[DMoriarty]

Bill Clinton played a few rounds at ANGC.  And he probably had a few pops after the round.  So clearly, he must have had some influence on Fazio's movement of the bunkers on #18, and of course, the tee.  After all, he was highly influential at the time, as leader of the free world.

Nice try, but lets stick to apples and apples.  

Instead of Clinton, let's make it Rees Jones.  And lets have a handful of the most prominent and knowledgeable men in golf architecture and journalism (like RTJ Jr, Doak, Coore, Ron Whitten, etc.) all write in major golf publications that Rees had an influence, advised on the changes, and/or that the changes were modeled after concepts that Rees had been recently and readily endorsing.  Also, let's put essentially the same information in Augusta's own club history, and even splash some consistent information in the NYTimes.  

Now, let's skip ahead about 90 years.   Who would you be more likely trust when it comes to trying to figure out what really happened . . .
. . . On the one hand, the sources above, all of whom had first-hand knowledge . . .
. . . Or, on the other hand, two locals, neither of whom were even alive at the time of the changes and both of whom cover their ears and shot "blah, blah, blah, blah" like spoiled children whenever anyone offers any information that challenges what they want the truth to be?

Hypothetically, of course.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

David,

That all sounds nice, but I am still not convinced. What would convince me and probably others is if you took the time to do a "In My Opinion" piece that was well thought out and laid out your pieces of evidence for your theory of Macdonald's influence at Merion. I still think that one of the most interesting pieces on this website was Tom MacWood's piece on Crump and Pine Valley, which clearly changed some views of Pine Valley's history.

Trying to sway opinion in the middle of personal attacks will not work, IMO. If Tom and Wayne are off base, let's see it in a well executed and well written essay that is written with passion rather than anger during a pissing match with our resident Flynn biographers.

Thanks

PS. While the Board at Merion may not agree with my view  , I consider Merion a "home course" of sorts, and as a MacRaynor fan, I am interested in your theory.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Sweeney,  

Everything in my above post is not only accurate, it is also appropriate given the name-calling and rudeness I have put up with for almost a year from the those who you loosely characterize as the “Flynn biographers.”   Nonetheless, I agree that it is best to deal with these matters with a minimum of personal invective.   So, while I am angry (go figure, being called incompetent and/or a liar tends to make me angry) I have modified the above post a bit.  While you and others may believe that the edited version is still a personal attack, I am sticking with it as it accurately encapsulates their behavior.   After all, these guys behave like children, so why not?

Case in point, the factual matter of the distance of the 10th hole.  If we accept the points marked on the Jones’ shot chart (and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy with regard to the shots marks) then Jones’ driving distance on the 10th hole in 1930 is a question of fact, not of opinion, and certainly not an issue justifying a temper-tantrum, or the absurd accusation that perhaps I am fabricating data.  Yet when I told Wayne that my google measure showed the drives on Merion’s 10th to be around 260 yards and not 300 yards as he claimed, he threw a mini-fit and refused to play with me any more . . .

If you think Jones's drives were "around 260 yards, or a little less," then I will not continue a conversation with you as you have a problem with analysing information presented to you.  There was a study done of every one of the 18 holes Jones played twice in qualifying for the 1930 Amateur and there are many examples of distance equal to the shots he hit on #10; a distance much greater than you consider.  I have no idea why your analysis is so flawed and I no longer care that it is.

Anyone can go on google and check the distance simply by measuring from the front of the middle tee (from where the chart shows Jones hitting) and a point right of the green in line with the top edge of the first bunker.  In fact, given the discrepancy of our two measures and Wayne’s absurd overreaction, I am surprised that anyone still following this thread hasn’t already done so.   But then even if they did they would likely never confirm my measure online, given that Wayne is an access point in the Philadelphia area and we wouldn’t want truth and accuracy to interfere with access to golf courses.  

As for TEPaul’s childish, boorish, and entirely unacceptable behavior on this website, we are all very aware of it , so going into it would be a complete waste of time.  Unfortunately for the quality of the website, TEPaul also seems to be off limits, perhaps again because of access or his perceived standing the Eastern golfing communities.

[DMoriarty]

Mike S

Thanks for your suggestion that I write an In My Opinion piece on this issue, but no thanks.   I witnessed the incessant unconscionable barrage of abuse that TEPaul heaped on Tom MacWood while Tom MacWood researched Crump, and I don’t have time to deal with that.

Plus, I don’t really have a theory, especially not one of “MacDonald’s influence at Merion.”  My thoughts are not necessarily profound or even original, and in my opinion don’t justify an In My Opinion.  Plus, my thoughts are preliminary and subject to drastic change as I learn more, which is why I sometimes refer to them as hypotheses or working hypotheses (I’ve even been ridiculed for this.)


1.   Before Merion, golf in the Philadelphia area was pretty horrible, and can best be understood as “Dark Age” or “Victorian.”
2.   Merion, needing a new course for practical reasons, set out produce something different and better, so they sent Wilson to Europe in learn about what was going on over there (which was largely a rejection of the same type of Dark Age stuff) and a return to the principles and features of the great links.  
3.   Before he went, he spent some time at NGLA with MacDonald, learning about golf design and planning his trip.
4.   MacDonald had also been crusading against the dark age stuff and for a return to the older, better links inspired stuff.  He had built NGLA at least in part as an exemplar of how to apply the great ideas of links golf into American design.  
5.   According to the commentators of the time (and apparent from early photographs) the early version(s) of Merion East were a radical departure from what had come before in Philadelphia (and most of America.)
6.   According to many of the most respected voices of the time and Merion’s club history, MacDonald advised on the design of Merion and had an influence on its early design.  
7.   According to many of the most respected voices of the time, Merion’s early design incorporated features that were also common on MacDonald’s ideal golf holes.  Some commentators even went so far as to suggest that some of the holes could be characterized by the same names as some of MacDonald’s template holes.  
8.   Interestingly, according to Travis, Wilson may have been incorporating features directly from the originals, rather than MacDonald’s interpretation of the originals.   Travis describes the original 15th green at Merion as “an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at Saint Andrews.”    Had Wilson been copying MacDonald one would think that it would have been an attempt to copy the Eden green at NGLA.   To me this raises the issue as to whether we ought to be looking for similarities not just with MacDonald’s holes but with the with the original holes, as well.  Perhaps MacDonald told Wilson “these are the models at which to look” and Wilson took his advice and tried to emulate a  few of the originals.
9.   Given the overwhelming evidence of the above two points, we at least must assume that these men sincerely thought that what they were saying was correct.   Accordingly, we ought to make an effort to understand WHY THEY THOUGHT WHAT THEY DID.   This entails thoroughly understanding, not what exists now, but what existed then long before any of us were born.   This includes an understanding of ACCURATE distances, ACCURATE elevation changes, and ACCURATE feature placement and size.    
10.   TEPaul and Wayne Morrison think they already know all this and will hear nothing that suggests otherwise.   Given how wrong they have proven to be about so many issues on this thread alone, their level of hubris is inexplicable.  
11.   We don’t know just how much influence MacDonald had and we likely never will in full, but we do know that a pretty impressive list of men all thought that MacDonald, his golf holes, and/or the holes that inspired him had a fairly major impact on the Early Merion. And to ignore, dismiss, and/or disregard these mens' words without overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an arrogant and unjustified fictionalization of history, a slap in the face of the reputations of these great men, and frankly, a incredibly poor research methodology.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Morrison, now that you are apparently conversing with me again, let me ask you one question.  

How far is it, in yards, from the front portion of the middle tee to the point(s) where Jones' drives ended up on the 10th Hole at Merion during the 1930 Amateur?
____________________

If anyone else can figure this out using google or any other accurate measuring device, I'd love to know, because my measure has been called into question and for the life of me I can't figure out the basis for the disagreement.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Shivas

Don't tell that to Michael Moore.  I questioned his Yale distances and he went off the deep end.

I tried Google Earth and I have no measure feature.  What gives?

PS- David M - please don't insult the rest of us just because you are fighting with Wayne and TEP.  To insuinuate that we all would not post what we believe to be accurate distances because of potential access is not worthy of discussion. Shame on you!

Does anyone have a yardage book from the US AM?  I'll check my regular one at home but I don't think it has the same measurement points.

[DMoriarty]

Dave, your post #236 was a well-reasoned and persuasive.

But I have to tell you something:  I just went out and paced a 300 yard distance to a friend's house down the street (and I'm either blessed with, or have honed through necessity, a gate that is exactly 36 inches long ).

Then I Google-earthed it.  It was off by 26 yards.  

So I went and paged in the other direction to a different house.  Wrong by 22.

And here's the best part.  I paced the total (600), and Google was wrong by 41, which you will quickly realize is goofy since in segments it was wrong by 48!. . .

Shivas, it could well be that the Google ruler is not accurate.  I've checked it out on a few things that had been plotted with GPS, but I didnt have the shivas perfect gait to go by.  From the beginning I've been clear on my source, and requested correction if the google measure off.  If it is off (and I am yet to be convinced it is, despite the shivas perfect gait test) then let's by all means get better information.  

First things first. though.  My guess is that while you were on Google you measured the distance on the 10th at Merion for yourself and came up with a number around 260 yards or a little less.  Is this the case?   If not could you do it for me?   At least then we will know whether I am a liar, or in the alternative, that the only issue is whether Google is accurate or not.    

[By the way, your theory on google is interesting.  Mr. Morrison claimed that he knew how to measure on Google, implying that he had actually measured the hole and the result was consistent with what had claimed.]

Geoffrey Childs posted:

I tried Google Earth and I have no measure feature.  What gives?

 

My measure feature is in the tools pull down menu (at the top of screen) and called "Ruler."

PS- David M - please don't insult the rest of us just because you are fighting with Wayne and TEP.  To insuinuate that we all would not post what we believe to be accurate distances because of potential access is not worthy of discussion. Shame on you!

You are correct Geoffrey, I shouldnt have used such broad language.  I apologize to you and anyone I may have offended.  Not that it excuses my comment, but I do find it very frustrating that these guys (especially TomPaul) are allowed to try to browbeat, ridicule, and denegrate other posters into submission and no one ever says a peep, even when they are obviously in the wrong.  Whether or not it is about not taking on someone considered to have great access I dont know, but there must be a reason because most other posters certainly arent treated with same kid gloves.  

Bottom line is that putting up with this kind of garbage is bad for the site.  Potentially good threads (like this one) get derailed and people  who might otherwise contribute something interesting and meaningful will likely think twice, especially if their post might address a few Philadelphia area landmarks.  
 

Does anyone have a yardage book from the US AM?  I'll check my regular one at home but I don't think it has the same measurement points.

Wayne Morrison apparently has an aerial with every one of Jones' shots marked  (unless he made it himself and didnt bother to include that fact.)  Trouble is, the measures of those shots apparently accurate, at least on the 10th hole.   Plus, Mr. Morrison claims that  most of the old measurements were off by about 10% or more.  Of course that apparently doesnt apply to the measure of Bobby Jones drive, as those are apparently beyond reproach.

_______________________________

I see Wayne Morrison deleted his recent post where stood by his previous defamation.   Does anyone else find it interesting that since Wayne threw his fit about my google measurement, that he hasnt posted his own google measurement?  After all, he assured me in an earlier post that he knows how to accurately use the google measurement tool.  

[T_MacWood]

TEP:  don't get your panties in a bunch....Tom Macwood loves to do this!.  

"My only interest is getting at the truth. It is a documented fact that Macdonald & Whigham acted as advisors at Merion..."

He made pretty much the exact same argument with respect to Harry Colt and Indian Hill about 6-8 months ago.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how people put two and two together anymore.  Back then, there were about 10 courses worth a sh*t, and the guys with the means visited a bunch of them (just like what goes on today, except there are 200 of them!).  So Harry Colt got bombed at the bar at Indian Hill and said "these hole suck and it'd be better if you did X, Y and Z to them" and for some unknown reason, Tom wants to hand the guy design credit on a silver platter, regardless of whether or not Colt was the impetus for any changes, regardless of whether the changes were ever actually even made, regardless of whether any changes were made that resembled the drunken ramblings of a Scotched-up Harry Colt, etc.

Go figure.  Or better yet, don't.  It's beyond figuring at this point.  

Bill Clinton played a few rounds at ANGC.  And he probably had a few pops after the round.  So clearly, he must have had some influence on Fazio's movement of the bunkers on #18, and of course, the tee.  After all, he was highly influential at the time, as leader of the free world.  

GMAFB.  This is all goofey-talk hooey nonsense.  Back then, given the limited pool of places to go and people and courses to see, these guys saw (and probably commented on) each others' stuff.  BFD.  That doesn't mean they all influenced each others' designs to the point bordering on design credit...to conclude otherwise is beyond silliness.  

I agree with you, Tom, 100% that it's really outlandish the way people drum up these cockamemie theories about how Golden Age Architect X was really the double-secret force behind Course Y just because they either visited there and made some liquored-up comments or had lunch with the actual architect within 5 years prior to construction of the course at some downtown athletic club and said something after 3 martinis like "I really miss blind second shots to the left because they remind me of the good ol' days in the homeland at Prestwick" or "you know, it's been years since I played the Eden and I miss her all the time; we should be building more holes like that, don't ya think?".        

DE
Speaking of getting your pannies in bunch....that's quite a rant. I'm sorry Colt's involvement came as a surprise, but if you had checked with the club you would see they list Colt, Ross & Barker as the resposible architects. Please don't shoot the messenger, especially when architectural history ain't exactly your strong suit, which is not entirely your fault since Chicago golf architecture history is not that well documented.

Here couple excerpts that support the club's claim:

"Chicago will add another golf club to its list when the Winnetka CC will open next summer, President Douglas Smith announced that the course will be ready to play about July1. The length of the course is to be 6400 yards and the membership of the club is limited to 200. Mr. Colt of England and HH Barker laid out the course, and it is to be one of the best in the West." ~~American Golfer December 1913

"Permanency of another local golf course has been assured by the purchase of the Indian Hill club of the 140 acres on which the cours is located...A syndicate of forty members subscribed $5000 each and bought 200 acres locateded Winnetka on the west side of the Ridge road. The Indian Hill club then was formed and Donald Ross and Henry Colt, the English architect, were given carte blance in planning a golf course. They were told to have the skeleton of a championship course and with these liberal orders produced a course 6,444 yards in length, which took in practically 140 acres." ~~Chicago Tribune Dec. 18, 1918

If you are interested there is also a rare sketch Colt made of the 15th & 16th holes at Indian Hill in the April 1917 issue of Golf Illustrated (US). The sketch is reproduced in Shackelford's Golden Age if you have that book.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

It seems without question that the golf course must have been remarkable dry, hard and fast in that 1930 Amateur.

And I completely agree with you---if David Moriarty can't get his act together and dispense with the type of posts about us he made today, I sure won't have much to say to him either and certainly not much nice to say about him.

Frankly, I think his hypotheses that he outlined in that 10 point post above are slightly comical---not that they aren't true, it's just that they are comical in how he acts as if he's discovered something original. He acts as if we and others like us here in Philadelphia are and have been totally unaware of these obvious facts he seems to think he is uncovering about Merion East and the Philadelphia golf architecture that preceded it.

God only knows where he thinks he might eventually want to go with all this. If it's going to be some defense of the importance and influence of the English Arts and Crafts Movement on Philadelphia golf architecture, I will absolutely guarantee him I will always be here to counterpoint him and his contentions.  

That's what this website is all about, or should be. I spoke to Ran Morrissett not long ago about this kind of thing and he totally agrees.

Discussion and debate about architecture, particuarly its history and evolution, is the essence of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!

Wayne:

See if you can turn in early tonight, and I will as well, since according to Professor Moriarty we are nothing more than spoiled children.  

[SPDB]

1.   Before Merion, golf in the Philadelphia area was pretty horrible, and can best be understood as “Dark Age” or “Victorian.”

David - I'm not certain how the state of affairs in Philadelphia pre-Merion was any different than the rest of the country. Sure there were a couple of courses that were notable for their design quality, but wasn't the entire country (and not just philadelphia) caught in a victorian or dark age w/r/t golf courses?

Often, it seemed, clubs simply hired Scottish golf pros cum architects who simply laid out courses without giving it much thought. You saw this all over america, up to and including the time Merion was laid out.  I don't view Merion or NGLA as reactionary. To me they simply represented the state of the art.

Sorry for the interruption.

[T_MacWood]

This is my issue with Tom MacWood too. He offers all these detailed opinions of some of these courses and the quality of their restorations and such and he's never even seen them---not once. Is it possible that either of you can take some offense if I point something like that out to you?

Tom MacWood on that Aronimink issue is really where I took issue with him, and you probably think I'm being boorish towards him for that. Not at all. Tom MacWood is frankly being remarkably insulting to architects like Ron Prichard for the things he said about that restoration with zero first hand knowledge.

We just saw Ron today and he just laughs about people like that. He does this every day---he's really detailed and research oriented in his restoration work which he's been doing for thirty years and he has to listen to people who know nothing about these courses who criticize them and him??

You guys should realize better that we are not being defamatory towards either of you, and we are not acting as if we don't want to hear any new information. We simply do not believe you are accurate or correct in much of what you've said on this thread about the old or even the present 10th hole at Merion.

TE
Wrong. You mistake judging the historic accuracy of a restoration with judging the quality of a restoration. Often a course is improved by inaccurate restoration (or redesign) often because the course was in such bad shape to start. The question is the new and improved redesign  better or equal to the course at its architectural highpoint. [Bethpage-No, Engineers-No, Aronimink-No, Riviera-No, Hollywood-No, IMO]

And as far as my comments about the accuracy of a restoration, accuracy is not something you seem to care about (ironically) or frankly are able to determine (ironically).

I've stayed away from personal comments about the restoration architects on projects like Aronimink, Bethpage, Hollywood, etc...critical yes, personally insulting no, unless criticism is personally insulting. Somebody has to stand up for these dead guys.

What does your boorish behavior have to do with this thread?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.

I would encourage more of it.

However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise.   Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont.   This is indisputable, and hardly news.  That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old.   It gave them the time to do things well and studiously;  thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles.   Again, nothing new here.

But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham.  When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't.   Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement.   Which is it?

CB Macdonald was clearly renowned at the time as the preeminent person in golf.   That Wilson would have visited with him is not surprising.   What's more, mentioning Macdonald as a "consultant", or "advisor", would certainly have added gravitas to the project.   Why would Wilson or anyone at Merion not try to maximize the role of the greatest character in US golf at the time?   It would certainly be something the membership would have expected of him as part of the due diligence of what was asked of him.

I think one fundamental question that has not been asked here to my knowledge is simply this;  Macdonald and Whigham were regular contributors to Golf Illustrated, writing often about their courses like NGLA and Piping Rock, the template holes they built, and often in terms almost braggadocio in nature, and probably justifiably so.   Macdonald was certainly no shrinking violet.

So, if those two had a major role in the creation and design at Merion, a course that was so highly acclaimed and regarded upon inception that it warranted so much press in the same magazine, why wouldn't Macdonald or Whigham take due credit?   Why did neither of them mention a single word about Merion in any of their articles?

I think the reason is clear.   Out of 18 holes at Merion, you have one hole that may have been modeled after an "Alps" (10).   You have one hole that is a very, VERY loosely based redan (3).   And you have the 15th green, supposedly modeled after an Eden, although a par four.   That's it, and even that is really a stretch.   There are also some Valley of Sin features on 16 & 17, but I have to ask this.   Isn't it much more likely that Wilson would have emulated all of those features based on the 8 months he spent overseas studying than on the 2 days he spent visiting with Macdonald?

The course at Merion features none of the stylistics that clearly identified the Macdonald/Raynore style, and used almost none of the templates that they were pushing as the exceptional models for design.

Built in 1912, the course was so well regarded that it was awarded the US Amateur by 1916, which was the most important US tournament at that time.

Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?

[Paul_Turner]

Just for interest, I hope Geoff doesn't mind.  Colt's neat drawing of two parallel holes at Indian Hill.

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul/Shiv/MacWood,

Do either of those holes exist today at IH, in any form?  

Just curious.

[Paul_Turner]

Mike

I have no idea.  Would love to know if the club owns the entire routing plan (or the hole detail booklet like the PVGC one).

[TEPaul]

"David - I'm not certain how the state of affairs in Philadelphia pre-Merion was any different than the rest of the country. Sure there were a couple of courses that were notable for their design quality, but wasn't the entire country (and not just philadelphia) caught in a victorian or dark age w/r/t golf courses?

Often, it seemed, clubs simply hired Scottish golf pros cum architects who simply laid out courses without giving it much thought. You saw this all over america, up to and including the time Merion was laid out.  I don't view Merion or NGLA as reactionary. To me they simply represented the state of the art."

SPDB:

I couldn't agree with you more. Who can name multiple golf courses in America that were considered really high quality architecture that preceded Merion East?

From everything I've ever read there were probably a handful if even that many. We do know of Myopia and NGLA but what else? Oakmont in those days was probably very little like it became. Brookline? I don't think so, not then.

You call it the state of the art at that time and I call it the evolution of golf architecture in America. Moriarty seems to want to call it a rejection.

Whatever.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recall we had this same discussion a few months ago regarding the 18th at SLCC, which clearly is an Alps hole, despite your protestations to the contrary. It now seems you've changed your stripes.

Not at all.

It's also interesting the George Bahto refers to the 5th hole at SLCC as possessing the "Alps" featues and makes no mention of the 18th, named "Oasis" as an "Alps"
[/color]

Alps holes, in my opinion, do not have to resemble Prestwick or NGLA identically or be disqualified.

That opinion would seem to be in conflict with MacDonald's understanding of what constitutes an "Alps" hole.
[/color]

These are interpretations of qualities, not replicae. An effective Alps hole can be laid over flat ground (see Camargo #7) or even land where the green is sits at a lower elevation than the DZ.

An interpretation of a "quality" does not an "Alps" hole make.
[/color]

I think the ONLY key criteria is a sandy expanse fronting the green and SOME measure of blindness.

Are you therefore declaring, uniquivically, that the 16th hole at NGLA is an "Alps" hole ?

After all, it meets your criteria ?

How about the 17th at NGLA ?

Again, it meets your criteria.

How about the 8th hole at NGLA ?

Again, it meets your criteria.

With respect to your qualifier of "some" measure of blindness ?
Please quantify "some" for us ?[/color]

It seems that Merion could have possessed some of these qualities, irrespective of all of these opinions about elevation change, etc.

How so ?[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Tom, those snipets are fabulous!  Really and truly!  But, at best, the course that Colt may or may not ever have built does not exist anymore and hasn't existed for 90 years.  The first course was redesigned a year after it was built, and then that course was reworked another 7 or 8 years after that.

A year later? Who redesigned the course?

So even if Colt planted every single seed of grass on the place by hand, that work simply isn't there anymore.  It's no different than claiming that Medinah 3 is still a Bendelow or that Chicago Golf is still MacDonald.  

So answer me this:  if Harry Colt, the most famous architect of his day, really designed a course for the wealthiest men in Chicago (ie, great customers), do you really think he'd have built such a piece of junk it needed to be scrapped a year later?  What makes much more sense to me is that he didn't do squat but somehow got his name involved in the project because he did a quick tour and made a couple of comments on the way to the Indian Hill train stop on his way to or from Old Elm, which is about 5 miles up the same train line and that was that.

I don't know, I'll take your word for it. Actually Ross built it and Colt designed it. I take it you don't think much of Colt for whatever reason.

Tom, you've got a lot of pride in your research skills, but I suggest with respect to you that you really can't take shots at mine.  

You have no idea what I have seen or haven't.  
I've actually played the course probably 50 times and read the stuff on the walls in the clubhouse.  Have you?  No.

What you rely on are old scraps and stories that may or may not be the truth.  Why don't you just cite "Dewey Defeats Truman" and get it over with?  

Yes, I am aware that Indian Hill lists Colt, Harry Barker and Ross.  I just have no evidence that Colt did much of anything there.  The holes in the ground don't support any legitimate argument that the course is a Colt course.  

Is researching or indentifying who designed what in Chicago a strength of yours?

OH, PS:  ranting is my second favorite game...

...to scrabble?...juggling?...bitch slapping?

Actually, the best evidence that he may have been involved more than people think is utterly circumstantial evidence that you have never once cited (because you simply wouldn't be in a position to know this):  Old Elm and Indian Hill have a very, very large amount of dual-membership members and always have, and the fact that they're on the same train line.  

Nice recovery.

[T_MacWood]

"What does your boorish behavior have to do with this thread?"

Tom MacWood:

Good question. Why don't you direct it at Moriarty?  

TE
He's one of the few who has the courage to comment on your boorish behavior.

Mike Sweeney: I found your comments about DM especially ironic when to my knowledge you've never objected to anyting TE has said.

[Dan Moore]

Here is what Indian Hill looked like in 1939.  The two holes in the middle just below the pond bear some resemblence to the drawings Paul posted.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Was Ross's Aronimink course from 1929 restored accurately? Yes or no?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

You asked, "Tom MacWood: I may've asked you this before but I don't remember what you (or Paul Turner) said, so I will ask you again----When was the last time Harry Colt was in the United States? If you do have an answer I'd like to see some solid documented evidence for it."

To partly answer that question, especially as it pertains to Colt's work in the Chicago environs, please look up the GolfUSGABulletin of June 1913. In it, in his column titled, Our Chicago Letter, Mr. Chick Evans wrote of Colt's trip to Chicago and some of the work done there and then refers to his earlier visit some 2+ years before.

He wrote, "Every rresult has a cause, so we must mention that Mr. H.S. Colt, the great English architect has been with us lately and left a deep impression. He spent nearly two weeks visiting all our larger courses, and it is easy to tell what he has suggested might be done to them to their advantage.

"A fine new club named the Old Elm Golf Club; its membership is wealthy and influential and its course is up on the North Shore. I think Mr. Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superintendence of the construction is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest course in America."

I hope this is of some help.



"

[TEPaul]

"TE
Was Ross's Aronimink course from 1929 restored accurately? Yes or no?"

Tom MacWood:

After about two years on this subject I think we both know the answer to that.

However, here is what you said above:

"You mistake judging the historic accuracy of a restoration with judging the quality of a restoration. Often a course is improved by inaccurate restoration (or redesign) often because the course was in such bad shape to start. The question is the new and improved redesign better or equal to the course at its architectural highpoint.”

I don’t think I mistake judging the quality of a restoration with judging the historic accuracy of a restoration at all, but I most certainly know that’s what you constantly do because you do almost nothing other than that on here.

But one more time, Tom MacWood, my question to you is, how in the world can you judge the architectural highpoint , the shape a golf course was in before a restoration or the quality of a restoration if you have NEVER SEEN THE GOLF COURSE AT ANY TIME?

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Sorry, I didn't phrase that question about Colt in the USA to Tom MacWood very well.

I know full well that Colt was in the US in 1913 and I know what his entire itinerary was on that trip here in 1913. And I know he was in this country and Canada on another trip a year or two before 1913.

My question is if Tom MacWood or Paul Turner know whether he ever returned to the US after 1913 or if they really do know that he never did return again.

[TEPaul]

"The articles are factually flawed, yet you're relying on them like Gospel."

Dave:

You're absolutely right--Tom MacWood treats all old articles as gospel. The man believes everything he reads if it's old enough for him to call it "research".  

Frankly, it gets worse than that. If someone didn't write something down in the past Tom MacWood actually believes there is no way it could've happened.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()