Another Merion thread

[Thomas MacWood]

"If anyone is obsessed with Barker its you and TE. I don't get it. What do you have against the poor guy? How many pages did you go on with Wilson & Cobbs Creek? I don't recall anyone complaining about an obsession. Oh well."


Tom MacWood:

I have nothing at all AGAINST Barker, but of course neither I nor apparently anyone else on here can stop you from spewing out the total garbage you do about what others think of someone. That line of yours has gotten about as tired as the accusations you've made about C&W and reliance on that book. How many times have you said that on here---a hundred?

Frankly, Barker has fascinated me and for a few years, particularly after Wayne and I got involved at the Columbia restoration with architect Bob Walton about 2-3 years ago. We made a couple of trips down there for a few days. If Columbia is representative it just seems hard to get a real bead on Barker because so much of what he did way back then has changed. That aspect seemed a bit frustrating to Walton, but at least Bob went about his research in a very level-headed and paced way that was devoid of the kind of totally overblown hyperbole and exaggeration you seem to be laying on this recent Barker campaign of yours! With Columbia the history and evolution of the course was so overlaid by the constant oversight and work by Walter Harban who seemed in many ways to be the D.C. counterpart to Philadelphia's Hugh Wilson, and certainly with agronomic research in combination with Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture, at that time.

Again, Mike Cirba's post #112 is really a good one and you should try to deal with every point he made and question he asked, instead of deflecting his points and questions by constantly criticizing us. If you really do care about Barker, I think you owe it to him at least.

You may think the way you just throw names and dates and courses around on here indiscriminately might impress someone but it doesn't impress us. You've got a ton of blanks to fill in with those names, dates and courses, if you want to impress anyone with whatever interest you have in Barker. Your wild exaggerations that seem to be your style on here won't fly with most of the people on here who are pretty architecturally and historically savy.

I could see why Bob would be frustrated....since neither one of you had clue about Barker.

[Thomas MacWood]

" Its clear Greene was close to Barker."

Tom MacWood:

Honestly, if you want a discussion on Barker to get any traction you do need to stop exaggerating like that. That Barker's interview with Greene touched on the issue of the lack of respect back then shown journeymen professionals from abroad is an interesting one but it was not exclusive to Barker, that's for sure. It was an extremely general and commonplace attitude among many and it sure doesn't indicate that Barker and Greene had to have had a close relationship because that issue was mentioned in an interview.

From an earlier post on this same thread it appears you are just now becoming aware of the extent of that issue. Frankly, it was endemic to most all private clubs back then---eg they didn't even allow professionals like Barker in their clubhouses. Not pretty, that's for damn sure, but historically that fact is as solid as concrete.

Just stop exaggerating, and not just exaggerating, doing it as egregiously as you always tend to when you latch onto some subject or some person that has come to interest you. That's the only way Barker is going to get treated accurately in any of these discussions.

TE
We know now it was a common attitude at that time however it wasn't something you would see in print at that time (can you share articles you've found from that period?) and it was not something you would share with a casual acquaintance. Greene said he could write volumes about his bad experiences....clearly he had shared a lot more than just a general displeasure. He was planning on leaving the country at the height of his design career, that is an extraordinary move. Greene said Barker was a sensitive person who kept his thoughts to himself, again he confided in Greene. Do you think he would open up to just any newspaper man? You add to this the personal background information Greene had on Barker, which was not common knowledge, and it is clear their relationship was more than just interviewer and subject.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
If Greene was close to Barker or not is really immaterial. I don't believe you would disagree Greene was clearly connected to the comings and goings in Philadelphia - he was an insider. The mystery still remains what three golf courses he is referring to, or least what is the third course in Philadelphia Barker was involved with. Greene said he was involved in laying out and redesigning three courses - Springhaven was a redesign and Merion was a design, so the third course could be either.

What are the possible candidates from this realtively short time frame (1908-1914)?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

This post is entirely OT to this Barker thread but I think it's entirely appropriate at this point because you are on this thread prominently (you started it---even, as you said, at my behest).

What I'd like to say to you is what I said to you (probably privately) some years ago perhaps because of your A/C essay and the threads on here about it.

It seems to me underlying all you do and say on this website, the subjects you pick and the way you come at them just as to have a lot to do with some underlying sensibilities that you happen to possess for whatever reasons.

I believe I said to you back then during those A/C discussions that it sure looks to me like you have some very strong sensibilities for some of the fundamental beliefs of a William Morris (who essentially had nothing to do with golf course architecture) and that you have very strong sensibilities for so much of what he felt and said and did in his diverse career---eg social democaracy vs social injustice, the promotion of value in craftsmanship vs the dehumanization of labour via the industrial revolution, the remelding of craftsmanship and architecture and art, the value of regional expression and material etc.

It looks to me in these discussions of Barker like you have some very strong sensibilities on this issue of the disrespect shown to Barker and men of his ilk back then.

It looks to me like these strong underlying sensibilities of yours on those kinds of things just might be what sparks and inspires and generates your interest and passion on these subjects.

The last time I mentioned that to you, particularly Morris and the A/C movement, you totally deflected it. What I'm saying to you now, and again, is you shouldn't do that. I think you should expose and even discuss those strong sensibilities of yours on here, and even that it or they are why you pick various subjects and get interesting in them.

I think we should all do that and on here too. These kinds of things about ourselves are not the things to hide or deny or dismiss. They are the things, these sensibilities, whatever they are motivate us and get us interested in the things we do get interested in and also how and why we come at them in various ways.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say to you. The things that you may feel deeply about some of the issues with a William Morris or a H.H. Barker are important things, fundamental things and I think you should expose them and even discuss them. And if I'm right about the way you feel on those things (of course I certainly may not be), you may also find someone like you and someone like me may not be very far apart on a number of things, even it you may now think we are. Not that that matters because we surely don't need to agree on things, none of us do, to feel we can say them and defend them.

[TEPaul]

"TE
We know now it was a common attitude at that time however it wasn't something you would see in print at that time (can you share articles you've found from that period?) and it was not something you would share with a casual acquaintance."

Tom MacWood:

Oh, I see, we know now that was a common attitude at the time, do WE? How is it that "we" now know that? Do you think it's because you posted an article with an interview about it between Verdant Greene and H.H. Barker?? 

Perhaps you might begin by explaining to all of us on here who you think "WE" is?   

[TEPaul]

"Greene said he could write volumes about his bad experiences....clearly he had shared a lot more than just a general displeasure. He was planning on leaving the country at the height of his design career, that is an extraordinary move. Greene said Barker was a sensitive person who kept his thoughts to himself, again he confided in Greene. Do you think he would open up to just any newspaper man? You add to this the personal background information Greene had on Barker, which was not common knowledge, and it is clear their relationship was more than just interviewer and subject."


Tom MacWood:

While I don't know specifically who Verdant Greene actually was (does anyone on here really know despite thinking they know?) I do not think it was unusual for a newspaper man even back then to be writing about something like Barker's concerns about lack of respect in certain circles in this country. And I surely don't think it unusual for a newspaperman in this particular city to be writing about something like that back then.

Even if you may not think so, Tom MacWood, clearly, very clearly, you have a long, long way to go before you even remotely understand some of these subjects you seem to think you are uncovering, for the first time, some information on.

For starters, and as some background, you may want to do some serious in-depth research on Quakerism, and some of the things it was about! 

Maybe you've never realized it before but this city had a very strong underlying ethos of Quakerism. They didn't call it the Quaker City for nothing, you know , but maybe you didn't realize that either. And I guess if one thought about it for a half second, why would you? 

Maybe you should also try reading some of the seminal books of sociologist Digby Baltzell too.   

Repeat after me, Tom MacWood---can you say "egalitarianism"? 

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

This post is entirely OT to this Barker thread but I think it's entirely appropriate at this point because you are on this thread prominently (you started it---even, as you said, at my behest).

What I'd like to say to you is what I said to you (probably privately) some years ago perhaps because of your A/C essay and the threads on here about it.

It seems to me underlying all you do and say on this website, the subjects you pick and the way you come at them just as to have a lot to do with some underlying sensibilities that you happen to possess for whatever reasons.

I believe I said to you back then during those A/C discussions that it sure looks to me like you have some very strong sensibilities for some of the fundamental beliefs of a William Morris (who essentially had nothing to do with golf course architecture) and that you have very strong sensibilities for so much of what he felt and said and did in his diverse career---eg social democaracy vs social injustice, the promotion of value in craftsmanship vs the dehumanization of labour via the industrial revolution, the remelding of craftsmanship and architecture and art, the value of regional expression and material etc.

It looks to me in these discussions of Barker like you have some very strong sensibilities on this issue of the disrespect shown to Barker and men of his ilk back then.

It looks to me like these strong underlying sensibilities of yours on those kinds of things just might be what sparks and inspires and generates your interest and passion on these subjects.

The last time I mentioned that to you, particularly Morris and the A/C movement, you totally deflected it. What I'm saying to you now, and again, is you shouldn't do that. I think you should expose and even discuss those strong sensibilities of yours on here, and even that it or they are why you pick various subjects and get interesting in them.

I think we should all do that and on here too. These kinds of things about ourselves are not the things to hide or deny or dismiss. They are the things, these sensibilities, whatever they are motivate us and get us interested in the things we do get interested in and also how and why we come at them in various ways.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say to you. The things that you may feel deeply about some of the issues with a William Morris or a H.H. Barker are important things, fundamental things and I think you should expose them and even discuss them. And if I'm right about the way you feel on those things (of course I certainly may not be), you may also find someone like you and someone like me may not be very far apart on a number of things, even it you may now think we are. Not that that matters because we surely don't need to agree on things, none of us do, to feel we can say them and defend them.

TE
I would be glad to expose myself....that didn't sound right. My only sensiblity (thats an odd choice of words) is to discover what really happened back in the good old days.  Which is why I spend an inordinate amount of time digging for information, not only the facts about events, when, where and who, but also why. Where did these men come from, what were their backgrounds, what was their life like outside of golf, what was happening in society. To discover why you often have to look at sources outside golf, like Country Life magazine or histories one might think unrelated to the subject, for example books on Robert Moses, Stanford White or William Morris. I'm not satisfied with the few histories that have been written about the subject of golf arcitecture todate. I want to know more.

I must say this rambling post of yours has to be one of the strangest posts you've ever written.....and that is saying something.

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
We know now it was a common attitude at that time however it wasn't something you would see in print at that time (can you share articles you've found from that period?) and it was not something you would share with a casual acquaintance."

Tom MacWood:

Oh, I see, we know now that was a common attitude at the time, do WE? How is it that "we" now know that? Do you think it's because you posted an article with an interview about it between Verdant Greene and H.H. Barker?? 

Perhaps you might begin by explaining to all of us on here who you think "WE" is?   

'We' would be those of us have read up on the subject. One of the best sources would be Herb Graffis's book on the history of the PGA. Have you read it? The PGA was founded in 1916 as a response to the treatment of pros, among other things.

Can you supply us with any contemporaneous articles in which a professional complains about his treatment?

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
This thread has gone on for four pages now, you've thrown out a lot of questions and a few unsupported theories, but its not clear where you stand on the issue of H.H. Barker. What exactly is the point (or points) you are trying to make about the man.

Could you please clearly and succinctly outline your point or points about him as an architect....perhaps in bullet-point form?

[Peter Pallotta]

A general question, and maybe one that shouldn't be on this thread. Why is it that architects like Barker and some of the others mentioned in this thread aren't better known? I understand that life isn't fair and that quality work isn't always recognized and that self-promotion is a skill that many don't possess - but still, I'd like to think that an architect (or a writer or a musician) who was consistently good at his/her job and who did that work for long enough would've been recognized for that good work, then and now.

Is there something -- a personality trait, something in their work, the vagaries of fate -- that these relative unknowns all have in common and that makes them relative unknowns, i.e. is the reason why history and golf course architecture has passed them by?

I'm thinking it might be because there was no "magnum opus" in their body of works, e.g. no Prairie Dunes or Pinehurst or Cypress or NGLA or PV etc. But if that's so, it begs the question as to why there wasn't such a pinnacle to their career, i.e. at least one towering example of a golf course that was undisputedly theirs.

Peter 

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
I would say it would be timing more than anything. IMO a case could be made Mayfield was Barker's magnum opus...at the time he went back to England it was considered among a handfull of the best courses in America. Vardon had it in his top 2. Anyone who has played it I think would agree it is a special course.

IMO his obscurity today is due to the fact he was only operating as a golf architect for a very short period, five or six years. He flew the coop in 1915 and was never heard from again, on either side of the Atlantic. Golf architecture in America blew up after WWI - it is understandible why his accomplishments were largely forgotten.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A general question, and maybe one that shouldn't be on this thread. Why is it that architects like Barker and some of the others mentioned in this thread aren't better known? I understand that life isn't fair and that quality work isn't always recognized and that self-promotion is a skill that many don't possess - but still, I'd like to think that an architect (or a writer or a musician) who was consistently good at his/her job and who did that work for long enough would've been recognized for that good work, then and now.

Is there something -- a personality trait, something in their work, the vagaries of fate -- that these relative unknowns all have in common and that makes them relative unknowns, i.e. is the reason why history and golf course architecture has passed them by?

I'm thinking it might be because there was no "magnum opus" in their body of works, e.g. no Prairie Dunes or Pinehurst or Cypress or NGLA or PV etc. But if that's so, it begs the question as to why there wasn't such a pinnacle to their career, i.e. at least one towering example of a golf course that was undisputedly theirs.

Peter 

Peter,

For all the talk about how things were different then than now, many things were the same.  And some guys had to be better marketeers than others.  Tom Mac mentions that Barker was shy and sensitive, which are not great characteristics for tooting ones own horn.

[Phil_the_Author]

Peter,

You asked, "A general question, and maybe one that shouldn't be on this thread. Why is it that architects like Barker and some of the others mentioned in this thread aren't better known?"

You're pretty well-read and obviously one of the few in our society as a whole who is both very interested in golf course architecture and architects.

Of the hundreds of golf course architects practicing in America today, how many can you name?

Even if the numbers are greater, today is no different than back then. If we can't name the "Barker's" of today why should we be surprised that Barker and the others like him have been forgotten by history? The fact is that they weren't, just like countless good architects today they have been ignored by the present...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Jeff, Philip - thanks.

Those are all plausible answers; maybe they even form together the right and complete answer. And yet, it seems to me that something else was at work. There were courses built before WW1 that surivived and flourished afterwards, at least one by a relatively shy and retiring type. (Yes?) Those that did flourish then and new course that flourish now seem to engender a CONSISTENCY and CONSTANCY of positive opinion and praise, and the reputations of their (usually) sole/primary designers float up and are  sustained by that as well. On the other hand, and for reasons I don't understand or know about, the opinion of someone like Vardon (on Mayfield, and thus on Barker) didn't carry much weight, or didn't carry that weight for enough years to take hold.

Anyway, just thinking out loud at this point...

Peter

[TEPaul]

"I must say this rambling post of yours (#128) has to be one of the strangest posts you've ever written.....and that is saying something."

Tom MacWood:

Maybe it's quite different but is it really strange?

If you think so, why is that? Do you think you really understand what I'm saying to you in that post?

[TEPaul]

"IMO his obscurity today is due to the fact he was only operating as a golf architect for a very short period, five or six years. He flew the coop in 1915 and was never heard from again, on either side of the Atlantic. Golf architecture in America blew up after WWI - it is understandible why his accomplishments were largely forgotten."


Uh, huh!?

Even on the face of it that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's look at someone else who had about the same lack of longevity.

What about George Crump? He only practiced architecture for about 5-6 years and in early 1918 he definitely flew the coop and on both sides of the Atlantic and in more ways than that and in more ways than Barker.   

Why is Crump so well known in architecture and Barker isn't?

Was it about differences in those two men or was it about the differences in what they produced in architecture? Or perhaps something of both?

We can listen to somebody like Tom MacWood say that Mayfield was considered to be one of the few best courses in America back then but is that really true other than from perhaps a few (how many times did some of those critics like a Vardon or Jones say some course was one of the best they ever saw anyway?).

I think we all know just about everybody who knew anything about golf or architecture said that Pine Valley was probably the best in America or the world and even before it was finished, and they're still saying that today. Did even 1/1000 of that many people say the same thing about Barker's Mayfield (which was actually designed by Bert Way too)? Does anyone say that about Mayfield today? Why is that? Would anyone deny that generally speaking Mayfield was not looked at in golf the same way the likes of Myopia or GCGC or NGLA or Pine Valley or Merion or Oakmont were at that time?

On both counts, I don't think so. Why is that then? Of course another reason could be that despite his protestations to the contrary, Tom MacWood isn't even close to having his facts correct.

But even if he is right where was that recorded other than in one or two articles or so? Everyone who ever wrote anything about golf said wonderful things about those others.

Why was that? Was it because there was something we've never known about Barker and his type or was it really about the architecture?

Tom MacWood:

Yes, I know about the beginnings of the PGA and I have read Graffis' book (It might have been Hanse's or someone else I know around here).

What I've known about Barker basically is a result of knowing Arcola and Columbia, but those are two courses that have been so changed by others. Did Barker have talent? It's hard to say, but I would say if Barker had the opportunity to do golf architecture in the same way and given the same amount of time on a project devoted to it by the likes of Leeds, and Fownse, Emmet, Macdonald, Crump and Wilson, then Barker too likely would have done something as good or as great and the world of golf and architecture would have recognized him for it  both back then AND today.

 

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom, Jeff, Philip - thanks.

Those are all plausible answers; maybe they even form together the right and complete answer. And yet, it seems to me that something else was at work. There were courses built before WW1 that surivived and flourished afterwards, at least one by a relatively shy and retiring type. (Yes?) Those that did flourish then and new course that flourish now seem to engender a CONSISTENCY and CONSTANCY of positive opinion and praise, and the reputations of their (usually) sole/primary designers float up and are  sustained by that as well. On the other hand, and for reasons I don't understand or know about, the opinion of someone like Vardon (on Mayfield, and thus on Barker) didn't carry much weight, or didn't carry that weight for enough years to take hold.

Anyway, just thinking out loud at this point...

Peter

Peter
Mayfield hosted the 1915 & 1923 Western Am and the 1919 Western Open. It was considered for the US Am, but for whatever reason was never selected, and then it fell off in reputation.

Its not that unusual that a golf course that was well-respected in the 1900s or 1910s or even the 1920s to lose stature. In Robert Hunter's 1926 book he listed what he called America's courses of the first class:

Myopia, NGLA, Lido, PVGC, San Francisco, Oakmont, Westechester, Essex County, Inverness, CC of Detroit, Mayfield, Flossmoor, Ojai, LACC, Midwick, GCGC, Merion, Engineers and Brookline.

With few exceptions these courses' reputations have gone up and down as tastes have changed and technology advanced. Three of the courses you listed as your magnus opus examples (Pinehurst, NGLA and Prarie Dunes) have had their ups and downs over the years as well.

There were two primary reasons why Mayfield did not sustain itself as a championship course 1) It is fairly short by modern standards 2) It is very quirky, with a number of blind shots

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Your use of the word sensibilities was strange - not only the frequency used (7 times) but the way you used it. It appears you were looking for an alternative to 'agenda' and sensibilities came across as a strange choice. The other strange thing was the fact that it took ten paragraphs to ask a question that could have been asked in two or three sentences.

"I don't like the fact that you are trying to re-write or re-enterpret history. What is your agenda?"

On further thought the protracted post is really not that strange.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, Jeff, Philip - thanks.

Those are all plausible answers; maybe they even form together the right and complete answer. And yet, it seems to me that something else was at work. There were courses built before WW1 that surivived and flourished afterwards, at least one by a relatively shy and retiring type. (Yes?) Those that did flourish then and new course that flourish now seem to engender a CONSISTENCY and CONSTANCY of positive opinion and praise, and the reputations of their (usually) sole/primary designers float up and are  sustained by that as well. On the other hand, and for reasons I don't understand or know about, the opinion of someone like Vardon (on Mayfield, and thus on Barker) didn't carry much weight, or didn't carry that weight for enough years to take hold.

Anyway, just thinking out loud at this point...

Peter

Who are these practicing architects that had so well established their reputation before 1915 and are still famous today?   

Surely you don't mean Hugh Wilson?   Seaview was not well received by many, and while Merion West may have been Wilson's solo attempt at a Championship course, it soon became known as a much lesser course than the East.   

CBM. Colt may have qualified.  Others were just getting started.   Ross was around but his reputation was built over decades.   Bendelow has been all but lost to history.   As has been Watson. 

Barker is not remembered for the reasons others list above, plus more that are pretty complicated and probably impossible to explain to readers who have already formed their opinions, no matter what those pesky facts.   


___________________________________________

TEPaul.   How many words do you think you have posted on this thread?    What have you contributed of substance?

Did you really just write that George Crump was a practicing architect for 5 or 6 years? 

[TEPaul]

"TE
Your use of the word sensibilities was strange - not only the frequency used (7 times) but the way you used it. It appears you were looking for an alternative to 'agenda' and sensibilities came across as a strange choice."


Tom MacWood:

Not at all. I definitely don't mean "sensibilities" the way I used it to be an alternative for "agenda"---not even close. They are in no way synonymous to me. What I mean by "sensibilities" is more like what you really believe in with this stuff or what I really believe in fundamentally with this stuff---eg sort of where we're coming from in a fundamental base-line way. Obviously a lot of that kind of thing is who any of us really are---our life's experiences and such. I think it would be a good thing to find out if there are similarities in some ways or if not what the differences are and why.

But you're never too swift on the uptake Tom MacWood----it seems like all you ever think to do is criticize us and the way we look at clubs, architects, architecture etc. It seems like all you are trying to do is make yourself look like this good researcher or whatever at the expense of others. It's wearing pretty thin, and to me and others on here it's clearly looking like some kind of dumb intellectual snobbism or intellectual elitism on your part---all you ever do is ask people if they've read this or that. What is that supposed to do, make you look smarter if they haven't read something you have? I'm pretty sure I've read plenty to do with the history of golf architecture you never have but you don't see me hammering you over the head with that every day, do you?  Maybe you just ain't got anything left to talk about on here other than that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M - thanks.

David -

my post referred to the COURSES that were built around WW1 and that flourished long after that (and thus helped sustain the reputations of their designers).  It seems to me that courses/designers like Myopia (Leeds), NGLA, Lido (Macdonald), PVGC (Crump), Oakmont (Fownes), Engineers (Strong) and several others qualify on both counts, especially if we don't put a very specific "by 1915" deadline in place.  I was responding to Tom M's notion that gca "blew up" in America after that war by suggesting that the shift didn't seem to sweep ALL of the "history" away. I'm sure the reasons WHY that was are, as you say, "pretty complicated".

Peter

[TEPaul]

"And calling Emmet and Macdonald amatuer architects is misleading."


Tom MacWood:

How is that misleading? What does the term "amateur" (as used back then--eg "amateur/sportsman" architect) mean to you? What do you think it meant back then?

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
Hopefully this thread is not giving the wrong impression. I'm not trying to make the case that HH Barker was one of the greatest golf architects of all-time, because that is not my intention. There are couple of points I'm trying make 1) At the time Merion was looking for help Barker was the hotest golf architect in America (along with Macdonald) 2) Barker should be better known today because he was damn good, producing several very good golf courses.

TE
Its difficult to compare Crump to anyone. Crump was only involved in one golf course, and PV may be the most famous golf course in history. That being said Crump got some major help from Colt, arguably the top architect in the world, and died before his lone course was finished.

I'm not sure calling Crump a golf architect is totally accurate. Don't you have to complete a golf course during your lifetime to be considered a golf architect?

Apples and oranges.

[Thomas MacWood]

"And calling Emmet and Macdonald amatuer architects is misleading."


Tom MacWood:

How is that misleading? What does the term "amateur" (as used back then--eg "amateur/sportsman" architect) mean to you? What do you think it meant back then?

TE
I explained why in that post.

This thread has gone on for five pages now, you've thrown out a lot of questions and a few unsupported theories, but its not clear where you stand on the issue of H.H. Barker. What exactly is the point (or points) you are trying to make about the man.

Could you please clearly and succinctly outline your point or points about him as an architect....perhaps in bullet-point form?

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
Your use of the word sensibilities was strange - not only the frequency used (7 times) but the way you used it. It appears you were looking for an alternative to 'agenda' and sensibilities came across as a strange choice."


Tom MacWood:

Not at all. I definitely don't mean "sensibilities" the way I used it to be an alternative for "agenda"---not even close. They are in no way synonymous to me. What I mean by "sensibilities" is more like what you really believe in with this stuff or what I really believe in fundamentally with this stuff---eg sort of where we're coming from in a fundamental base-line way. Obviously a lot of that kind of thing is who any of us really are---our life's experiences and such. I think it would be a good thing to find out if there are similarities in some ways or if not what the differences are and why.

But you're never too swift on the uptake Tom MacWood----it seems like all you ever think to do is criticize us and the way we look at clubs, architects, architecture etc. It seems like all you are trying to do is make yourself look like this good researcher or whatever at the expense of others. It's wearing pretty thin, and to me and others on here it's clearly looking like some kind of dumb intellectual snobbism or intellectual elitism on your part---all you ever do is ask people if they've read this or that. What is that supposed to do, make you look smarter if they haven't read something you have? I'm pretty sure I've read plenty to do with the history of golf architecture you never have but you don't see me hammering you over the head with that every day, do you?  Maybe you just ain't got anything left to talk about on here other than that.

TE
Its not my fault that you are an idiot.