Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams

[DMoriarty]

David - Who cares?

But to answer your questions, I think it's been proved that CC was considered the finest public course in the land in the late 1920's.

Do you have proof that another public course was better than CC at that time?

Dan, of course I don't have proof and that is entirely the point.  There was no way to make this determination, no set opinion as to the best course.  The papers are full of statements about various courses that are the best or one of the best or perhaps the best, but they all have to be taken with a grain of salt.  

For example, if one relies on newspapers and such, one could claim that in the relevant time period Van Cortland Park was the known finest public course in the World.  Such a claim would be utterly ridiculous for many reasons, but someone thought so!   Only a little less ridiculous are claims across the country that this course or that course was the best in the country.  Seattle makes its case.  Los Angeles makes its case.  Walter Hagan thought a course in Ohio was the finest municipal course, but I hope they weren't too excited because he also thought a course in Texas was the finest.  Most cities and writers apparently realize the ridiculousness of the claim and stick to one of the best.  Just because Philadelphia fails to exercise such restraint or common sense, does that mean it is really known as better than all the other bests?  Of course not.

And that gets to the heart of the matter.   All of these things must be taken with a grain of salt.  That is what competent researchers do.  They exercise judgement.  They don't just glom on to an impossible claim and treat it as if it were fact.

I mean this whole thing is ridiculous.  Mike got carried away and unnecessarily exaggerated Cobb's reputation.  I called him out on it.  The rest of this is just the usual ugliness, brought to you by TEPaul and friends.  

Speaking of TEPaul, look that the hoops and verbal gymnastics he has to go through to try and justify Mike's claim.  Mike didn't have any of those conditions attached to his statement.   That is the problem.

[Tom MacWood]

However,Tom...whether you acknowledge the fact or not, at the time it was built until the 1930s with the creation of Bethpage, Cobbs was the best and most challenging public golf course in the country.

Bethpage-Black opened in 1936. I guess it is necessary to exaggerate in order to generate interest in the project. The list of designers again is an example of more misleading information and a clear exaggeration: Hugh Wilson, George Crump, AH Smith, Jiggs Klauder, Frank Meehan, William Flynn, George Thomas and Walter Travis. Maybe the end justifies the means.

By the way I love the name Jiggs.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Luckily, Gary Player wasn't around rating courses pre Bethpage Black. His famous response to the question about a particular course that he had just played was always, "It's the finest course of its kind." 

[TEPaul]

"Speaking of TEPaul, look that the hoops and verbal gymnastics he has to go through to try and justify Mike's claim.  Mike didn't have any of those conditions attached to his statement.   That is the problem."



David Moriarty:

Well, if you think that's the problem and if others agree that's the problem, at this point perhaps Mike Cirba could be prevailed upon to consider putting those conditions in now. After all, in his statement I posted yesterday he did make that offer. 

[TEPaul]

"The list of designers again is an example of more misleading information and a clear exaggeration: Hugh Wilson, George Crump, AH Smith, Jiggs Klauder, Frank Meehan, William Flynn, George Thomas and Walter Travis. Maybe the end justifies the means."



Tom MacWood:

Yesterday Mike Cirba asked me to ask you why you think that list of designers is a distortion or exaggeration. I did ask you but you did not respond. So, can you answer specifically why you say that list of designers is a distortion or exaggeration? Cirba and Bausch provided the documentaton for it. Did you miss it?

But if there is some exaggeration to any of it, maybe the end does justify the means. After all, Niccolo Machiavelli was definitely no fool.

[DMoriarty]

Steve Shaffer, that is a very good example and exactly what I am talking about.   Maybe in this regard Hagen was the Player of his era.
_______________________________________________

TEPaul, all I have asked for throughout is the exercise of a little restraint in making such claims, especially impossible claims.  I've said, repeatedly, that had Mike properly conditioned his comments I would have had no problem with them.

Apparently you were too busy with your usual garbage to have noticed.

[TEPaul]

"And that gets to the heart of the matter.   All of these things must be taken with a grain of salt.  That is what competent researchers do.  They exercise judgement.  They don't just glom on to an impossible claim and treat it as if it were fact."


David Moriarty:

And perhaps that is precisely what competent READERS do as well. Have a bit more faith in people! If, at a minimum, you can manage to do that, this ongoing mission of yours towards Cirba and that statement of Cirba's can wind down and begin to transition into a the realm of maturity of people and purpose.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I understand your message. Some apparently don't agree with it and have said so and why.

But going forward I would simply ask you to dispense with words like garbage, crap and BS in reference to what I say as well as words like dishonest and disingenuous when referring to Mike Cirba and what he has said on here.

Can you manage that, at least? In the future, Big Brother may be watching for that kind of thing on the DG, if you catch my drift.

[DMoriarty]

He should be watching.  Your behavior has been despicable on this thread.   As usual.  

I do think Mike should know better than to make claims such as he did, and in my opinion the words I used captured it accurately, but I understand why some find them harsh and will tone them down.   In fact I already have. I repeatedly toned down my word choices and early on began using the word "stretched" as soon as it was offered, but you being you, you couldn't let my initial phrasing drop.  

You aren't here to discuss anything, you are just here to fight with me.  Anyone reviewing your posts can see this.  I stayed away from you despite your embarrassing interview, but you couldn't do me the same courtesy.  

[TEPaul]

"He should be watching.  Your behavior has been despicable on this thread.   As usual."


He is watching and he is not happy with either of us. He asked me what I would suggest he do. In two emails I told him what I would suggest he do. One suggestion was that he carefully consider the seriousness and the civility of Post #1351 of today and that he put a post on here asking us (or anyone else) to use that as a basic example of the proper way to discuss things. Failing that I suggested if he has the time and the inclinaton he should delete posts or delete us. I specifically said he should consider deleting posts following your #1258 in which you gratuitously referred to Cirba as dishonest and disingenuous. That post clearly did not impress or make anyone on here happy.

I will take responsibility for posts of my own that may be inappropriate and I may even delete them myself. What will you do?

[Tom MacWood]

All the evidence points to Wilson, Smith and Jiggs Klauder being the primary designers...all the rest of it is window dressing meant to pump up the reputation of the course. The list is very misleading.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Perhaps the best policy would be for Cirba and Bausch to simply quote the contemporaneous newspaper accounts of who was involved and how and just leave it at that. That way anyone reading them can just decide for themselves how they want to interpret it.

[TEPaul]

"I stayed away from you despite your embarrassing interview, but you couldn't do me the same courtesy."


David Moriarty:

My embarrassing interview? Since you just categorized it that way would you mind explaining why you say that? Perhaps this isn't the place but I could start a thread for you on it.

I'm not sure what you mean by me not doing the same courtesy for you. Did you do an interview I didn't stay away from? If you are referring to your IMO piece in 2008 entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" you asked anyone to provide their comments on it, and I did that. Obviously you didn't agree with or like my comments on it or some of the comments of others. You don't expect people to only provide comments on something you say or write that you like or agree with, do you?

[Tom MacWood]

No need, I've read the articles, and any objective person would not include most of those names as designers. Name dropping the likes of Crump, Thomas, Flynn, Travis et al is ridiculous in my view. It is a distortion that serves no good purpose other than to pump the course's reputation.

Here is a link to the articles:

http://www.trenhamgolfhistory.org/PTHGCobbsCreek.html

[DMoriarty]

"He should be watching.  Your behavior has been despicable on this thread.   As usual."


He is watching and he is not happy with either of us. He asked me what I would suggest he do. In two emails I told him what I would suggest he do. One suggestion was that he carefully consider the seriousness and the civility of Post #1351 of today and that he put a post on here asking us (or anyone else) to use that as a basic example of the proper way to discuss things. Failing that I suggested if he has the time and the inclinaton he should delete posts or delete us. I specifically said he should consider deleting posts following your #1258 in which you gratuitously referred to Cirba as dishonest and disingenuous. That post clearly did not impress or make anyone on here happy.

I will take responsibility for posts of my own that may be inappropriate and I may even delete them myself. What will you do?

I have no interest in discussing your "interview."

This is not a two way street here.  I posted my opinion of Mike Cirba's exaggeration, and I am entitled to that opinion, but I've already said I will be more careful with my word choices.  In fact, I subsequently toned down my language and have tried to keep it civil and above board despite the repeated insults and attacks of you and your cronies.   But of course you focused on a few words and milked them for all you could.  You ignored my efforts to keep it civil, because you have no interest in civility with me. You want to fight.  You get off on it. That is what you do.  

You made no effort at civil discussion.  You came in with both barrels blazing, taking shot after shot. Railing on about past issues, trying to turn this into some rehash of your old demons.  You repeatedly insulted me, you brought up all sorts of crap that has nothing to do with the substance of the conversation. Trying to turn this into a Merion discussion, a Wayne Morrison discussion, a conspiracy discussion, etc.     You told me to shut the fuck up, demanded I stop posting on issues dealing with your perceived realm, even scolded your own pals when the tried to be civil.   And you kept it up post after post, page after page.

So I tried to ignore you.  Tried to keep focused on the issues.   Refrained from engaging with you on your many obsessions.  At most, I tried to quickly deflect your garbage and to redirect the conversation back to the issues at hand.   I tried to turn it back to a civil discussion throughout.  And when that failed, I tried on multiple occasions to end this conversation on a positive note, complimenting Joe and Mike, and wishing them the best.   But you would have none of that either.

The ONLY reason you are making an effort now is because you were scolded by Ran.  You are a child who misbehaves until an adult steps in. Then you are full of good intentions for a few minutes or until the adult leaves, and then it is back to the same thing.  You even have the nerve to try to hold up one of your posts as the model of civility!  What a joke.  How about we hold the the post where to you told me to "shut the fuck up?"   How is that for civil?

You ask what I will do?   I've already done it.  I cleaned up my language almost immediately.  What else I will do is go back to ignoring you, trying to refrain myself when you are rambling on and begging for attention. It won't be hard, because you don't say much that interests me anyway. I have no trouble staying away from you.  But you apparently cannot stay away from me, which is probably why you have sent me hundreds, maybe thousands, of unwanted emails full of bile, insults, sometimes threats.  How long before those start up again?  

As for you, what you will do as clean up your act for a short time, and then digress, same as always.  You obviously cannot control yourself.
 
As for your "interview," it speaks for itself.  

[Joe Bausch]

Some of you that say you've read all 'the tome' (as Mike and I refer to it), I really wonder if you did.  It is about 350 pages in length and the presentation can be tiring on the eyes with many of the articles from old newspapers off microfilm, so I would not blame you if you just scanned it.

[Bill_McBride]

David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I repeat Joe Logan's words (adapted by me) from above:

"...(the)  debate about Cobbs Creek ... will be resolved sometime after the Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives skip off into the sunset hand-in-hand."


In other words, stop it or take your swords private.

[DMoriarty]

David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom.  

Bill,

The weight of my posts has been substantive and about the history golf course architecture and its presentation, so why is it exactly that I would quit posting?

I don't have it in me to be bullied into not discussing what I would like to discuss.  
_________________________

Steve,  

I don't think this is about Cobb's Creek at all.  We all agree that Cobb's is very good course and worthy of restoring, and we all hope for the best with the project.  This is about the way in which we present the history of the courses, and our responsibility to do so accurately and reasonably.   It seems like an important topic and worth discussing to me.  

[Ed Brzezowski]

Why weren't you Philly guys playing  today??  It's perfect out there.

[DMoriarty]

Some of you that say you've read all 'the tome' (as Mike and I refer to it), I really wonder if you did.  It is about 350 pages in length and the presentation can be tiring on the eyes with many of the articles from old newspapers off microfilm, so I would not blame you if you just scanned it.

Joe Bausch,  I certainly haven't read every page, but I am willing to bet I've read more of it than most here who are standing behind it.

Mike calls it a book, but it seems more like a scrapbook to me --a collection of articles and photos about Cobb's Creek and various other topics, some directly related and some tenuously related at best.   It is a good resource but not really the kind of thing one sits down and reads from end to end.  Did anyone edit it before you posted it?   Did anyone outside those directly responsible go through it with what might be considered a critical eye.  

I believe I offered to read through an early version for Mike years ago, and he told me he would send it to me but then balked, supposedly because "others" involved didn't want me to see it.  I assume you are one of those others, and that you guys didn't want it exposed to possible criticism.  If so, too bad because in my opinion it could have really used a critical comb to get rid of some of the tangles.  When is the last time you read it all the way through?  I ask because there is quite a lot of information in there that jumped out at me as questionable and/or not entirely accurate, and other information that is supposed to be in there that I just couldn't find and/or is apparently either in the wrong place or missing.

For example, to pick something hopefully not controversial, you guys claim that more rounds were played at the Cobb's Creek course in 1940 than at any other course in the country.   This caught my attention because it would seem odd that a course without year round good weather would have the most rounds, but when I tried to find the source of the claim for 1940, I couldn't find it at the page where it is supposed to appear.  I looked around at other pages but couldn't find it there either.  Probably my incompetence, or perhaps it is just hard to find with the quality of the copies and all, but could you please point me toward the source of that claim?  Thanks.

Also, on a similar note, I suspect that there is something very wrong with the numbers of rounds supposedly played at Cobb's.  I suspect that in 1929+ the second course numbers were being added.  For example, in the article you guys use to support your claim of rounds played for 1929, it was mentioned that there were reportedly 933 rounds played in one day.   That would be 233 foursomes in a single day!  If a foursome teed of every four minutes (an impossibility) that would be over 15 1/2 hours of tee times, with 60 golfers teeing off every hour, say from 6 a.m. to after 9:30 p.m..  No way.   And if the daily numbers are off then the yearly numbers are most likely off as well.

Now maybe with a little digging I'd found out that I am wrong about these things, but IMO that is the sort of digging that needed to be done prior to putting these things out there as if they were fact.  That takes more than just accepting what we read and running with it to make a point.  It requires reading with a critical eye and carefully considering the context.  

I will likely be attacked once again for these comments, but you did ask about the "tome" and I put my impressions out there for the sake of productive discussion about not only the history of golf course architecture, but also about the methodology of studying, analyzing, and presenting such information.

[Tom MacWood]

Some of you that say you've read all 'the tome' (as Mike and I refer to it), I really wonder if you did.  It is about 350 pages in length and the presentation can be tiring on the eyes with many of the articles from old newspapers off microfilm, so I would not blame you if you just scanned it.

Joe
I haven't read all 350 pages of 'the tome,' but I have read the first 120 odd pages that deal with the course's formation. Another example of the overly aggressive use of big names to pump it up is the story that the great Ben Sayers was the first professional at CC. There are ten pages devoted to his life story. I don't believe there is any evidence of that being true although he was present at the opening. He came over to America a couple of times to vacation and visit his son. To my knowledge Sayers was never engaged as a professional in the US.

[Joe Bausch]

Why weren't you Philly guys playing  today??  It's perfect out there.

Because you didn't invite me?!

[JMEvensky]

 

The weight of my posts has been substantive and about the history golf course architecture and its presentation, so why is it exactly that I would quit posting?

Doesn't it make things too easy when you get to be the one who defines weight and substantive?This is not something you'd want to put to a vote.

Let's try this from a different direction.

Nobody discusses anything with you--you lecture and bully and obfuscate until sentient people either give up or leave the discussion group.

You're the kind of person who equates typing the last response as "winning" the argument.

I guess we could all try to ignore you but that would be like trying to ignore a malignant tumor--you know the tumor is there whether you think about it or not.

Take the hint--everybody likes TEPaul more than they like you.Even if your points were valid,a gigantic if,your miserable personality would trump your arguments.

There's you reason to quit posting--nobody likes you or respects your opinion.

[Bill_McBride]

David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom.  

Bill,

The weight of my posts has been substantive and about the history golf course architecture and its presentation, so why is it exactly that I would quit posting?

I don't have it in me to be bullied into not discussing what I would like to discuss.  

Nobody's trying to bully you into anything.   But there is a substantial and grower number of participants on this board who just don't give a fuck anymore.   Hopefully more will step forward to cajole, not bully, you into getting off Rocinante and giving it a rest.