[TEPaul]

After Aronimink's restoration back to Donald Ross's original design plans and following the GAP's Patterson Cup this week for Philly's "A" players some interesting feedback, critiques, and information on Ron Prichard's Aronimink "Ross restoration" is starting to come out!

I think this feedback from the players and the restoration information reflects on a lot of interesting things. One being what Ross really intended for Aronimink, and the other how what he might have intended may not have been built exactly to his plans for some reason--particularly the bunker schemes and patterns.

Most know Aronimink as a course that went through a series of real "modern age" redesigns at the hands of Dick Wilson, the Fazios and RTJ! Others know Aronimink as the course that had the PGA Championship scheduled that never happened there because of the "Shoal Creek" affair (that probably needs explanation at another time, because, in my opinion, at least, the club did the right and principled thing).

I think it's probably safe to say that none of those architects did anything to Aronimink redesign-wise even remotely in the "Ross style" (whatever that may have actually originally been from Ross at Aronimink!?).

It's probably safe to say that as time went on those redesigns may have become less popular with Aronimink's membership too. Either that, or for whatever reason the club developed a renewed understanding and respect for Ross and his Aronimink design. Some of that feeling may have also been that Aronimink started sinking slowly down the top 100 list and eventually off it!

But now Aronimink has been almost wholly restored to Ross's original plans and that in itself includes a bit of an oddity since Prichard and the club concluded that originally many of the bunkers and bunker schemes and patterns may not have been built as Ross designed them on his plans. The conclusion is that J.B. McGovern may have gotten "interpretive" on his own with the bunker schemes (Ron believes he's detected evidence of those bunker patterns from McGovern at the also Prichard restored little Jeffersonville course, also attributed to Ross).

Aerials from the 1930s show that Aronimink was built with app. 200 bunkers while Ross's plans only called for about 70. That should be further explained too, since most of those additional bunkers showed up on the later aerials as sets of twos and threes where Ross only planned one!

Also, a few of the competitors in the Patterson Cup last Thursday said Aronimink now is nothing much like what they remember and some even said it's not much like anything they have ever seen from Donald Ross either.

I think the golf course undoubtably got their complete respect as a real championship test of golf though! The course was basically tipped out for the Patterson making it a 7100+ par 70 with really great greens and also a "maintenance meld" that was about ideal, in my opinion from all that I heard from the players about how it played. Out of interest, I don't believe a single competitor broke par or even shot par. I believe 71 was the low round from well over a hundred competitors and the average score was probably very high!

So, the course got their attention and apparently their respect, but Jamie Slonis, who was the Patterson's defending Champion said he really didn't enjoy the strategic presentation that much (or at least that now he wishes he'd been far more prepared for it and how different it is than what Aronimink has been in recent years) and that he'd definitely never seen a Ross course like this one--apparently meaning off the tees.

Jamie's a contributor on here and can explain his feeling about the course and the holes in more detail but his general thought was Aronimink forced players off of tees into some real "shot dictation" and that kind of thing has never been something that Ross has been known for (off the tees that is)!

Additionally, Jamie and a number of other players in the Patterson said if you went into those fairway bunkers it was basically a one shot penalty as the prudent thing to do was to just get out of them with a lofted iron. They all wondered if Ross had actually planned and designed bunkers that deep in the fairways, as Ross did write about the necessity (or at least the principle) of "recoverability" maybe all the way to greens in some cases.

I didn't think Ross was ever known for those two things either, so if the course has been restored almost exactly to Ross's original plans including the fairway bunker placements and depths, what was Ross doing with his design and creation at Aronimink?

I think this might have been Ross shifting his style in the case of Aronimink to build a golf course that was a true Championship venue!

I think the whole subject of the true "Championship style" course is an interesting subject and when and where it came from! I believe it was a wholly American development and architectural invention. I also believe it may have been the original product of the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania school of architecture! It also appears from written correspondence and written debate it was not popular as an idea with European architects of that earlier time!

I put in a call to Ron about this and he said he will be back in a week or so and will gladly supply any detailed info anyone wants on Aronimink's restoration back to Ross's plans. I also put in a call to Brad Klein to see what he says about other courses that may have been originally designed by Ross as strictly "championship venues".

Next I'm going to post a very interesting story from Pete Trenham through Ted MacKenzie about Ross that involves the original head pro at Aronimink (who was there for forty years) and what Ross said about his style of architecture and/or this golf course.

It sounds interesting!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

JSlonis described the restored fairway bunkers at Aronimink as deep grass faced with flat bottoms -- with every ball rolling up against the face. Is that accurate representation of how the bunkers play today? And is that how Ross or Ross/McGovern intended their fairway bunkers to play? Were Aronominks bunkers originally grass faced?

[Craig Rokke]

In talking with 2 middle-aged members this week, I came away with the impression that the membership really likes the work
done by Pritchard (although they both said it's getting too hard for their games.)

200 bunkers at one point in the club's history. Wow. Interesting post, TEP. The thought about artistic liberties taken by McGovern is one I'd like to hear more about.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

When you ask if Aronimink's bunkers were originally grassed all the way down to basically flat sand floors you should realize the apparent oddity of how Aronimink's bunkers were orginally built vs planned and designed by Ross.

First of all, it's probably very hard to tell at this point how the bunkers were originally built since the course underwent massive redesign (including the bunkering) by Wilson, Fazios and RTJ. So you couldn't look at them on the ground pre-Prichard restoration and tell.

The aerial photo I'm looking at from the 1930s is a very good one directly over the golf course but it's also from 6,000ft and it's almost impossible to tell from that height if the faces were grassed down to flat floors.

But none of that photograhic evidence really matters because the club and Ron Prichard decided to restore the bunkers exactly to Ross original plans (that may never have been built as drawn in the first place).

And it's patently clear to them that the way they were designed and drawn was with grassed down faces to flat sand floor. All the bunker dimensions, style, measurements etc from Ross's original plans were used for the recent restoration.

Prichard even said that the plans he has were by Ross himself and some of the best and most elaborate he's ever seen by Ross himself! I thought that what Ron was using were from Walter Erving Johnson but Ron says they're Ross's!

Ron is not the slightest bit hesitant to explain where a few things were tweaked for modern times and technology either.

It's a real credit to those who analyze architecture and contribute to this website that they seem to have already picked right up on those few areas where some tweaking from Ross's plans may have been done in the restoration.

One was the pond on #17 (Ron just mentioned that to me) and the other was hole #12 (which he mentioned too) and it's staggered fairway bunker scheme. The staggered fairway bunker scheme on #12 was there in Ross's design plan but Ron tweaked some of the placement for modern technology and also brought the bunkering in tighter into the fairway. That very hole seems to be the one that Jamie Slonis particularly picked right up on as seemingly different than what he knew of Ross.

I don't know whether that was just coincidence or the fact Jamie got in one of those fairway bunkers on #12, or that he really knows his stuff architecturally but that's the one he and some other players mentioned to me as unusual to them for Ross!

But Ron claims that everything else was basically exactly to Ross's original plans.

I hope we don't get into a big debate on here about the fact that since something might have been slightly tweaked to conform better to today's technology that the restoration was ill-conceived and poorly executed somehow.

The important things to me about the restoration is that it got the attention and respect of the players on the golf course and it really challenged them and also that the course may be different than what we've come to know from Ross but that he planned and designed it that way!

To me the latter is the most important and interesting of all!

Brad klein did call back and thinks that for what may have been strictly designed to be "Championship venues" from Ross one would probably have to include Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Inverness and maybe one or two others. Of course there's Pinehurst #2 but that's sort of special and was under Ross's ongoing design for decades!

[TEPaul]

I think it's fascinating about the 200 bunkers (sets of twos and threes instead of the singles on Ross's original plans) rather than the 70 on Ross's original plans, but if it was in fact McGovern who took architectural liberties on his own without Ross's say so, that really does make one wonder about Ross's unusual remark at the course's opening day ceremony.

Ross said: "I intended this to be my masterpiece but until today I did not realize how well I built!"

I mean come on, that statement has got to be a designer's public relations nightmare! Wouldn't everyone there wonder and say; "Well, Donald, where were you when this course was being built?"

And that may have been true unless of course Ross approved at that point the bunkering or even changed at some point from his design plan what was built in the field.

No real matter to me! The course looks good and definitely different from what we have come to know from Ross and he was there at Opening day, obviously approved of things regardless of the transparency of that remark of his.

Aronimink is also another good example, maybe the best one, of a club that has now dedicatedly wiped away some of the most comprehensive "non-routing change" redesign of the modern age and they're back to what they once were. I hope they go back onto the top 100 and start to climb!

[JSlonis]

Tom,

I really have no problem with the strategic presentation, in fact I like it. I think that type of golf really separates who is in control of their total game on a particular day.

My problem was that I was not prepared for the test. There are many holes now with a staggered set of fairway bunkers on both sides of the fairway. An analogy for your tee shots... would be like plotting your way around a mine field.  It seems as though at Aronomink Ross says to the player, "in order to score here, you MUST hit it to a certain point, both straight and the proper distance."

As you stated above, after analyzing the course there definitely is a "shot dictation" theme.  Even though many of the par 4's are quite long, you cannot just step to the tee and bomb a driver, no matter how straight you hit it.

It's getting late..I'll follow up more in the AM.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

I managed to avoid the fairway bunkers on #12, but that hole really struck me visually from the tee. It is very different from what it was a couple of years ago.

[TEPaul]

The story I promised about the original head professional at Aronimink is quite interesting and may indicate a pattern of mentoring, apprenticing, recommending and placing of people that Donald Ross apparently got into throughout his long career. But it may indicate a lot more than that about architecture and an architectural "style"--the true "championship venue"!

This is from Pete Trenham through Ted MacKenzie. Joe Cappelo (sp?) was the original professional at Aronimink (late 1920s), apparently recommended or placed there by Ross. Joe remained the head pro at Aronimink until the late 1960s--about forty years.

Joe worked at Essex C.C. (Mass) as a teenager in the bag room scouring rust off clubs apparently apprenticed to the head professional at Essex.

One day the head pro at Essex walked into the bag room and told Joe there was someone in the pro shop he wanted him to meet. Joe walked into the pro shop and there was Donald Ross. Joe told Ted Mackenzie (many years later) that if Jesus Christ was standing in that pro shop in front of him he wouldn't have been more excited.

Ross got to know young Joe and took him to Pinehurst with him where according to Pete Trenham up to a dozen or more teaching pros would collect in the winters to teach the Pinehurst clientele.

Eventually Ross must have placed Joe at the newly opened Aronimink in Philadephia around 1928-29.

The thing that struck me in this story from Pete Trenham is that Joe's primary recollection (to Ted Mackenzie years later) was that Ross had explained to him that he felt his architecture was 20-30 years ahead of its time!!

Whether Ross meant by that Aronimink or his architecture generally, it's impossible to know now--but I'm wondering if he didn't mean Aronimink itself particularly since the plans drawn by Ross for Aronimink and the way the course was originally built would seem to be both unusual for Ross's generally known style and also very much far ahead of its time in both length and overall demand!

It looks to me like Ross intended to build a true "Championship venue" at Aronimink, something he hadn't really done previously, at least not to that extent.

It can be said that Aronimink has always been either in actuality or very much in planned "elasticity" around a 7000-7300yd golf course! That's a lot by any standards and certainly by the standards of the late '20s. The same can probably be said for Flynn's Shinnecock built about the same time! Shinnecock, like Aronimink, has really not changed from then until today in overall length when considering the possibility of original and planned elasticity!

It's fairly well documented that Ross felt the true test of a good golfer was his ability to consistenly hit long irons and it's well documented what Flynn said about the dangers of the length the golf ball was going (back in the 1920s) and what needed to be done about the length of courses to accomodate that.

It also seems that both these courses were created to be "championship venues". The whole idea of a "Championship style" course I believe was a uniquely American invention and creation and these two may have been some of the best and first evidence of it.

Both courses have their overall routing completely intact from original creation and the overall length of them appears to have been either original or distinctly planned "elasticity"!

As to the originally designed fairway bunker depths (and even unusual fairway bunker placement) at Aronimink, that also seems to fit into the equation of "championship" style.

The sentiments of a golfer like Jamie Slonis playing in the Patterson Cup last week that recently restored Aronimink didn't seem that much like Ross to him is interesting because apparently the recently restored Aronimink is Ross almost exactly! But it certainly does seem to be unusual for Ross--at least what I know about his courses!

So I'm interested in where the "championship style" course came from and when and who did them and did them most comprehensively and how.

Jamie mentioned real evidence of "shot dictation" even off the tees at Aronimink! That doesn't sound much like what we've come to expect from Ross (basically with his "member's courses" providing tons of undictated width off tees and building basically second shot designs and strategies).

So I wonder what exactly Ross meant when he told Joe Cappelo that he was 20-30 years ahead of his time!

Some of us think that Robert Trent Jones created and pioneered the super long style shot dictating golf course that could be used as a "championship" course after WW2 beginning in the late 1950s and 1960s. This is what many of us call the beginning of the "Modern Age" of golf design.

RTJ didn't even design in tee length "elasticity", he created it actually with super long tee boxes (his landing strip tees!).

So maybe it wasn't RTJ who conceived of and created these super long and shot dictating couses--maybe it was the likes of Ross and Flynn (and others?--possibly Tillinghast too--Bethpage!!!).

Bob Ford, certainly one of America's premier head professionals (at both Oakmont and Seminole) came down to Aronimink while playing in the Pa Open at Lancaster last week and proclaimed the newly restored Aronimink was awesome as a test and was about ready right now to hold a tour event or maybe a major!

And to think it's been restored basically to Ross's original plans! Both Ford and Pete Trenham mentioned independently that if Aronimink was to start to remove and clear back many of their present treelined holes and open up the course and many of the holes into a real "parkland" look and start to meld many of the holes "visually" into the beautiful rolling topography of the site, the course would be just that much better.

So if Aronimink (and Shinnecock) were designed as true "championship venues" it appears Ross (and Flynn and maybe Tillinghast and others) may have been more like 70+ years ahead of their time when they built those types of "Championship venue" courses.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
The original Ross course looked to be have very few trees, when restoring the course did they remove a number of trees? Are the fairway bunkers now flat bottomed (as JSlonis described) and from what you know was that something Ross advocated?  It sounds like the bunkers are very similar in appearance to the typical grass facing seen currently at Salem, Pinehurst #2, Seminole and the bunkers of countless restored Ross courses - was that the original look at Aronomink?

I agree this course sure must have been a bear, maybe Ross figured that was the only way to get attention in a very tough neighborhood.

[Bill_Spellman]

Tom

     I remember from my younger days that Aronimink could put the feasr of God in me when I was slated to play there. A 7000 yard Par 70! And it was this way in the 60's when 7000 yards meant something! When I worked at Merion, a 6600 yard par 70, there wasn't as much pressure on the tee shot as there existed at Aromimink. One had to be long and accurate.

     Your point about Ross possibly being ahead of his time makes perfect sense. Who built courses that difficult and long at his time? There had to be a plan in mind when doing so. Tom MacWood's point about being a tough neighborhood is right on point, when competeing with the likes of Merion and the other great Philly courses.

    That brings up another question; Contrast and compare the alterations to Merion with the alterations to Aronimink. In the sense that both "Are going back to an historical era, the 1930's, which course has been more successful or must we wait until Merion completes it's alterations?

     Will the return to Ross's plans elevate Aronimink to a loftier staus than Merion, especially in light of the fact that Aronimink may be able to host a major championship and Merion cannot?

     Jay Sigel's comments would be interesting.

[Dave_Miller]

Additionally, Jamie and a number of other players in the Patterson said if you went into those fairway bunkers it was basically a one shot penalty as the prudent thing to do was to just get out of them with a lofted iron. They all wondered if Ross had actually planned and designed bunkers that deep in the fairways, as Ross did write about the necessity (or at least the principle) of "recoverability" maybe all the way to greens in some cases.

Tom:

Given the fact that Donald Ross also designed and built Charles River around the same time as Aronimink I think Ross did plan and design bunkers that deep in the fairways.  There are several at Charles River also.  Given the fact that Charles River has 72 bunkers and the Aronimink original plan 70 I think it is entirely conceivalble that Ross intended the depth of some of the bunkers.

I also feel that the lofted iron from the bunker is not a full shot penalty because recoverability is possible on the third shot (or 2nd or 3rd or 4th if a par 3 or par 5)allowing the player to make the shot which will yield par.  

If today's players think that this takes away a birdie possibility they are probalby correct but again in my mind this fits with the intent of Ross.  Ross is not necessarily allowing recovery everywhere for birdie but at times the player must recover for par.  

One question I would like to ask Ron, which I neglected to do when we met in Phila., is why the bunker on the left side face of the 17th green, which shows in the original drawing hanging in the Clubhuse, was not restored.  My guess is it has to do with the change that had been made to the 17th pond but I'm not sure.

All in all I think the changes at Aronimink are terrific and I think that Donald Ross was ahead of his time in building this and some of the others in this manner.

After all he probably saw technology changes taking place also from the time he arrived in this country to the time he built some of these courses. Perhaps an interesting topic for another thread.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

[Dave_Miller]

Tom MacWood:

Charles River also has the grass facing down the bunkers to the floor and this feature was part of the original design.

I believe this was probably true at Aronimink also and believe it was a Ross feature.  Ron Pritchard could answer better about Aronimink.

Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Again, the sand floors in the bunkering at Aonomink are quite flat and the faces are grassed down to the flat floors as per Ross's original design specs.

Aronomink did take out a number of trees during the restoration and they very well may be planning to take out more--maybe even a lot more.

Dave Miller:

Ron Prichard did say the pond on #17 was one concession he and the club made in not doing a total restoration on that hole. He will be back in a week or so and said he will read all this and will likely respond to whatever anyone wants to know about the restoration. He did say there were some concessions to technology and the distance the ball travels today--probably a few bunker placements to tee shot carry and such.

[JSlonis]

Bill,

The restoration work at Aronomink is first class.  The golf course was difficult before and I think it is 2-3 shots more difficult now. I don't think the course got its proper recognition in the past, maybe now it will gain some notoriety.

As for bypassing Merion in status. I can't see that happening, no matter if Aronomink could host a tourney and Merion can not.  Merion just has that "special something" that very few courses in this country have.

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

I couldn't agree more--I don't see Aronimink bypassing Merion in status no matter how good Aronimink's restoration is--and I think it's very good. But who knows what people mean by "status"?

Merion definitely does have that "special something" and I think most all of it is the inherently special architecture of the course!

[John Sheehan]

I was curious - someone recently mentioned to me that William Flynn had some input on the design of Aronimink.  I had never heard this before and was wondering if anyone could either confirm OR refute this.  Thanks.

[TEPaul]

I don't think Flynn did and if he did I've never found anyone who thought that. Don't depend on C&W for exact architectural attribution on Aronimink either. They have Tillinghast listed as doing some work but I believe that was on the course that preceded the present Ross Aronimink that was miles away from where this Aronimink is. But if any on would know, Ron Prichard would.

[Mike_Cirba]

William Flynn had nothing to do with Aronimink, nor did Tillinghast.  After Ross (with McGovern), those who made changes over the years include George Fazio, Dick Wilson, and RTJ Sr., before Prichard's recent restoration back to Ross's original plans.

There is no question that the present Aronimink is a "true championship course".  The one point that has thus far escaped discussion are the greens, which are superb and which were never tinkered with over the years.  Particuarly on the back nine, they are vexing and problematic, and one's like 11 rival Ross's most severe greens such as 17 at Oakland Hills.  

I have little doubt that Aronimink could effectively challenge the top professionals, and is now probably THE toughest stroke-play course in the Philadelphia area for players at that level.  It could host a US Open tomorrow, if the USGA ever wanted to return to the Philly area.  

[JSlonis]

Mike,

You are correct about the greens, they are wonderful. They were rolling at 12' (Stimp) the day of the Patterson Cup.

There were a few greens that looked as if there was some significant green space recaptured.

The 11th is a nightmare if you are anywhere near hole high or above.

[TEPaul]

As promised Ron Prichard said over ten days ago when he got back in town he would read the topics and threads on the Aronimink restoration and comment on them and answer any questions he could.

He did that, and again, said he was very pleased with the interest and expertise of Golfclubatlas contributors and participants (Ron is a big fan of Golfclubatlas).

Ron is not much of a typist, he says, and he's also very busy and on the road a lot so he left a couple of very long and involved messages on my telephone message machine (I was away for about five days too) about one issue of the bunkering at Aronimink he thought needed clarification on Golfclubatlas.

That issue is concerning the so-called "flat floors" of the restored bunkers (people probably think of them that way due to their mostly drapped down grass faces)!

Ron explained that the floors (sand floors) of the Aronimink bunkering are not supposed to be flat (despite possibly that appearance since the grass is drapped so far down the faces)!

I hope I do his messages justice here, but Ron explained a few very interesting aspects about Ross, about architecture, and also about contracting work on this particular issue!

Firstly, Ron said the drawings he was working off in the restoration were Ross's own field drawings. As such the dimensions and detail of them may have been somewhat preliminary or rough in regard to how they (the bunkers) might individually come to be built later to perform how Ross generally intended them to!

In Ron Prichard's opinion Ross intended bunkering of the style and type of Aronimink's to basically have the front faces (whether grass or sand--or any combination of length or degree of slope of either) to basically filter or repel the ball back away from the front faces enough so a golfer would be likely to have some type of reasonable recovery shot, other than having to take a sand wedge from a fairway bunker, for instance, and come out sideways and lose a whole shot.

Ron also said that when any of us concern ourselves with true exact restoration of Ross's bunkering to his particular bunker drawings and specs, the one essential ingredient we might not be taking into consideration is the TOPOGRAPHY  involved in that particular bunker placement and its construciton as that pertains to those drawings!

In other words, there can be some real topographical ramifications in bunkers, their placement and their specs and their "in the field" construction and dimensions!

It seems to me that Ron is implying that even Ross (certainly Ross, in fact) understood that this was necessary--particularly since Ross was a high production architect who clearly did not have the luxury of spending weeks or months on specific construction sites!

Ron also said that generally speaking, (of course taking topography into consideration) that the subgrade of a bunker needed to be swept up maybe 15-18 inches to a point where the grass met the bunker subgrade (and top grade sand) floor, and that the top sand grade needed to match this subgrade upsweep--and this even on bunkering that appeared to have grass drapped almost all the way down the steeper faces! This is obviously part of the construction technique in both original and restoration to allow the ball to filter back away from a steep face (generally grass faces in Aronimink's case) to allow for the desired playability that both Ross wanted and certainly that Ron Prichard believes that Ross wanted!

So it appears that Ron is saying they may appear to be flat sand floors but they really aren't or they aren't supposed to be! Ron also added that sometimes this can be a very difficult thing to communicate correctly to a contractor or shaper! He said that the first dozen or so done at Aronimink did not conform properly to this necessary construction technique and construction dimension! (I believe Ron also added that these shapers may have been some of the same ones that came over from nearby Merion--although I think Ron also said he has not yet seen Merion's bunker restoration!).

There was another interesting aspect Ron mentioned! That is that if a restoration architect (or even an original constructor) did not occasionally interpret things "in the field" against how a particular bunker placement and its construction dimensions and specs were drawn some very odd things can happen--sometimes even impossible things appear to be called for--and mostly this always involves interpreting the specs and dimensions in relation to the particular topography involved with the bunkers called for placement!

In other words, in steep topography (where the bunker is called for) in relation to the dimension and specs on the drawings, the fall could be too much to "hang" (as Ron calls it) that particular bunker! So in this case instead of the one called for you might have to "hang" two in a "stacked" fashion!

If you actually tried to do the one on that topography you may end up having a bunker of say 60 feet front to back with the golfer 10 feet below the face of the bunker (due to the natural topography!).

I hope I haven't botched Ron's explanations too badly here--it's certainly very clear to me what he's saying and the realities of both orginal and restoration archtiecture.

If this isn't clear any of the contributors should just ask followup questions on this issue and I'm sure Ron will be more than happy to answer them too!

But it will be very disappointing if some of the contributors just start jumping to conclusions early and start saying things like Ron is taking liberties with original construction or something of that nature.

As far as I'm concerned the issues he's addressing here are some very detailed architectural ones and are some of those that are the realities of what we like to see happen and if it does happen or not--and also how!

[BCrosby]

Tom -

In a Golf Digest article from about 15 years ago, Ron Whitten describes the floors of Ross bunkers in almost the same exact terms that Ron Prichard uses.  Whitten talked about how Ross wanted them to be concave so balls wouldn't come to rest against the bottom of the face.

Is Ron saying that the bottoms of the bunkers at Aron. are in fact curved (perceptions notwithstanding) or is he saying that there was a mess-up in construction and that some are flat?

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Very good question and from the sound of Ron's messages he appears to be saying both!

In other words, he appears to be saying that they SHOULD be curved or swept upward from receiving end to front face (to acheive the type of "playability" that Ross quite clearly wanted to see) but occasionally a contractor may get that wrong or let's say not quite right to the degree Ron would like to see it (or maybe even the degree that Ross himself wanted to see it)!

I realize that some on here will jump right on this fact and ask Ron why then he didn't demand that they be changed and made EXACTLY right that way--(or even why Ross didn't)?

I think the answer will clearly be this kind of thing is just the realities of architecture that some on here don't like to admit or won't.

The fact is Ross may have speced bunkers and their placements in less than a completely sensible and comprehensive way realizing that he had the type of foreman who could "interpret" in the field and make that bunker play the way Ross would have wanted it anyway!

As for Ron Prichard, he's an excellent restoration architect in my opinion, but he too is extremely busy and he's also at the mercy of independently hired contractors (he doesn't have his own crew like C&C, Doak and Hanse)!

So if he shows up a few weeks later and the bunker is done and the process is on down the road, he can certainly mention to the club that it should be fixed but what if they don't care--or worse yet don't want to pay for it or want to blame it on someone else?

I don't want to get specific about this either but in one of those messages on my answering machine there was a reference by him about "hand work" and the necessity of it sometimes.

So if an architect like Ron gets hired to do the restoration and the club tells him they're hiring MacDonald & Co because they must be the best in the business because they're redoing all these classic courses, what is Ron supposed to tell that club?

What if he told them that guys like Axeland and Proctor or Jeff Bradley are better because they get into more hand and detail work? The club might say; "Ah, MacDonald must be the best because of their great reputation and what difference does hand work make if they can do these bunkers faster and they must be able to do whatever we (or you Ron) tell them to do?"

A lot of these threads have been over this ground before and the more it goes around the more it seems to come around--and here it comes again!

My take on this is----? I'm tending to agree with Pat Mucci more and more on this--ultimately it's up to the clubs themselves to do their homework and understand what all is involved, even down to who can best do the upsweep on bunkering if it's necessary, and who can't!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Thanks for the feedback from Ron Prichard and thanks to Ron as well for his candid, detailed viewpoints.

It certainly clears up all of the questions that came up on this thread, and explains a LOT of the reasons that had people like Jamie wondering about playability issues as pertaining to Donald Ross's philosophy.

It also describes some of the real-world limitations that architects face in getting their vision fully realized on the ground.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I think it's a very good thing that you seem to understand the realities of what Ron Prichard is trying to say and explain here.

One is that on these types of restoration projects there does sometimes need to be some architectural interpretation on his part! But all of that interpretation is very much focused on trying to acheive almost exactly the type of overall "playability" that an architect like Ross would appreciate and call for (in Ron's opinion)!!

I watched his "in the field" work during the Aronimink restoration enough to understand where he's coming from on this issue as well as the realities of whether it get's pulled off and to what degree!

Prichard does not even compromise as to the maintenance required to get what he wants architecturally and with playability! At the very least it appears he tells the club what is required! If for some reason they don't heed what he's saying or don't want to then there's not a helluva lot he can do about that ultimately.

The contractor situation is another matter, I suppose! He clearly does his best to explain to them too how best to do what he wants but if for whatever reason they can't or won't do it, again, there comes a time when there is only so much he can do to control that!

All of this sort of boils down to a form of necessary collaboration and expertise on the part of all concerned--architect, contractors and those at the club who control things!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think we've both seen enough in recent years that we understand the multiple reasons for something akin to "architectural compromise in the face of realities".  Sometimes, an idea starts out as 100% perfect, but ends up at 80% positive in reality, and that's as good as it can get due to the reasons we all know about.  

I also think you were onto something when you mentioned that you were starting to agree with Patrick that ultimately, the leadership of the club is responsible for educating themselves and guiding the outcome to the best possible result.

We've both seen it as well when that happens correctly, and we know who they are.  There was a thread some time back that suggested that we should start a "Great restoration" section on GCA, as a source of information for clubs who are considering similar work.  

I'd be supportive of that idea, and could name quite a few I've seen that were superb.  In virutally every case, the leadership at the clubs were highly involved in every step of the process, including taking the time to educate themselves as to who was doing the best work out there.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()