[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would define the fairway slope on # 1 at Aronomink as more than gradual.

Flashed bunkers that are parallel with the green are almost unplayable sideways and to the back of the green, no bunkers were directly in front of the green, and flashed bunkers short of the green would almost guarantee that a ball hit into them couldn't reach the green with the next shot, due to the pitch of the flash, the uphill nature of the shot to the green, and the pitch of the fairway.

Perhaps they were a hybrid type bunker.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Why did Ross decide to reject the original design for a much more extravagant one? Was there something going on in Philadelphia at the time, or else where, that inspired or effected him to alter his idea?

[Dave_Miller]

Tom:

I'm not sure what the actual answer is but from talking with Ron Prichard and Tom Paul the feeling was that McGovern made the changes during the construction phase.  

What I don't know, and I'm not real sure anyone does, is whether or not Ross approved these changes and felt they were the better way to go based on the land, the routing or whatever.  Given the fact that the 1930's aerials show all these bunkers it would seem unlikely they were changed so soon after opening.  Particularly in the depression era when funds would more than likely have been in short supply.

Since we know Ross was on-site during construction it would seem logical he went along with this but why, I have no real idea.

Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW & DaveM:

I have no idea at all about this--your last two posts made me think of it! It's' definitely worth asking Ron Prichard about it though!

But the reason why the bunkering and the bunker schemes of Aronomink's original fairway bunkering--2-3 where one was called for--(at original construction) varied from Ross's original drawings--which is to this day a mystery, may have a very logical answer!

Ron did say that many of Ross's field drawings (which Ron said were some of Ross's best he'd seen--as far as their art work and detail) definitely did not have construction specs and "instructions" that were attached to them that fit well with certain topography regarding their placement.

This is the area where Ron had to "interpret"  during the restoration! What Ron meant by that is if he'd restored to some of Ross's original construction "specs" on some of the topography of the original placements he would have gotten something on some of them like 25yds of an inline bunkering with 10ft of fall (topography). Clearly that's impossible and would have made for a super weird bunker!

It's certainly possible that McGovern faced with the problem of those Ross's "construction instructions" back then and the same topography (then as now) simply solved those same  problems (as Ron Prichard faced) by creating 2-3 bunker sets where Ross had only called for one!

Think about it! That may have been a logical way of "interpreting" Ross's bunker placements with the weird instructions he provided McGovern and fitting them on the topograhy in their placement areas!

The more I think about this--I bet that's the answer to why Aronimink's original bunkers (MeGovern?) were different from Ross's original bunker drawings!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I don't know exactly why Ross's measurements seem to be exaggerated, but in 1928 he had been a full-time golf architect for eighteen years and had been working with McGovern for a dozen years. It would be difficult to believe that their design practices and understanding were not extremely well developed.

I can accept that the experienced McGovern would make several adjustments to Ross's plan as needed, but altering a plan that had severty bunkers into a plan with three times that number is more than on site tweeking. And some bunkers were split into three or four, some bunkers were kept the same, some bunkers were kept and joined by new additions, and there were completely new bunkers added. I think something happened at Aronimink or in Philadelphia or else where that influenced Ross into altering the plan. It seems unlikely McGovern, who worked with Ross for over thirty years, was a rogue designer at Aronimink.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood;

Any thoughts on what might have been "happening in Philadelphia" during those years that may have impacted the "in field" design changes?  

Both Merion and Pine Valley were already well-established at the time, and although Flynn was building some great courses, they weren't intentionally "flashy", nor were his extensive changes at Merion a few years earlier.  

I'm trying to think of what else might have been going on at the time.  Even if Ross was competing against himself in the area, there is nothing I can think of that he might have been trying to "outdo".  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'm not sure why you said Ross's bunker plans were 'exaggerated'. Who said that? Would you like to know in more detail why Ron Prichard said he had to "interpret" some of Ross's bunker specs onto particular topography? Do you know what I mean when I say that? Otherwise I'll try to explain it again or get Ron to in more detail.

(Why he had to "interpret" Ross's bunker specs in some areas is one of the primary reasons Ron wanted this discussion to take place on Golfclubatlas).

Of course it may be possible too that Ross actually "iterated" with certain plans and drawings (as William Flynn definitely did) and the club or Ron possibly got their hands on some plans that were an earlier "iteration" without realizing it!

As far as I know though, there were no actual plans or drawings of the bunker schemes and the amount of bunkers actually built as opposed to the Ross's plans the club used.

But there could be all kinds of logical reasons for that (final bunker plan "iterations" lost, whatever)!

Personally, if this subject became a real issue as to why this happened at Aronimink, I would not feel comfortable if I were trying to get to the truth of it, making assumptions that cannot in some way be supported by evidence of some kind.

And things that cannot be supported by evidence (as far as I know at the moment) are suggestions like McGovern had been working with Ross for years, they must have had a close relationship and therefore Ross MUST have approved the bunkering plans and schemes that were created by McGovern although we don't know why at this point!

Unsupportable assumptions that turn into accepted conclusions basically create ultimately unsupportable conclusions, in my opinion! Often that kind of thing in tracking the details of a golf club's architecture can be a bad thing because it can be inherently misleading (and for years thereafter)!

As to your suggestion of "something going on in Philadephia"; what did you have in mind?

Maybe that's something you and I spoke about on the phone a few months ago (at least I think we did). If so it's sure worth exploring, in my opinion! (I believe I asked you about the written debates between Tillinghast and J.H Taylor regarding the efficacy and function of the so-called "American Championship design").

My recollection is that J.H. Taylor was very opposed to that architectural concept and Tillinghast very supportive of it!

(to the point that ultimately Tillinghast told Taylor (who believed the concept was undemocratic and unaccomodating to all levels of players) to tell those high handicappers to either get better or stay away from these kinds of courses!).

That would be the idea of the "planned Championship golf course", the planned "championship venue"!

I think that's very possible and I think that architectural phenomenon is a really interesting one to research!

Clearly the idea of an out and out "championship designed" course was coming into some kind of vogue!

Personally I believe the idea may have emanated primarily out of the "Philadephia (Pennsylvania) School of architecture" (Crump, Wilson, Tillinghast, Thomas, Flynn). Ross was not technicially a product of the "Philadelphia School".

Pine Valley, Merion, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Baltusrol et al seem to me to have definitely been conceived and designed for a much higher level of play ("championship venue").

I think it's reasonable to try to determine more accurately if a course was conceived and designed as a "championship style" by just looking back and analyzing where the major championships were played back then.

It's certainly likely that if a course was purposely and obviously designed for that use that they would then get those tournaments and the history of championship venues might then tell us something in that regard!

So the point of this could be the answer to the question--Was Aronimink one of those intended "championship" venues and is that "what happened in Philadelphia"? Is that why 200 bunkers were created and the course apparently ratched up in difficulty of design (or something along those lines)?

Certainly worth exploring and of course if something turns up in Aronimink's club records to indicate those "instructions" to Ross (build us a "championship venue" style course) that would make the assumption (of this Aronimink bunkering question) more valid and the ultimate conclusion too!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Do you think the title of this thread needs to be changed to "Aronimink's misguided rebirth"?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I'm not sure what happened in Philadelphia at the time, there was a lot of design activity, it may have been elsewhere.....California? I have no idea at this point. It would be interesting to read what was written when the course when it opened...especially if Ross was on hand.

How were championship sites chosen in those days....I'm not sure? However it was done, Merion certainly had a stranglehold in the area. Ross saying he intended the course to be his masterpiece would have gotten people's attention.

TE
I agree with you about supporting things with evidence. It seems to me the strongest evidence is the fact the course was originally built with 200 bunkers that were sand flashed, most everyhting else seems to be conjecture.

We also know McGovern had been with Ross 12 years when Aronimink was built and that ultimately they would stay together until Ross's death.

No need to change the title of the thread. I'm just trying to find out what really happened...at this point its a mystery.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

You said;

"It seems to me the best evidence is the fact that the course was built with 200 bunkers that were sand flashed, most everything else seems to be conjecture".

Again, the need to support assumptions with really good evidence!

It's been said on these Aronimink threads (from Ron and the club) many times that they have never been sure if in FACT the course was originally built with 200 bunkers!

You see the first evidence they have is of the course from the 1930s aerial, a few years AFTER the course was built!

But at the time they were getting ready to do the restoration they had Ross's bunker drawings in their hands--and that's all they had! The mystery wasn't just why the bunkering between the aerials and Ross's plan was different but very much IF the course had been built with those 200 bunkers in the first place!

And all this in the context of a club that was trying to restore to pure Ross after decades of having the bunkering on the course redesigned by a number of architects to the extent that all vestiges of Ross bunkering had apparently been lost!

If you'll recall I mentioned that Ron even talked to me about that before they did the restoration. His first thought was the bunkers had been redesigned between opening day and the aerial, certainly the primary reason being he had not seen bunkers sets like this before from Donald Ross!

My response was it didn't seem likely that a massive bunker redesign project like that would take place that soon after original construction and certainly not in the continuously lean years of the depression!

But that's only conjecture on my part! The fact is a lot of redesign went on here in Philly during the depression! PVGC, Merion, Philly C.C., Gulph Mills G.C. just to name a few of the notable ones all had redesign projects of one extent or another take place in the 1930s during the depression!

So they made the decision to restore to something they specifically had that they knew was Ross's original bunker plans. To do anything else, to them, would have been going on conjecture at that point!

They had a decision to make and they made one and in hindsight I certainly feel it was a good and reasonable decision and they do too! At least they do know the FACT that the bunkers they now have came from Ross's own head and his own hand!

And the rest is still conjecture!

But someday even after the recent restoration it still would be interesting to find out how the course's original bunkering was built and what all the bunkering looked like on Opening Day!

But as of now that's still conjecture.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I've seen Ross's sketch for the 1st hole and the the 30's aerial. The photo of the 1st hole from 1929 is identical to the aerial -- in the number of bunkers and their placement. We know at least the 1st hole was not built to the specs of the sketch. That kind of evidence would spark me to find out if the other 17 holes followed that same trend or was the first hole an anomaly.

The other issue is the typical grass faced bunkers as opposed to the sand flashed bunkers. There must be other photos and articles from that first year.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

If that kind of thing sparks you by all means do your best to find out what you can about the remaining 17 holes.

I'm certain the club and Prichard would definitely like to know what you find out!

But at this point the original bunkers on Ross's plan have been restored at Aromimink so the future look of the bunkering is moot!

I know Ron would be very interested, not the least of which would be exactly how he would have restored bunkering that has been totally lost many decades ago through massive bunker redesigns in the ensuing decades.

One of his primary points on these Aronimink bunker threads was his need to "interpret" to some extent even Ross's original plans onto basically unchanged topography and I'm sure trying to recreate those multi set bunkers would have taken his very best "interpretations".

Don't forget, there are no plans, no drawings, no specs that anyone's aware of to recreate and restore those multi set bunkers from the 1930s aerial. But if you can find those things from before Opening Day, again, I'm sure Ron and Aronimink would be fascinated!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'll share with everyone anything I might run across.

I've been under the impression that many restorations have occured without the assistance of detailied plans, with the help of old photos, notes, archaelogical work and a like.

Even if the club decided not restore the 200 bunkers - perhaps they couldn't afford it - why wouldn't they at least restore the sand flashed look?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Many clubs may restore without original plans using photos and such but not many courses likely had all their orginal fairway bunkering completely redesigned away as did Aronimink--so I think you can understand that additional problem.

Why didn't they at least restore using sand flash faces? Very simple, sand flashed faces were not what Donald Ross called for in his original bunkers drawings, plans and specs! He called for the grassed down faces that they are now!

I just called Ron and he might respond with more info later but he did say that the only other thing in the club's possession was a 1930 "tournament card" of some sort showing fairway bunkering that looked like the bunkers on Ross's original drawings!

So who the hell knows? The mystery remains and the conjecture will likely continue with those such as yourself! But luckily, the good news is everyone seems very satisfied with the present restored bunkering!

If you want my take on all this (which I'm sure you don't) I think this just might have been a case where Ross showed up on Opening Day and saw the fairway bunkering and although he could clearly see it wasn't exactly what he called for in his original drawings he just made that famous remark anyway;

"I intended to make this course my masterpiece but not until today did I realize I built better than I knew".

I mean what the hell would any of us expect him to say and do? Is it really logical to expect him to get upset and ream out somebody like J.B. McGovern right in front of a new proud membership for changing the amount of bunkers and the schemes?

Don't you think that might make people wonder where Donald had been and wonder about his on-site visitis and such?

As far as Ross calling Aronimink his "intended masterpiece" I think all of us should get a bit more real and comes to grips with the fact Ross in his own way was one helluva accomplished salesman!

At GMGC in 1916 Ross promised the members;

"....one of the best inland courses in this country and that it will undoubtably be a much superior course to any around Philadelphia."

And that being a promise with the likes of Pine Valley and Merion nearby!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'm looking at the original Ross sketch for the 1st; looks like sand splashed to me. That and the 1929 photographic indicate the course opened with sand splashed bunkers....of course that may have been the result of a rogue contructor.

The reason I brought up the photo in the first place was to try to put to rest some of the conjecture, not add to it. The more information/evidence uncovered, the more we can eliminate the need for conjecture and perhaps help the next club faced with a similar restoration dilemma.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Before you go to any more work or concern, maybe you should come here to Aronimink and take a look at the restored bunkers for yourself! Maybe Ron or the club would let you take a look at the original Ross bunker plans they worked off of too.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I'd love to see the course, it looks wonderful. But the more look into the more I wonder if it is a historically accurate resotoration. Maybe your point is it doesn't matter....good is good.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()