News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Phil_the_Author

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #125 on: June 30, 2010, 11:49:37 PM »
David,

Let me first state that I don't agree with Mike that Cobb's Creek was the best municipal course built before 1930. If there is any course that can lay claim to that I would think that Brackenridge Park (and NOT because its a Tilly) or Harding Park would be the answer.

Having said that, I think that your last comments to Mike are filled with inacuracies and your own set of obfuscations.

You wrote, "Mike, I don't care what you think and I doubt MacWood does, either.   But I do care about what others think and know about golf architecture, particularly the history of golf architecture in America, and I'd prefer is that history was accurate and open.  So when you and a few of your Philadelphia brethren obfuscate the record and even just make shit up, I care..."

Really? Then why haven't you confronted Tom Macwood for his CONTINUED lack of accuracy when mistakes have been pointed out to him? This is now the 4th time I've pointed out that Brackenridge Park was opened in November of 1916, yet he continues to ignore it and keeps listing it as 1917. He stated that Bethpage Black and Red were never chosen to host the Publick Links championships. That is incorrect and I pointed it out and he justs ignores it. If the two of you believe historical accuracy is so important, a simple, "thanks, let me correct it" would suffice to prove it, yet despite repeated efforts to achieve this accuracy, nothing is done. 

"Is it really too much to ask that you back up your "factual" claims with actual facts?   I guess in Philadelphia it is..."

We've yet to see a single "fact" given by you as evidence that Mike's OPINION is incorrect. If you think that giving fact's are so important how about providing some rather than simply denigrating Mike and what he has said without any?

"Fact is, in your never ending quest to aggrandize  Cobb's reputation, you made an asinine claim about Cobbs with little or no basis.  We called you on it and you have been lashing out ever since..."
 
Once again you are wrong. The FACTS are that Mike has produced numerous contemporaneous newspaper accounts which he believes backs up his opinions. The FACT is that neither you nor Tom Macwood have presented a SINGLE contemporaneous or even modern day account that states that a particular municipal golf course was considered among or even the best of its time... not one. The only thing you have been "lashing out at" is Mike personally which gives a great deal of credence to Mike's statement about that.

"Unlike you and your Cobbs fluff jobs, MacWood actually took the time to provide some interesting and useful information.   Of course your response is to ridicule the list, ridicule the courses, pretend you meant something else.  You even ridiculed the fact that MacWood took the time to do the research -- research you should have done before you made your idiotic claim..."

Tom did do research and much is interesting. Unfortunately none of it is USEFUL to the discussion if he simply lists courses and nothing else. It is like someone telling a painter that the color he just painted a wall with isn't blue because here is red, yellow, green orange and black. Tom needs to do more than simply give a list before he can state that it is proof of anything in any way. Heck, from what he wrote one can infer that even he doesn't think all these courses were either the better or even the equal of Cobb's, for he has NEVER even stated such. And, once again, if Tom wants his information to be truly "useful" he should correct the blatant mistakes that have been pointed out to him several times and not ignore them.

"All proof that you are not really interested in facts, at least not when they conflict with your phacts."

No, David, it is you who has yet to present a single fact into the discussion and, therefor it is YOU who isn't interested in facts. The most ridiculas part of this discussion, in my opinion, is that the topic is a discussion of Mike's PERSONAL belief and opinion on the subject and not a discussion of any sort of quantifiable "fact" on it. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #126 on: July 01, 2010, 01:14:24 AM »
Phil,

Is their some reason you are railing against me because you think Tom MacWood maliciously slighted your man Tillie?  Do you have so little control of your hard-on for Tillie that you must lash out at any random person when you feel Tillie has been wronged?  If not, then why lash out at me?  

--  I have no idea whether Brackenridge Park opened 18 holes in 1916 or 1917, but I do know that both dates are long before 1936.  If it is that important to you, why don't you start a thread and produce some evidence that the 18 hole course opened when you say it did?   Because right now all you are doing is  screaming that Tom MacWood is wrong and you are right, without offering a factual basis.   Who do you think you are, Mike Cirba?  

As for which courses at Bethpage hosted the Publinks, I didn't say anything and I don't really care.  

But since you mentioned it, you and Mike misrepresented what MacWood wrote.  He wrote that the Black hasn't hosted a Publinks.  It hasn't.   Whether Black was chosen in 1936 or not, it didn't host.   But it is no surprise that you try to have your cake and eat it too, counting three Tillie courses where one will do.  

As for the Red, I guess you can call a course that isn't even used for the final rounds a "host" if you want to.  By that logic I guess we should think of Merion West as a Major Championship course.  

As for the rest, you have missed the point.  I am not trying to dispute the merits of Mike's claim or argue for alternatives. Unlike you, I have no horse in this race.   Mike's claim is asinine on its face and needs no refutation except to point out the depth and breadth of quality public courses before 1936.  Tom's list works just fine for this purpose.
  -  Mike's claim was also asinine because he presented it as "fact".    Only homers like you and Mike would claim to be able to definitively tell us which public course was best before 1936.    (By the way, big surprise you think a Tillie course was the best.)
  -  It was also asinine because, even taking it as opinion, he had no real basis for his opinion (other than his desire to fluff Cobbs.)
  -  It was also asinine because those few articles he eventually came up with do not come close to supporting his outlandish claim.
  -  But the main reason it was an asinine claim is that it is yet another example of Mike trying to build up something Philadelphia by tearing everything else down.   He'll fluff Cobbs even if it means he has to throw every other public course in the nation under the bus.  

Obviously, Phil, you are here to defend Tillie's honor.  But you've no business coming after me for whatever perceived slights you suffer under.   Go defend Tillie's honor somewhere else.    It is homers like you and Mike that make this place so unproductive for historical research.  

____________________________
David,



Congratulations Mike.  Finally a post without any blatant exaggerations or inaccuracies.  

« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 01:39:02 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #127 on: July 01, 2010, 03:48:12 AM »
David,

I see that you are back to not letting an inconvenient truth get in the way of a vitriolic obfuscation...

YOU stated, "Phil, Is their some reason you are railing against me because you think Tom MacWood maliciously slighted your man Tillie?  Do you have so little control of your hard-on for Tillie that you must lash out at any random person when you feel Tillie has been wronged?  If not, then why lash out at me?"

In what school were you taught that when truth and facts are not on your side that the best response is a vulgar and stupid retort? I am NOT "railing against YOU because I think Tom MacWood maliciously slighted [my] man Tillie." First of all, I never said he slighted Tilly (proper way to spell it not that you care to learn anything). Tom DID give an incorrect date for the course opening, something that he seems to think important as he assigned dates to everyone on his. I pointed it out for the simple reason of historical accuracy and nothing else.

As for "lashing out" at you. I feel that what I wrote was FAR MILDER than the puerile nonsense that you keep heaping on Mike without ANY SUPPORTING FACTS. You keep "Lashing Out" at Mike and accusing him of writing opinions without presenting any facts and when it is pointed out to you that he has, you respond by calling his usage of these contemporaneous accounts as "ASININE" yet you offer not a SINGLE FACT or CONTEMPORANEOUS ACCOUNT or ARTICLE yourself to contradict his opinion or support your own. Coming from one who has treated Mike as poorly as you have in these threads is the height of hypocrisy. After all, aren't you the one who wrote Mike, " Is it really too much to ask that you back up your "factual" claims with actual facts?"     

You went on, "I have no idea whether Brackenridge Park opened 18 holes in 1916 or 1917, but I do know that both dates are long before 1936.  If it is that important to you, why don't you start a thread and produce some evidence that the 18 hole course opened when you say it did?   Because right now all you are doing is  screaming that Tom MacWood is wrong and you are right, without offering a factual basis.   Who do you think you are, Mike Cirba?"

Sorry David, but I am NOT screaming, and here again you show a complete lack of discernment. I purposefully chose not o cite the proof of date. I wanted Tom to ask for it. My response to him then would have been just as it is to you now. That he provided a list of courses and dates and presented them as FACTS without providing any documentation for it. I'm sorry, but neither Tom nor yourself can demand that Mike offer facts as proof and then present UNSUPPORTED FACTS of their own as proof against. I then would have shown the following/ It is from the November 23, 1916 issue of the San Antonio Light newspaper and the article is inviting the public to come and play the newly finished Brackenridge Park golf course.



David, there is a point where some have EARNED the right to present facts without having to provide the necessary "corroboration." You seem quite willing to allow yourself and Tom this privilege and not do the same for others.   
   
You ranted on, "As for which courses at Bethpage hosted the Publinks, I didn't say anything and I don't really care. But since you mentioned it, you and Mike misrepresented what MacWood wrote.  He wrote that the Black hasn't hosted a Publinks.  It hasn't.   Whether Black was chosen in 1936 or not, it didn't host.   But it is no surprise that you try to have your cake and eat it too, counting three Tillie courses where one will do..."

Once again, it is YOU who is deliberately misrepresenting not only what I wrote, but what TOM MACWOOD wrote as well.

In post #92 Tom wrote, " Yes and no. I think all the courses that were chosen were good, but not necessarily the best of the best, for example Bethpage-Black, Bethpage-Red, Memorial Park, Harding Park or Starmount Forest never hosted the event."

Tom clearly wrote all the courses chosen were good and differentiates them from those that he claimed "never hosted the event." He included both Bethpage Black and Red.

In my response in post #97 I stated, "You are wrong in this. Although the Black course didn't host the Publinks [in complete agreement with Tom's statement] it was CHOSEN to be the host course. Because of construction delays one of the other courses took its place. That would be the RED course. The BLUE course was ALWAYS part of the TWO courses needed to host the event... Bethpage RED hosted the event [an INCORRECT statement which I pointed out] along with the BLUE course."

Please point out how I MISREPRESENTED what Tom wrote? He stated the Black never hosted the event. I stated the Black never hosted the event and then added that it was chosen to do so. The reason for doing that was because it lays the foundation for thy the RED course was chosen to replace it. Tom CLEARLY stated that the Red course didn't host the event. I CLEARLY disagreed with it and pointed out that it did. Now I have EARNED the right of respect to NOT have to post any number of newspaper articles recounting that event as proof that my statement is a factual one. If that is not good enough I will be glad to post one, but ONLY if you ask so politely.

You then stated a TRULY ASININE statement (as you felt so free to use that throughout the rest of your comments in this post I feel it certainly can't hurt your feelings any), "As for the Red, I guess you can call a course that isn't even used for the final rounds a "host" if you want to.  By that logic I guess we should think of Merion West as a Major Championship course."

By your twisted logic then, I guess the only rounds of golf played during the AT&T pro-am are those played at Pebble Beach since the other courses aren't used for the final round. By the way, I would love to hear your explanation as to WHY two courses were needed for the Public Links Championship at Bethpage in 1936. I am quite certain that you can't answer it.
   
You ranted on, "As for the rest, you have missed the point.  I am not trying to dispute the merits of Mike's claim or argue for alternatives. Unlike you, I have no horse in this race.   Mike's claim is asinine on its face and needs no refutation except to point out the depth and breadth of quality public courses before 1936.  Tom's list works just fine for this purpose.
  -  Mike's claim was also asinine because he presented it as "fact".    Only homers like you and Mike would claim to be able to definitively tell us which public course was best before 1936.    (By the way, big surprise you think a Tillie course was the best.)
  -  It was also asinine because, even taking it as opinion, he had no real basis for his opinion (other than his desire to fluff Cobbs.)
  -  It was also asinine because those few articles he eventually came up with do not come close to supporting his outlandish claim.
  -  But the main reason it was an asinine claim is that it is yet another example of Mike trying to build up something Philadelphia by tearing everything else down.   He'll fluff Cobbs even if it means he has to throw every other public course in the nation under the bus."

The only thing ASININE your reasoning. It matters not "to point out the depth and breadth of quality public courses before 1936" because if there is a course that is clearly "the best" those numbers prove nothing against it being so. It is Mike's OPINION that Cobb's was the best municipal course built before Bethpage. He has backed up his claim with contemporaneous articles that he feels bolsters this claim. His doing so is NOT a case of throwing "every other public course in the nation under the bus.." but rather the logical conclusion of his OPINION is that all other municipal courses did not measure up against Cobb's Creek at that time.

How about instead of name-calling that you try some FACT presenting of your own. My original post stated exactly what I am going to do so once again. YOU HAVE NOT POSTED A SINGLE PIECE OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE. NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ACCOUNT OR ANYTHING CONTEMPORANEOUS TO ANY OTHER COURSE THAT CONTRADICT'S MIKE'S OPINION. It's time that you did.

You close out with more nonsense, "Obviously, Phil, you are here to defend Tillie's honor.  But you've no business coming after me for whatever perceived slights you suffer under.   Go defend Tillie's honor somewhere else.    It is homers like you and Mike that make this place so unproductive for historical research."

David, I posted what I did not for the sake of Tilly's honor, but for MIKE'S HONOR. He hasn't deserved one bit of the crap you've posted. Of course, that is simply my OPINION...   


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #128 on: July 01, 2010, 03:59:28 AM »
Phil, I have obviously touched a nerve.  Good.

I stand by everything I wrote above.  Good Luck in all things Tillie.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 04:01:01 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #129 on: July 01, 2010, 04:13:05 AM »
By the way, Phil, the article you posted says nothing about the course  opening or having recently been completed.  It merely says that invitations would be prepared and guests would be  invited.  It doesn't say when. I hope they hurried, 1917 wasn't far away.

I have no idea when it opened, and i don't care.  But I do know that your reading comprehension appears to be highly subjective and dependent upon what you are trying to prove.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #130 on: July 01, 2010, 05:14:04 AM »
David,

Nice try...

From the JANUARY 13, 1916 edition of the San Antonio Light:


The front nine was open for play and enjoyed by local golfers from the Spring onward. The back nine was finished for the Fall which is why the article states, "As soon as the course is re-rolled the first nine holes will be thrown open to the public. It is not planned to complete the remaining nine holes for use this Spring..."

It is YOU who can't read. The November article spoke about "Invitations" being placed in hotel lobbies as a marketing tool for visitors, NOT as some sort of opening day ceremonial announcement.

By the way, there are MANY more articles about the design, building and play at the course if you need them...
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 05:27:32 AM by Philip Young »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #131 on: July 01, 2010, 06:11:51 AM »
I added Beaver Tail in Rhode Island and Belvedere in Michigan, both daily fee courses. I removed Hyde Park and Bobby Jones from Florida after finding some mediocre contemporaneous reports.

Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting
Haggins Oak (1932) - A.Mackenzie
Sharp Park (1931) - A.Mackenzie
Griffith Park-Harding (1923) - G.Thomas
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson
Rock Manor (1921) - W.Reid
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross
Hyde Park, Fl (1924) - S.Thompson
Bobby Jones (1926) - D.Ross
Tarpon Springs (1927) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek
Savanah Muni (1926) - D.Ross
Big Run (1930) - H.Smead
Deerpath (1927) - A.Pirie
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil
Palos (1919) - T.Bendelow
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie
Sandy Hollow (1930) - C.Wagstaff
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson
Beechwood (1931) - W.Diddell
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil
Keller (1929) - P.Coates
Seneca (1935) - A.McKay
Riverside Muni (1931) - W.Stiles
Mount Pleasant (1933) - G.Hook
Belvedere (1925) - W.Watson
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross
Swope Park (1934) - A.Tillinghast
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis
Bayside (1930) - A. Mackernzie
Salisbury Links (1908) - D.Emmet
La Tourette (1929/1934) - D.Rees & J.VanKleek
Split Rock (1935) - J.VanKleek
Durand-Eastman (1934) - RT.Jones
Hyde Park, NY (1927) - W.Harries
Bethpage-Red (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Bethpage-Blue (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Ashville Muni (1927) - D.Ross
Starmount Forest (1930) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek
Ottawa Park (1898/1908) - S.Jermain
Community (1912) - W.Hoare
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan
Hershey Park (1931) - M.McCarthy
North Park (1933) - E.Loeffler & J.McGlynn
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler
Beaver Tail (1925) - A.Tillinghast
Stevens Park (1924)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast
Memorial Park (1935) - J.Bredemus
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen
Triggs Memorial (1933) - D.Ross
Indian Canyon (1935) - H.Egan
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris
Nemadji Muni (1932) - S.Pelchar
East Potomac (1920) - W.Travis & R.White

« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 01:57:16 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #132 on: July 01, 2010, 06:38:05 AM »
*
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:29:55 PM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #133 on: July 01, 2010, 06:42:00 AM »
Tom,

I wasn't offended, just disappointed that you ignored the facts when presented. It also wasn't a terrible transgression, just a mistake very slowly corrected...

Thank you for doing so.

The one question I did have for you is why your list doesn't include Bethpage Black? Is it because Mike admits that The Black was the best municipal course designed? Did you choose 1935 as your limit because the Black opened in 1936? Sincere questions.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 06:45:11 AM by Philip Young »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #134 on: July 01, 2010, 06:43:56 AM »

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.



Mike
Did you actually mean to say Cobbs was the best, most challenging public golf course up until 1930? Perhaps you should have left Bethpage out of your statement....I think that is where the confusion came in.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 08:40:12 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #135 on: July 01, 2010, 06:51:22 AM »
*
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:30:18 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #136 on: July 01, 2010, 06:56:47 AM »
Mike
You didn't mention anything about the Depression in your statement (or in that post)...perhaps that is another reason for the confusion. Why don't you edit the post to reflect what you really meant to say.

Mike Cirba

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #137 on: July 01, 2010, 07:28:33 AM »
*
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:30:38 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #138 on: July 01, 2010, 07:36:14 AM »

I figured you woudn't have a viable alternative as a public golf course from that era that you'd want to nominate.   ::)

Kyle,

If someone (David included) wants to nominate other public courses from that era for hole-by-hole matchplay-discussion I'd be happy to participate.

Let us make sure we are all on the same (well-troden) road here:

1.  Mike Cirba makes an outrageous pronouncement as if it were a self-evident truth, even calling it a fact.  
2.  Mike Cirba offers Zero analysis attempting to back up is unsupported pronouncement.
3.  Ignorantly assuming that what he says is true until proven false, Mike Cirba demands that burden fall on others to prove him wrong.  
4.  When others rephuse to phollow along with his pharce, Mike Cirba takes this as phurther evidence that his bald proclamation was true!

What a Phucking joke!

__________________________

Mike Malone,

To clarify, Mike Cirba claimed that Cobbs Creek was the best and most challenging public golf course in the country prior to 1936.    

Have you played all the best public courses built in the US before 1936?    To your knowledge, has Mike?    Have you studied all the excellent public courses that existed then but are now NLE or have been seriously compromised?

While I understand your desire to jump in and try to save your pal, wouldn't it ultimately be better for the website if people called this joker out on his constant asinine puffery?  
_______________________________________________

Kyle,

I appreciate your attempts to turn this conversation into something positive, but Mike Cirba has no interest in actually discussing the top pre-1936 public courses in the country, not unless he can easily be twisted into something that fits his agenda.    

I'd be very interested in an intelligent conversation of the early quality public designs, but Mike Cirba has no place in that conversation!

Mike
Yes you did, on another thread, and after David wrote this quote above. This would have been a perfect time for you to address the confusion, but you didn't. In fact you never mentioned the Depression at all on this thread. The creation of the other thread was obviously in reaction to David's post, and by that time you realized how ridiculous your claim was.

Why don't you edit your previous post to reflect what you really meant.

Mike Cirba

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #139 on: July 01, 2010, 07:40:49 AM »
*
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:30:57 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #140 on: July 01, 2010, 08:36:34 AM »

...until the 1930s with the creation of Bethpage...


Mike
I read until the creation of Bethpage in 1936, and so did everyone else. Edit your post.

TEPaul

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #141 on: July 01, 2010, 09:08:18 AM »
This thread looks like a continuation under another title and subject of those endlessly argumentative Merion threads. It also looks like the reason why is MacWood is participating and particularly Moriarty is back with his never ending gratuituously argumentative approach and tone that includes calling others opinions 'ignorant,' 'assinine' and 'phucking jokes.' And that is pretty ironic coming from the person who wrote and continued to defend on here a piece of historical and fact-jaded garbage that the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" is----and has been deemed by just about all who actually read it and tried to consider its fallacious premises, distorted logic and apparent conclusions.

And this same guy actually has the hubris and hutzpah to say the following on here!?


"But I do care about what others think and know about golf architecture, particularly the history of golf architecture in America, and I'd prefer is that history was accurate and open.  So when you and a few of your Philadelphia brethren obfuscate the record and even just make shit up, I care."
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 09:14:12 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #142 on: July 01, 2010, 09:19:54 AM »
Mike Cirba:

Why don't you just go ahead and edit your post if for no other reason than to make the little penny-ante endless arguer, MacWood, content?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 10:06:48 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #143 on: July 01, 2010, 09:36:56 AM »
Mike Cirba:

Why don't you just go ahead and edit your post if for no other reason than to make thr little penny-ante endless arguer, MacWood, content?

TEP
Thank you for taking the high ground...you've always shown great discipline in avoiding name calling.

Mike Cirba

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #144 on: July 01, 2010, 10:04:29 AM »
*
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 04:31:22 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #145 on: July 01, 2010, 10:17:06 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Whenever you participate on these kinds of threads on here, inherently there basically is no high ground. You pretty much drag all these kinds of threads down to the low ground, particularly any of them to do with Philadelphia. And it always seems to be the same kind of thing as you clearly try to prove just about anyone wrong even about some miniscule point and all apparently to try to make yourself look like some kind of expert on somethiing.

And then occassionally your little ultra argumentative PHOUL-mouthed cohort Moriarty joins in with you and pretty much drags them into the gutter. I don't believe there has been more that a few threads on here that Moriarty has been part of that this has NOT happened. You claim you are some kind of expert researcher, don't you? Well, why don't you go research THAT and I think even you will see what the PHACTS are!    ;)

Basically, you two guys were called into question for your really poor research analysis years ago on a couple of subjects that involved Philadelphia architecture and courses, namely Pine Valley and Merion East. You two were proven flat wrong on your assumptions and conclusions, you know it as does everyone else and I suppose you two just never got over it and your ridiculous vendetta just carries on with your usual petty argumentative ways.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 10:20:53 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #146 on: July 01, 2010, 10:23:48 AM »
"Tom Paul,
Do you really think my editing of my original post will make a difference?"



Mike:

I really don't know. However, I do think it is completely fruitless to ever try to discuss something that remotely involves Philadelphia (or the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects from this town) with MacWood and particularly Moriarty.

I'm certain that MacWood has an on-going agenda on that; and one that I have mentioned a number of times might be potentially most interesting if he could ever figure out how to admit to it. Moriarty, on the other hand, I considered to be a total and complete waste of time on here.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 10:28:33 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #147 on: July 01, 2010, 12:18:49 PM »
Merion again?  You two should give the Merion crap a rest.  Either that, or come up with an IMO, book, essay or other coherent attempt at refutation.  Because, as it is and despite your baseless potshots, my IMO is the best and most accurate description of the creation of the East Course out there.

How's that long promised "point by point counterpoint" coming along, anyways?  Right there on the to-do shelf next to the Flynn Bible?

-----------------------------

Phil,  I still don't care when the course opened.   But thanks for posting the two articles, neither of which establishes the fact you claim.  If you want to discus it further, start another thread.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #148 on: July 01, 2010, 02:00:09 PM »
I added Beaver Tail in Rhode Island and Belvedere in Michigan, both daily fee courses. I removed Hyde Park and Bobby Jones from Florida after finding some mediocre contemporaneous reports.

Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting
Haggins Oak (1932) - A.Mackenzie
Sharp Park (1931) - A.Mackenzie
Griffith Park-Harding (1923) - G.Thomas
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson
Rock Manor (1921) - W.Reid
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross
Tarpon Springs (1927) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek
Savanah Muni (1926) - D.Ross
Big Run (1930) - H.Smead
Deerpath (1927) - A.Pirie
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil
Palos (1919) - T.Bendelow
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie
Sandy Hollow (1930) - C.Wagstaff
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson
Beechwood (1931) - W.Diddell
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil
Keller (1929) - P.Coates
Seneca (1935) - A.McKay
Riverside Muni (1931) - W.Stiles
Mount Pleasant (1933) - G.Hook
Belvedere (1925) - W.Watson
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross
Swope Park (1934) - A.Tillinghast
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis
Bayside (1930) - A. Mackernzie
Salisbury Links (1908) - D.Emmet
La Tourette (1929/1934) - D.Rees & J.VanKleek
Split Rock (1935) - J.VanKleek
Durand-Eastman (1934) - RT.Jones
Hyde Park, NY (1927) - W.Harries
Bethpage-Red (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Bethpage-Blue (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Ashville Muni (1927) - D.Ross
Starmount Forest (1930) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek
Ottawa Park (1898/1908) - S.Jermain
Community (1912) - W.Hoare
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan
Hershey Park (1931) - M.McCarthy
North Park (1933) - E.Loeffler & J.McGlynn
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler
Beaver Tail (1925) - A.Tillinghast
Stevens Park (1924)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast
Memorial Park (1935) - J.Bredemus
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen
Triggs Memorial (1933) - D.Ross
Indian Canyon (1935) - H.Egan
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris
Nemadji Muni (1932) - S.Pelchar
East Potomac (1920) - W.Travis & R.White


TEPaul

Re: Hugh Wilson's "other" Muni?
« Reply #149 on: July 01, 2010, 03:02:16 PM »
"....Either that, or come up with an IMO, book, essay or other coherent attempt at refutation.  Because, as it is and despite your baseless potshots, my IMO is the best and most accurate description of the creation of the East Course out there."


Shortly after your essay was put on this website there was some notion to doing a counterpoint essay to it and a refutation but that is no longer necessary in our opinions. To all those that matter to us including the club and others on here we feel the follow-up threads on here were refutation enough for this website and the essay itself for those from the club and such who do not participate on this website was its own refutation. Their opinion of it varied from an attempt at clever but fairly transparent fallacious reasoning to a total joke.

I think I can count on one hand the people who have any passing interest left in your essay and what it attempted to explain or believe it contains any historic accuracy or interest. You did discover on your own one thing, however, which of course was interesting as much for curiosity as anything else, and which Merion and its archives have noted----eg that Wilson did go abroad in 1912 and probably not in 1910.

Unfortunately the way you tried to use that relatively minor discovery and what it meant in the broader scheme of things and to try to extrapolate it as some cornerstone point with your distorted logic into your fallacious assumptions and premises and your conclusions in the essay was completely seen through and recognized by all the people whose opinions on Merion East's architectural history matter to us.

There doesn't need to be a counterpoint IMO essay on here to your "The Missing Faces of Merion." It's already been effectively refuted, and there is no one I'm aware of who thinks your admission on that is necessary at this point.  


And, to go back to this particular thread, your characterizations on your posts on this thread of others' opinions on here as assinine, ignorant and 'PHUCKING Jokes' is just more in a long laundry list of reasons why you are a total waste of time participant on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its DG.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 03:08:04 PM by TEPaul »