Tom MacWood,
Again, get to the point. What is the point of this? In nearly every case, when you analyze something you do a poor job of it. You look too hard to create universals out of specifics.
Common philosophies and principals among the group of friends referred to as the Philadelphia School exist but so do many contrasts. Do you understand this basic notion?
"When I said that one commonality is the use of designs with specific shot testing why do you extrapolate that and look for everywhere? Can't this be true even if it is not found at Whitemarsh Valley, Philadelphia Cricket or other courses?
I later asked: "Was there shot testing at Whitemarsh Valley? Philadelphia Cricket? Did Alex Findlay shot test? "
Can I assume your answer to this question is no, no and I don’t know?"
You are really getting irritating. I said there was evidence of shot testing at Philadelphia Cricket Club but it may not be obvious today. I even told you where to look for it. So the answer would not be no.
I don't know Whitemarsh Valley well enough to analyze the nature of shot testing on specific holes. When I do, I may get back to you on it.
As for Alex Findlay, I don't know nor do I care. Shot testing in of itslef is not a requirement for anything that I know of. You tell me if he designed with shot testing in mind. If he did, that has no bearing at all on the Phila School. Their acts do not have to be original to them in order to be common.
"But If you have a school of design, one would hope you would have some universal principles or characteristics. Are there any?"
When I said "ask Geoff," what part of that do you not get? He came up with the term in his Golden Age Book. I think it works. Again, you should ask him. While you're at it, ask him if there was a Golden Age and what universal principles or characteristics there are.
"By the way, there was some shot testing at Philadelphia Cricket Club, especially the Flynn holes that were changed”
"It is a given that a redesigned existing golf course is ‘shot tested’. "
Hard to believe, but this might be the single dumbest thing you've ever said. How do you draw such a ridiculous conclusion? Why should a golf course that is redesigned by shot tested? Isn't it some of the designs that might be shot tested. Not all of them nor at times even some of them. In Flynn's case, there are times he did redesign work where he added shot tests. It depends on the course, what he was asked to do and what he could do. Your comprehension skills are definitely lacking with evidence such as this.
”Because Flynn couldn't stand him[McGovern]! He would've sat him in the corner of the schoolhouse with a dunce cap on his head. There's also the small matter that he never worked with any of them nor is there evidence that he shared ideas with them.”
"Is this the one universal requirement for the Philadelphia School…that Flynn had to like and respect you? Do you think personal issues are a legitimate factor in school of design (are you aware of any other school of design where that was the case)? I suppose if there is nothing else to hang you hat on. McGovern never worked with Tillinghast?"
Flynn disliked McGovern. However, I was joking about that having anything at all to do with the Philadelphia School. The mere fact that you would seriously question brings up a serious question about you.
"A few pages ago you spoke of the kind of proof you required…I assume the same standard applies to your work or the work of your colleagues. "
I criticized a completed work of yours that I read. You are criticizing a work of mine that is not complete and that you have not seen. You are completely uniformed yet you raise these issues. I guess this is a deflection tactic; at least that is the only thing that makes any sense, and very little at that.
"McGovern never worked with Tillinghast?"
I suppose he must have. In what way? Was he involved in drawings or construction oversight? Was he involved in design interplays and decision making on a Tillinghast course? Why would the single requirement for consideration of a Philadelphia School member be that they worked with someone. Don't you think there should be a bit more involved?
"Did any of the members of the Philadelphia School ever mention they were part of an association…loose or not?"
Not that I know of. Just like it doesn't matter in an A/C context, it does not matter in this either.
Here is a question for you. Please answer it. If Willie Park, Jr. wrote about his thoughts on some of his inland works before Hutchinson wrote on golf and before Country Life was published, might those statements be construed not to be influenced by Hutchinson and Country Life?