[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

C'mon now... I used the term "test rounds" and you must understand what I meant.

"Phil, I don't follow you. What is a test round? Is that what they were doing? They began playing at PV in 1914, did they have seven years of test rounds?"

The point is that David stated unequivocably that NGLA was open for "general play" by the membership in 1909 and he then quoted George Bahto as proof.

He is wrong. The proof is C.B. Mcdonald's own words and undeniable. It was C.B. who stated that the golf course was "Formally opened on Saturday, september 16, 1911."

So call the minimal play before then "Practice Rounds" or "Test rounds" or even "Unofficial Rounds." The reality is that playing of the course before this date was limited and after this date it wasn't.

"Limited Play" doesn't fit any definition of "general play" in my book.

Again, David was simply incorrect... no big deal...

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
Do you own a library card? If you don't I'm certain someone can help you get one. Philadelphia has an excellent library system. Once you get the card there are many newspaper archives that you'll be able to access, so you'll be able to look up all this wonderful information for yourself, and see how rediculous your speculation has been over the years."

I prefer to go direct to the source for my information. You can knock yourself out with your library card.

Listen, Mr MacWood why don't I ask Ran Morrissett if he would mind setting up a thread for you that will never leave the first page where you can tell this website on a daily basis that you're the most expert researcher on golf architecture in the world.

That's the perception you're really trying to promote and acheive on here isn't it? Isn't that why you keep telling everyone you're better than they are? Frankly, you are a good reseacher. It's just that when you find something you are a complete disaster figuring out what it actually means historically.

Knock yourself out with your library card in a library researching the history of a club you've never even been to. I'm going right to the club itself and mostly ones I've been to for years and known for years.

TE
Often times these historical figures are dead, therefore going to the source involves going to a cemetary, and the information you can acquire is somewhat limited. Although I will admit you can learn something about a person just by studying a grave or grave stone. For example when I went to CB Macdonald's grave, I noticed it was made in art deco style. A progessive, international person I thought. I also noticed a somewhat pudgy middle-aged man urinating on the marker. A person whose success in life had generating fealings of resentment and envy I thought...either that or it was located too close to a pub.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Should we also put a permanent thread on the first page of this website so you can brag daily that you write more than others?

Frankly, it would probably be a whole lot better for golf course architecture if you wrote a whole lot less.

With some of that last post of yours though, you're beginning to get warm, Mr. MacWood, congratulations!

The time and lives of those remarkable "amateur/sportsmen" architects whose courses are so famous and so enduring still today certainly do need a really good and really comprehensive article or book written about them, that's for sure. It's too bad you know so little about them and understand less. Almost to a man they were highly educated and of a culture that does need to be explored as to both why and how they did what they did and did it so well, Mr MacWood.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

C'mon now... I used the term "test rounds" and you must understand what I meant.

"Phil, I don't follow you. What is a test round? Is that what they were doing? They began playing at PV in 1914, did they have seven years of test rounds?"

The point is that David stated unequivocably that NGLA was open for "general play" by the membership in 1909 and he then quoted George Bahto as proof.

He is wrong. The proof is C.B. Mcdonald's own words and undeniable. It was C.B. who stated that the golf course was "Formally opened on Saturday, september 16, 1911."

So call the minimal play before then "Practice Rounds" or "Test rounds" or even "Unofficial Rounds." The reality is that playing of the course before this date was limited and after this date it wasn't.

"Limited Play" doesn't fit any definition of "general play" in my book.

Again, David was simply incorrect... no big deal...

Test rounds, is that your speculation? Do you think that those who were playing over the course in 1909 anticipated that the course would have agronomic problems for another two years that would delay its opening?

I doubt those who played over in PVGC in 1914 anticipated that the course would not officially open until 1921 and that the spiritual leader of the project would commit suicide during the process.

General play? They were playing on the golf course. You can call it whatever you want.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Is there a course built anywhere in the world at anytime in the history of the game that wasn't played by the architect and his friends prior to opening?

Hell...Bobby Jones hit balls off dirt at ANGC.   It's part of the design process for heaven's sake, don't you think?

[Thomas MacWood]

Mr. MacWood:

Should we also put a permanent thread on the first page of this website so you can brag daily that you write more than others?

Frankly, it would probably be a whole lot better for golf course architecture if you wrote a whole lot less.

With some of that last post of yours though, you're beginning to get warm, Mr. MacWood, congratulations!

The time and lives of those remarkable "amateur/sportsmen" architects whose courses are so famous and so enduring still today certainly do need a really good and really comprehensive article or book written about them, that's for sure. It's too bad you know so little about them and understand less. Almost to a man they were highly educated and of a culture that does need to be explored as to both why and how they did what they did and did it so well, Mr MacWood.

TE
Is there a reason why you haven't written an essay on these remarkable amateur sportsmen? Are you seeking permission from all the clubs involved, and their extended families?

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Is there a course built anywhere in the world at anytime in the history of the game that wasn't played by the architect and his friends prior to opening?

Hell...Bobby Jones hit balls off dirt at ANGC.   It's part of the design process for heaven's sake, don't you think?

Mike
Absolutely. Whats your point? Are you saying that those who played the NGLA were playing on golf course in the very early stages of construction, and therefore Macdonald wasn't qualified to advise Merion until 1911 when the course officially opened?

[Thomas MacWood]

If Willie Campbell was good enough that other prestigious clubs (Merion for example) were bringing him in to design their courses, would the clubs where he was employed entirely ignore his expertise?  Hard to believe.

Hey lackey of Tom MacWood, who shall remain nameless, your mentor insists that there were two Willie Campbells and the Boston Willie didn't do any work in Philadelphia.  He says the Philadelphia Willie worked on Merion and other courses around here.  I have never seen proof of MacWood's two Willies, but you better check with your peerless leader on that.

No doubt architects like Thomas and Tillinghast learned a great deal from observing the Philly scene, and they went on to have great success in California and NY respectively, but the truth is there was no Philly School. Donald Ross was the most active architect in Philly, and arguably the most popular. George Crump imported talent from the UK. Merion went to Macdonald & Whigham and Barker. Flynn was a product of Mass.

There may not have been a brick and mortar Philadelphia school of golf architecture, but there certainly was a common theory and practice among some of the Philadelphians.  You simply don't understand it.  And yes, we adopted Flynn as one of our own just as we adopted another transplanted Bostonian, Benjamin Franklin.  You may recall from the very old version of the Flynn book manuscript I sent you, that in 1887 Oliver Wendell Holmes, the renowned jurist from Boston, came to Philadelphia to give a speech.  He referred to Franklin as a true Bostonian who happened to dwell in Philadelphia on occasion.  Dr. Whitfield Bell, Jr. an executive officer of the American Philosophical Society and a Franklin scholar recalled that in response to Holmes’ claim Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, the great Philadelphia physician, arose and said to Holmes “on the contrary, Benjamin Franklin was born in Philadelphia at the age of 17.”   Well Flynn was born in Philadelphia at the age of 22.

In what way was Ross the most active architect in Philadelphia?  What time period do you wish to limit that statement to?  How many courses did Ross do around Philadelphia?  SIX, of which Gulph Mills, and Sunnybrook were significantly changed over time with Flynn redoing Sunnybrook and regrassed 17 of Gulph Mills's greens when they failed.  Of the six Ross courses, only 5 remain today.  In fact, Ross was miffed that he did not get any of the top jobs around Philadelphia despite having an office in Wynnewood, less than 10 miles from City Hall.  Ross finally got the Aronimink job and vowed to design the most difficult course in Philadelphia.  He designed a tough one, but not a great one in my mind.  Flynn got most of the commissions for design and redesign work in the area.  Flynn's local designs and redesigns total 19 and include

Merion East
Merion West
Doylestown CC
Bala GC
North Hills
Concord (FKA Brinton Lake)
McCall Field
Springhaven
Green Valley (FKA Marble Hall)
Gulph Mills (agronomy)
Manufacturers
Rolling Green
Philadelphia Country
Huntingdon Valley
Philadelphia Cricket
Sunnybrook
Cassatt private estate course
Woodcrest
Plymouth CC

I know you will not agree with me, but 5 or 6 of these courses are better than Ross's best in Philadelphia--in my opinion that is Gulph Mills over Aronimink, which has tremendous greens but falls short in many categories.  So just how was he the most active?  It would be hard to prove he was the most popular and in my mind impossible to argue that he was the best.
 

Wayne
Not bad for a Massachusett's architect.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Often times these historical figures are dead, therefore going to the source involves going to a cemetary, and the information you can acquire is somewhat limited. Although I will admit you can learn something about a person just by studying a grave or grave stone. For example when I went to CB Macdonald's grave, I noticed it was made in art deco style. A progessive, international person I thought. I also noticed a somewhat pudgy middle-aged man urinating on the marker. A person whose success in life had generating fealings of resentment and envy I thought...either that or it was located too close to a pub."


Mr. MacWood:

It just may not be possible to write a post much more stupid than that one. But along about now I guess it was just about inevitable. Just look at these posts in response to you in the last few weeks. Do you think it may be indicative of anything about you on this DG or do you think everyone is "seriously flawed" at this point? An intelligent discussion has just never been possible with you with anyone on here it seems. It's too bad really. Some years ago I actually thought you coulda been a contenda. Silly me, Mr. MacWood!  

[JESII]

For guys that actually enjoy good thoughtful conversations, you guys sure do seem to have trouble finding them...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Did you get mugged in Philadelphia one time or somethin'?    

I'm not understanding the depth of anti-provincialism evident in some of your posts.    

My lord, I think the early history of golf took place mostly in New England and Long Island and crept southwards from there.  

I dinna think any of us are citing Philly as the cradle of golf in this country.   It certainly had inauspicious beginnings.    

Like any intelligent fellows though, it seems they recognized what was good happening elsewhere and copied it and then somewhat individualized it.    Sort of like the Stones and Beatles copying Elvis and Pat Boone copying Ray Charles copying Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker.

It's just that you're arguing that Elvis wrote "I Am The Walrus" and trying to show that it came note for note from "Love Me Tender".

Why the hatin'?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Rather than imply that I'm either an idiot or a provincial snob, please just answer my questions."


MikeC:

You know as well as the rest of us that's all those two have left. Basically, it's been that way for about five years now. And I think we all know precisely why they never have answered a question in anything resembling a straight-forward manner. It is my hope anyone reading GOLFCLUBATLAS will understand that. It will be a whole lot better for architectural understanding that way.

[Thomas MacWood]

I love Philadelphia. But I'm not crazy about the constant selling of the city on GCA 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and the acute defensiveness than often results in the distortion of the truth.

[TEPaul]

"For guys that actually enjoy good thoughtful conversations, you guys sure do seem to have trouble finding them..."


Sully:

You're absolutely right. Yesterday for a few hours a couple of guys like Bradley Anderson and Peter Pallotta came on here with a few posts that picked this thread up bigtime.

I think I'll try to ignore this expert researcher from Ohio and his protege again and try to get into a more comprehensive discussion with BradA and PeterP over what they said and asked on those posts. Only trouble is BradA and PeterP will probably need to ignore them too.

You're right----silliness, rubbish, CaCa!

[Mike_Cirba]

I love Philadelphia. But I'm not crazy about the constant selling of the city on GCA 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and the acute defensiveness than often results in the distortion of the truth.

Sheesh Tom...what do I know?

I thought this site was NGLA access-seeking coverage, all the time, 24 hours a day. 

Barring that, from an east coast perspective I thought our little Quaker hamlet was simply peeking it's head up to look around above the din of Shinnecock, Bethpage, Winged Foot, 50 Metro Raynor courses, Piping Rock, 50 metro Tillinghast course, Yale, 50 metro Rees Jones courses, etc.

Let's not even get into the west coast here...

Perhaps from Ohio your perspective on things is quite different.  I'm pretty certain that at least 50% of our mutual disagreements is simply perspective based mostly on location and background.

I still hope you get out here and look us up, disagreements on these trivial matters aside.

[TEPaul]

"I love Philadelphia. But I'm not crazy about the constant selling of the city on GCA 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and the acute defensiveness than often results in the distortion of the truth."


Uh huh. Hmmmm. Let me think about that a second, Mr. MacWood. I know you are out to lunch but is it possible you actually think Myopia and Boston is part of Philadelphia too? You are the same guy who thinks if someone is the Master of Fox Hounds at Myopia Hunt there is no conceivable way he could do a thing about golf architecture even if he was one of about three people in the country who had a golf course on his own estate before that, right? That's you, right, Mr MacWood? The same guy who thinks if you're a clubmaker there's no way to know anything about agronomy or golf architecture, right, The same guy who thinks.....oh never mind, Mr. MacWood.

[Thomas MacWood]

"For guys that actually enjoy good thoughtful conversations, you guys sure do seem to have trouble finding them..."


Sully:

You're absolutely right. Yesterday for a few hours a couple of guys like Bradley Anderson and Peter Pallotta came on here with a few posts that picked this thread up bigtime.

I think I'll try to ignore this expert researcher from Ohio and his protege again and try to get into a more comprehensive discussion with BradA and PeterP over what they said and asked on those posts. Only trouble is BradA and PeterP will probably need to ignore them too.

You're right----silliness, rubbish, CaCa!

TE
Those few hours were something. Bradley came on here and posted a very well written article he attribiuted to Robert White, which got you very excited. Unfortunately the article was not written by White. As far as Peter is concerned I get the impression he is a big fan of everything you write or say, having someone on a thread who always agrees with you--no matter how wrong you are--must be somewhat intoxicating.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Those few hours were something. Bradley came on here and posted a very well written article he attribiuted to Robert White, which got you very excited. Unfortunately the article was not written by White. As far as Peter is concerned I get the impression he is a big fan of everything you write or say, having someone on a thread who always agrees with you-no matter how wrong you are-must somewhat intoxicating."


Mr. MacWood:

Those two guys are worth 1,500 of you and your protege on this website. Those two are real thinkers. They definitely aren't on here just to promote themselves, thankfully. And neither of them has an inferiority complex that induces them to constantly compete with everyone either.   

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. MacWood,

Please don't characterize my contributions to this site like you did in that  last post.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
There are better ways to promote one's self than spending all your time correcting your numerous errors. That is why I took a break from the site for almost 2 years...I was exhausted.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M -

well, I've tried to tell myself in the last little while that the contempt I felt coming from you was just my imagination. Thanks for making it -- and yourself -- as clear as a bell.  I'll remember that. 

And just to be clear, yes, I do like TE's posts and thinking style very much.   

Peter 

[Peter Pallotta]

You know, I have much empathy for the forgotten names and voices of the past, for the people and (worse by far, the entire races of people) whom history and historians have ignored and diminished, leaving their stories untold and their accomplishments and aspirations unrecorded.  In a less significant and more personal way, I also have some first hand experience with this, as a first generation Canadian and son of working class Italian immigrants (themselves the sons and daughters of generations of poor farmers, making a life off the hillsides in the south). They came here with nothing and worked with their hands. My maternal grandfather's name is nowhere recorded, but I can go to churches througout the city and see the stone steps that he crafted by hand and chisel and made beautiful and lasting; or I can visit homes in the downtown core where my paternal grandfather, a man in his 60s and just new to the country, had years ago dug deep underneath the foundation walls and then crawled under those foundations flat on his stomach, inch by inch burrowing along and moving away the earth with his hands so he could place the jacks there that would eventually lift the entire house up so the walls could be underpinned. His name is recorded nowhere. (They were Giancarlo Sampogna and PietroAntonio Pallotta.)  All of which is to say, I tend to have (and always have had) a temperamental and emotional interest in the underdogs and in the quiet and seemingly insignificant people of the world; for example the old working class Scottish professionals who came to America at the turn of the last century, probably penniless and alone, and who tried to eke out a living and a life with their skill alone, as they had no connections and no power and no one who owed them anything. (On the other hand, the closest I've ever come in my life to meeting and knowing people of wealth and social standing and significance is here on this website  ) In short, I would very much like to know about men like Willie Campbell.  I would like to hear about what they might have thought and felt and struggled with and achieved.  But there is a problem, because there is a difference -- or so it seems to me -- between a Willie Campbell and my grandfathers, and that is, while no one ever praised and promoted their work, I can still go see my grandfathers' work and touch it and admire it as a job well done (the church's stone steps and the 150 year old house with a basement that was dug out of the earth by hand) -- whereas with Mr. Campbell, as far as I can tell, there is little of his work left to see and even less to admire. I won't even say that this should discredit him or make him a less worthy subject of study. But it does seem a bit strange that, given this, a modern day interest should arise that is not satisfied with remembering and acknowledging him, and recounting and recording the long-gone and forgotten testaments to his working life, but seems determined to jump way further and way higher, insisting without much in the way of substantiation that in fact it was he who designed one of the great and historic clubs of all times and not the rich man who'd always been credited with devoting much of his life to it. Somehow, while the attempt is clearly to raise-up the reputation of someone like Campbell, it actually seems to diminish him -- almost as if, to use an analogy, I were to claim that my maternal grandfather not only chiselled the stone steps of the church, but actually designed and built the entire church itself. And if I did claim that, it would seem to suggest that I wasn't proud of my grandfather himself and proud of what he actually did, but instead was only concerned and proud about the image of him that I'd  created for myself. It reminds me of the recent thread about historians/biographers, and about what I dislike about much of the biographies written today, i.e. so few writers seem able or willing to write about their subjects with simplicity and modesty, and thus to honestly portray an individual -- and limited --  human life; instead, every match the subject participated in has to be the greatest match the world has ever seen, every scientific insight the subject ever had has had to revolutionize our understanding of ourselves, every decision seems to have had to change the world as we know it forever. It's as if the subject that these biographers are interested in and presumably have come to admire and respect would not be worthy of a biography unless the biographer be allowed to wrap any narrative and speculation he choses around them.  The result is that the subject himself/herself is lost, and only the biographer (and his career) remains. 

Peter     

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
Good post. I enjoy TE's posts and his thinking style too, but I don't agree with every freg'n thing the man says. Can you say the same thing?

[Thomas MacWood]

You know, I have much empathy for the forgotten names and voices of the past, for the people and (worse by far, the entire races of people) whom history and historians have ignored and diminished, leaving their stories untold and their accomplishments and aspirations unrecorded.  In a less significant and more personal way, I also have some first hand experience with this, as a first generation Canadian and son of working class Italian immigrants (themselves the sons and daughters of generations of poor farmers, making a life off the hillsides in the south). They came here with nothing and worked with their hands. My maternal grandfather's name is nowhere recorded, but I can go to churches througout the city and see the stone steps that he crafted by hand and chisel and made beautiful and lasting; or I can visit homes in the downtown core where my paternal grandfather, a man in his 60s and just new to the country, had years ago dug deep underneath the foundation walls and then crawled under those foundations flat on his stomach, inch by inch burrowing along and moving away the earth with his hands so he could place the jacks there that would eventually lift the entire house up so the walls could be underpinned. His name is recorded nowhere. (They were Giancarlo Sampogna and PietroAntonio Pallotta.)  All of which is to say, I tend to have (and always have had) a temperamental and emotional interest in the underdogs and in the quiet and seemingly insignificant people of the world; for example the old working class Scottish professionals who came to America at the turn of the last century, probably penniless and alone, and who tried to eke out a living and a life with their skill alone, as they had no connections and no power and no one who owed them anything. (On the other hand, the closest I've ever come in my life to meeting and knowing people of wealth and social standing and significance is here on this website  ) In short, I would very much like to know about men like Willie Campbell.  I would like to hear about what they might have thought and felt and struggled with and achieved.  But there is a problem, because there is a difference -- or so it seems to me -- between a Willie Campbell and my grandfathers, and that is, while no one ever praised and promoted their work, I can still go see my grandfathers' work and touch it and admire it as a job well done (the church's stone steps and the 150 year old house with a basement that was dug out of the earth by hand) -- whereas with Mr. Campbell, as far as I can tell, there is little of his work left to see and even less to admire. I won't even say that this should discredit him or make him a less worthy subject of study. But it does seem a bit strange that, given this, a modern day interest should arise that is not satisfied with remembering and acknowledging him, and recounting and recording the long-gone and forgotten testaments to his working life, but seems determined to jump way further and way higher, insisting without much in the way of substantiation that in fact it was he who designed one of the great and historic clubs of all times and not the rich man who'd always been credited with devoting much of his life to it. Somehow, while the attempt is clearly to raise-up the reputation of someone like Campbell, it actually seems to diminish him -- almost as if, to use an analogy, I were to claim that my maternal grandfather not only chiselled the stone steps of the church, but actually designed and built the entire church itself. And if I did claim that, it would seem to suggest that I wasn't proud of my grandfather himself and proud of what he actually did, but instead was only concerned and proud about the image of him that I'd  created for myself.

Peter     

Peter
Huh?

Do you have the same reaction when TE, Mike, Wayne, and others go into overdrive (the Argentina trip, the ship manifests are too difficult to find, the ship manifests are inacurate, Macdonald was unqualified, and the personal attacks on those who have courage to dig into these subjects) when trying to defend Wilson? Funny, I don't recall a similar impassioned speech.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You wrote, "Bahto wrote: "Soon after the official opening of the course for play, the old hotel burned to the ground." The hotel fire was in 1909, was it not? The blow out occurred 1907-1908.  The course opened for general play in 1909, at least briefly before the fire. According to Bahto..."

Unfortunately, both you & George are wrong.

This was written by Charles Blair McDonald and is dated January 4th, 1912. I am assuming that he is a credible enough witness for all when it comes to NGLA. "The Links were formally opened on Saturday, September 16th, 1911."

This is taken from the booklet he prepared and sent to all the members and that was titled "National Golf Links of America, Statement of Charles Blair McDonald." The quote above cam be found on p.20 par. 1 in the section titled "Formal Opening."

It opened for play in 1911...

Phillip,

Thanks for actually putting something of substance up on this issue.   If Macdonald said that the "formal opening" was in 1911, then I am sure that the "formal opening" was.   In fact I think I point out that the clubhouse was formally opened and the first invitational tournament held in 1911.  But I said that, according to Bahto, they were open for general play in 1909, at least until the hotel burned down.    I do not think Macdonald's letter is inconsistent with this at all, especially given that they had no clubhouse whatsoever.

Indeed, Bahto had apparently considered the letter you cite.  From Bahto's book:

". . . the National Golf Links of America finally opened to membership play in 1910. . . . The formal opening of the course was officially celebrated in 1911." 

In Macdonald's book he wrote that, while it was rough, they were playing the course ("from the regular tees") in 1909.   In 1910, the conditions are described as better than many courses.    In the book he referred  to the opening in 1911 as the formal opening of the clubhouse.   Keep in mind that this was a National Club, with members scattered.  How could they have had a formal opening without any sort of clubhouse whatsoever.  Do you think Shinnecock would have lent them theirs?   

But the bottom line is that THE FORMAL OPENING DATE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

Cirba disingenuously uses the this formal opening date of the club as the beginning of the course, as if no one was allowed to see it before they threw open their doors of the clubhouse and had an official invitational tournament. This is absolutely asinine.   The course was world renown in 1910.  The most famous course in America by far.   Behr, Travis, Horace Hutchinson, Darwin, had all played it. Who hadn't?

Mike,   Your position is absolutely foolish, and I think you know that.  If you don't know it, then pull up some of the literature from the time on NGLA, and tell me which course in the US was more known and respected by Fall of 1910.    But I am done with you on this issue.   As far as I am concerned you are just further undercutting your own credibility, as if there was any left to undercut. 

_______________________________________________

Are you two going to just continue to say that endlessly or is either of you EVER going to offer some evidence of Campbell and Myopia?  The club itself says they don't know anything about it and apparently never have and it sure isn't as if they don't know a ton of detail about their history. Why in the world is anyone going to take the word of two guys who've never even been there? At least produce the Boston Globe article or whatever it is that says something to that effect even if it's likely wrong and at least let the club evaluate it and consider it. What kind of game playing is all this anyway?   

Tom Paul.   So long as you are involved the club will have to do without.
_____________________________________________________

If Willie Campbell was good enough that other prestigious clubs (Merion for example) were bringing him in to design their courses, would the clubs where he was employed entirely ignore his expertise?  Hard to believe.

Hey lackey of Tom MacWood, who shall remain nameless, your mentor insists that there were two Willie Campbells and the Boston Willie didn't do any work in Philadelphia.  He says the Philadelphia Willie worked on Merion and other courses around here.  I have never seen proof of MacWood's two Willies, but you better check with your peerless leader on that.

Hey William Flynn Sycophant, is this really all you got?  Ridiculing me based on what Tom MacWood taught you about Merion's early history?  You, the self-proclaimed Merion expert, has absolutely no idea whether MacWood is correct or not, which means you have  no idea who designed Merion's first course.  Yet you have the audacity to ridicule me on this subject.   

This is so sad.  I'd feel bad for you, but I've gotten to know you a bit.
________________

Flynn's local designs and redesigns total 19 and include

Merion East

Whaaaa??   Say it ain't so??  You claim that William Flynn redesigned Merion East?  That is SICK.  Let me guess . . . he drafted the planned changes, therefore he gets the credit??  No wonder you will not let anyone who knows better read your 2000 page Flynn Love Letter.   

At least now I understand why you are so protective and dishonest about the East's beginnings.  You've already stolen all the credit Wilson deserves for what happened later!  And they say I am the one disrespectful of Wilson and Merion's history.  Unbelievable.

_______________________________________________________

Peter,
For what it is worth, while I try to take them at face value, I roll my eyes whenever you post.  You claim to be an innocent bystander and impartial, but I cannot not think of a single post where you have not been lock-step with Paul.    I mean really, through all these discussions, has TEPaul been in-the-right every time?   If you want to skip along sniffing TEPaul's garbage as if it were roses, that is your prerogative.  But do not feign surprise when called upon it.  Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()