[Sean_Tully]

Sean
Did Whiting ever became a full-time golf architect or did he just dabble in contruction and design on the side? Did he do any solo designs other than Sonoma?

Whiting to my knowledge remained a golf pro and dabbled in golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance. He was trying to grow bent grass at Olympic pretty early on and had a number of turf people look into what he was doing. I have him looking for work at a number of courses, doing some nine hole designs in the sticks, and  Stockton was another course that he did solo. As I mentioned before, he oversaw most fo the work at Harding and was heavily involved in the changes at OClub from his first days there.

Very interesting person that I would love to learn about more.

Tully

[DMoriarty]

David, the photo is from Golf Illustrated. June 27 I think. 

I have the same photo of the 18th. Too bad one would never guess that it is from the current course.

Tully

Unfortunately this seems to be the case with just about all of Bell's work from this era. 

[TEPaul]

"More bombastic bullshit from the Prince of Pompous Proclamations.
YOU haven't disproved a single thing in my essay.  So far Wayne has come up with one CBM letter which did not contain a description of a routing, as I thought it might.    As usual your contribution has been to cheerlead and to post and post and post and post and post . . . and post.  Nary a substantive contribution in site."


David Moriarty:

Actually, both me and the others around here have disproved all your premises and the conclusion of your essay and most on this website realize that. Ever trying to get you to admit that, however, is definitely not synonymous with disproving it. We've disproved your essays premises and conclusions. If we found all the routing and design iterations from Wilson and committee including the one they went to the board with for approval there's no question in my mind you would NOT admit to the inaccuracies of your specious essay even then. So, whatever you say about it all doesn't really matter anymore. Your essay has been proved wholly inaccurate, it's as simple as that.

The fact is, David Moriarty, you're just a pipsqueak with the meat of this stuff to do with golf architecture, its architects and the collective histories of both---you're probably bright enough to know that but you're seemingly constitutionally inacapable of admiting it. That's clearly the reason you've always reacted the way you have and continue to react the way you are towards us here.  

Two to three months ago we took you seriously about what you claimed you had but when we saw it there was no reason to take it seriously---not even close. We've never seen the necessity of questioning the Merion history of Macdonald's contribution. But since you did question it we did dig deeper and we found conclusive proof there never was any reason to dig deeper----eg Macdonald's contribution was as Merion's history has always claimed it was.

Guys like you and MacWood can float all the half-cocked, half-researched "theories" or "ideas" you want to float out there but research and particularly their timelines will invariable catch you up and prove you wrong. Sorry, Pal, but that's just the way it goes in this business.

By the way, I just can't wait for your PART TWO!! THAT should be most interesting! You'll probably take everything and anything we've researched for you and claim you did it yourself and figured it out for yourself. 

Some of us have offered to help you---I've done that a number of times both online and offline but you didn't want to do it that way---even those refusals on your part are on this DG, thankfully. That option won't be on the table again with you. I doubt it will be for you with any club after this preposterous Merion charade you've been on. Fortunately GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has more visibility than you're probably aware of----thank God! 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
If you must go on about Merion would you please start another thread, this thread is about California golf, or better yet take a short break from the website and help Wayne write his Merion counter essay (that no one will be able to read). Afterall you are Philadelphia golf...and no city has had more effective advocate and protector (there probably would have never been this renewed interest in Crump & Wilson if had not been for you). NY, Boston, Chicago, Melbourne, London, Toronto, Edinburgh, San Francisco and LA all wish you were the face of their city. 

[TEPaul]

MacWood:

Short response to your last post----NO I won't do that and certainly not as long as your buddy Moriarty makes the type of posts on any thread, including this one, he does regarding Philadelphia and Philadelphians. By the way, if you want me to stop talking about why I so strenuously disagree with the way you look at some aspects of the history of architecture and the history of some of the courses and architects around here, certainly including Merion and Pine Valley, you might consider refraining from calling me an idiot as you have on this thread and others recently.  You keep that stuff up, MacWalnut, I doubt you'll ever get much satisfaction from me.

[Thomas MacWood]

Sean
From what I gather Whiting was working in Yorkshire at the time he took the Berkeley job (recruited by Hunter). Have you been able to connect him to MacKenzie?

[TEPaul]

"From what I gather Whiting was working in Yorkshire at the time he took the Berkeley job (recruited by Hunter).

Tom MacWood:

What do you think that says about Hunter? Nothing? Anything? 


Also, is there any way, any way at all that you (or Moriarty) could explain why either of you would imply that H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America right behind C.B. Macdonald in 1910??

Seriously, is there anything at all that you can point to that would indicate that would be remotely true?? Believe me, I'm definitely not trying to denigrate or mock the guy at all, as you accused me of doing with Willie Watson. I'd just like to know why anyone, even including highly speculative, self promoters like you and Moriarty would say something like that about Barker in 1910.

I mean if he was the second best architect in America, amateur or professional right behind C. B. Macdonald, can you at least give all of us some indication why that was even if it isn't true? Otherwise, you just may be about the biggest name-dropper imaginable who refuses to substantiate why you drop names and say what you do about them----ie-- "H.H. Barker was the second best architect, amateur or professional, in America and the only reason to say that is because I say so."   

[Thomas MacWood]

Hunter was interesting man. He came from relatively modest roots. Married into wealth, became one of the most outspoken voices on social issues. If I'm not mistaken at one point he was Socialist. One gets the impression he was conflicted. His physcial move from East to West seems to have coincided with a shift in his politics. One of many who traveled to the UK to study modern golf architecture right around 1910 (more than once).

On a personal note my grandfather (James Hagerty) was a contemporary of Hunter who was active and outspoken on social issues, and was also from Indiana (La Porte), I've often wondered if they had any contact.

Getting back to California, my father was a professor at Cal-Berkeley during WWII, the big one (it was in all the papers)...working on the Manhattan project. They say intelligence skips a generation...my kids are brilliant.

[TEPaul]

"Hunter was interesting man. He came from relatively modest roots. Married into wealth, became one of the most outspoken voices on social issues. If I'm not mistaken at one point he was Socialist. One gets the impression he was conflicted. His physcial move from East to West seems to have coincided with a shift in his politics. One of many who traveled to the UK to study modern golf architecture right around 1910 (more than once)."

MacChestnut:

For years I've known all that and more by a factor of about ten about Hunter. The Links has got to be one of the very best books ever written on golf architecture, and it's one of those I refer to reread all the time.  Can't you tell me something I don't know about Hunter? It wouldn't seem so! Maybe you should begin to reconsider that noone knows anything except you. That constant implication and response on here by you to some of us is getting really old. 

[TEPaul]

"Getting back to California, my father was a professor at Cal-Berkeley during WWII, the big one (it was in all the papers)...working on the Manhattan project. They say intelligence skips a generation...my kids are brilliant."

Then if your father is still around ask him if he knew Arthur Weber a fine friend of mine from the Lesley Cup who worked very actively on the Manhattan Project. I think Arthur is about 94, and he's been on the USGA Green Section Committee for years because of his inventiveness. I think Arthur was the last word on moss on greens or something arcane like that. Some of these people are really something.

Yeah, atavism (things like generational intelligence or lack of it) can be some really tricky shit, can't it?      

[DMoriarty]

"More bombastic bullshit from the Prince of Pompous Proclamations.
YOU haven't disproved a single thing in my essay.  So far Wayne has come up with one CBM letter which did not contain a description of a routing, as I thought it might.    As usual your contribution has been to cheerlead and to post and post and post and post and post . . . and post.  Nary a substantive contribution in site."


David Moriarty:

Actually, both me and the others around here have disproved all your premises and the conclusion of your essay and most on this website realize that. Ever trying to get you to admit that, however, is definitely not synonymous with disproving it. We've disproved your essays premises and conclusions. If we found all the routing and design iterations from Wilson and committee including the one they went to the board with for approval there's no question in my mind you would NOT admit to the inaccuracies of your specious essay even then. So, whatever you say about it all doesn't really matter anymore. Your essay has been proved wholly inaccurate, it's as simple as that.

The fact is, David Moriarty, you're just a pipsqueak with the meat of this stuff to do with golf architecture, its architects and the collective histories of both---you're probably bright enough to know that but you're seemingly constitutionally inacapable of admiting it. That's clearly the reason you've always reacted the way you have and continue to react the way you are towards us here.   

Two to three months ago we took you seriously about what you claimed you had but when we saw it there was no reason to take it seriously---not even close. We've never seen the necessity of questioning the Merion history of Macdonald's contribution. But since you did question it we did dig deeper and we found conclusive proof there never was any reason to dig deeper----eg Macdonald's contribution was as Merion's history has always claimed it was.

Guys like you and MacWood can float all the half-cocked, half-researched "theories" or "ideas" you want to float out there but research and particularly their timelines will invariable catch you up and prove you wrong. Sorry, Pal, but that's just the way it goes in this business.

By the way, I just can't wait for your PART TWO!! THAT should be most interesting! You'll probably take everything and anything we've researched for you and claim you did it yourself and figured it out for yourself. 

Some of us have offered to help you---I've done that a number of times both online and offline but you didn't want to do it that way---even those refusals on your part are on this DG, thankfully. That option won't be on the table again with you. I doubt it will be for you with any club after this preposterous Merion charade you've been on. Fortunately GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has more visibility than you're probably aware of----thank God! 

MacWood:

Short response to your last post----NO I won't do that and certainly not as long as your buddy Moriarty makes the type of posts on any thread, including this one, he does regarding Philadelphia and Philadelphians. By the way, if you want me to stop talking about why I so strenuously disagree with the way you look at some aspects of the history of architecture and the history of some of the courses and architects around here, certainly including Merion and Pine Valley, you might consider refraining from calling me an idiot as you have on this thread and others recently.  You keep that stuff up, MacWalnut, I doubt you'll ever get much satisfaction from me.

"From what I gather Whiting was working in Yorkshire at the time he took the Berkeley job (recruited by Hunter).

Tom MacWood:

What do you think that says about Hunter? Nothing? Anything? 


Also, is there any way, any way at all that you (or Moriarty) could explain why either of you would imply that H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America right behind C.B. Macdonald in 1910??

Seriously, is there anything at all that you can point to that would indicate that would be remotely true?? Believe me, I'm definitely not trying to denigrate or mock the guy at all, as you accused me of doing with Willie Watson. I'd just like to know why anyone, even including highly speculative, self promoters like you and Moriarty would say something like that about Barker in 1910.

I mean if he was the second best architect in America, amateur or professional right behind C. B. Macdonald, can you at least give all of us some indication why that was even if it isn't true? Otherwise, you just may be about the biggest name-dropper imaginable who refuses to substantiate why you drop names and say what you do about them----ie-- "H.H. Barker was the second best architect, amateur or professional, in America and the only reason to say that is because I say so."   

"Hunter was interesting man. He came from relatively modest roots. Married into wealth, became one of the most outspoken voices on social issues. If I'm not mistaken at one point he was Socialist. One gets the impression he was conflicted. His physcial move from East to West seems to have coincided with a shift in his politics. One of many who traveled to the UK to study modern golf architecture right around 1910 (more than once)."

MacChestnut:

For years I've known all that and more by a factor of about ten about Hunter. The Links has got to be one of the very best books ever written on golf architecture, and it's one of those I refer to reread all the time.  Can't you tell me something I don't know about Hunter? It wouldn't seem so! Maybe you should begin to reconsider that noone knows anything except you. That constant implication and response on here by you to some of us is getting really old. 

"Getting back to California, my father was a professor at Cal-Berkeley during WWII, the big one (it was in all the papers)...working on the Manhattan project. They say intelligence skips a generation...my kids are brilliant."

Then if your father is still around ask him if he knew Arthur Weber a fine friend of mine from the Lesley Cup who worked very actively on the Manhattan Project. I think Arthur is about 94, and he's been on the USGA Green Section Committee for years because of his inventiveness. I think Arthur was the last word on moss on greens or something arcane like that. Some of these people are really something.

Yeah, atavism (things like generational intelligence or lack of it) can be some really tricky shit, can't it?      

. . . a swarm of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea . . .

[Sean_A]

Jeepers Tom Paul.  You are gonna give yourself a heart attack.  In the words of Sig Paliakoff - "Be nonchalant."

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

This post is a good example of what I am taking about.  You go on and on, drop the names of a dozen designers and one USGA official, tell us what you have decided is important.  But as far as I can tell you have offered absolutely nothing of substance the conversation.  I've gone back through the entire thread and it is the same for every post.  You insult Tom MacWood, me, a few designers who you don't know anything about.  You tell others to research things that you are interested in.  But you offer absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation.  Nothing.

David I think you've summed it up very succinctly.  The same is true on recent threads about golf in Europe in 1937, the Heathlands and too many others so that I now skip his posts because they are so goddam BORING. 
There is an overbearing pall of negativity on here of late and it's absolutely clear in my mind where it emanates from.

Tom Paul I challenge you. If you really have anything of value to add on this site, write up your attribution of who did what and when at Pine Valley. Several times you’ve addressed a couple of holes and countless times you said you were going to write the whole damn thing and then...you delete the posts you have made on the subject and just go back to attacking others and recycling old knowledge.

Just do it and then once again you will be contributing something useful on here.

[Paul_Daley]

Tom Mac/T. E. Paul:

Would you do us diggers Down Under a favour --- those of us who haven't had the pleasure of your company --- by clearing something up. But first, an analogy: in World Championship Wrestling (McMahon and Co) ... the deal is that the contracted wrestlers are great mates, pop the same pills, split the loot, pay the same Actors Equity subscriptions. You win this year, but McMahon's script says that I'll win next year. In the meantime, there is an agreement in place to hurl non-stop abuse at each other, stomp on each other's face, and extract blood-like "sauce" from each other's tissues. Uppermost, television ratings must be boosted, and they do so by orchestrating tension between opposing “camps”. But after the bout, they eat pasta together and swap stories of near-misses, coupled with: how we really fooled the audience tonight. They do more than that, but in case this is a family show, I’ll leave it there.  

Forgive me for asking this, but are you enacting exactly the same scenario as Hulk Hogan and Mankind? With the amount of two-way abuse you’ve hurled over the past four years (and that’s just the online stuff we know about), you must surely be best buddies. Has Ran, like McMahon with his wrestlers, put you up to this long-running vaudevillian stunt? Please come clean.
    
 
Tom Mac:
You mentioned earlier in the thread: IMO California golf in 1930 was as good architecturally as any place in the world. Surely you were rushing and meant to write Melbourne, Australia? Take a peek: Victoria, Commonwealth, Kingston Heath, Woodlands, Metropolitan, Royal Melbourne (still 12 months from opening, but designed in 1926), Yarra Yarra. Not bad for starters.

[TEPaul]

PaulD:

The pro wrestling analogy is good stuff, funny. Pat Mucci and I have that deal on here but not me an MacWalnut, we pretty much generally just can't stand one another but I do think he has value as a researcher. It's what happens next that's always concerned me. With Moriarty, I pretty much think he's just a complete waste of time who's actually detracted from the great body of golf architectural resarch rather than add to it and that's not easy to do if one really thinks about it. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul I challenge you. If you really have anything of value to add on this site, write up your attribution of who did what and when at Pine Valley. Several times you’ve addressed a couple of holes and countless times you said you were going to write the whole damn thing and then...you delete the posts you have made on the subject and just go back to attacking others and recycling old knowledge."

TonyM:

Don't bother with that challenge. I have put a few things on here about the creation and evolution of a couple of holes down there and there is a good reason I deleted them. I'm about finished with the Pine Valley creation story and it will go to the club. It won't go on here unless the club is OK with that.  Over here we actually try to pretty much work with the clubs we research not outside them. David Moriarty's Merion archive access entitlement charade has changed some things for this website with some of us. Wayne Morrison has pretty much left over it, and with good reason, and for me I actually get into asking permission first which is apparently something too many on this website don't get, don't understand or don't care about, and that's a shame. When this kind of thing happens the automatic response from the likes of MacWood and Moriarty always seems to be that the clubs themselves have something to hide which is ridiculous and just makes things worse. If either of them or anyone else wants to see what we write about clubs like that they should consider going to those clubs and asking, as we do. We've said that for years. It's the decent and commonsensical thing to do in our book. If others don't see it that way, I think that's their good right but it's also their problem.

[Paul_Daley]

T. E. P: Glad to read that the wrestling analogy struck a chord. 
I consider myself "edjumicated" on your deal with Pat Mucci and thoughts towards David Moriaty and Tom MacWood. It's great stuff!

[Thomas MacWood]

Paul
I take it you're joking about Melbourne vs California. With all due respect, Melbourne was fortunate to have MacKenzie spend a few weeks; he spent several years in California. And there were quite few other talented architects who came through during that period.

California is a big place, blessed with a wonderful climate and a variety of natural phenomona: idealic hills, tailor-made barrancas, dense forests, deep canyons, giant sequouyahs, sand dunes, mountains, and spectacular coast.  

Its very difficult for any place in the world to compete with Cypress Point and Pebble Beach in their prime, and there was a hell of a lot more than that.

A better comparison would be Melbourne vs LA or Melbourne vs SF in 1930. Why don't you start a thread.

[TEPaul]

". . . a swarm of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea . . . "


David Moriarty:

You really must like that quotation, you sure have used it enough?  

No, I really am interested to know why you would say in your essay (apparently inspired by Tom MacWood) that H.H. Barker should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald. That's a pretty heady remark on your part. Is there any particular reason why you haven't or can't explain why that would be?  

Personally, I think it's probably because you are from the spaghetti school of research/writing----eg just throw any old thing at the wall and see if it sticks with others, and if it does you apparently think you're producing some valid history writing. Seems to me there's a ton of spaghetti on the floor from you.  

But seriously, I would like to know why either of you think H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald.

I realize there wasn't all that much expression of talent around in 1910 in America but if H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald one really does wonder how he fit in his day job as the golf professional at Garden City G.C. 

Do you think there's a cogent answer to that question in our future?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'll be more than happy to get off your "list" threads. 

But I will be checking in if there's any possibility that you might inform any of us exactly why Willie Watson should be included in the list of about fifteen of the most significant architects who worked in America.   

I'm certainly not trying to mock him, I'd just like to know why someone with any credibility would say that. Is that really too much to ask? 

If you actually ever do come up with any reasons and someone like me challenges your answers with some questions am I to expect you'll just take that as a personal insult too?

How about H.H. Barker? Could you tell us why he should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald? It seems like David Moriarty either won't or can't.

[TEPaul]

"I consider myself "edjumicated" on your deal with....."

Edjumicated??

Watch your mouth Mr. Daley, this is a family oriented website!!!

Small, impressionable and unstable children like David Moriarty login here all the time.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Hunter was interesting man. He came from relatively modest roots. Married into wealth, became one of the most outspoken voices on social issues. If I'm not mistaken at one point he was Socialist. One gets the impression he was conflicted. His physcial move from East to West seems to have coincided with a shift in his politics. One of many who traveled to the UK to study modern golf architecture right around 1910 (more than once)."

MacChestnut:

For years I've known all that and more by a factor of about ten about Hunter. The Links has got to be one of the very best books ever written on golf architecture, and it's one of those I refer to reread all the time.  Can't you tell me something I don't know about Hunter? It wouldn't seem so! Maybe you should begin to reconsider that noone knows anything except you. That constant implication and response on here by you to some of us is getting really old. 

TE
Thank you for telling us how much you know about Hunter. Most of what I know about his background and life comes from a couple of excellent articles written by John Strawn, and I've been fortunate to stumble upon a couple of letters WRH wrote. Since you are apparently one of the foremost experts on Hunter I seriously doubt I could tell you anything you don't know about the man, but what you and I know is not really important, what is important is sharing what we know with the many other contributors and interested bystanders, and they in return sharing what they know. That way we all learn.  

Here are couple of interesting tid bits you may or may not know.

While residing in Berkeley Hunter lived in the former home of John Galen Howard, the famous Bay Area Arts & Crafts architect and one-time professor at Cal. The home designed by Howard was (and is) on Ridge Rd, the epicenter of the Bay area A&C movement and the Hillside Club.

Its well known Hunter retired to Montecito, but did you know that Max Behr and Joshua Crane also lived in Montecito in the 1940s?

PS: Unfortunately my father is not living, so unable to ask him about Mr. Weber.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

I'll be more than happy to get off your "list" threads. 

But I will be checking in if there's any possibility that you might inform any of us exactly why Willie Watson should be included in the list of about fifteen of the most significant architects who worked in America.   

I'm certainly not trying to mock him, I'd just like to know why someone with any credibility would say that. Is that really too much to ask? 

If you actually ever do come up with any reasons and someone like me challenges your answers with some questions am I to expect you'll just take that as a personal insult too?

How about H.H. Barker? Could you tell us why he should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald? It seems like David Moriarty either won't or can't.

TE
I never said Watson should be considered one of your fifteen architects. To be honest I've never really thought about who should be on your list. As I said in a previous post my focus is prior to WWII and globally. Fifteen is a very limiting from my perspective, and potentially not very informative.

This thread is about California golf architecture. If you want to explore Barker and pre-WWI American golf architecture, start another thread in which you tell us who were the most prominet architects operating in the US in 1909-1911.

[TEPaul]

"Here are couple of interesting tid bits you may or may not know.

While residing in Berkeley Hunter lived in the former home of John Galen Howard, the famous Bay Area Arts & Crafts architect and one-time professor at Cal. The home was (and is) on Ridge Rd, the epicenter of the Bay area A&C movement and the Hillside Club.

Its well known Hunter retired to Montecito, but did you know that Max Behr and Joshua Crane also lived in Montecito in the 1940s?"

Tom MacWood:

No, I did not know any of that. It's always interesting to know about those little details of the lives of men like Hunter, Behr and Crane. I didn't say I was an expert on Hunter so why did you imply I said that? All I said is what you mentioned earlier about him I've known for years, and that it would be nice if you could tell me something I didn't know about him. Is it really possible that you could think that's in someway insulting??   

It certainly has occured to me that some or many might consider Robert Hunter to be basically just one of those "amateur/sportsmen" who had money (by marriage) and just sort of dabbled in golf course architecture amongst other things. I don't buy that in the slightest. I don't believe anyone could consider Hunter something like that if they've bothered to really read and appreciate "The Links". It just might be the best put-together and clearest-thinking book on golf architecture and golf architectural philosophy out there.

I also don't buy a categorizing of a man like Hunter who was someone who was "conflicted" in some way, as you did above, simply because he changed his politics or philosophy about something like social engineering.

To me it just may be one of the clearest expressions of intelligence, honesty and clear thinking that he did something like that having seen life from both sides through his life and times. It has definitely not escaped my attention that you seem to think when someone really changes their tune on something that they must be selling out or compromising their principles or conflicted in some way. That seems to me to be just a bit of a myopic way of automatically looking at people. 



"PS: Unfortunately my father is not living and unable to ask him about Mr. Weber."

I'm sorry to hear that. Either is mine. I don't know whether I can promise it but perhaps I could somehow arrange for you to speak to Arthur Weber even if he is in his nineties. That man and his mind is simply remarkable--just remarkable in the things he gets into and to think he was a physcist on the Manhattan Project.


By the way, have you ever actually seen Max Behr's house that's essentially across the street from Golf House? Of course Behr lived there some decades before the USGA moved to Far Hills which is pretty ironic if one thinks about it.

Again that kind of detail about the houses those people lived in and the details of their lives is interesting stuff and it certainly seems to be to you when you discover it. Max Behr married a gal whose father was very rich and apparently owned all that land around Golf House. Her maiden name was something like Schlie or Schlee. She died young and they say Max took off for the coast pretty depressed for a radical change of life's scenery.

I once asked my own mother if she hadn't married my dad if there was anyone else on the horizon, and she told me Van Schlie was dying to marry her but she didn't want to do it and she waited for my dad. I believe from a Google search that Van Schlie was Behr's wife's direct relative. Had my mom married him, just think, I'd be related to Max by marriage! 

But when I tell you some details like that your automatic response is always I must be living in a Holiday Inn Express or something. The point is what works for one should work for all. It's about time you start to see things that way, don't you think? When you come up with some seemingly trivial detail about any of those people and their lives or houses or friends or relatives or whatever you tend to treat it as a big deal but when I come up with things like that you just dismiss it. That has always interested me about you and I think others on here feel the same way. But it looks like you've trained your "student" Moriarty even better as he's more dismissive of others than even you are! But together you two are quite the team!

[TEPaul]

"TE
I never said Watson should be considered one of your fifteen architects. To be honest I've never really thought about who should be on your list. As I said in a previous post my focus is prior to WWII and globally. Fifteen is a very limiting from my perspective, and potentially not very informative."


Tom MacWood:

I realize that and so does the USGA. As I've said a number of times the reason for that is this has to start somewhere. We cannot do this all instantly particularly when some such as yourself aren't even willing to get involved. 

"This thread is about California golf architecture. If you want to explore Barker and pre-WWI American golf architecture, start another thread in which you tell us who were the most prominet architects operating in the US in 1909-1911."

I realize that but answering a simple question like why you (or Moriarty) think H.H. Barker should be considered the second best architect in America in 1910, amateur or professional, right behind C.B. Macdonald isn't exactly going to wreck this thread. My sense is you both feel you just can't answer that and that's why both of you continuously deflect the question.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()