"That being said, serious students of golf architecture have a lot of resources at their disposal today, which allows them uncover the major contribution of men like Billy Bell, William Watson and HH Barker....if they are truly interested. I think it is inexcusable to mock these guys just because you are ignorant of their accomplishments or ignorant of golf architecture at a particular period or place.
I think there is a bias. Following discusions on GCA is a good barometer of an eastern emphasis. I couldn't even hazard a guess how many words have been devoted to Hugh Wilson (there is another active thread going on right now). His greatest claim is redesigning Merion with the help of William Flynn, a very solid accomplishment no doubt, but after that there is not whole lot to write home about. Solid but nothing earth shattering. Compare his career accomplishments with William Watson or Billy Bell, who were involved in probably 100 courses in total. How many words have been devoted to these guys in comparision? 1/100th, 1/1000th, probably closer to 1/1000th."
Tom MacWood:
Is there really any question WHY there is continued antagonism towards you with the constant remarks you make on here like the one above?
First of all, Hugh Wilson was one of those unusual "amateur/sportsmen" architects of a particular era who concentrated on only a few projects, primarily Merion East for about fifteen years. The man had another day-job, you know? Due to that fact, it's ridiculous to compare him to someone like Watson who was a professional and did app. 100 courses. The only way to compare Wilson's architectural talent or Wilson's significance in American architecture to Watson's is not to compare how many courses either did but the quality of what they did.
I don't think anyone who knows anything about golf course architecture is going to seriously claim Watson produced a golf course or architecture of the quality and enduring fame of Merion East.
You wonder why there are so many threads on Merion which you claim is evidence of an East coast bias? Well, one reason is there are two on here---eg you and your sidekick Moriarty who have been questioning the accuracy of the architectural record of MERION and its architectural attribution for over five years. You were the one who began the thread: "Re Macdonald and Merion" and you are the one who began a thread questionng "legends" and the "status quo" that concentrated on the accuracy of the "legend" of Hugh Wilson and the "status quo" of MERION's architectural record!
We did not do that here in Philadelphia, you did that yourself. You, and then Moriarty are the ones who brought all that up, not us. The threads are on this website that prove that. You apparently do that to try to challenge clubs and their history and their architects that have those clubs attributed to them. There's no question in my mind the two of you do that to try to make a name for yourselves as researchers. The truth is you've made fools of yourselves as researchers and architectural and historical analysts. Your assumptions and conclusions in the process are pretty shocking inaccuracies and distortions---eg patent historical revisionism. You also try to do this kind of thing with an amazing lack of information.
It won't stand and you will be proven wrong.
Then you apparently attempt to promote other architects who history has probably treated accurately and make more out of them then they ever were. We know who Willie Watson was and what he did in the midwest and in California. We aren't mocking him simply because we don't make as much out of him as you're trying to do. History has a pretty interesting way of basically telling the truth about people and what they really did but obviously you don't look at it that way probably because the only one you're really trying to promote on here is yourself. The funny thing is you're not lecturing on here to some high school class, you're talking to a whole lot of people who know a whole lot about the history of architecture. It seems like you just can't help trying to make it look like you know more than anyone else---that you are the only real serious student and analyst of architecture on here. That's definitely a joke if I've ever seen one.
You call yourself a serious student of architecture? Maybe you're serious but you are also truly bad at some of the things you assume and conclude.
I'll take the words of a George Thomas who was there and who knew these men and what they did and how good any of them were over your musings any day. What did Thomas say about Wilson? If you don't know I'd be happy to tell you, even though a defensive and clearly insecure jerk like you will probably try to convince some of us that Thomas was engaging in some sort of hyperbole too in the interest of promoting the legend status of a Wilson. The constant responses of the two of you that all the words and records of the people who were involved must in some way be inaccurate or hypebole or eulogies or lies is preposterous. If that's your best response and defense it's truly pathetic. That's not research OR analysis. It's pettiness and defensiveness.
Wilson deserves credit mostly for redesigning Merion East with Flynn?? What kind of bullshit is that MacWood? Of course he deserves credit for that but he and his committee also routed and designed Merion East and to a man the members of his committee said Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West course. Your only response is they ALL must be mistaken somehow!
All really poor golf architecture analysts like you can come back with to that is everybody must have been lying or exaggerating for some reason or that all this is being perpetuated by the people from this region.
You're not a serious architecture analyst, you're a detriment to architectural analysis and the reason seems to be you have a massive and on-going chip on your shoulder towards entire regions and the people from them. Why is that Tom MacWood? Are you really that insecure?