Posted on Mike Cirba's behalf:
David,
Thanks for the criticisms. As I wrote earlier, I'm certainly open to considering them and modifying future editions of the book but I do find it a bit perplexing that only you and Tom MacWood seem to have these strenuous objections to the material. Moreso, I'm perplexed at what I perceive to be a double-standard at work here in what seems to be selective, convenient criticisms of my work while letting others have a pass. Please allow me to explain...
To wit;
Yesterday you wrote a lengthy post criticizing me for including George Thomas in the book, even though I'd prior explained multiple times that all I said about Thomas was essentially what Geoff Shackelford previously wrote, paraphrasing Thomas himself who wrote that he considered Hugh Wilson one of the very best golf course architects, pro or amateur, and that he had learned much from Wilson while observing him at Merion and Cobb's Creek.
At the time, George Thomas had designed 3 courses himself in part or whole; Marion (MA), Whitemarsh Valley, and Spring Lake (NJ). He was also close friends with Hugh Wilson, Ab Smith, and George Crump, all men working on the Cobb's project. Given his prior architectural experience, his close friendships with the men involved, and his own words indicating that he had learned a lot from Hugh Wilson while at Cobb's Creek, I wrote speculatively;
"While we will likely never know the extent of Thomas’s actual input to the final design of Cobb’s Creek, it seems likely that his opinion was sought, valued, and considered by Hugh Wilson and his other friends in the Philadelphia School who collaboratively designed the course. It also seems that he spent a good deal of time there and that he considered it time well spent furthering his education in golf course architecture." That's the extent of it. While admittedly speculative, I'm pretty certain he'd offer opinions while onsite with his friends, don't you? Never do I claim he was one of the designers or on the committee appointed by Lesley to design the course, yet I do find it interesting and relevant to the overall story of Cobb's Creek. Are you arguing that I should have completely omitted him? I understand your question asking if we came across other, concurring contemporaneous accounts of Thomas's involvement at Cobb's Creek is a good one and I wish we had more information but I thought it was a hypothetical worth considering based on what we do know.
What I find more curious, though David, is why you never had this type of critical public reaction to Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design"? Perhaps you did and I missed it, but could you tell me how my listing of architects either directly appointed by GAP, or architects documented consulting there, or others documented spending time there while it was being designed and built is in any way different than what Geoff wrote on Page 65 of his book, under the heading, "Pine Valley: George Crump and His Contributors"?
In that section, Shackelford lists Crump and ten other architects who
"visited the site and who are credited with some assistance and the design and completion of Pine Valley". One of those listed is George C. Thomas, Jr...another is William Fownes of Oakmont...Here's what is written about Thomoas;
"One of the founding members of Pine Valley. Made frequent visits during construction prior to the war and traveled back to club in 1928 to consult with Flynn." Now, one could rightfully ask, what other contemporaneous materials exist to validate that Thomas had anything to do with the Pine Valley course? Could you tell me specifically what Thomas did to contribute to the design? What about Fownes? Wasn't Pine Valley already completed by 1928? For that matter, why not list Tom Fazio or others who altered the course after it opened?
How is this different than what you are criticizing me for, yet I have to ask; Did you ever voice those concernes criticisms to Geoff or in print here? Personally, I believe that Geoff is very correct in what he wrote, because he understood and respected the collaborative way that these amateurs around Philadelphia worked together on multiple projects, including Pine Valley and Cobb's Creek. Do you agree with the way Geoff presented this section in his book?
Similarly, you seem by your silence to agree with Tom MacWood's criticisms, saying that there is no real case made for the invovlement of George Crump, Franklin Meehan, William Flynn, and/or Walter Travis.
Do you agree with him, or is that simply my perception? I ask because in the case of Crump, we have at least a half-dozen attributions from various sources, including the GAP records themselves...unless of course you agree with Tom's interpretation that the Golf Committee was formed by Lesley to determine how to provide "access" to a public course.
What's more, most of these articles were written while Crump himself was still alive. If he wasn't involved, don't you think he might have tried to correct the record?
In the case of Franklin Meehan, not only do we have various accounts that he was on the Committee, but the Asst. Park Engineer Alan Corson is quoted as saying he was involved.
In the case of Walter Travis we have two separate articles indicating his involvement at Cobb's Creek;
One from late 1915 goes;
"...most of his time has been given to assisting in the laying out of public and other courses such as Cobb's Creek, Halloween Park, and Pine Valley." Another a month later states,
"Walter J. Travis has spent a good deal of time lately in making suggestings as to notable public courses, especially at Cobb's Creek and Halloween Park." We also know from various sources that William Flynn was not only the shaper onsite, but that he travelled to the famous courses of New England such as Myopia, TCC, and Essex looking for ideas to use at the Cobb's course.
I'll ask you again, David...do you believe that these stories should have been omitted from the book? Finally, I'd ask you why you didn't correct Tom MacWood's obvious interprative error when he read the William Evans article incorrectly, believing that the mention of Wilson, Smith, and Klauder being newly assigned to help the Fairmount Park commission indicated they were the only ones involved when a careful reading indicates that the layout was already routed at that point?
I'd also ask you why you didn't challenge him this week on the Philmont thread, when he claimed that HH Barker designed the second nine at the original course there (today's South)? He provided as evidence the following statement from a 1909 American Golfer article written by his mentor. After listing some of his original designs, the article continues;
"He (Barker) is also engaged in making improvements on the following existing courses, - Springhaven Country Club, Wallingford, PA, Philmont Country Club, Philmont, PA, Atlantic City Country Club, Atlantic City, NJ, Newport Golf Club, Newport, RI." Now, Barker may have indeed added a second nine at Philmont (although nothing that the club records and/or Joe Bausch in his extensive local research has been found indicating that to be the case), but how possibly could that be deduced from what was written? Did Barker add second nines at Springhaven, Atlantic City, and Newport at the same time? Of course not, yet not only does he put this stuff out there without any real basis, but you let that type of thing slide, David, and I have to ask why?
If indeed all you are concerned with here is an accurate representation of architectural history, why such an obvious double standard?
Thanks for your response,
Mike