[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I disagree with all your responses above, but I did get quite a laugh.  Not at you, more because after all this talking we are right where we always are . . .  You with unshakeable and apparently sincere beliefs about things Philadelphia golf related and positive the facts are on your side;  Me shaking my head and wondering how on earth you can write such things, let alone believe them.

For example:  You think you have probably played more "vintage" public courses than anyone in the World.  And the reason you believe this is because you don't know anyone who has played more old public courses than you.

I can't argue with that logic.   Or at least I won't bother.

Good luck in your endeavors with Cobbs.  As I have always said, I do think it is worth restoring, so long as it was done right. 

[Sean Leary]

I've added Jackson Park in Seattle which had the reputation of being one of the top public courses in the West.

Would be curious to see where you read that....

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom M,
Would it be possible to include the location of the courses on your list?

PS - I think you hurt your argument when you include Hyde Park (Niagara Falls NY) in your list - if this is the same Hyde Park I'm thinking of.   I grew up playing William Harries designs and they're not exactly Donald Ross quality!

[Tom MacWood]

I've added Jackson Park in Seattle which had the reputation of being one of the top public courses in the West.

Would be curious to see where you read that....

I found this in The Golf Course Guide written by Anthony Merrill.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom M,
Would it be possible to include the location of the courses on your list?

PS - I think you hurt your argument when you include Hyde Park (Niagara Falls NY) in your list - if this is the same Hyde Park I'm thinking of.   I grew up playing William Harries designs and they're not exactly Donald Ross quality!

Hugh Wilson ain't exactly Donald Ross either. I don't know about the other Harries courses, but Hyde Park had a very good reputation back in the day. I reckon something happened to the course over the years....I do know William & David Gordon redesigned the golf course in the 60s. 

[TEPaul]

"Hugh Wilson ain't exactly Donald Ross either."


Maybe he wasn't in your mind; particularly since Wilson always had another day job that was not golf architecture, but Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion East and I sure doubt Ross would not have loved to have that great course attributed to him as part of his career inventory! 

[Tom MacWood]

"Hugh Wilson ain't exactly Donald Ross either."


Maybe he wasn't in your mind; particularly since Wilson always had another day job that was not golf architecture, but Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion East and I sure doubt Ross would not have loved to have that great course attributed to him as part of his career inventory! 

Was that the same Hugh Wilson who was involved with Seaview? If I'm not mistaken Ross overhauled that course a year or two after it opened.

[Dan Herrmann]

William Harries also gave us Brighton Park, Sheridan Park, and Beaver Island.  He's known to me as the muni architect for metro-Buffalo.  His work is fair at best.  I grew up playing all three - Sheridan's the by far best of the lot, but it's really not a course that you would ever want to go out of your way to play.  (I love it for sentimental reasons)

Hyde Park a City of Niagara Falls course, is definitely nothing special.  The best public up there is Whirlpool, a Stanley Thompson design on the Ontario side.

To quote from Ron Montesano from another thread  (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41814.msg888879/topicseen/#msg888879):

Re: What is the absolute worst design style ever?
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2009, 09:57:09 »
Quote
I volunteer William Harries' slanted inverted bowl greens...found on many munis in western New York, they are devoid of any subtlety, break, and interest...See Brighton Park, Beaver Island and Audubon.

[Tom MacWood]

Dan
Shouldn't you revise your statement to Hyde Park is nothing special today?

I know very little about Harries, but apparently his career is separated into two phases: a 1920s/30s phase and a 1960s phase when he worked for someone named Tryon.

Here is an advertisement from 1920. H&H built Cherry Hill for Travis and Park CC for Alison.

[TEPaul]

Actually, the whole question of Donald Ross and Philadelphia is probably a pretty interesting one, particularly early on. My own club, GMGC, just might be a fairly important part in that story.

[TEPaul]

"If I'm not mistaken Ross overhauled that course a year or two after it opened."


Overhauled it? That's an interesting interpretation. I think what he actually did is add some bunkering that had not been done early on which seemed to be something of an MO of Wilson's and later Flynn's if and when the opportunity to do it that way presented itself as it had at Merion East.

[Chris_Blakely]

Dan
Shouldn't you revise your statement to Hyde Park is nothing special today?

I know very little about Harries, but apparently his career is separated into two phases: a 1920s/30s phase and a 1960s phase when he worked for someone named Tryon.

Here is an advertisement from 1920. H&H built Cherry Hill for Travis and Park CC for Alison.

Tom,

I played 9 holes on a Harries designed course (I believe Shorewood) built in the 20's and found the holes to have strategic bunkering (albeit grassed in).  The greens were raised /  built up almost reminded me of something Banks or Raynor would construct.  There were 9 others holes added by the club pro taht were very forgetable.

Chris

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
The builder of the course (H & H) wasn't the architect.  Harries is credited as the architect for Hyde Park, and my point is that Harries designed courses would probably be a 2 on the Doak scale.  Sheridan Park might be a 4 on a good day.

[Tom MacWood]

Dan
H&H was a landscape architecture firm that was involved in construction and design in the 1920s and 1930s.

What would have Hyde Park gotten on the Doak scale 80 years ago in 1930...in other words do you know how good (or bad) the course was in 1930?

[DMoriarty]

Dan,  I think what TomM is saying is that we cannot necessarily judge the quality of these courses in based upon playing them decades many decades after the relevant time period.   At least not without understanding their history.  [I see now he just said it himself.  Sorry for the redundancy.]

That being said, Ron Montesano's description of what you think are Harries greens reminded my of CBM's "pie faced woman with a marvel wave" description in Scotland's Gift.  

. . . they are all built similarly, more or less of a bowl or saucer type, then built up toward the back of the green, and then scalloped with an irregular line of low, waving mounds or hillocks, the putting green for all the world resemling a pie-faced woman with a marcel wave.  I do not believe any one ever saw in nature anything approaching these home-made putting greens. . .  

If that was Harries' style, I wonder if he built any courses along the way to Southhampton?   (I guess CBM doesn't say where he was coming from; it seems unlikely, but given CBM's connection to the Niagarra area maybe he was referring to the drive to Southhampton from there.  Nah.)

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

A couple of serious questions. You state that you believe that "Jackson Park in Seattle which had the reputation of being one of the top public courses in the West" based upon what you found "in The Golf Course Guide written by Anthony Merrill."

Is this the ONLY contemporaneous information that leads you to your conclusion?

I can understand you being in agreement with the writer based simply on what was written there, yet it makes one then wonder why you qustion Mike having reached his conclusions based on the number of different articles he has posted praising Cobb's Creek? For example, in his post #287 he has posted 4 different articles where people from New York to Los Angeles praise the course, one of which includes the following:

"Two courageous Californians were among the late arrivals yesterday afternoon, and after taking a first glance ast the pretentious Cobbs Creek layout, which ranks as the finest public course in the land, they expressed their admiration... Many of the visitors stated that they had not expected to see a course of such attractiveness as Cobb's Creek. Some of them are frank enough to confess that the many hazards on the links and its natural beauty almost took their breathe away..." 

What is it about Mr. Merrill that gives greater veracity in your mind to the believability in what he wrote in the single advertisement than to what McCracken and a number of others wrote in many articles and containing quotes of praise from golfers across the country or the article which copied one from the Brooklyn Eagle in which the question "Would you call the Philadelphia course better than the two links at Van Cortland, the long course at Pelham Bay or the City Links of Chicago at Jackson Park?" was asked and answered leaving no doubt that the writer considered Cobb's Creek far superior to all of them?

Why should one give greater credence to your conclusion about the quality of the Jackson Park course in Seattle which seems to be based solely upon what is written in the singular advertisement than what Mike has presented about Cobb's Creek from numerous different sources? Especially as you seem to keep ignoring these postings and not commenting on them.

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?

[Dan Herrmann]

Philip, Amen!
Basing research on an ad is risky at best.   For example, I just Google'd "Championship Golf Course" and got about 350,000 hits.   "5-star golf course" got 1,300,000 hits.

I also think David and Tom would make their point better if they would have chosen genuinely good courses.  I'm 50 years old and grew up 9 miles from Niagara.  I've never heard good things about Hyde Park, yet you note it as a design of note.  And trust me, to play a Harries is to know a Doak 2 ("A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. As my friend Dave Richards summed up: “Play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer.”")

I'm 100% convinced that Mike is correct - CC was an exceptionally well-regarded course -the Bethpage or Torrey Pines of its day.  I base my conclusion on my reading of Mike's findings.

PS - I'm not anti-West. I completely enjoyed living in Beaverton, OR from 1985--1993.  And the inclusion of Eastmoreland is definitely deserved.

[TEPaul]

"Why should one give greater credence to your conclusion about the quality of the Jackson Park course in Seattle which seems to be based solely upon what is written in the singular advertisement than what Mike has presented about Cobb's Creek from numerous different sources? Especially as you seem to keep ignoring these postings and not commenting on them."


Phil:

I'll tell you why MacWood thinks that as well as why he keeps ignoring those other postings and not commentig on them. It's because Tom MacWood found that irrelevent blurb by Merrill and Philadelphia researchers found all those other articles from different sources about Cobbs Creek.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
No, its not the only information that leads me to that conclusion. This little blurb is from A Guide to 1,870 North American Golf Courses written by Harold Pond. Pond produced the first version of Doak's Confidential Guide several decades earlier and rated the private, semi-private and public golf courses in America based on his own rating system. He gave grades of A, B, C, D, and E along with + and -. A+ being the best of the best. As an example he gave Bethpage Black an A+ and the Blue and the Red an A.

I've also attached the info from the 1930 Golf Course Guide for those who get freaked out by yardages under 6000.

[Tom MacWood]

Philip, Amen!
Basing research on an ad is risky at best.   For example, I just Google'd "Championship Golf Course" and got about 350,000 hits.   "5-star golf course" got 1,300,000 hits.

I also think David and Tom would make their point better if they would have chosen genuinely good courses.  I'm 50 years old and grew up 9 miles from Niagara.  I've never heard good things about Hyde Park, yet you note it as a design of note.  And trust me, to play a Harries is to know a Doak 2 ("A mediocre golf course with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible. As my friend Dave Richards summed up: “Play it in a scramble, and drink a lot of beer.”")

I'm 100% convinced that Mike is correct - CC was an exceptionally well-regarded course -the Bethpage or Torrey Pines of its day.  I base my conclusion on my reading of Mike's findings.

PS - I'm not anti-West. I completely enjoyed living in Beaverton, OR from 1985--1993.  And the inclusion of Eastmoreland is definitely deserved.

I'm glad you enjoyed Beaverton. How good was Hyde Park in 1930?

[Tom MacWood]

Why should one give greater credence to your conclusion about the quality of the Jackson Park course in Seattle which seems to be based solely upon what is written in the singular advertisement than what Mike has presented about Cobb's Creek from numerous different sources? Especially as you seem to keep ignoring these postings and not commenting on them.

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?

Phil-the-author
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.

[TEPaul]

MacWood's MO on here is getting more revealing frankly. I see he just tries to avoid anything I say to him or ask him  on here or off here by IM or email.

 His new philosophy seems to be just to avoid it all or ignore it altogether.

Can't say I blame him really, as, at this point, he just apparently ain't got the guts or the response, research and particularly analytical capability to deal with it.

This is what I frankly have been hoping for on here for some time now and I am quite happy that time has apparently come. I think the marginalizing of the crap fostered and foisted on here by the likes of MacWood and Moriarty for too long is an important thing to concentrate on for a website like this.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I'm not sure if I've thanked you before or not, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for lending so much substance to this thread. I think everyone appreciates your level of expertise.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, what rating did Pond give Cobb's Creek?

I could be wrong but if he had been critical of the course in any way I believe that you would already have posted it as you value his opinion so highly.

[Phil_the_Author]

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?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()