Patrick:
Precisely! We are not trying to take anything away from many of those at PVGC that had some real input in a number of ways----such people as Street, Carr, Smith, Bole, particularly Govan and obviously many others. We aren't trying to minimize anything they did at all. But in the description of the "Philly School" and who its participants were, we (and GeoffShac) simply limited the members of it that we speak of to those who really were practicing golf architects either at that time or particularly in the future.
I'm sure the reason for that is simply because the courses those five (six if you include Fownes and refer to it as the "Pennsylvania School") are so interesting and impressive. In a real way they are still the heavyweights of great golf architecture----eg PVGC, Shinnecock, Oakmont, Riviera, Bethpage Black, Winged Foot, Merion East.
Street, Heebner and the others did contribute but what golf courses are their names on as the course's architect?
But if Tom MacWood wants to research the soxes off any of those courses and include in the "Philly School" the 100 or 200 people who may've had legitimate input in one way or another, I sure have no problem with that.
"TEPaul,
Weren't you on the design-redesign committee at Gulph Mills?
Shouldn't you and others on the committee be included in the Philadelphia School?"
Yes, I was, and no, I should not be included in the "Philly School", certainly not what I sometimes refer to (and in those articles I wrote) as the "Original" Philly School, not the least reason being I was born about 40 years too late to have any chance to be in that original Philly School of architecture.
And, by the way, as to the quality of any of my architectural concepts, my primary architectural contribution to the project at GMGC is turning out to be a failure and I am now speaking to Gil (who helped me do it---or I should probably say I helped him do it) and the club about how to fix it.