"Regarding Strong, he was one of the best, creativity and boldness being two attibutes that separated him from many of his contemporaries. He was known to push the envelope."
Tom:
I really don't know that much about Herbert Strong, or the details of his architecture, other than the fact that it most certainly was bold, as you say, and undeniably a style that "pushed the envelop". Instincitively, I like that kind of thing even if I sometimes have perhaps problems with it aesthetically (in a naturalistic sense, if you know what I mean, which you probably don't).
"And the reason you can't answer the question regarding whether Tripp Davis used historical information (or not) is because you wouldn't know what is historically accurate at Engineers (or not) becasue you have no knowledge of the course or of Herbert Strong."
Again, I don't know that much about Herbert Strong or the Engineers course even if I grew up and spent about the first twenty years of my life within about five miles of it. As to whether Tripp Davis used historical information in his project at Engineers, I really can't say, although I thought his answers to these kinds of questions on here were pretty good and very reasonable and realistic as it related to historic information on Strong and Engineers.
"TE
You avoided the answer beautifully....there is no reasonable explanation for your contradictory position."
I have no idea what you mean by that. Contradictory, how so? Do you mean I avoided my own answer somehow
or I avoided your question which you have asked about 20 times despite the fact that I've answered it as many times?
"Because of that it is probably not a good idea for you to promote a project that appears to have ignored historical information when you are trying to establish a data base for clubs and architects to gain access and use historical information."
I can't see that I've promoted the project at Engineers and the reason I haven't is I don't know much about it.
"I think if you did a little digging (old magazines and books) you would find that Engineers was considered among the best courses in the country, and one of the most unique designs as well....there have been very few courses who have hosted two majors in the first four years of existance."
The quality of Engineers and how exactly it ever stacked up in the best of American architecture is obviously one of personal opinion. I am not contesting anyone's opinon on Engineers and haven't on here.
Grantland Rice: "No young course in the history of golf, let it go back four hundred years, has come in for so much discussion and comment or has at such an early period been awarded two big championships as the golfing rendezvous of the Engineers upon Long Island's north shore....Opinions regarding the Engineers golfing domain have been widely varied. There are those who think it the finest course in the country. There are others who look upon it as a bag of tricks and who finish a round muttering strange things. In any event it is something different in golf and since variety remains the spice of life with no able substitute, the fact that the course has attracted so much interest is not be overlooked."
I think Rice's remarks speak for themselves. The course was obviously controversial---some had tremendous respect for it others didn't. Frankly, I admire that type of controversy in golf architecture---it was a concept and a philosophy that was well presented and well phrased by Alister MacKenzie.
As for your constant statements and implications of what I should read, what I should study and the fact that my philosophy about architectural restoration is nothing but a redesign philosophy, as well as fact that my interest in architectural archiving is baseless or useless, all I can tell you is that those things are in no way true as most everyone knows and your constant harping on those things is clearly eroding your credibility and usefulness on here and with classic architecture and architecture generally.
To the extent you stand in the way of and needlessly criticize good restoration is the only extent I will continue to argue with you and oppose you.