Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams

[Joe Bausch]

Well, let's get started.

It is with great pleasure that I can now put up the link to "Cobb's Creek Golf Course:  Uncovering a Treasure".  Many thanks to Pete Trenham and his web page guys (Jack and Pete) over at the wonderful Trenham Golf History site.

http://www.trenhamgolfhistory.org/PTHGCobbsCreek.html

[JNC Lyon]

Joe and Mike: Fantastic stuff from what I see here.  Can't wait to scroll through this volume over the next few weeks...

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Joe/Mike,

Glad to see this! A fascinating story.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Joe Logan reports on the concerns of the "regulars" at Cobbs and Mike Cirba's response:

http://www.myphillygolf.com/detail.asp?id=11421

[mike_malone]

 I know Hank Church and he's no William Flynn

[Ed Brzezowski]

I know Hank too, while a great guy he cannot spell Flynn. I hope he sees this.

[DMoriarty]

If you guys know Hank Church perhaps you should let him know that he should take whatever Mike Cirba says with a large grain of salt.  

Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of Cobb's Creek.  It is a good course with an interesting history and it would be nice if if could be restored in an economical and efficient manner. But hyping it beyond what it was is dishonest and counterproductive.  Among other things, to say that Cobb's Creek "was known as the best public course in the country" is disingenuous at best.

Those who play the course and those who have a stake in the project deserve honesty, not mindless cheerleading. For example, they ought to know that course had serious problems from the very beginning and unfortunately some of those problems stemmed from the design itself.  For one example, the five best holes all utilized the creek, even though it was prone to flooding, and this design decision has haunted the course throughout its existence.   As for whether this issue can be corrected in an economical fashion while still preserving the original design, I have no idea, but it is something that would concern me were I a regular at the course.

[TEPaul]

A few contemporaneous newspaper accounts way back when did refer to Cobbs Creek golf course as the best public course in the country; even if that may’ve been some regional boosterism at the time, to say that Cirba’s implication of that label is disingenuous and therefore counterproductive, is what is actually counterproductive on this website.

Furthermore, what Cirba has done for the potential restoration of Cobb’s Creek is a work of huge dedication and effort at least a hundred times more important and consequential than anything that GOLFCLUBATLAS.com participant above who wrote that post has ever done with golf architecture.

As for obstacles and problems with water damage and destruction over the years at Cobbs Creek, that kind of thing seems to have been pretty endemic with even some of the best architects from that early time who worked in close proximity to bodies of water. Good examples of degrees of water damage and destruction on some significant courses and from some prominent architects back then include Ross’s Seminole, Behr's Lakeside and Macdonald/Raynor with both The Creek Club and their famous Lido!

[DMoriarty]

Anyone who digs around a bit can find a few similar references with regard to a large number of courses, even courses that open today. Does that mean we can honestly say that each of these courses was known as the best in the country?   Of course not. That would be disingenuous.  We know better.  

To put it another way, if Cirba thinks his Mom is the best Mom ever, does that mean she is known as the best Mom ever?

To say it was "known as the best" strongly suggests this was actually widely known and believed and this was definitely NOT the case with Cobb's.  Cirba knows this yet he chooses to continue to mislead the local golfers at Cobb's.  That to me is disingenuous.  

As for water damage and destruction, in at least most of the instances TEPaul mentioned the courses were significantly changed as a result of the water damage.  It would be foolish to think that things could be put back to just the way they were before the damage, or that it would be a good idea to do so.  

[TEPaul]

“As for water damage and destruction, in at least most of the instances TEPaul mentioned the courses were significantly changed as a result of the water damage. It would be foolish to think that things could be put back to just the way they were before the damage, or that it would be a good idea to do so.”



No, I did not say in at least most of the instances I mentioned (Ross’s Seminole, Behr’s Lakeside and Macdonald/Raynor’s The Creek Club and The Lido) that those courses were significantly changed as a result of water damage. I only said that over the years those courses had suffered some significant water damage and destruction. As far as I know, the only one that may’ve been significantly changed architecturally by significant water damage or destruction may’ve been Lakeside in California. The Lido lost some of its famous Biarritz hole on the water due to water damage but other than that I don’t know the course underwent significant architectural change due to water damage. The Creek Club suffered significant water damage due to flooding and some salinity on the so-called “lower holes” but the architecture in that area was largely maintained (at enormous cost, I should add). Seminole has had significant water damage over the years owing to how low much of the course is to the water table.

As for Cobbs Creek, I’m surely not the expert on its history that Mike Cirba (and Joe Bausch) is but I don’t believe Cobb’s Creek architecture was changed significantly solely due to water damage; or at least I’m not aware that it was until after app. 15% of its original course was changed because a Nike site was put on a part of the original course in the 1950s (according to Mike Cirba’s impressive historical report on the course). After that it seems some significant water damage occurred but as far as I know the holes on the creek remained pretty much the same after that water damage (I am aware that some years ago I believe Gil Hanse fixed the 3rd green after significant water damage).

And I also see that the participant who made the remark quoted above has not changed in his ongoing penchant to both distort and change what some other people actually say on this website. His last two posts on this hugely long thread are additional good examples of that.

[Kris Shreiner]

Having walked that Cobbs ground, with multiple parties, on several occasions, I can say without question it has exceptional features that are very natural in most respects. While the flooding issues have always presented significant challenges, the current team being assembled to potentially reconfigure both the stream/stormwater runoff issues, and the original holes, are all top-notch, with successful, proven golf projects to their credit.

No question, there was much puffery when it came to throwing around printed plaudits, touting golf layouts, during the Golden Age. Certainly, Cobbs Creek was ONE OF THE BEST publics during its early years. Claiming it was "the best" may be a stretch, but nothing to crucify a guy over.

If this restoration becomes reality, it will be a Top 5 public in the country...ALL DAY LONG! It will have it all. Historically, a tremendous story. Exceptional ground, with plenty of length and architectural quality. Affordable golf will be a component, supporting reduced rates for the locals and a very valued round of golf for the traveling visitor. Environmental benefit for: water bodies, upland areas and wildlife.

There are many other elements of this project that will become known when the timetable and direction becomes clearer. All in all, a pretty special opportunity for public golf. It could, and should, when completed, show what can be possible with: a strong will, some dough, vision, and talented folks collaborating to make it a reality.

Sounds like a winner to me, so let's applaud the effort and dedication of someone who's BRINGING IT, rather than look to knitpick over little nonsense.

Cheers,
Kris

[Joe Bausch]

If you guys know Hank Church perhaps you should let him know that he should take whatever Mike Cirba says with a large grain of salt.  

Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of Cobb's Creek.  It is a good course with an interesting history and it would be nice if if could be restored in an economical and efficient manner. But hyping it beyond what it was is dishonest and counterproductive.  Among other things, to say that Cobb's Creek "was known as the best public course in the country" is disingenuous at best.

Those who play the course and those who have a stake in the project deserve honesty, not mindless cheerleading. For example, they ought to know that course had serious problems from the very beginning and unfortunately some of those problems stemmed from the design itself.  For one example, the five best holes all utilized the creek, even though it was prone to flooding, and this design decision has haunted the course throughout its existence.   As for whether this issue can be corrected in an economical fashion while still preserving the original design, I have no idea, but it is something that would concern me were I a regular at the course.

Wow.

I'm trying to digest this post. 

[Joe Bausch]

I want to post this message from my collaborator Mike Cirba (and I'm personally digging deep to decide if my further participation on this web site is worthwhile).

As most of you know, I voluntarily left GolfClubAtlas about 8 months ago for reasons that should be pretty clear.   That being said, I would ask that anyone who feels the urge to defend me please refrain from doing so here, or really anywhere on GCA for that matter. 
 
This thread has been a wonderful one, and one of the only long-running, lengthy threads on GCA that has had positive consequences in the real world, no matter the final outcome.   I would hate to see it degenerate into something counter-productive and or argumentative, because that is exactly the opposite of the wonderful collaborative efforts that created the course in the first place, that created this thread, and that is the potential of Ran's website.
 
David Moriarty is entitled to his opinion of me, of Cobb's Creek, and is also entitled to express them on this open thread.   
 
The rest of you can judge his words and opinions for yourselves, but please don't make this about me.   Thank you very much.

[DMoriarty]

Not surprisingly, TEPaul misread and is misrepresenting what I wrote.  It isn't worth my time to address it further.


________________________________________

Kris Shreiner,

No one has crucified anyone, but I hardly think it is "little nonsense" to expect Mike to be honest about the history of the place, especially when dealing with interested parties. Cobb's Creek has a fine history. There is no reason to "stretch" the truth, especially not in letter to a concerned regular or for publication on Joe Logan's website.  I won't even get into the contents of the report.

As for your prediction about how the course "will be a Top 5 public in the country...ALL DAY LONG" I hope you are correct, but rather than take your word for it now, I'll wait and see what happens.  In the mean time maybe GolfWeek should run a special Philadelphia Edition where they rate the best restorations yet to take place and/or best courses never built.

[Mike Sweeney]

If this restoration becomes reality, it will be a Top 5 public in the country...ALL DAY LONG! It will have it all. Historically, a tremendous story. Exceptional ground, with plenty of length and architectural quality. Affordable golf will be a component, supporting reduced rates for the locals and a very valued round of golf for the traveling visitor. Environmental benefit for: water bodies, upland areas and wildlife.

Kris,

Granted, most of my play at Cobbs was during my high school years but in a country that has the four Bandon courses, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst #2, Bethpage Black and a few others, Top 5 seems like an unattainable goal.

Bethpage Black works because it is surrounded by four other courses that can support the "regular guy" golfer. Karakung can't do that, especially with the changes that have been proposed to Cobbs.

I certainly would like to see Cobbs fixed up, but Bethpage Red (a very good course) as a model seems more attainable based on the infrastructure limitations.

I used to play Bethpage Black as my "home course" of sorts. Now I really can't stand the place and have not played it for years with 6 hour rounds and continuous US Open rough. The place is a mecca for the 4 handicap (vanity) golfer who plays it from the back. No high school teams get to use The Black as a home course, and I suspect the same would be true at Cobbs if it achieved this lofty status. Be careful what you wish for!

[Tom MacWood]

Kris
A few months ago a thread was started in an attempt to identify the best public courses built prior to 1936. I've attached a link to that thread and the final list we came up with. In the process I learned there were a lot of good to very good public courses built in the US in the first few decades of the 20th C. Unfortunately a good number of those courses are gone or a shadow of their former selves. I wish you and all involved with the CC restoration project good luck. Hopefully it can be accomplished without further distorting the historical record. 

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43689.0.html

First 25
Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting  (San Francisco, Ca)
Sharp Park (1931) - A.Mackenzie   (Pacifica, Ca)
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross  (Jacksonville, Fl)
Opa Locka (1927) - W.Flynn  (Miami, Fl)
Pickwick (1927) - J.Roseman  (Glenview, Il)
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell  (Indianapolis, In)
Mount Pleasant (1933) - G.Hook  (Baltimore, Md)
Belvedere (1925) - W.Watson  (Charlevoix, Mi)
Colony (1935) - CH.Alison (Algonac, Mi)
Keller (1929) - P.Coates  (St. Paul, Mn)
Gulf Hills (1927) - J.Daray  (Biloxi, Ms)
Cooper River (1929) - D.Emmet & A.Tull  (Camden, NJ)
Bayside (1930) - A. Mackernzie  (Bayside, NY)
Bethpage-Red (1935) - A.Tillinghast  (Farmingdale, NY)
Bethpage-Blue (1935) - A.Tillinghast  (Farmingdale, NY)
Starmount Forest (1930) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek  (Greensboro, NC)
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross  (Youngstown, Oh)
Twin Hills (1926) - P.Maxwell (Oklahoma City, Ok)
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan  (Portland, Or)
Hershey Park (1931) - M.McCarthy  (Hershey, Pa)
Beaver Tail (1925) - A.Tillinghast  (Jamestown, RI)
Memorial Park (1935) - J.Bredemus  (Houston, Tx)
Indian Canyon (1935) - H.Egan  (Spokane, Wa)
Lawsonia (1930) - W.Langford  (Green Lake, Wi)

Second 25
Griffith Park-Wilson (1915/1923) - T.Bendelow & G.Thomas   (Los Angeles, Ca)
Griffith Park-Harding (1915/1925) - T. Bendelow & G.Thomas  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell  (Los Angeles, Ca)
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson  (Colorado Springs, Co)
Cleveland Heights (1925) - W.Flynn  (Lakeland, Fl)
Miami Muni (1922) - W.Langford  (Hialeah, Fl)
Pasadena (1925) - W.Stiles, J.VanKleek & W.Hagen  (St. Petersburg, Fl)
Big Run (1930) - H.Smead  (Lockport, Il)
Cog Hill #2 (1926) - D.McIntosh  (Lemont, Il)
Sandy Hollow (1930) - C.Wagstaff  (Rockford, Il)
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson  (Des Moines, Ia)
Franconia Park (1929) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek  (Springfield, Ma)
Cascades (1929) - T.Bendelow  (Jackson, Mi)
Armour Park (1925) - W.Clark  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Swope Park (1915/1934) - J.Dagleish & A.Tillinghast  (Kansas City, Mo)
Green Lakes (1936) - RT.Jones  (Syracuse, NY)
Salisbury Links (1908) - D.Emmet  (Garden City, NY)
Split Rock (1935) - J.VanKleek  (Bronx, NY)
Ridgewood (1924) - S.Alves  (Parma, Oh)
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber  (Canton, Oh)
Cobbs Creek (1916) - H.Wilson   (Philadelphia, Pa)
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler  (Hermitage, Pa)
Triggs Memorial (1933) - D.Ross  (Providence, RI)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke  (Dallas, Tx)
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen  (Milwaukee, Wi)

Third 25
Haggins Oak (1932) - A.Mackenzie   (Sacramento, Ca)
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke   (Oakland, Ca)
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell  (Pasadena, Ca)
Montebello Park (1928) - M.Behr  (Montebello, Ca)
Savannah Muni (1926) - D.Ross  (Savannah, Ga)
Idaho Falls Muni (1934) - W.Tucker & F.James  (Idaho Falls, Id)
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil  (Glencoe, Il)
Palos Park (1919) - T.Bendelow  (Palos Park, Il)
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie  (W.Chicago, Il)
Beechwood (1931) - W.Diddell  (LaPorte, In)
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil  (South Bend, In)
Seneca (1935) - A.McKay  (Louisville, Ky)
Riverside Muni (1931) - W.Stiles  (Portland, Me)
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross  (Detroit, Mi)
Meadowbrook (1926) - J.Foulis  (Minneapolis, Mn)
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis  (St. Louis, Mo)
La Tourette (1929/1934) - D.Rees & J.VanKleek  (Staten Island, NY)
Asheville Muni (1927) - D.Ross  (Asheville, NC)
Community (1912) - W.Hoare  (Dayton, Oh)
Highland Park-New (1928) - S.Alves  (Cleveland, Oh)
North Park (1933) - E.Loeffler & J.McGlynn  (Allison Park, Pa)
Stevens Park (1924) – J.Bredemus  (Dallas, TX)
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast  (San Antonio, Tx)
Jackson Park (1930) - W.Tucker & F.James  (Seattle, Wa)
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris  (Janesville, Wi)

[Kris Shreiner]

Mike,

I'll happily stand by my assertion. Beth Page, particularly the Black, is so much of what Cobbs WILL NOT be. You describe an odious, long slog, with a rather one dimensional presentation in the Black. Cobbs will(already does) provide a much more varied and testing balance of shot requirements, that ALL players will find stimulating and enjoyable. It can stand on its own and needs no supporting cast. You don't have the New York state resident limitations when booking a tee time either. Karakung, mercifully, will cease to exist in its present form, though a sporty nines holes will be crafted over that reconfigured ground, with the remainder open space and a junior golf component.

There will be PLENTY of high school golf played there...that's a lock! College golf will also be a staple. This project, when executed, will showcase what quality AFFORDABLE public golf can look like.

Courses that charge North of $200.00 a round are more "priviledged public" than truly public in the economic sense. Perhaps I should rephrase that to eliminate confusion and say Top 5 "municipal level" publics. The average public golfer generally isn't stepping on those other tracks but once in a lifetime, if that.

A shout out to the Casper management team is also in order. They have been strongly supporting the restoration momentum and the superintendent, Darren W., does a superb job on a tight budget. Once more modern technology becomes part of the maintenance program, a lean, exceptional presentation should be the result.

It is understandable that there will be doubters. That's always present. Wait and see.

Tom,

Thanks for that information. Of the courses I've played on that Top 25 listed, Cobbs, TODAY, has better ground than at least three of them in my view. Not setting or conditioning. GROUND. In the end it's all about what one likes or appreciates. I'd welcome the opportunity to have you, David, and anyone else, come see Cobbs when the project is completed and you can judge for yourselves.

Cheers,
Kris

[TEPaul]

"Not surprisingly, TEPaul misread and is misrepresenting what I wrote.  It isn't worth my time to address it further."



How so did I misread or am misrepresenting what you wrote?

To say it isn't worth your time to address it further is just a cop-out, but it is a consistent cop-out as it's the same cop-out response you've used often.


As far as Cobbs Creek being considered one of the best public courses in the country, my recollection is that debate basically boiled down to what year going forward from the beginning of Cobbs Creek's existence one used as a cutoff date. I believe I also recall some early newspaper articles referring to Cobbs Creek as one of the best public courses in the country. If Mike Cirba was referring to those as his justification for his statement about Cobbs Creek I hardly see how that could be considered dishonest, disingenuous or counterproductive on his part.

Furthermore, after some review of this thread, it seems this particular debate is nothing more than some ongoing personal dispute between MacWood and Moriarty that involved what they referred to as some Philadelphia contingent trying to protect or defend some myth, lore and legend of Merion, Wilson and Cobb's Creek.

Into that ongoing personal dispute it seems to me Cirba and Bausch threw endless press accounts (sometimes repeated) as MacWood threw his own ongoing lists of public golf courses. Neither was probably particularly productive.

[Kris Shreiner]

Let's all agree to return the thread to what is important from a GCA perspective; a wonderful opportunity to restore a quality, public golf course we all can enjoy. Sounds simple enough.

Cheers,
Kris

[TEPaul]

"Those who play the course and those who have a stake in the project deserve honesty, not mindless cheerleading. For example, they ought to know that course had serious problems from the very beginning and unfortunately some of those problems stemmed from the design itself.  For one example, the five best holes all utilized the creek, even though it was prone to flooding, and this design decision has haunted the course throughout its existence.   As for whether this issue can be corrected in an economical fashion while still preserving the original design, I have no idea, but it is something that would concern me were I a regular at the course."




David Moriarty:

It might be both interesting and educational if you would articulate in detail what those design problems at Cobbs Creek were and are, and particularly the ones that were affected by water damage from the creek.

It might also be interesting and educational if you could compare and contrast those water damage and design problems you referred to at Cobbs to water damage and design problems with say Rustic Canyon, a golf course whose architectural history I understand you know a little something about. If you know anything about water damage and design problems with Macdonald/Raynor's Creek Club and Lido perhaps you may want to compare and contrast those to Cobbs Creek as well. And if you know anything about those type of problems with Seminole or Lakeside or even Riviera, go for that too!

[DMoriarty]

Let's all agree to return the thread to what is important from a GCA perspective; a wonderful opportunity to restore a quality, public golf course we all can enjoy. Sounds simple enough.

Cheers,
Kris

Kris,   No doubt it is important from a GCA perspective to restore our old great courses, and I agree and have always agreed that Cobb's Creek is a worthy candidate for a real restoration provided it can be done in an economically efficient and sustainable fashion, and provided the course will still serve the demographic of the municipal golfer.

That said, to those of us interested in the history of golf course architecture believe that an accurate historical record is also important from a GCA perspective.  And here there is no question that Mike Cirba has not only distorted the historical record, he did so to those who probably don't know any better. To what end?   Is the presentation any weaker if Mike Cirba had accurately stated that Cobb's was a well respected and historic public course with a fascinating history?   Does the project depend upon Mike's misrepresentation that the course was known as the best in the country?   Isn't the project better served by honestly and thoughtfully presenting an accurate history without the hyperbolic statements present as if they were fact?  You say it is sounds simple enough to focus on the positive aspects of the project, but the simplest and easiest way to accomplish this is to honestly and accurately present the project to the public and to interested parties liked Mr. Church.  

Frankly I think that the disquiet my post has caused has been misdirected.  Had Mike not "stretched" the the facts and oversold the reputation of the course, we'd not be dealing with this distraction now.   I'm not the one who misrepresented the history to Mr. Church and Joe Logan's readers.

Honestly Kris, do you think it is the best interest of the project for Mike Cirba to be, in your word, making "stretched" claims about Cobb's reputation?  

[TEPaul]

"Kris,   No doubt it is important from a GCA perspective to restore our old great courses, and I agree and have always agreed that Cobb's Creek is a worthy candidate for a real restoration provided it can be done in an economically efficient and sustainable fashion, and provided the course will still serve the demographic of the municipal golfer.

That said, to those of us interested in the history of golf course architecture believe that an accurate historical record is also important from a GCA perspective.  And here there is no question that Mike Cirba has not only distorted the historical record, he did so to those who probably don't know any better. To what end?   Is the presentation any weaker if Mike Cirba had accurately stated that Cobb's was a well respected and historic public course with a fascinating history?   Does the project depend upon Mike's misrepresentation that the course was known as the best in the country?   Isn't the project better served by honestly and thoughtfully presenting an accurate history without the hyperbolic statements present as if they were fact?  You say it is sounds simple enough to focus on the positive aspects of the project, but the simplest and easiest way to accomplish this is to honestly and accurately present the project to the public and to interested parties liked Mr. Church.  

Frankly I think that the disquiet my post has caused has been misdirected.  Had Mike not "stretched" the the facts and oversold the reputation of the course, we'd not be dealing with this distraction now.   I'm not the one who misrepresented the history to Mr. Church and Joe Logan's readers.

Honestly Kris, do you think it is the best interest of the project for Mike Cirba to be, in your word, making "stretched" claims about Cobb's reputation?"





Kris:

As can be seen in recent posts, it was David Moriarty alone who recently raised this issue of hyperbole, dishonesty, disingenuousness and counterproductivity on the part of Mike Cirba with the Cobbs project. I can't see any indication that Hank Church or any of the "regulars" of Cobbs Creek raised it or care about it. It seems to me if this issue should be put to anyone or discussed with anyone it should be put to and discussed with Hank Church and the "regulars" of Cobbs Creek for their opinion on it. If they have no issue with what Cirba said, why should anyone care what some guy on the opposite side of the country thinks about it when he has no stake at all in the restoration or the golf course? His only interest seems to be to criticize Mike Cirba and this website is replete with that evidence over a very extended period of time.  

[DMoriarty]

Five posts trying to blast me in a thread about a lowly public golf course?  Somehow I think TEPaul must have missed me more than I missed him.  
___________________________________________

Kris,  

I've said my piece.   If, as TEPaul suggests, no one in Philadelphia really cares about whether those advocating for Cobb's present an honest, frank, and accurate historical account in their dealings with interested parties and general readers of Mr. Logan's column, well that would be disappointing, but I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised.  

[TEPaul]

"Five posts trying to blast me in a thread about a lowly public golf course?  Somehow I think TEPaul must have missed me more than I missed him. 
___________________________________________

Kris, 

I've said my piece.   If, as TEPaul suggests, no one in Philadelphia really cares about whether those advocating for Cobb's present an honest, frank, and accurate historical account in their dealings with interested parties and general readers of Mr. Logan's column, well that would be disappointing, but I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised." 




Blast you or missed you? Not at all; definitely neither, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise anyone that you try to play the victim as you’ve done on here so often. You’re the one who came on here recently and once again gratuitously criticized Mike Cirba over a really minor and petty point (whether or not Cobbs Creek was ever known as the best public course in the country). No one has ever mentioned that point other than you. If someone else has why don’t you point out who it is?

All I did in five posts is point out Cirba does not deserve to be called disingenuous, dishonest and counterproductive by anyone on what he’s done with and for Cobbs Creek, or for anything he ever said about it, and certainly not by someone like you. I’ve followed these threads for years on Cobbs and I hosted some of the early meeting in the barn/office that set up their Friends of Cobbs Creek Committee that began to get the process going about four years ago. I introduced Cirba, Bausch and Walsh to Joe Logan who arranged to have us meet with Barry Bessler, the Director of the Philadelphia Parks who was responsible for Cobbs Creek. Without that back then nothing could’ve happened and Cirba has been there and with it the whole way.

Mike Cirba virtually wrote the book on the architectural history and evolution of Cobbs Creek and had it not been for what he did early on this restoration project, which frankly is and always has been complicated as hell, probably never would’ve been proposed at all.

Most who’re familiar with this website understand both you and MacWood have some burr up your asses about Philadelphia architecture and Philadelphia architects since the both of you are essentially the only ones who’ve claimed both are riddled with myths, lore and legends. It seems like you two went on a campaign years ago to continuously claim a number of people here have been responsible for that and perpetuating it. Nothing could be further from the truth. All we’ve ever done is maintain you two are wrong about that and particularly how and why! It involves your whole campaign about Wilson, Merion East and Cobbs Creek, and you two have been at it for close to a decade now.

You should stick with your own region on the West Coast if you know anything about it. In my opinion, the West Coast Golden Age architecture and their architects have a remarkably rich and interesting history.

But I did make those posts regarding what you said about Cirba because I believe what he has done for architecture with Cobbs Creek is something you just don’t hold a candle to and probably never could. Therefore, I think it is more than appropriate for me to speak up and continue to speak up if necessary. I think it is necessary when someone like you makes those kinds of gratuitous and personal remarks about him for a petty minor point like the one you used. In my opinion, you are not just worthless, you’re actually a bit worse than worthless when it comes to doing anything helpful and constructive in the world of golf architecture and its history; not to even mention the reputation of GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com.

I hope you mean it when you told Kris Shriener you’ve said your piece. It’s frankly about a half decade past that time when it comes to your participation on anything to do with the subject of golf architecture in and around Philadelphia.

[DMoriarty]

Blast you or missed you? Not at all; definitely neither, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise anyone that you try to play the victim as you’ve done on here so often. You’re the one who came on here recently and once again gratuitously criticized Mike Cirba over a really minor and petty point (whether or not Cobbs Creek was ever known as the best public course in the country). No one has ever mentioned that point other than you. If someone else has why don’t you point out who it is?

All I did in five posts is point out Cirba does not deserve to be called disingenuous, dishonest and counterproductive on what he’s done with and for Cobbs Creek by anyone, and most certainly not by someone like you. I’ve followed these threads for years on Cobbs and I hosted some of the early meeting in the barn/office that set up their Friends of Cobbs Creek Committee that began to get the process going about four years ago. I introduced Cirba, Bausch and Walsh to Joe Logan who arranged to have us meet with Barry Bessler, the Director of the Philadelphia Parks who was responsible for Cobbs Creek. Without that back then nothing could’ve happened and Cirba has been there and with it the whole way.

Mike Cirba virtually wrote the book on the architectural history and evolution of Cobbs Creek and had it not been for what he did early on this restoration probably never would’ve been proposed at all.

Most who’re familiar with this website understand both you and MacWood have some burr up your asses about Philadelphia architecture and Philadelphia architects since the both of you are essentially the only ones who’ve claimed both are riddled with myths, lore and legends. It seems like you two went on a campaign years ago to continuously claim a number of people here have been responsible for that and perpetuate it. Nothing could be further from the truth. All we’ve ever done is maintain you two are wrong about that and particularly how and why! It involves your whole campaign about Wilson, Merion East and Cobbs Creek.

You should stick with your own region on the West Coast if you know anything about it. In my opinion, the West Coast Golden Age architecture and their architects have a remarkably rich and interesting history.

But I did make those posts regarding what you said about Cirba because I believe what he has done for architecture with Cobbs Creek is something you just don’t hold a candle to and probably never could. Therefore, I think it is more than appropriate for me to speak up and continue to if necessary. I think it is necessary when someone like you makes those kinds of remarks about him for a petty minor point like the one you used. In my opinion, you are not just worthless, you’re actually a bit worse than worthless when it comes to doing anything helpful and constructive in the world of golf architecture and its history.

I hope you mean it when you told Kris Shriener you’ve said you piece. It’s frankly about a half decade passed that time when it comes to your participation on anything to do with the subject of golf architecture in and around Philadelphia.

Yawn.