[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood and David Moriarty,

I don't know, I think Tom Paul's suggestion certainly sounds fair and concilliatory.   If nothing else, there would be no charges of withholding or tampering with information, and I can tell you personally that the the Merion Historical Archive is wonderful.

I'm quite certain that Joe Bausch and I would be happy to accompany you, and although I don't have much else of value to offer, I'll throw in a round at Cobb's Creek on me if either or both of you decide to take the invitation seriously.

Mike, I believe you misunderstood TEPaul's posts.   But if you or anyone else can assure me access to the Merion Archives, including the information previously stored at MCC, then I'd be glad to make the trip out to review the information.    But, again, I think you have misunderstood TEPaul's suggestion.   As I read it, it is status quo so far as the documents are concerned. 

I'd like to be proven wrong on this, but I won't hold my breath. 

__________________________

Thank you for posting the article,  unless my eyes are deceiving me, there was a missing comma in your version, but nothing different that really clarifies what was meant.   I still don't understand the quote and don't think your reading makes any sense for reasons stated above.  Plus I don't think it addresses your claim that, by 1910 or before, hundreds of good golfers designed their own courses, and that these golfers were considered experts at designing courses simply because they were good golfers.   You have offered no support for either one of these claims.   Are you standing by them or would you like to reconsider?

We also see that construction work would not begin in the spring here, so the term "laid out" refers to the golf course plan drawn on paper (*note - we have the plans), not on the ground,

I really wish you'd quit doing this, Mike.   Construction is not always synonymous with laying out a course.  It is quite possible to arrange the holes on the ground (with stakes for instance) without actually constructing the course.    Even by your reading, this article distinquishes between planning and laying out the course.  The plans were laid out in the northwest corner of the property. 

 I don't agree with your reading of the second Lesley mention for reasons stated above. 

[Gib_Papazian]

Gentlemen,

Just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, has anyone actually read every word of this thread from the beginning?

As I am in the midst of tending to the affairs of the family firm, can somebody please send me an executive summary?

From what I gather, maybe I ought to start a thread about the origins of Cypress Point and invite speculation on whether Mackenzie of Raynor is the originator of the routing.

Given that in the clubhouse, there is a picture of Mackenzie, Robert Hunter, Marion Hollins and H.J. Whigham during construction, I can only surmise that Macdonald sent his son-in-law to make sure that Dr. Mackenzie and his socialist underling were staying true to Raynor and Marion Hollins' vision.   

[DMoriarty]

Gentlemen,

Just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity, has anyone actually read every word of this thread from the beginning?

As I am in the midst of tending to the affairs of the family firm, can somebody please send me an executive summary?

From what I gather, maybe I ought to start a thread about the origins of Cypress Point and invite speculation on whether Mackenzie of Raynor is the originator of the routing.

Given that in the clubhouse, there is a picture of Mackenzie, Robert Hunter, Marion Hollins and H.J. Whigham during construction, I can only surmise that Macdonald sent his son-in-law to make sure that Dr. Mackenzie and his socialist underling were staying true to Raynor and Marion Hollins' vision.  

Gib,

Start the thread.  

But I remind you that Whigham is not with you and your theory.   He addressed "Mackenzie's Cypress Point" in his Evangelist of Golf (reprinted in Bahto's excellent book by the same name, edited by some schmoe.)  

Whigham noted that CP was indirectly inspired by NGLA, along with every other great course in the country:  "Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.  Here is a finished product that fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure Mackenzie.  But Cypress Point never would have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."

[Mike_Cirba]

But I remind you that Whigham is not with you and your theory.   He addressed "Mackenzie's Cypress Point" in his Evangelist of Golf (reprinted in Bahto's excellent book by the same name, edited by some schmoe.)  

Whigham noted that CP was indirectly inspired by NGLA, along with every other great course in the country:  "Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.  Here is a finished product that fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure Mackenzie.  But Cypress Point never would have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."


Is it me, or does anyone else find Whigham's sycophantic sayings that of a man trying desperately to gain the respect of his father-in-law by kissing his haunches in public?   I don't want to go too far afield on this thread, but talk about revisionist history by Whigham!      I certainly see that he wasn't a guy who applied First Principle.   
 
I find that last statement remarkably erroneous and hyperbolic nonsense on the face of it.   Would Pinehurst exist if not for NGLA?   Garden City?   Oakmont??   Myopia?   Any of Mackenzie's course or Park's courses or any others in America built before CP was due to Macdonald and NGLA??   In the words of Matt Ward, PUUUUHHHHLLLEEEAAAASSSEEEEE!!!!

Let's give credit where it's due but my lord, the guy didn't invent the game.







  

[Gib_Papazian]

Oddly, in The Spirit of St. Andrews, I believe the good doctor gave credit for the 16th to Hollins and Raynor. Now, are you going to tell me that Mackenzie and his conga line of sycophants (Hunter and the rest) did not take a teensy peek at the routing plan prepared by Raynor and Hollins?

I think this just comes down to sexism. You, and those of your revisionist ilk, cannot bring yourselves to admit that a lowly woman might have had something to do with your precious shrine.

Those plans, the Holy Grail of golf history, are either buried in the attic at Cypress Point, filed somewhere at the Monterey County surveyors office or were lost when Hunter's ill-begotten mansion burned down while he was busy railing against capitalism.

Until you get it through your thick skull that Macdonald is THE seminal influence in golf architecture and that all roads can be traced back to NGLA and his genius, you'll remain an ignorant, arrogant, argumentative, personally attacking swine who ought to be kicked off GCA like Barny and the rest of his inflammatory apologists.

And while the truth is that Raynor designed the West Course at Merion and ghost-designed the East, I do not feel the need to wade through three million words of lawyerly drivel on this thread to know everybody is wrong wrong wrong but me.



  

[Gib_Papazian]

Further, if you had any sort of imagination, it is clear that #7 at Cypress was originally designed to be a Reverse-Redan, #16 was a intended to be a Biarritz like at Fishers Island and #17 was a Cape Hole - simply a mirror image of #5 at Mid Ocean.

#2 at Cypress was most certainly designed to be a Channel Hole as at Lido, but Mackenzie obviously lacked the talent and vision to bring it life. Perhaps it was jealousy that made him fail to honor Raynor's genius by making #15 a Macdonald Short or #3 an Eden as it was intended.

Shameful, I say. A shameful waste and an opportunity lost to Scottish contumaciousness.

  

[Mike_Cirba]

Gib,

Priceless. 

You're an equal opportunity offender, and that's what I love about you.   

[Mike_Cirba]

I really wish you'd quit doing this, Mike.   Construction is not always synonymous with laying out a course.  It is quite possible to arrange the holes on the ground (with stakes for instance) without actually constructing the course.    Even by your reading, this article distinquishes between planning and laying out the course.  The plans were laid out in the northwest corner of the property. 

David,

At this time, it was January 1915.   There was no course staked on the ground yet at that time, and the committee had just gotten approval from the city based on a paper routing laid out on a topographical map, which the city required before giving the go ahead.   

The actual "Approval" of the routing plans came from Fairmount Park Chief Engineer Jesse Vogdes, and to further confusion, he signed off the topo plan which we have, which then went through the government chains to final approval.

The reference to northwest is simply that the course was laid out on paper and was located in the northwest corner of Cobb's Creek Park, which is much larger than just the golf course.

[Gib_Papazian]

Mike,

Somebody had to try and stop this train before my two friends went back-to-back with dueling pistols.

It is a good thing that Moriarty and you & Tom are separated by 2700 miles . . . . .

Kind of like me and Wayne Morrison, but I don't care enough about his opinion to argue with him.

I think I just had a Kavanaugh moment.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

You again underestimate the impact of CBM, M&W, and NGLA.  And, without even attempting to understand the context you dismiss his comments as sycophantic butt kissing, pure hyperbole, remarkably erroneous, and nonsense.  This speaks loudly to your inability to look at this stuff with any semblance of objectivity or reasonableness, but it says little about the validity of HJW's statement.   

Here is the passage immediately before the  one I quoted above:
"For National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.  Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point . . . ."

I'd say that is an at least arguably accurate statement, as accurate as such indeterminate statements can be. 

Like it or not Mike, CBM and his golf course revolutionized the they we approached golf design in America.   He may not have invented the game of golf, but he, Whigham, and NGLA went a long ways toward popularizing golf architecture as we now know it.  Beginning with NGLA, we thought of golf and golf architecture differently.  Even some of the courses you named went through dramatic revisions after NGLA. 

I'm not downplaying the importance of other figures but at least as far as changing the way we looked at the entire endeavor, M&W cleared the path.   

Here is an anecdotal example that I stumbled across recently; Perry Maxwell and Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills, Dornick Hills, Old Town, Greens at Crystal Downs, greens and work at Augusta, etc.   As far as I know his style has little or nothing to do with CBM's nor have I ever seen his name anywhere under Macdonald's in the golf design family tree, nor should it necessarily be there.

Yet guess how Perry Maxwell got his start?   He was living in Oklahoma and had never seen a golf course when he and his wife read H.J. Whigham's article in Scribner's Magazine on the creation of NGLA:

Reading an article in Scribner's Magazine, written by Mr. H. W. Whigham on the establishment of the National Golf Course near Southampton, Long Island, in this out-of-the-way place in Oklahoma I said I thought golf was just a game for the effete, and I wondered if it was possible to have a golf course in our part of the world.  That article was very attractively written, and described the National Golf Course from a landscape standpoint as well as a test of golf. My wife was the artist of the family. It was she who found this article, and she said, "I wonder if that thing could be adapted to this section of the country.  We have a beautiful piece of ground out north of our city, and Iwonder if it could be adapted to golf?" I do not think either of us had ever seen a golf course before.

Did CBM design Prairie Dunes?  Of course not.  Did M&W revolutionize the way we view golf course design and inspire Perry Maxwell to take up the game and the pursuit of design?   Sure sounds like it to me. 

[TEPaul]

"In other words, I'll be satisfied and finished when I believe I understand what happened to the best of my ability, and when I have had my opportunity to verify, vet, and try to rebut the claims that have been made against me.   I know more information is out there. I know it has not been provided completely and accurately.  I know that it has not been verified and vetted.  I know that it has been used against me repeatedly, inaccurately, and unfairly, and I know that the explicit purpose of this usage has been to trash me, my essay, and my reputation.   All these things only increase my resolve to get to the truth of the matter.  Whether I convince Merion or anyone else in the process is tangential at best.


There it is folks! In his own words (above), could there be a clearer indication of what this thread has become and other threads on here on Merion/Macdonald/Wilson have become? It's never been about the truth of the architectural history of that early time with Merion East, it's all about David Moriarty. I'm of course always interested in the history of any phase of Merion East's architectural evolution but I am surely not interested in David Moriarty or his expectant, attempted or on-going education on any of it. In that vein, I would only offer up to him what I have said before, so many time----eg if you really want to get to know Merion and any phase of its architectural history do what any competent history student does and would do----start with establishing your own working research relationship with MERION FIRST!

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Regarding your post #2810 and that Perry Maxwell remark about the Scribner magazine article by Whigam, all I can say it very, very interesting. VERY INTERESTING!! That remark by Maxwell I have never seen before!

However, the problem with you is you seem to think, for some God-damn reason, that some of us here always tend to denigrate Macdonald somehow and his contribution to American golf architecture. I don't want to speak for others but I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth at least when it comes to me. I grew up on Long Island surrounded by Macdonald architecture. I've told you this before but you tend to ignore it because it seems your entire mission on this website is not to learn anything from anyone and certainly not from those you are suspicious of, which seems to be most everyone on here, but to be accusatory and denigrating of them at every turn.

I can pretty much guarantee you by the time I was ten years old I was more familiar with Macdonald architecture (NGLA, Piping Rock, Links and The Creek) than you will or could ever be in your entire life----unless of course you would have let me show it to you and what it was and is all about. I made that kind of offer a number of times and you turned it down every time. It will never be offered to you again because of that, that's for sure. Hopefully something on here might serve as some lesson to you but with someone as self-possessed as you are, not from my own impresstion of you but from the very words you write on here, I guess I can no longer imagine what that might be.

But always in my world and probably in life generally there is the tunnel, and the light at the end of it, as well!

[DMoriarty]

There it is folks! In his own words (above), could there be a clearer indication of what this thread has become and other threads on here on Merion/Macdonald/Wilson have become? It's never been about the truth of the architectural history of that early time with Merion East, it's all about David Moriarty. I'm of course always interested in the history of any phase of Merion East's architectural evolution but I am surely not interested in David Moriarty or his expectant, attempted or on-going education on any of it. In that vein, I would only offer up to him what I have said before, so many time----eg if you really want to get to know Merion and any phase of its architectural history do what any competent history student does and would do----start with establishing your own working research relationship with MERION FIRST!

Bryan Izatt, Mike Cirba, and Jim Sullivan,

Can we now put behind us this fantasy that TEPaul came back with anything other than the status quo?    There is no olive branch, no offer concerning the source material, no conciliatory attitude, no real attempt at resolving anything, no interest in actually getting to the truth.   Rather, TEPaul apparently wants us to believe what he has told us and wrap this thing up.   You guys do what you please, but I don't know what happened yet, and have not been able to verify or vet any of the information he has selectively presented.  

I explain that my purpose here is to get to the truth, and to figure out what really happened, and to bring all the information forward, and the response is that this is clear evidence that "it's never been about the truth of the architectural history of that early time with Merion East . . . ."    Interesting logic, but I disagree.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

Regarding your post #2810 and that Perry Maxwell remark about the Scribner magazine article by Whigam, all I can say it very, very interesting. VERY INTERESTING!! That remark by Maxwell I have never seen before!

However, the problem with you is you seem to think, for some God-damn reason, that some of us here always tend to denigrate Macdonald somehow and his contribution to American golf architecture. I don't want to speak for others but I can tell you nothing could be further from the truth at least when it comes to me. I grew up on Long Island surrounded by Macdonald architecture. I've told you this before but you tend to ignore it because it seems your entire mission on this website is not to learn anything from anyone and certainly not from those you are suspicious of, which seems to be most everyone on here, but to be accusatory and denigrating of them at every turn.

I can pretty much guarantee you by the time I was ten years old I was more familiar with Macdonald architecture (NGLA, Piping Rock, Links and The Creek) than you will or could ever be in your entire life----unless of course you would have let me show it to you and what it was and is all about. I made that kind of offer a number of times and you turned it down every time. It will never be offered to you again because of that, that's for sure. Hopefully something on here might serve as some lesson to you but with someone as self-possessed as you are, not from my own impresstion of you but from the very words you write on here, I guess I can no longer imagine what that might be.

But always in my world and probably in life generally there is the tunnel, and the light at the end of it, as well!

I sure haven't missed this stuff . . .   Come on Ran, let's turn this thing off before it gets started again.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, not sure what you think that 1915 article has to do with how the term was used in 1910.  Everyone involved in 1915 had previously been involved in developing their own courses hadn't they?  Nor do I understand why you claim for certain that they had not in any way laid out the course upon the land, even if by stakes at that point.  You have offered no verifiable support.   It would probably be a waste of your time to do so, because even if true my point regarding the language remains. 

In January 1910, in the context of designing, laying out, and building golf courses, "expert" meant a professional and/or one with experience.  I also take issue with your contention that around this time it was common for members to plan their own courses, without the help of a professional.  

Notwithstanding the 1904 article and your  attempt to compare then Amateur Champion H. Chandler Egan to Hugh Wilson, do you have any relevant and timely examples to the contrary?  

If not, could we get some sort of consensus that it is very unlikely that the experts at work preparing plans referred meant Hugh Wilson and his committee of good but not great club level golfers?  If not, why not?  And on what factual basis?

Would it help if  posted example after example of how the term "expert" was use in the context of creating golf courses, or would you consider that to be hostile and overkill?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Would the Beatles have come if there had been no Elvis, or better yet, no Little Richard?

While The Beatles helped the Rolling Stones and even wrote a song for them, would there be no Stones and would Mick have been a tax accountant had The Beatles never Come Together?

Would the British Invasion of Ross, Park, Alison, Mackenzie, Findlay, and others have brought golf here with or without Macdonald and would other Americans like Crump, Leeds, and Wilson have gone abroad to study the classics with or without Macdonald?

Can any of us really answer these questions with any degree of certainty?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Do you think it is simple coincidence that of roughly 300 or so golf members at Merion, the five men appointed to the Committee were 5 of the top 6 golfers in the club?

I mean, let's even for a moment say they didn't design the course.

Why the hell would you pick 5 of your 6 best golfers to simply construct it?  Especially when they self-admittedly had the construction and agronomic experience of the average club member?!?

Do you think it's more likely they appointed these goys simply because they thought by virtue of their playing abilities they knew something about the game and the shots required to play it, or because they had some special insight into selecting grasses and proportions of manure and lime to spread?

You also continue to talk about "laying out a course by putting stakes in the ground to someone else's plan.  Well my heavens, David, why in the world would anyone ever give them credit much less acclaim for doing that?!?  Isn't that something one could teach an eight year old how to do?  Why even mention such a thing in the press as the Philadelphia papers credited to Wilson amd Committee?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike C,

What song did the Beatles write for the Rolling Stones?  Other than Let It Be and Let It Bleed?

David M,

If you have Chris Clouser's book on Maxwell, you will see that the original Dornick Hills had a lot of NGLA/CBM in it.  Later, I think the depression got him to change his style to something easier to maintain.  However, Chris still thinks he used a lot of highly altered template holes. I have never viewed it quite that way, but go back and look at the original DH plans.  CBM was clearly a major influence for PM>

As to the rest of this, I am not a TePaul lackey by any means.  I convinced myself that the MCC timeline was basically correct kind of on the "First principle" idea presented above.  In all of this, what document specifically and contemporaneously addresses the routing process?  Its the April 19 committee report which says the committee made many routings, went to NGLA, made 5 more and then had CBM back April 6.  It is the ONLY direct reference to the process from the people involved.

For me, its really that simple.  That doc trumps parsing words, train schedules, etc. because it is first principle, or true source document.  The rest is opinion, some of it quite hopeful.

I don't really care what anyone thinks is "logical."  I got to thinking about how much of other peoples logic I agree with on a daily basis, from the President and Congress, to the ex and kids, to the coach who refuses to go for it on 4th and 1.  I would be lucky if decisions were made 50% of the time the way I would make them, and in reality, since I am not King of the World, its really like 5% of the time that I completely agree with the way people do things.  With 6 billion humans on this planet, all with different perspectives, basically, very little goes the way I think it should, "logically."

So, forget our logic, and go with the most direct source documents.  It is much more likely to be the truth than anything else.

The second most direct reference to the design is the 39 years later Francis land swap article in the 1950 US Open Program.  In it, he says he came up with the idea to get the land for 15 and 16 green and ran it by Lloyd and construction started on the hill where 16 green is.  As to the MCC timeline, since the final parcel delineation around golf house road was made on April 19 with the resolution to adopt it, that puts a back date on the Francis land swap.  The only question in my mind is whether the land swap came about before the NGLA meeting as part of many plans, or after the NGLA meeting as part of the five plans.

[David Stamm]

Mike C,

What song did the Beatles write for the Rolling Stones?  Other than Let It Be and Let It Bleed?

 

I wanna be your man.

[David Stamm]

Also, they wrote "How do you do it" for Gerry & The Pacemakers.


The Beatles are a huge reason for the success of the Rolling Stones and it had nothing to do with them coming to America. They were asked (namely Harrison) by a record label (Parlophone?, but I can't remember) if they knew of any up and coming acts they should check out. Because of Harrison's recommendation, they were approached about signing a deal.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

Would the Beatles have come if there had been no Elvis, or better yet, no Little Richard?

While The Beatles helped the Rolling Stones and even wrote a song for them, would there be no Stones and would Mick have been a tax accountant had The Beatles never Come Together?

Would the British Invasion of Ross, Park, Alison, Mackenzie, Findlay, and others have brought golf here with or without Macdonald and would other Americans like Crump, Leeds, and Wilson have gone abroad to study the classics with or without Macdonald?

Can any of us really answer these questions with any degree of certainty?

Mike
You have listed a rather diverse group from many different periods and circumstances. What is your point?

[David Stamm]

"Before Elvis, there was nothing."- John Lennon


Not saying or implying anything, just adding some diversion to this never ending thread. I figured I'd channel Dan King with a appropriate quote.

[DMoriarty]

Would the Beatles have come if there had been no Elvis, or better yet, no Little Richard? . . .   

Mike, I am not all that concerned with whether you agree with H. J. Whigham.  What I object to is your insulting tone and outright dismissal of his opinion, as if you were in any position to second guess him.   For you to call him a sycophantic ass kisser engaging in hyperbolic nonsense is insulting, counterproductive, uncalled for, and extremely disrespectful.   Imagine your reaction if just once I treated Wilson with even a fraction of disrespect you show HJW on a nearly daily basis.

What makes it all the worse is you write stuff like this even though you apparently know nothing of it.  Do you know anything about the development of Cypress Point?   I am no expert, but I have read a bit about it.  Do you think that Gib was kidding when he mentioned Raynor's involvement?   He wasn't.   Raynor was to have been the architect before he passed away in January 1925.  This seems a pretty direct connection to CBM and a strong endorsement of his approach and influence; CBM's protege as their first choice as architect.  Yet you roll your eyes and claim that HJW is engaging in hyperbole, nonsense, and revisionist history.   

What do you know about the driving force behind the project, Marion Hollins?  Ever hear of Women's National?   And Mike, Gib wasn't kidding about the photographs of H.J. Whigham with the Hollins, Mackenzie, and Hunter.   He was there during construction, before grow in.  There are a number of photos is Geoff Shackelford's excellent book on Cypress. 

Who do you think was in a  better position to be able to assess CBM's influence and impact on the creation of a course like Cypress Point?   You, or H.J. Whigham, who was there and knew the parties involved?

Did Whigham ever write anything about which you don't think we was lying?

As for your music analogy, it is inapt.   Music truly is "a big tent."  But not so much with early American golf course architecture.   Plus, now that we know just how integral CBM was to what went on at Merion we need not speculate much to realize just how far his influence reached.  One can trace his lineage through Wilson and into others of the "Philadelphia school" including George Thomas and William Flynn. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

The Beatles also wrote some Peter and Gordan songs, IIRC.  Later, they wrote for some other Apple starlets.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, this next post of yours contains logic that I just don't follow, but that dominates these threads.   The leaps are hugh and unjustifiable.   They appointed good club golfers to the committee.  That doesn't make them "experts" nor would MCC or anyone else refer to them as "experts" at planning golf courses.  MCC knew what an expert was, which is why they brought in M&W and why they may have been working with Barker. 

David,

Do you think it is simple coincidence that of roughly 300 or so golf members at Merion, the five men appointed to the Committee were 5 of the top 6 golfers in the club?
No. I don't think it was coincidence that they wanted experienced golfers on the committee charged with laying out and constructing a golf course.  While they were by no means experts, they were obviously better choices than non-golfers or one's who did not give a hoot about the game.

I mean, let's even for a moment say they didn't design the course.

Why the hell would you pick 5 of your 6 best golfers to simply construct it?  Especially when they self-admittedly had the construction and agronomic experience of the average club member?!?
There you go again, mischaracterizing my understanding of their role.  If you cannot address my real argument, then there is something wrong with your position.   See my answer above.

Do you think it's more likely they appointed these goys simply because they thought by virtue of their playing abilities they knew something about the game and the shots required to play it, or because they had some special insight into selecting grasses and proportions of manure and lime to spread?  See first answer, above.

You also continue to talk about "aying out a course by putting stakes in the ground to someone else's plan.  Well my heavens, David, why in the world would anyone ever give them credit much less acclaim for doing that?!?  Isn't that something one could teach an eight year old how to do?  Why even mention such a thing in the press as the Philadelphia papers credited to Wilson amd Committee? 
Do you really believe that Hugh Wilson's and his Committee's ONLY possible noteworthy contribution to the creation of the course was planning it?  If so then you, TEPaul, and Wayne have vilified the wrong guy.   I think they contributed plenty and don't understand why you insist on demeaning their non-design contributions.  Be careful Mike, you've left yourself only one leg to stand on.  What will you say if that one fails.

____________________________

Let me repeat what posted above, because you must have missed it.

In January 1910, in the context of designing, laying out, and building golf courses, "expert" meant a professional and/or one with experience.  I also take issue with your contention that around this time it was common for members to plan their own courses, without the help of a professional. 

Notwithstanding the 1904 article and your  attempt to compare then Amateur Champion H. Chandler Egan to Hugh Wilson, do you have any relevant and timely examples to the contrary? 

If not, could we get some sort of consensus that it is very unlikely that the experts at work preparing plans referred meant Hugh Wilson and his committee of good but not great club level golfers?  If not, why not?  And on what factual basis?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()