[TEPaul]

Dan Malley, David Moriarty and others:

Putting players on an eighteen hole course and getting them around in anything resembling a decent time is simply a matter of mathematics and timing.

That's essentially what we do with GAP, the PA Golf Association. It's no different on any course or with any association. If you put them out in groups of four when you get below 8 or 9 minutes in spacing (tee times) things tend to get backed up and slow down anyway.

I suppose on Cobbs Creek in the old days it may've been done to put groups out of more than four (perhaps five or six or seven) trying to use the same basic spacing (tee times) but that would inevitably result in the same compaction and slowing down of rounds.

There actually is a way probably over 500 golfers could be gotten around an eighteen hole course in a single day but it would require a variation of the rarely used format in America of foursome golf (two golfers playing a single ball).

I doubt there are many golfers on this site who have ever played the basic foursome format in tournament golf and it is unusual. We use it in the Lesley Cup where there are four teams competing in every group (Pennsylvania, New York, Massachussets and Quebec). There are eight players in every group and with caddies that can be twelve or more people on every hole. It looks like an army on every hole to most golfers. If the players and caddies really know how the foursome format works most efficiently it can actually go quite fast if the player who is not teeing off is out in the fairway and the player who hits the ball moves forward immediately (with his caddy) before his partner hits the ball.

Playing golf around the summer soltice probably something around 550-600 golfers could conceivably be gotten around a golf course in a single day using a variation of that unusual format.*

It is impossible to get 993 golfers around a golf course in a single day unless they tried to play for 24 hours and in the dark which is practically impossible or unless you forced them to essentially all run and try to play a round as fast as humanly possible. (at one time some years ago the president of my club who was a runner and a real athlete essentially set the world record at that time at GMGC by playing and entire round in something like 27 or 28 minutes. It took some real planning logistically and otherwise.

That number (933) at Cobbs alone in a single day is either in error or they were talking about two courses or more (perhaps Cobbs and the other city courses in the city system---Cobbs, Karakung, Juniata etc).

But Joe Dey is probably correct with 60,000 in a year. It is possible to do that or more on an eighteen hole course in a year.


*The foursome format at Cobbs would be sort of ironic or at least poetic justice as it was the Lesley Cup who argued for a few years (massively reported in the newspapers) about the types of formats to use in that now 106 year old team Cup. They finally agreed on using both singles, better ball and foursomes and due to the Lesley Cup that became the formats used in the Walker and Ryder Cups. Of course Robert Lesley began the Lesley Cup in 1905 and he was also the long time president of the Golf Association of Philadelphia who appointed the committee that created Cobbs Creek!

[TEPaul]

"All I have been looking for from the beginning is an accurate, unexaggerated presentation of the history, and for some straight answers to some pretty simple questions."



David Moriarty:

Do you feel the very same way about the history of other golf courses in Philadelphia or is that just something you are limiting to the history of Cobbs Creek?

[Dale Jackson]

Tom, et al

I will offer nothing about the number of golfers playing a course in one day but in some fairly recent research I came across several draws for pre-WWII tournaments.  Now these were held playing singles and at match play but the starting interval was 5 minutes between groups.  That is simply unthinkable in this age, in many cases the preceding group would still be walking to the landing area!

My point is that the pace of play in those earlier days was much different than today and any calculations need to take that into account.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Another article from Joe Dey (1931, Evening Bulletin; this one courtesy of the Temple Urban Archives):



Sure these numbers could be for both courses, but all that really matters IMO is an insanely high number of rounds were played there.

Joe,

I was very fond of Joe Dey and my dad had a nice relationship with him, but, I find the article to be an exaggeration.

Annual play of 127,314 rounds would call for daily play of 349 rounds per day, every day for 365 days of the year, rain, shine, cold, sleet, snow, heat and humidity. And that includes holidays and maintainance days.  Even between two courses the number seems far fetched.
However, if we remove the 19 days where no play occured, the number per day soars to 368.

As to play on Jan 4, 1931 and Jan 11, 1931,
on the 4th the low temperature was 38 and the high temperature was 51.
On the 11th the low was 31 and the high 45.
 
I don't know if it was raining or snowing or if it had snowed and it was still on the ground.
And, I don't know what the wind velocity and wind chill factors were.
But, with a low of 31 and a high of 45, that seems like an inordinate number of golfers braving rather cool weather.

The June number would require 656 golfers EVERY DAY.
Using 40 per hour, for 15 hours, which is excessive and generous, produces 600 golfers.
No way you could squeeze 656 into even the longest day.
If the hours were from 8:00 to 9:00, that produces only 520 golfers, a far cry from 656.

If it was two (2) courses, that would make more sense, but, Joe Dey was a pretty exacting fellow, not prone to simple errors, and he's fairly clear on referencing "THE" course and "Cobb's Creek"

I suspect that Mr Alfred E Hand was far more proficient at agronomy than he was at math

However, what's clear is that the course enjoyed great popularity and play.

P.S.  David, TE, Mike, et., al.,

       Be nice to one another 

[TEPaul]

Dale:

I believe a few of the US Amateurs my father played in after WW2 had match play draws of 128. I have no idea though how many they tried to handle with on-site qualifying for match play.

Pat:

I think the most logical answer to those numbers is not to doubt Joe Dey. Perhaps in those early years they or some just referred to the multi-course city owned complex as Cobbs Creek.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Joe,  That is the article to which I was referring.  It lists days with rounds for 933, 924, 910, and 864 golfers, so it seems it is obviously talking about more than one course.  Likewise with the number of 127K+ rounds per year.  Given Philadelphia weather it would seem to be a doubtful number for a single course.  Taking out the 19 "blank" days, that would mean an average of 367 golfers per day, and this doesn't take into consideration days where some golfed but the play was light due to short days, bad weather, or other circumstances.  For example, 1930 was the busiest January yet, but an average of only 88 golfers per day played, and that figure may have been for both courses!  (I see Patrick did similar analysis].

Sure these numbers could be for both courses, but all that really matters IMO is an insanely high number of rounds were played there.

I agree with you that it was a very busy course.  That said, I think your sentiment expressed here might get to the heart of our methodological and epistemological differences.   While the "insanely high number of rounds"* certainly matters so does historical accuracy. If the course was very busy (I have no doubt it was) and you guys want to emphasize this, there must be a way to do so using accurate and unexaggerated information.  After all, you guys make these claims as if they are fact: "In fact . . . [rounds] grew to to an incredible 120,000 rounds by 1929.  Even as late as 1940, Cobb's had more rounds than any other public course in the country."(p.5)

Speaking of the 1940 numbers, I have asked you a number of times for the support of for your claim that Cobb's was the busiest course in the country for 1940 but you haven't answered.  As I said when I first brought this up, I figured it would be a course with better year 'round weather, and that I had seen similar claims for the similar time period for Southern California courses.  Since you don't seem inclined to provide me the support, today I did a quick search and came up with the following A.P. articles, versions of which appeared in various papers across the country in February 1941.  The articles happen to address the year, 1940.

 

That amount (an average of 124,000 for each of the two 18 hole courses) sounds about right for Griffith Park during this earlier time period, when, as Dale Jackson points out, play was a bit faster.  The year round weather here is usually a bit more accommodating than in Philadelphia.

The first A.P. article  mentioned Griffith Park is the "busiest club" in the in America.  The second mentioned "busiest course."  To know whether they are using the number for both courses or the number per course we'd have to see the press release from the National Superintendents Assn.  But I've seen other references to one or both of these courses as being the busiest during this general time period as well, and whether one of the Griffith courses was busiest or not, I suspect it was somewhere with a large population and similar weather.

Any chance you will come up with the support for your claim that it was Cobb's?  Thanks.

* I really don't want to argue about it, but is 127,000 rounds for two courses really an "insanely" high number of rounds?  Likewise regarding an average of 60,000 rounds per year.  If that Griffith Park number is accurate, then Cobb's numbers would seem pretty  pretty manageable for courses out here, but then I come back to my initial assumption that Southern California has many more golfing days.   Maybe D. Malley can give us an idea of what is considered a very busy year for a public course in that region.  

What a dubious distinction for the perspective of a public golfer.  We want our courses to be good, but hope they aren't that busy.  The current "busiest" course champion (yuck) is supposedly Ali Wai Municipal in near Waikiki Beach, at least according to the Guinness Book of World's Records, as reported in a Frommer's review.

[TEPaul]

As far as Philadelphia being a limited season area for golf, that is not a constant. For instance this last year one could have played golf for probably 360 days. There was virtually no winter here this last year as far as snow was concerned.

It is probably a better idea to look for some logical answers to some of these reported facts instead of just jumping to the conclusion that some people were and are comprehensively lying around here about various facts, as some on this website have tended to do over the years of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dale:

I believe a few of the US Amateurs my father played in after WW2 had match play draws of 128. I have no idea though how many they tried to handle with on-site qualifying for match play.

TE,

That's correct, they had fields of 128 for the USAM..

I don't believe they had "on-site" qualifying for match play.
That's why you saw so many "byes"

Pat:

I think the most logical answer to those numbers is not to doubt Joe Dey.

I'm not doubting Joe Dey, I'm doubting his source, Alfred E Hand, who may be closely related to Alfred E Neuman.

Perhaps in those early years they or some just referred to the multi-course city owned complex as Cobbs Creek.

Research should be able to determine that.
But, it's doubtful that one man would be the superintendent for all courses, and yes, I'm familiar with Mel Lucas, an anomaly.

[Joe Bausch]

* I really don't want to argue about it, but is 127,000 rounds for two courses really an "insanely" high number of rounds?  Likewise regarding an average of 60,000 rounds per year.  If that Griffith Park number is accurate, then Cobb's numbers would seem pretty  pretty manageable for courses out here, but then I come back to my initial assumption that Southern California has many more golfing days.   Maybe D. Malley can give us an idea of what is considered a very busy year for a public course in that region.  

Would it make you happier David if I said "a very large number of rounds"? 

Do you ever wonder why many people on this site grow so tired of dealing with you? 

[DMoriarty]

As far as Philadelphia being a limited season area for golf, that is not a constant. For instance this last year one could have played golf for probably 360 days. There was virtually no winter here this last year as far as snow was concerned.

It is probably a better idea to look for some logical answers to some of these reported facts instead of just jumping to the conclusion that some people were and are comprehensively lying around here about various facts, as some on this website have tended to do over the years of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

Yet another false accusation about my motives and intentions.
- I am NOT accusing anyone of "comprehensively lying."  
- I AM looking for logical answers.  
- I never said anyone was lying about these numbers, only that they don't seem to be accurate.  
- I am asking to see the support for the claim the busiest course in the nation claim before I come to any sort of conclusion, but the information hasn't been forthcoming.    I hard to focus on Joe's facts when I cannot find them.

Once again, TEPaul is trying to turn this into something it is NOT.  

[Joe Bausch]

... I am very much a supporter of a sympathetic restoration of a Cobbs, and I am thrilled that Gil and Jim are involved.  I can think of no one better for the job. They are very familiar with that era of Philly courses, know what it means to restore a course, and also know something about creating quality public courses.  And again, congratulations on all your hard work.  

I am now going to look for a star in the east.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Concerning what you just said in your #1436, do you have some kind of guilty conscience or something? It's generally a good idea if one does not deny something they were not accused of!  

Frankly, when I wrote that I was thinking of a number of other things on this website involving Philadelphia over time that some on here have accused others of lying on, such as Pat and MacWood essentially accusing Tillinghast of lying about his Pine Valley/Crump train discovery story.

[DMoriarty]

Would it make you happier David if I said "a very large number of rounds"?  

Do you ever wonder why many people on this site grow so tired of dealing with you?  

I am happy either way.  Like I said, I don't want to argue about it and I suspect it was quite busy.   I am just curious as to how many rounds a  busy public-access course does in that region on an annual basis.   Would you rather I start a new thread on it?

As for the second question, no I am not surprised at all that people grow so tired of dealing with me.  I realize that most people do not have the inclination for the careful study and presentation of the history of golf course architecture, and that it all seems pretty picayune to them. But at the same time I'd expect that you would be curious about how many rounds a busy public course could handle during that time period, especially given your bold pronouncement about such things.

Any chance you'll point me toward that support for the claim that Cobb's was the busiest course in the country for 1940?   Thanks.

[Bill_McBride]

... I am very much a supporter of a sympathetic restoration of a Cobbs, and I am thrilled that Gil and Jim are involved.  I can think of no one better for the job. They are very familiar with that era of Philly courses, know what it means to restore a course, and also know something about creating quality public courses.  And again, congratulations on all your hard work.  

I am now going to look for a star in the east.

.....and start believing in the Tooth Fairy?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty:

Concerning what you just said in your #1436, do you have some kind of guilty conscience or something? It's generally a good idea if one does not deny something they were not accused of!  

Frankly, when I wrote that I was thinking of a number of other things on this website involving Philadelphia over time that some on here have accused others of lying on, such as Pat and MacWood essentially accusing Tillinghast of lying about his Pine Valley/Crump train discovery story.

TE,

Those are your words, not mine.

What I said was that it was physically impossible to see the land that comprises Pine Valley from a train doing 60+mph, heading east early in the morning when the land was forested in its raw state.

Like Joe Dey, AWT's source was probably flawed.

That doesn't mean he was lying.

If Mark's aerial photos prove that the 18th at Seminole was moved in 1958 to 1964 does that mean you were lying when you stated that the green was moved in 1948 ?

Lying implies intent to deceive, not that you're relying on the information provided by other sources, or that you're uninformed, naive or gullible.

[DMoriarty]

I am now going to look for a star in the east.

Joe Bausch,  

A few times on this and other threads you have questioned my sincerity when it comes to supporting a sympathetic restoration of Cobb's Creek.  You are wrong about this.  

When I lived in the area I played there more than anywhere and surely more than at least one of those involved in the project, and have fond memories of the place.  I have expressed my support both offline to Mike and online for the project in the past.  I play at a Hanse-Wagner course pretty much every week, and while Wagner is a bit of a clown* I have great respect for both of their work and their knowledge of the courses of relevant time period.  While we didn't publicize it, a few us spent a bit of time time trying to get a course out here restored a number of years ago, so I can relate somewhat to what you guys are trying to accomplish. I am a supporter of quality public golf and of quality restorations of quality courses, and therefore I support the project whether or not I totally agree with how it has been sold.

If you still don't buy it, see this thread http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36237.msg738368.html#msg738368
As I recall a certain designer seemed to be trying to glom onto the possible restoration work at Cobb's, and I very much opposed that based on having seen what the architect had billed as restoration work.  If I am out to get your project, why do you suppose I would write, "There are only so many courses like Cobb's out there, and ruining one is ruining one too many.  It would be criminal for Cobb's to be handled like Buena was. . . . My only direct knowledge is with Buena, and it was was very expensive and is not like anything Billy P. Bell ever did, as far as I know.   I shudder to think of what xxxx might do to Cobb's. Does he have any examples of sympathetic and inexpensive restorations out there?"  Was it all part of some conspiracy to get you guys off your guard so I could move in for the kill four years later?

What you don't seem to get is that, from my perspective, it is not mutually exclusive to have great respect for a project and/or place, on the one hand, and a strong desire for its history to be told accurately and without exaggeration, on the other.  These two things are complimentary.  I concern myself with presenting an accurate history in large part because I have tremendous respect for the places and their histories.

So rather than continuing to take passive-aggressive shots at my intentions and sincerity, why not focus on getting the history correct? Surely presenting an accurate and unexaggerated history is in the best interests of all.

Same goes for Bill and anyone else who sees fit to take similar petty pot shots or make this about personalities rather than histories. People who are incapable of setting aside these personal differences have no business even trying to take part in such conversations. Historical research and analysis is not about whether I like you or you like me, or about whose grandfather belonged to which club, it is about getting the story straight and presenting it in a accurate and unexaggerated fashion. Reason and facts see through all that other nonsense.  It is as simple as determining whether Cobb's did 933 rounds on a single day, or whether it did not.



*Jim would need no explanation, but before the rest of you freak out, that was a little joke about Jim Wagner.  So far as he knows or any of you know, I do not think that Jim Wagner is a clown.   Or if I do think that, I am not saying it here.  Except as a joke. Seriously.

[TEPaul]

"If Mark's aerial photos prove that the 18th at Seminole was moved in 1958 to 1964 does that mean you were lying when you stated that the green was moved in 1948 ?

Lying implies intent to deceive, not that you're relying on the information provided by other sources, uninformed, naive or gullible."



Pat:

I've never believed those kinds of hypotheticals, even those types of hypothetical questions, serve much purpose on here. All I mentioned about when the 18th green was moved and by whom was what the recent history book mentioned about it.

I thought I recalled you actually said Tillinghast was lying about the Pine Valley/Crump train story but perhaps I'm wrong about what you said. In one report Tillinghast did mention he was with him when he looked at the site from the train before thinking of it for a golf course. Maybe you missed that but if not if you're saying it was impossible for Crump to see Pine Valley from a train then what does that mean about what Tillinghast said about it if he was with him?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

Recall can be faulty, whether it be Crump's, AWT's, Pete Dyes, yours or mine.

JC Jones pointed this out to you with respect to TPC at Ponte Vedre and the land in its prior state, versus Pete Dye's description of the land in his book.

You know how limited the view from the RR tracks is, looking south at PV.
You know that today, with the land cleared for golf, that your view south is extremely limited, blocked by landforms (note plural) and vegetation.
Yet, we were told that the property completely unfolded itself, visually yielding all of its attributes, which would require nothing short of X-Ray vision.  You want to perpetuate that myth.  I have no interest other than that which is revealed by the physical facts.  I can only attest to my views looking south, with and without glasses and visual aids.  And, unless Clark Kent was a passenger that day, it didn't happen.

You may also recall that you stated that Crump shot himself while at PV and that members and staff cleaned up the site of the suicide and moved the body, in a criminal act, 13 miles to his home in Merchantville.

Were you lying ?

Or were you just repeating a story you had heard, like Dey and AWT ?

There is a difference.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I certainly don't want to perpetuate any myths about Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia or any other golf course that I have been for years accused of doing by a few on here.

On how well one can see the land of Pine Valley from a train, let's just say I have certainly read your opinions about that and I do not agree with all you say, and I never have.

So what? You have your opinions and I have my own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I certainly don't want to perpetuate any myths about Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia or any other golf course that I have been for years accused of doing by a few on here.

On how well one can see the land of Pine Valley from a train, let's just say I have certainly read your opinions about that and I do not agree with all you say, and I never have.

So what? You have your opinions and I have my own.

That's true.

That's why I want to visit PV with you and visually/physically re-examine the land and the views from the RR tracks.
We discussed this about a year or so ago and I think it would be most informative.
I've walked the length of the tracks, from east of the 14th green to west of the 2nd tee, and I stand by my assessment.
All we need now is an independent, well respected, unbiased, bona fide witness to record our findings.
How about Mike Cirba ?  

[Bill_McBride]

I am now going to look for a star in the east.

Joe Bausch,  

A few times on this and other threads you have questioned my sincerity when it comes to supporting a sympathetic restoration of Cobb's Creek.  You are wrong about this.  

When I lived in the area I played there more than anywhere and surely more than at least one of those involved in the project, and have fond memories of the place.  I have expressed my support both offline to Mike and online for the project in the past.  I play at a Hanse-Wagner course pretty much every week, and while Wagner is a bit of a clown* I have great respect for both of their work and their knowledge of the courses of relevant time period.  While we didn't publicize it, a few us spent a bit of time time trying to get a course out here restored a number of years ago, so I can relate somewhat to what you guys are trying to accomplish. I am a supporter of quality public golf and of quality restorations of quality courses, and therefore I support the project whether or not I totally agree with how it has been sold.

If you still don't buy it, see this thread http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36237.msg738368.html#msg738368
As I recall a certain designer seemed to be trying to glom onto the possible restoration work at Cobb's, and I very much opposed that based on having seen what the architect had billed as restoration work.  If I am out to get your project, why do you suppose I would write, "There are only so many courses like Cobb's out there, and ruining one is ruining one too many.  It would be criminal for Cobb's to be handled like Buena was. . . . My only direct knowledge is with Buena, and it was was very expensive and is not like anything Billy P. Bell ever did, as far as I know.   I shudder to think of what xxxx might do to Cobb's. Does he have any examples of sympathetic and inexpensive restorations out there?"  Was it all part of some conspiracy to get you guys off your guard so I could move in for the kill four years later?

What you don't seem to get is that, from my perspective, it is not mutually exclusive to have great respect for a project and/or place, on the one hand, and a strong desire for its history to be told accurately and without exaggeration, on the other.  These two things are complimentary.  I concern myself with presenting an accurate history in large part because I have tremendous respect for the places and their histories.

So rather than continuing to take passive-aggressive shots at my intentions and sincerity, why not focus on getting the history correct? Surely presenting an accurate and unexaggerated history is in the best interests of all.

Same goes for Bill and anyone else who sees fit to take similar petty pot shots or make this about personalities rather than histories. People who are incapable of setting aside these personal differences have no business even trying to take part in such conversations. Historical research and analysis is not about whether I like you or you like me, or about whose grandfather belonged to which club, it is about getting the story straight and presenting it in a accurate and unexaggerated fashion. Reason and facts see through all that other nonsense.  It is as simple as determining whether Cobb's did 933 rounds on a single day, or whether it did not.



*Jim would need no explanation, but before the rest of you freak out, that was a little joke about Jim Wagner.  So far as he knows or any of you know, I do not think that Jim Wagner is a clown.   Or if I do think that, I am not saying it here.  Except as a joke. Seriously.

David, you expressed your opinion of the exaggerated number of daily and annual rounds at Cobb's Creek many, many posts ago.  Your continued hammering away at this marks you as obsessive.  My brief comments have been intended to suggest it might be more productive to state your opinion and let it go, rather than arguing a single point over and over and over again, ad nauseum.   Perhaps you just prefer to be annoying, it's your call.

[Mike Sweeney]

So rather than continuing to take passive-aggressive shots at my intentions and sincerity, why not focus on getting the history correct? Surely presenting an accurate and unexaggerated history is in the best interests of all.

It is as simple as determining whether Cobb's did 933 rounds on a single day, or whether it did not.

David,

I think Mike Cirba is crazy for thinking that Cobbs Creek (the course, not the complex ) could support 933 rounds in a single day.

I think he should be thrown off the GCA board but of course he is not on the GCA board, so asking to have him thrown off the GCA board is pointless. But he should still be thrown off.

Ran and Ben,

Throw Cirba off again. Wait, you guys are two of 6 guys in North America opening a golf course this year. Okay, maybe throw him off again when The US Open is at Merion.

David,

Cirba has also accused you of:

"Over the past week, David Moriarty has seemingly monitored this thread round-the-clock, and has posted a total of 42 times on this thread and several more times on Joe Bausch's "Philadelphia Golfer" thread".

Let me be the first to say that is OBVIOUSLY a wild exaggeration of the the truth. This Cirba guy must be selling ads on Facebook or something because there is NOOOOOOOO way that you would post 42 times over the past week about this 933 rounds lie that Cirba is selling us lowly, uneducated, unable to form an opinion on our own group that is called Golf Club Atlas.

I mean seriously who is buying that as of this afternoon, you posted 42 times about this course that you played a few times when you lived in Philly.

That 42 times is a WILD exaggeration. There is no way any sane valuable contributor to Golf Club Atlas would post the same thing 42 times. No way, no way. Thanks for your support of the United States of America and our Constitution. This has been a great week in the history of the United States of America. Thanks!

[DMoriarty]

David, you expressed your opinion of the exaggerated number of daily and annual rounds at Cobb's Creek many, many posts ago.  Your continued hammering away at this marks you as obsessive.  My brief comments have been intended to suggest it might be more productive to state your opinion and let it go, rather than arguing a single point over and over and over again, ad nauseum.   Perhaps you just prefer to be annoying, it's your call.

My opinion?  The number of rounds at Cobb's is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact and was presented as much in the work, which says, "in fact" Cobb's was the busiest course in the nation in 1940, among other things.    Maybe I just "prefer to be annoying" as you say, but I think these conversations would be a lot shorter and a lot more productive if these guys would have pointed me toward their supporting material the first time I had asked.  Surely they must have some support for items they state as fact.  

It would also be for productive and much shorter if people like you would quit trying make this amount me and your perceptions of my methodology.  After all you have already expressed your "opinion" and I've suggested you might want to ignore my posts and spend your time more productively, so you saying expressing your opinion "over and over again" probably isn't going to accomplish much.   But, it is your call.

Mike Sweeney,

Actually by now it is probably much over 42 times, but it covers much more than just that single issue.    As I said to Mike I'd gladly compare my posts - in substance or number - to the many more posts from others who don't seem to have anything better to do but to post about me and my evil intentions, your post included.  Unfortunately it takes a lot of posts to respectfully reply to so many angry, sarcastic, mocking shots at me, even when I consider it a waste of all of our time to be be discussing me instead of gca.    

And when we do get a chance to discuss substance, things are slow going with this crowd.  Look at how many posts it took to get someone to agree that a report of 933 rounds in a day is probably not correct!   I've asked over and over again for someone to point me toward the support for the claim that Cobb's was the busiest course in the country in 1940, but apparently I'll just have to keep asking.

How many times do I have to have played Cobb's before I am allowed to comment?   I'll put my ratio plays to posts against TEP's any day.  

[Mike Sweeney]

How many times do I have to have played Cobb's before I am allowed to comment?   I'll put my ratio plays to posts against TEP's any day. 

David,

My general opinion is you don't have to play a course to comment.

Thanks once again.  It appears that tomorrow will also be ANOTHER great day for the United States Constitution. Keep up the good work.

[DMoriarty]

You are welcome, Mike.  And God Bless America.
_________________________________________



Now, is it really so outrageous for me to ask to be directed to the source material supporting the claim that Cobb's was the busiest course in the country in 1940? Anyone mind providing that information?  Anyone?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()