[DMoriarty]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah . . .

Meanwhile, my essay stands.   

[TEPaul]

"Meanwhile, my essay stands."


That is no problem at all. If someone actually believes that essay and actually says so then that in and of itself would pretty much speak to what they lack as competent and interested parties in the golf architectural history of a very important course. And that just might be quite the useful barometer and indicator, come to think of it.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

If you meant something else, then my post shouldn't make sense....

[DMoriarty]

Did you all get that?  If you disagree with TEPaul on this issue you must be stupid, and he will so judge you and treat you accordingly.  

Imagine, TEPaul, all you've written on the subject, all the time you've spent, and the essay has never been seriously challenged in any remotely coherent format?   Imagine the time you have wasted!   Oh well.  I guess you probably didn't have anything better to do, anyway.

If my essay is so bad, it shouldn't be a big problem it refute it.  You could have done so ten times over in a fraction of the time you have spent posturing against  me.   But you guys obviosly can't touch it.  Which is why your and Wayne's many promises to refute it in the form of and IMO, Essay, book chapter, etc. have gone unfulfilled.  

Isn't it about time you guys put up, or shut up?

[TEPaul]

I didn't say if someone disagrees with me on this issue they must be stupid-----I said:


"If someone actually believes that essay and actually says so then that in and of itself would pretty much speak to what they lack as competent and interested parties in the golf architectural history of a very important course. And that just might be quite the useful barometer and indicator, come to think of it.


There are certainly plenty of people out there who aren't stupid at all who don't know much of anything about the architectural history of Merion East. In that case they may tend to believe almost anything that is put out there that is purported to be authoritative. You just said on here that you think your essay is the best and most accurate description of the creation of Merion East out there.

That right there is complete garbage. Your essay completely pales in comparison to Wayne Morrison's 150 page detailed description of the entire creation and design evolution report of Merion East. And furthermore your essay is essentially fallacious reasoning and a real distortion of facts and documentary material held by and within the club.

[DMoriarty]

Ah yes, the often mentioned but never revealed 150 page Super Secret Morrison Merion Manifesto.   Sorry Tom, but I am afraid hidden and unvetted vanity pieces just don't cut it.   

Besides, isn't that part of the long-promised-but-never-to-be-produced 47 million page (without graphics) Flynn Bible, King Wayne Version?  That has about as much chance of seeing the light of day as I do of becoming a Member at Merion.   I wonder which will have been longer in the end, the amount of time it takes you two to come up anything resembling a coherent book, or Flynn's entire design career?

As for the rest, your endless yammering doesn't change that my paper has yet to be seriously challenged in any sort of coherent or cohesive manner by you, Wayne, or anyone else.   Too bad, I was hoping that you supposed Merion experts could teach me something.  I guess not.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

To start with the last first, I doubt anyone who has anything to do with Merion or who knows about the architectural history of Merion has any interest at all in teaching you anything about Merion or anything else. If learning about the architectural history of Merion or Merion East had ever actually been your intention you most certainly went about that endeavor in an assbackwards, unintelligent and confrontational way from the start.

But that just seems to be your constant and continuous MO on here and not just with Merion but pretty much every other subject you participate in on here. No wonder you and MacWood seems cohorts on here; apparently you two think you can make a name for yourself by just proving others wrong and about anything, no matter how trivial. It seems pretty clear that most all involved with this website and otherwise recognize that at this point.

Again, as to why no one needs to refute or counterpoint your fallacious essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" at this point, try reading my post #149 again. It's not necessary. Your essay is transparently illogicial and fallacious and to all that really matter with the accurate architectural history of Merion East your essay refutes itself with those from Merion and who know Merion and its history and it was completely refuted on the long running threads on here.

As for the Flynn book or Wayne's now 269 page creation and architectural evolution chapter on Merion East, I'm quite sure he and Merion would be more than willing to work with anyone actually interested in that history and learning about all the details of it. Too bad for you that you never fit that description.

But if making some kind of significant contribution to GCA research and history has been your interest all along perhaps not all is lost for you. I believe the way you (and to a lesser degree your cohort MacWood) have gone about things on here has definitely helped not just Merion but a number of other significant clubs with what kind of so-called GCA researcher/analyst or so-called historian not to deal with or take seriously in the future. I guess that's at least something of a GCA contribution, huh, Moriarty!?  

[DMoriarty]

Are you still yapping?   What a waste of good wine.  

[TEPaul]

I doubt anyone would expect a more intelligent response from you than that, at this point. I know I don't.

[Bradley Anderson]

I'm going to play Merion this fall. 

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover.

[DMoriarty]

I'm going to play Merion this fall. 

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover.

That ought to be about as accurate as the tale these jokers are telling.   

[TEPaul]

It's a great golf course, Bradley, but it's still just a golf course, not the Oracle of Delphi.   However, I, for one, will be most interested in your take on it knowing you've never seen it before. What we need on here, in my opinion, is a lot more particpants and contributors like you who really do know something about golf course architecture and its history and definitely less like David Moriarty who don't know much despite their protestations to the contrary! I don't have much doubt that you could suss more out about Merion East in one trip around it than Moriarty ever could in a lifetime.

Moriarty's contenton that C.B. Macdonald was the router or designer or even the 'driving force'  behind Merion East is the biggest jot of horsehit any self proclaimed "interested learning party" has ever tried to foist on a significant golf course.

[Bradley Anderson]

I'm going to play Merion this fall. 

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover.

That ought to be about as accurate as the tale these jokers are telling.   

David, In your essay you should have just come right and accused Hugh Wilson of being a joker.

[DMoriarty]

I'm going to play Merion this fall.  

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover.

That ought to be about as accurate as the tale these jokers are telling.  

David, In your essay you should have just come right and accused Hugh Wilson of being a joker.

Now why the hell would I say that?  I certainly don't believe it.  Unlike the Philly boys I don't need to tear anyone down to try and make someone else look good.

Besides, I am the only one who respected Hugh Wilson enough to take him at his word, and the only one who actually figured out what he was talking about.

All this time and you still have no concept of what the essay actually is about, yet you still are more than willing to draw strong conclusions.   Why am I not surprised?

[Tom MacWood]

I'm going to play Merion this fall. 

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover.

Its good to see your sucking up is finally paying dividends. Your post asking everyone if it was worth reading on after reading half of David's essay is still the single most ignorant post I've seen on GCA....and that is saying something. 

[Tom MacWood]

I've added Baederwood. I think a case could be made that Baederwood was the top public course in Philadelphia in the late 20s and 30s.

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
Baederwood (1928) - CH.Alison
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

[Phil_the_Author]

"I've added Baederwood. I think a case could be made that Baederwood was the top public course in Philadelphia in the late 20s and 30s."

Tom, instead of simply implying it, make the case.

[TEPaul]

"David, In your essay you should have just come right and accused Hugh Wilson of being a joker."



"Now why the hell would I say that?  I certainly don't believe it.  Unlike the Philly boys I don't need to tear anyone down to try and make someone else look good.
Besides, I am the only one who respected Hugh Wilson enough to take him at his word, and the only one who actually figured out what he was talking about."




It's too bad the same can't be said for what you wrote and why about the thngs all the others said (Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Alan Wilson, Sayers et al) about Wilson who worked with him on the creation of Merion East and watched him do it for their benefit.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-Author
Read Daniel Wexler's profile in Lost Links. I would also suggest you check out the historic aerials of the two courses in the Hagley Archive.

Baederwood was a more sophisticated design IMO, which is not a surprising considering CH Alison's involvement. I believe it was his last American design. Both courses do a good job of utilizing a stream - at Baederwood it comes into play on 15 of the 18 holes. But there is no contest when it comes to the bunkering. CC had fairly crude and simplistic bunkering; Baederwood had a much more interesting and artistic scheme.  

[TEPaul]

"But there is no contest when it comes to the bunkering. CC had fairly crude and simplistic bunkering; Baederwood had a much more interesting and artistic scheme."


That remark shows me MacWood's fundamental misundertanding of golf architecture and specifically the roll of bunkering in it. That remark reminds me of his interpretation and opinion of the restoration of Aronimink-----eg more bunkering equates to better architecture.

One of the true beauties of CC (perhaps akin to ANGC) is the designers went low on bunkering because the beautiful rolling topography didn't need it and being a municipal course it would've unrealistically driven up the cost.

And again, it also helps if a researcher/analyst/historian/critic actually sees a golf course before offering comments about its quality----an aspect Tom MacWood has not yet figured out as he offers his "IMO"   thoughts from his Ivory Tower in Ohio on golf courses he has never even seen! Some feel one must play a course before offering an opinion on its architecture. Perhaps, but at least seeing the course is definitely a must before offering any cogent opinions on it and its architecture. This is a fundamental MacWood has apparently not yet figured out. What does that say about him and his "INOs?"  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Mike has been criticized by some for not providing "facts" to back up his claim. I disagree with this assertion because he has provided numerous contemporaneous articles praising Cobb's Creek. I respect anyone whose opinion differs either on what the articles state or the conclusions drawn from them. But if Mike needs to present "facts" because he stated an opinion, than those who make similar statements of SPECIFIC opinions, e.g.- yours with Baederwood, must be held to the same standard.

This includes that they be CONTEMPORANEOUS "facts" and/or articles as that has also been demanded of him. With that in mind, even Daniel will admit that as old as he may feel at times, he wasn't around way back when. What he has written is NOT acceptable as a contemporaneous fact by the standards that Mike's critics have demanded of him.

So, in my opinion, if you want your contention that Baederwood was superior to Cobb's Creek up until the Depression, for that is the timeframe that Mike delineated in his opinion, than YOU need to provide those contemporaneous articles, photographs and/or aerials as proof. And, by the way, since the 6 aerial photographs of Baederwood in the Hagley collection were taken between July and October of 1939, they are too far past the timeframe mike is talking about to serve as proof... in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Phil:


Your Post #170 is a good one and an important one----eg that you call on MacWood to provide "facts" to support his claims (or "INOs"   ) if he is going to ask Cirba to do the same.

However, I don't see that it has ever been MacWood who has ever called on anyone on here to provide "facts" to support what they say. It is Moriarty who has been doing that, not MacWood. Of course Moriarty has provided no "facts" or "PHACTS" at all or whatever else he calls them on here while calling on others to provide them or else be considered "assinine," "ignorant," or "PHUCKING jokers."

Moriarty has apparently always viewed this website and DG as something akin to a court of law and not an opinion entity for discussion purposes. He provides no facts himself while always calling on others to provide facts. That at least is misguided and at most is just hypocrisy.

The truth is with Moriarty his MO is to just throw some undocumented bullshit opinions, assumptions, premises and conclusions of his own on the wall and when others refute them and criticize him for them he responds by demanding from others that they must provide him with facts to refute the horsehit he produces. I guess he does this as some sneaky and clever way of trying to get documentary and material information from others he was too lazy or to ineffective to try to get himself first.

That kind of back-handed, back-door and hypocrtical research philosophy and MO is never going to fly on here or with any golf club either and either his he with them! People like particularly Moriarty but also MacWood really only serve to give other serious minded and dedicated researchers, analysts, historians, writers, particularly with specific clubs something of a bad reputation with some clubs who have not yet had the opportunity or experience of working with really good historians.

[DMoriarty]

Hundred if not thousands of tantrums and malevolent attacks on me and the idea of my IMO, yet still no attempt at a coherent substantive refutation.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out why this is.   

[Kyle Harris]

Baederwood was Huntingdon Valley Country Club's original course...

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Mike has been criticized by some for not providing "facts" to back up his claim. I disagree with this assertion because he has provided numerous contemporaneous articles praising Cobb's Creek. I respect anyone whose opinion differs either on what the articles state or the conclusions drawn from them. But if Mike needs to present "facts" because he stated an opinion, than those who make similar statements of SPECIFIC opinions, e.g.- yours with Baederwood, must be held to the same standard.

This includes that they be CONTEMPORANEOUS "facts" and/or articles as that has also been demanded of him. With that in mind, even Daniel will admit that as old as he may feel at times, he wasn't around way back when. What he has written is NOT acceptable as a contemporaneous fact by the standards that Mike's critics have demanded of him.

So, in my opinion, if you want your contention that Baederwood was superior to Cobb's Creek up until the Depression, for that is the timeframe that Mike delineated in his opinion, than YOU need to provide those contemporaneous articles, photographs and/or aerials as proof. And, by the way, since the 6 aerial photographs of Baederwood in the Hagley collection were taken between July and October of 1939, they are too far past the timeframe mike is talking about to serve as proof... in my opinion.

Phil
How do you rationalize your statement the other day that Bethpage-Blue was superior to Bethpage-Red?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()