David,
I see that you are back to not letting an inconvenient truth get in the way of a vitriolic obfuscation...
YOU stated, "Phil, Is their some reason you are railing against me because you think Tom MacWood maliciously slighted your man Tillie? Do you have so little control of your hard-on for Tillie that you must lash out at any random person when you feel Tillie has been wronged? If not, then why lash out at me?"
In what school were you taught that when truth and facts are not on your side that the best response is a vulgar and stupid retort? I am NOT "railing against YOU because I think Tom MacWood maliciously slighted [my] man Tillie." First of all, I never said he slighted Tilly (proper way to spell it not that you care to learn anything). Tom DID give an incorrect date for the course opening, something that he seems to think important as he assigned dates to everyone on his. I pointed it out for the simple reason of historical accuracy and nothing else.
As for "lashing out" at you. I feel that what I wrote was FAR MILDER than the puerile nonsense that you keep heaping on Mike without ANY SUPPORTING FACTS. You keep "Lashing Out" at Mike and accusing him of writing opinions without presenting any facts and when it is pointed out to you that he has, you respond by calling his usage of these contemporaneous accounts as "ASININE" yet you offer not a SINGLE FACT or CONTEMPORANEOUS ACCOUNT or ARTICLE yourself to contradict his opinion or support your own. Coming from one who has treated Mike as poorly as you have in these threads is the height of hypocrisy. After all, aren't you the one who wrote Mike, " Is it really too much to ask that you back up your "factual" claims with actual facts?"
You went on, "I have no idea whether Brackenridge Park opened 18 holes in 1916 or 1917, but I do know that both dates are long before 1936. If it is that important to you, why don't you start a thread and produce some evidence that the 18 hole course opened when you say it did? Because right now all you are doing is screaming that Tom MacWood is wrong and you are right, without offering a factual basis. Who do you think you are, Mike Cirba?"
Sorry David, but I am NOT screaming, and here again you show a complete lack of discernment. I purposefully chose not o cite the proof of date. I wanted Tom to ask for it. My response to him then would have been just as it is to you now. That he provided a list of courses and dates and presented them as FACTS without providing any documentation for it. I'm sorry, but neither Tom nor yourself can demand that Mike offer facts as proof and then present UNSUPPORTED FACTS of their own as proof against. I then would have shown the following/ It is from the November 23, 1916 issue of the San Antonio Light newspaper and the article is inviting the public to come and play the newly finished Brackenridge Park golf course.
David, there is a point where some have EARNED the right to present facts without having to provide the necessary "corroboration." You seem quite willing to allow yourself and Tom this privilege and not do the same for others.
You ranted on, "As for which courses at Bethpage hosted the Publinks, I didn't say anything and I don't really care. But since you mentioned it, you and Mike misrepresented what MacWood wrote. He wrote that the Black hasn't hosted a Publinks. It hasn't. Whether Black was chosen in 1936 or not, it didn't host. But it is no surprise that you try to have your cake and eat it too, counting three Tillie courses where one will do..."
Once again, it is YOU who is deliberately misrepresenting not only what I wrote, but what TOM MACWOOD wrote as well.
In post #92 Tom wrote, " Yes and no. I think all the courses that were chosen were good, but not necessarily the best of the best, for example Bethpage-Black, Bethpage-Red, Memorial Park, Harding Park or Starmount Forest never hosted the event."
Tom clearly wrote all the courses chosen were good and differentiates them from those that he claimed "never hosted the event." He included both Bethpage Black and Red.
In my response in post #97 I stated, "You are wrong in this. Although the Black course didn't host the Publinks [in complete agreement with Tom's statement] it was CHOSEN to be the host course. Because of construction delays one of the other courses took its place. That would be the RED course. The BLUE course was ALWAYS part of the TWO courses needed to host the event... Bethpage RED hosted the event [an INCORRECT statement which I pointed out] along with the BLUE course."
Please point out how I MISREPRESENTED what Tom wrote? He stated the Black never hosted the event. I stated the Black never hosted the event and then added that it was chosen to do so. The reason for doing that was because it lays the foundation for thy the RED course was chosen to replace it. Tom CLEARLY stated that the Red course didn't host the event. I CLEARLY disagreed with it and pointed out that it did. Now I have EARNED the right of respect to NOT have to post any number of newspaper articles recounting that event as proof that my statement is a factual one. If that is not good enough I will be glad to post one, but ONLY if you ask so politely.
You then stated a TRULY ASININE statement (as you felt so free to use that throughout the rest of your comments in this post I feel it certainly can't hurt your feelings any), "As for the Red, I guess you can call a course that isn't even used for the final rounds a "host" if you want to. By that logic I guess we should think of Merion West as a Major Championship course."
By your twisted logic then, I guess the only rounds of golf played during the AT&T pro-am are those played at Pebble Beach since the other courses aren't used for the final round. By the way, I would love to hear your explanation as to WHY two courses were needed for the Public Links Championship at Bethpage in 1936. I am quite certain that you can't answer it.
You ranted on, "As for the rest, you have missed the point. I am not trying to dispute the merits of Mike's claim or argue for alternatives. Unlike you, I have no horse in this race. Mike's claim is asinine on its face and needs no refutation except to point out the depth and breadth of quality public courses before 1936. Tom's list works just fine for this purpose.
- Mike's claim was also asinine because he presented it as "fact". Only homers like you and Mike would claim to be able to definitively tell us which public course was best before 1936. (By the way, big surprise you think a Tillie course was the best.)
- It was also asinine because, even taking it as opinion, he had no real basis for his opinion (other than his desire to fluff Cobbs.)
- It was also asinine because those few articles he eventually came up with do not come close to supporting his outlandish claim.
- But the main reason it was an asinine claim is that it is yet another example of Mike trying to build up something Philadelphia by tearing everything else down. He'll fluff Cobbs even if it means he has to throw every other public course in the nation under the bus."
The only thing ASININE your reasoning. It matters not "to point out the depth and breadth of quality public courses before 1936" because if there is a course that is clearly "the best" those numbers prove nothing against it being so. It is Mike's OPINION that Cobb's was the best municipal course built before Bethpage. He has backed up his claim with contemporaneous articles that he feels bolsters this claim. His doing so is NOT a case of throwing "every other public course in the nation under the bus.." but rather the logical conclusion of his OPINION is that all other municipal courses did not measure up against Cobb's Creek at that time.
How about instead of name-calling that you try some FACT presenting of your own. My original post stated exactly what I am going to do so once again. YOU HAVE NOT POSTED A SINGLE PIECE OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE. NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE ACCOUNT OR ANYTHING CONTEMPORANEOUS TO ANY OTHER COURSE THAT CONTRADICT'S MIKE'S OPINION. It's time that you did.
You close out with more nonsense, "Obviously, Phil, you are here to defend Tillie's honor. But you've no business coming after me for whatever perceived slights you suffer under. Go defend Tillie's honor somewhere else. It is homers like you and Mike that make this place so unproductive for historical research."
David, I posted what I did not for the sake of Tilly's honor, but for MIKE'S HONOR. He hasn't deserved one bit of the crap you've posted. Of course, that is simply my OPINION...