, would Aronimink be considered a newly discovered Flynn course today? 

Mike,


Just so we're clear, this is what I was referring to regarding the story you crafted (not the article you linked to).


As to whether or not any of this matters or not, it depends on how important respect for the truth is to you.  I happen to be a bit of a conservative on that front.


Sven

What the hell are you talking about?  Truth....this site often has a hard time handling the truth...and some can't.  Truth is it doesn't matter who designed it and turht is none of us really have a finite answer for half of the perceived designs.  It is a smoke and mirrors business.  A good golf course is a good golf course....Aronimink is a good golf course.  The club has the right to do whatever they please to their golf course and I'm sure it will be good.  Oakland Hills is a good golf course.  They have the same right.  They mightnot do anyhting there for now  BUT it is still a good golf course....the BS of "respect for the truth" with these things reall pisses me off....sorry...

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:


The point was you were talking about two vastly different instances. 


There's a vast difference between your two scenarios.  The first (if McGovern had been Flynn) is a question related to architect/constructor contributions, and which name, if not both, the course wants to pin its hat on.  The second (borrowing the Ross name for a course he didn't really do anything on) is purely abuse of the truth for marketing purposes.


As Dan noted above, in the case of a restorative effort, I would hope the club endeavored to as fully understand as possible its history, both as planned and as built (and as cared for).  Everything beyond that with respect to a restoration is a question of choice, but knowing the truth, or what actually happened, will make those informed choices. 


As far as credit goes, there has to be a point where a course as built differs so much from what was planned that it is no longer proper to give credit to the planner over the constructor.  I doubt that has ever happened to the extent that you have to completely discount the import of the initial plan, something I don't think we give enough credit to.  In other words, in my mind, there is more to making a course great in the building of the framework than there is in the applying of the details.


You often deride the efforts of the historians around here.  While there is something cool about discovering a lost course by a name architect, part of what we are really trying to do is lay out the record (both of what was done and who did it) so that if a course wants to make some choices in a restoration, it is doing so in an informed fashion.


I get your general point that who did what doesn't really matter, and that trying to present the best course possible is the ultimate goal.  For the sake of what is or what goes on the ground, I agree.  For the historical record, my personal preference is that if the story is going to be told, that it be told properly.


Sven

[Mike_Young]

Sven,
If I seem to deride the efforts of the historians, I apologize for the one's who get it right but in my dealings I have listen to and watched far too many who have zero idea and are just making up details in order to write a book or article.  From what  I see of the original drawing it is clear that McGovern changed the Ross bunkers.  And since I subscribe to #2 on TD's list of "restoring what was actually built" one would be restoring a McGovern course.  Thus I don't know how a historian can say whether DR told him to make the changes on the drawings to the bunkers or if he made them himself.  If there was an existing letter stating such then I would not be deriding ( as you say) the historians as much.  Otherwise, I don't think any of us know. 
Also, I don't think there is a vast difference in my two scenarios.  I don't know how much DR was at Aronimink.   But use a course like East Lake as an example.  So many people think it is a DR.  He may have done the second course there but not the first.  It was already there when he arrived but they have conveniently allowed people the think it is a Ross.  Anyway, I may seem to deride but I don't mean for it to be that harsh.  The site reminds me more of a monday morning quarterback discussion than a history lesson.  Cheers...

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:


With respect to cases like East Lake, and the like, I think you'd find that you and I are of the same mind.


The most interesting part to me of Ron Prichard's missive on Aronimink was his take on how the Ross bunkers would differ from those actually built, and what that would mean for the actual play of the course.  Another choice for the club in the restoration process, but one they probably don't get the chance to make if those in charge confine themselves to a strict adherence to Doak's approach #2 and don't have someone like Ron there to lay out the differences. 


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

The most interesting part to me of Ron Prichard's missive on Aronimink was his take on how the Ross bunkers would differ from those actually built, and what that would mean for the actual play of the course.  Another choice for the club in the restoration process, but one they probably don't get the chance to make if those in charge confine themselves to a strict adherence to Doak's approach #2 and don't have someone like Ron there to lay out the differences.

Sorry, but I don't see Ron Prichard giving clubs a chance to make those choices.  He clearly advocates his own approach to every one of his clients that I'm aware of.  Can you name a couple where he's built anything differently based on input from the club?

[V_Halyard]

The most interesting part to me of Ron Prichard's missive on Aronimink was his take on how the Ross bunkers would differ from those actually built, and what that would mean for the actual play of the course.  Another choice for the club in the restoration process, but one they probably don't get the chance to make if those in charge confine themselves to a strict adherence to Doak's approach #2 and don't have someone like Ron there to lay out the differences.

Sorry, but I don't see Ron Prichard giving clubs a chance to make those choices.  He clearly advocates his own approach to every one of his clients that I'm aware of.  Can you name a couple where he's built anything differently based on input from the club?

I cannot speak for any of Ron's other clients but I can attest that Ron was fully collaborative with our efforts at Cedar Rapids. The effort was collaborative as we explored various options and integrated multiple changes and adjustments based on Ross' routing, photos, member play, the land, watershed, staffing, history and budget.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


Its not about Ron giving the club a choice, its about the club having as much information as possible about alternatives to know which choice (in this case between going with planned v. as-built bunkers) they want to pursue.


It was a nuance that is missed if you stick with a straight adherence to an as-built restoration.


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Its not about Ron giving the club a choice, its about the club having as much information as possible about alternatives to know which choice (in this case between going with planned v. as-built bunkers) they want to pursue.


It was a nuance that is missed if you stick with a straight adherence to an as-built restoration.

Sven:


I'm still missing the nuance in your post.  My experience from seeing 4-5 Ron Prichard renovation projects in my recent travels is that he has always advocated for restoring Ross' original plan using his guidance, and maybe free-lancing a few additional bunkers per Ron's suggestion.  Are there examples of his using the original photos instead?

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


You don't understand how the explanation of the difference in the grading of the Ross bunkers vs. the McGovern bunkers creates a choice for the club?  All I'm talking about is bringing the information to light.


Sven

[Dan Moore]

Again I think the importance of knowing what happened and why is crucial. And I mean knowing in a strict sense of having historical proof over speculation.  I agree with Mike that a lot of what is presented as history here is often just speculation or opinion with little or no basis in documented facts. While I tend to agree the as built is probably the better baseline if the original architect was responsible for supervision of the construction there may be reasons the pre-construction plan is better.  For example what if the original architect wasn't involved in construction? Or there could be a situation where what ended up being built was a budgetary compromise where something didn't get built as the architect intended because they didn't have the money at the time. For example I can think of several Langford courses where they built the earthworks but didn't add sand.  Knowing that might mean you'd want to restore to the plan rather than what was built. The bottom line is every case is different and the evaluation should be fact based rather than speculation.


I've done two architecture evolution reports for Clubs so far and, while you can't find everything, its surprising how much you can find in some boxes in a store room, attic or basement the Club has long ago forgotten about. In one case I was able to show exactly how the as built course differed from the pre-construction plan due to field adjustments made during construction and in the year or two after the course opened. And I was able to document almost every change to the course over the next 100 years and how that differed from the original plan and what was actually built.  Now the Club has documentation at its fingertips to make decisions about what to do and isn't just assuming that changes from the original plan were made much later by a third party.


Personally I think history matters a lot. It really bugs me when a course is touted as a "famous architects" course when in fact not a single hole on the course was routed by said famous architect even if the famous architect added bunkers to every hole. Or when a membership is sold a restoration that is in fact nothing but a renovation that has nothing to do with what was originally planned or built.


Based on what I've seen in studying Chicago area courses I agree with Tom and Mike that all too often restoration work is simply the present day architect's personal stylistic interpretation of the original architects work.


Ross it seems to me presents a real challenge on this issue because of the fact he didn't personally supervise construction of so many of his courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:


You don't understand how the explanation of the difference in the grading of the Ross bunkers vs. the McGovern bunkers creates a choice for the club?  All I'm talking about is bringing the information to light.


Sven

Did Mr. Prichard explain all of that to Aronimink before he rebuilt their bunkers years ago?  Or is he just explaining it all now to defend his choice from being reversed?


I will admit to bias here.  I'm pretty involved with construction by the standard of most designers, present or past.  It wasn't just Ross -- MacKenzie and Macdonald and others were not on site nearly as often as their fans would like to believe, and much of their work was actually the labor of Perry Maxwell or Seth Raynor, or some lesser light.  And even as much as I'm on site, I leave a lot of the bunkering to my associates, and just edit their work, instead of trying to plan it out in great detail.


Ross did more elaborate drawings than most architects of his era, but it was also part of his model to have his associates supervise the construction of his courses, wasn't it?  Singling out McGovern for going rogue is speculation at best.

[Mike_Young]

Tom:


You don't understand how the explanation of the difference in the grading of the Ross bunkers vs. the McGovern bunkers creates a choice for the club?  All I'm talking about is bringing the information to light.


Sven

Did Mr. Prichard explain all of that to Aronimink before he rebuilt their bunkers years ago?  Or is he just explaining it all now to defend his choice from being reversed?


I will admit to bias here.  I'm pretty involved with construction by the standard of most designers, present or past.  It wasn't just Ross -- MacKenzie and Macdonald and others were not on site nearly as often as their fans would like to believe, and much of their work was actually the labor of Perry Maxwell or Seth Raynor, or some lesser light.  And even as much as I'm on site, I leave a lot of the bunkering to my associates, and just edit their work, instead of trying to plan it out in great detail.


Ross did more elaborate drawings than most architects of his era, but it was also part of his model to have his associates supervise the construction of his courses, wasn't it?  Singling out McGovern for going rogue is speculation at best.

Couple of things:

TD,
I'm not necessarily saying McGovern went rogue.  I'm saying he took the time to change the bunker style on the hole drawings.  Why would he do that?  My guys have always looked at the center stake and started building.  We never took the time to go back and make those changes.  Could McGovern have made those changes on paper so that someone could follow?  I don't know.

Dan,
IMHO, (and I'm accused of not respecting the history but that's not the case) the only pure, true representation one could have of what the archie wanted would be to have a post construction drawing.   And even then if he made changes later it might not be reflected.  AND lastly, often the archie might find his original was not that good and it needed adjusting, so why do flips trying to restore back to it if you don't know?  My home club is run by a bunch of frat boys who didn't know Ross at all and probably thought he manufactured shirts.  They literally allowed the perimeter of the original drawings to be gps'd on the ground when they did a redo of our 1925 Ross course.  They didn't worry bout the third dimension as much but left that to interpretation. 

But back to my original though on all of this....whatever is being done to a course like Aronimink is a luxury that not many courses can afford.  I keep asking myself if such things would be occurring today if new construction was still going along at a fair pace. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


You don't understand how the explanation of the difference in the grading of the Ross bunkers vs. the McGovern bunkers creates a choice for the club?  All I'm talking about is bringing the information to light.


Sven

Did Mr. Prichard explain all of that to Aronimink before he rebuilt their bunkers years ago?  Or is he just explaining it all now to defend his choice from being reversed?

Tom:


I don't know if he explained it then, but he did explain it now.  At the very least, it gives the club an informed stance on what they are giving up if they restore the McGovern bifurcated bunkers under Gil's watch.


That's all I am saying, and please don't read more into it than that.


Sven

[John Gosselin]

I don't know if he explained it then, but he did explain it now.  At the very least, it gives the club an informed stance on what they are giving up if they restore the McGovern bifurcated bunkers under Gil's watch.[/size]That's all I am saying, and please don't read more into it than that.Sven




Sven, They are not McGovern bunkers. Ross was on site more than once during construction. He is even pictured near some bunkers that had been completed (sand in) along side some that were still being shaped. To believe otherwise would require some radical assumptions. Aronimink's archives and research has clearly lead the club to put back what Ross built in the first place. - John[/size]

[Mike_Young]

Well as for Aronimink,not for all of them,  if JG has spoken so that should be good enough me.  I'm sure he has been involved in the minute details and shouldn't be questioned by this site. 
But I could still play what they have today everyday...one of my favorites.