"TEP
Yes I know who Mike R. is and I have contacted him in the past regarding Westhampton. I've also discussed it with Raynorphile Ran Morrissett. And I could care less about your thoughts on good architectural researcher/analyst/historians. If you have anything to add to this thread add it, if not go away and hijack someone else's thread."
Well, Tom MacWood, that last reply is just another really good example of your very same, very constant and screwed up MO and attitude on this website!
And that's too bad you say you couldn't care less about my thoughts on good architectural research/analysis/historians. You seem to feel that way about what anyone else knows or has done in this vein other than yourself. Matter of fact, I think it has become extremely obvious to everyone on this site who has remotely followed any of these kinds of threads you participate on that your only interest on here is to somehow come across on this website as a competent researcher and analysis (I note that you have often referred to yourself on here as an 'expert researcher/historian'
)! To appear to be considered as a competent researcher/analyst all you ever do is post various bits of information from old newspapers and such, and you generally follow that up with commentary on here that anyone who does not do that isn't offering anything of importance on the architectural histories of these old courses. I also note that some of us on here don't do that, in some cases because we don't even know how to post material on here. That would include both me and Pat Mucci. Do you actually think that it then follows that we know nothing about some of these clubs and courses that we have spent our lives on or familiar with them and their memberships?
The way you try to do this kind of investigation and analysis just isn't the way good and comprehensive golf architectural research/analysis of these old courses is done even though you constantly struggle to understand that or admit it.
The point is no one can do this stuff well without a really good working relationship with these clubs and the people at them who can provide the important information on any course's architectural history and evolution that cannot and never will be found in newspapers and magazines. There basically are no exceptions to this process and you are definitely not an exception to it either.
As anyone who understands this stuff knows that is just what good golf architecture researchers/analysts/historians do; they all do it and you don't, and consequently it shows clearly on here in the way you go about these investigations and the way you go about the discussions of them on these kinds of threads.
I spent a lot of time on that golf course over the years with Mike Rewinski and a bunch of members who have been there a long time and have a lot of knowledge and old information material on it, and that is pretty essential to have and to do for anyone who wants to know much about the architectural evolution and history of that golf course. Mike Rewinski has been out there a long time; his whole life actually and his family is one of those generational superintendent families on Eastern Long Island. Matter of fact, his uncle was the super at NGLA.
You mention some distnct mounds on Westhampton. You might like to know (at some point
) that Mike Rewinski himself built a number of those distinct mounds but that is something you obviously don't know because for whatever your bizarre reasons are you just DO NOT think you need to put in the time and the effort the rest of us do that is necessary to really understand the architectural histories of courses like this.
As I've said to you many times on here over the years, you are a very good raw researcher on mostly indirect material out there somewhere such as old newspaper and magazine and periodical articles and the occasional plan or photograph sometimes contained in them but for competent and comprehensive analysis of any course's architectural history you are just not good or competent at all because you can only do far less than half of it given that you never go to these clubs and courses which is not just necessary to do, it is essential to do if you ever want to really know and understand them and their complete architectural origins, evolutions and histories!