Tom,
You reasoned, "With Mike's articles its difficult to know what the writer's level of experience and expertise may have been. The mention of a mediocre course (Van Cortland Park) as a guide for comparison I think says a lot. With Merrill and Pond you know what courses they have played and seen (hundreds if not thousands from coast to coast) and based on their comments about all sorts of courses it is fairly easy to appreciate their level of expertise."
What difference does McCracken's of Philadelphia and the other writer's outside of Philly that Mike quoted from matter as to their experience of play when they are QUOTING those who have and are playing courses all over the country and are competing in tournaments such as the Publick Links championships and stating that Cobb's is among the best and some who say it is the best?
Isn't it really their credibility that matters?
Also, the ability to play well doesn't automatically enable one to understand the quality of golf course architecture otherwise nor does it prevent the poorer player from being able to design a great course. There have been some of those...
Actually, your statement, "With Merrill and Pond you know what courses they have played and seen (hundreds if not thousands from coast to coast) and based on their comments about all sorts of courses it is fairly easy to appreciate their level of expertise" flies in the face of the many golf course raters of today who play hundreds, and in the case of some like Matt Ward, possibly thousands, and yet are constantly having their "comments [reviews] about all sorts of courses" disagreed with and criticized.
So, what it boils down to is that you trust the opinions of certain ones from that time while Mike trusts the opinions of others.
So then, once again, don't you think that it is time that you simply stated that you can recognize how Mike MIGHT conclude what he has but that you simply disagree with his conclusions?