[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I doubt anyone would bother much even if your list exhibited a little homerism.  It is prevalent around here, no?

That said, I wonder how you or anyone can discern if one course was "slightly tougher"?  How many of these have you seen in their current form?  How do you make your judgements on the past? I am not criticizing because I appreciate the effort you put into this.  But, as long as its sort of a ranking, and we critique everyone elses ranking methods, we will probably comment on yours! 

If its intuitive, I am fine with that.  But it seems you go by tournaments held, and other more tangible reports from your newspaper file. In the end, I guess that is about as close as we can get it for this excersize, and in reality, nothing you write opinion wise should be subject to such harsh criticisms, even if it seems old battle lines are forming. 

I had no idea the civil war was fought between Philly and Ohio!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Those are fair questions, but better directed at Mike Cirba than Tom MacWood.  Mike is the only one here who as claimed the superiority of one course over all others publics.  My understanding is that Tom is merely attempting to provide a cross section of the better public courses of the era, and that he would gladly consider altering the list (and repeatedly has) as further information becomes available.  I don't think he is foolish enough to try to pretend he can accurately rank them or come up with a single course that was objectively better and harder than the rest.   That is Mike Cirba's gig, not Tom MacWood's.

I presume a secondary purpose of the list is to make clear the ridiculousness of Mike Cirba's claim.  How on earth could Mike Cirba know that Cobb's Creek was better than both of George Thomas' Griffith Park Courses or both of Billy Bell's Sunset Hills courses or Harding Park or Haggin Oaks?   How could he say that Cobbs was harder (or better) than the first Brookside course in Pasadena, which remains a bear to this day?   (Nothing necessarily special about these courses, mind you, just ones that came to mind as I was typing.)  Surely his 1916 newspaper article doesn't address any of this, does it?

In short, I read Tom's list as a round-about way of asking Mike the same type of questions that you and others pose to Tom MacWood.   On what basis could he possibly have made the claim he has?   Surely two old newspaper clippings don't cut it, do they?

But you, Phil the Author, and others don't seem interested in posing these questions to Mike.   Only TomM.

[Phil_the_Author]

Deleted...

[DMoriarty]

Phil the Author,

Huh?    My comment has nothing to do with Brackenridge Park or "your feelings for Tillie."  (But nice job getting the Tillie plug in.)  It has to do with the double standard, where you demand facts from me and Tom MacWood, yet you give Mike Cirba a pass.  Ironically,  I haven't even made any such claims that would merit the sort of proof you are demanding, and I don't think MacWood has either (but he can speak for himself.)    You and Mike are the only ones here who have pronounced any courses better than the rest.

 I didn't claim that any single course was better than Cobb's.  In fact, from the beginning I have claimed that Mike's claim is absurd in large part because  . . .
1) He has never supported his claim with anything remotely reasonable.  You may find that a 1916 article is support enough to establish greatness decades later, but I dont.
2) He doesn't have the knowledge base to make such a claim.  None of us do.
3. Mike stated it as a FACT.  

You are all wet here, Phil the Author.   You apparently have grasped neither the nature of my critique nor the significance of MacWood's list, despite that I have explained both a few times now.    

You understand what you want to understand, despite what is written.

[Chris_Blakely]

Tom,

Why is the Tam O'Shanter Dales course on the list over the Hills course?  As the Hills course opened in 1931?  I have played both and they are a ton of fun on some wild undulating terrain?  

Thanks,

Chris

Chris
I chose the Dales because it was the tougher (slightly) of the two, and the long time host of the Ohio Open. I thought about including both courses, but I thought I might be accused of being an Ohio homer.

Tom,

I have played both and I believe the Dales is a very good course and a solid assition to the list.  I just wanted to know if you have any rationiale for including one over the other.  I agree with this course a heck of a lot more than Ottawa Park.

On a side note, I played a 9 hole course in the area recently that I am positive is a Leanoard Macomber course - very similar greens, use of terrain and grassed in bunkering as the Hills and Dales at Tam O'Shanter.  I have not had time to dig into it to find out more about it.

I am enjoying your researching of this list - keep up the good work!!!

Thanks,
Chris

[Chris_Blakely]

TMac,

I doubt anyone would bother much even if your list exhibited a little homerism.  It is prevalent around here, no?

That said, I wonder how you or anyone can discern if one course was "slightly tougher"?  How many of these have you seen in their current form?  How do you make your judgements on the past? I am not criticizing because I appreciate the effort you put into this.  But, as long as its sort of a ranking, and we critique everyone elses ranking methods, we will probably comment on yours! 

If its intuitive, I am fine with that.  But it seems you go by tournaments held, and other more tangible reports from your newspaper file. In the end, I guess that is about as close as we can get it for this excersize, and in reality, nothing you write opinion wise should be subject to such harsh criticisms, even if it seems old battle lines are forming. 

I had no idea the civil war was fought between Philly and Ohio!

I can tell you this, the Hills and the Dales have changed very little from their orginal form, except for some of the bunker being grassed in, I would say the routing is the same and all of the greens appear to be original.  That is there are not modern looking holes that a Brian Huntley snuck in!!!   Fo the record, I like the work of Huntley in general terms, but he has done a lot of renovation work to older courses in Ohio.

Chris

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

I like Brians new stuff a lot, but haven't played his redos in Ohio.

DM,

I agree in a way - no doubt MC is a homer!  TMac has postulated what his opinons as to better courses were, sometimes just to keep the battle going (and he is not alone) It seems to have started with the argument over the "best year" to make the list, because he just couldn't let Mike have his thread ending at 1930.  Shouldn't the author be allowed to pick a date for God Sake?

Under different circumstance, and without many feeling the need to elevate one over the other, his list of "Good Public Courses in the US pre 1936" is a nice accomplishment.  I have enjoyed reading his research and old articles.

[DMoriarty]

Mike can make whatever claims he wants in whatever threads he wants.  And he can clarify or change his mind or just flat out contradict himself all he wants, too.  He did pick a date and started a different thread using that date.    But MacWood chose to address something he said on this thread, when he used Bethpage Black as the end date.  1935 or 1936 seem to be reasonable dates, and much closer to the actual time that these WPA courses started coming on line.  Besides, surely MacWood can choose whatever approach he wants, whether Mike likes it or not.  

In reality it doesn't matter much.  Mike's claim about Cobb's is just as absurd whether it cuts off in 1930 or 1936, because he has offered no reasonable basis for making either such a claim.   That is just the way he operates.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You are right. I didn't check too carefully which thread (or as I like to call it, alternate universe) I was in.  And I do understand the logic for both the start of the depression or 1936.  

IMHO, neither "side" in this debate has clean hands when it comes to supplying proof, and what constitutes good proof.  Its all just (we hope) good natured discussion and opinion both ways.   I have always wanted to start a thread called "Is the sky blue" and watch you guys battle it out!

Thinking about it, I do NOT think the CC claim is absurd.  It may or may not be true, but its certainly a plausibe idea, at least to me.  Arguing over it is just plain silly, as is adopting a high horse attitude that you "know better" than anyone else based on your individual knowledge.  And I am not picking you out specifically, nor TMac.  The Philly boys are guilty too.  Hey, we are all guilty to a degree of the holier than thou attitude here.

Even yours truly......right now!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I am certainly having trouble communicating the past few days.   Good to know I haven't lost my touch.  

My point in this thread is not all that much different than yours.    As you wrote, arguing over which was best course prior to 1936 is just plain silly, as is adopting a high horse attitude that you "know better" than anyone else based on your individual knowledge.   But what you don't seem to understand is that the only one who has made such claim is Mike Cirba.  (Phil the Author as well, but let's leave that aside.  I never quite get his posts.)

For example, take Mikes latest pronouncement: Until 1930 (earlier it was the creation of Bethpage Black) COBBS WAS KNOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGED as the best and most difficult course in the country.  That is not purely a matter of opinion, but a question of fact.    WAS COBBS KNOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGED as the best?  By whom?  When?  All he has offered is a 1916 NY article and and a 1925 article with a third-hand statement about someone liking Cobbs better than the NYC courses and some course in Dayton.   That isn't reasonable proof of what he is claiming.  

And Jeff, while I understand your desire to remain impartial, there is no lumping Tom MacWood in with Cirba this time.   Tom's list is an evolving work in progress.  He as added and subtracted names as his information has changed.  He even had the nerve to choose not to include one of my suggestions for inclusion.   While I may disagree, his choice is certainly reasonable and supportable.   Mike's proclamations are neither.  

[TEPaul]

I agree that Mike Cirba's claim that Cobbs Creek was the best municipal or public course in the country prior to 1930 (or whatever other year you guys have argued over for about the last five pages) is not and cannot be used as a true statement of fact. It is just Mike's opinion obviously, and he has every right to have it as anyone else does about anything else.

However, I don't see that anyone else can actually PROVE that any other public course was better than Cobbs as a true statement of FACT either, from newspaper accounts or anyone else's opinion.

This entire issue just boils down to anyone's opinion, and there is nothing someone like Tom MacWood can do by his ongoing laundry list of public courses in these time frames to make it legitimately or provably (as a fact) otherwise.  

So this time, and completely contrary to the over-arching debater on here, Moriarty, there most certainly is the actual and real ability in existence to lump MacWood in with Cirba or Cirba in with MacWood.  

Or to put this discussion into the context of the Rules of Golf and whether any particular Rule or Decision is right or wrong----I give you the inimitable, and highly intelligent and philosophically correct Rules expert, Lew Blakey, when I ask him, from time to time, if a Rule or Decision is right or wrong.

He always says; "Tommy, it is not a matter of just black and white and right or wrong; it is only a matter of which side of the argument or discussion gets enough votes to carry the decision of what to resolve, rule on and do."

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

That last paragraph in Post #284 is the perfect and frankly the ideal example of precisely WHY you are a transparently specious and fallacious reasoner. It is just so obvious but for the time being we should just wait for some other logical minds on here of the likes of Dan Kelly or Shivas to explain exactly why by taking that paragraph apart, parsing it and exposing its lack of logic!  

And when that is done and has been done hopefully everyone on here will recognize your MO and the technique you used to write and present that absurd essay on Merion East and Wilson entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion."  

[Mike Cirba]

*

[TEPaul]

Mike:

That was quite the post you wrote there! It must have taken you quite a time to arrange.


But the following is most certainly worth commenting on and discussing on here in a cool and deliberate way because there is so much validity to it for what this particular website is and is supposed to be and perhaps NOT supposed to be (by the way, I had an excellent conversation earlier today with the inimitable Ran Morrissett about just these things and other things of importance on here);

(By the way, I told Ran, as I generally do when he calls that his lead-in on his telephone calls is definitely worth recording and perhaps highlighting for all time to come in some important repository and in an audio manner. In this day and age of things like "Call Identification" you can see it's him but invariably when you pick up the phone and say "Hello", there is this dramatic silence for 2-5 seconds and then comes the usual and stentorian and dramatically paced; "RAN.......MORRISSETT!" There is no preceding lead-in like, "Hi, how are you, this is Ran Morrissett"..... to it; it is always that dramatic pause and then the stentorian... "RAN....MORRISSETT!" What the FLUB is his actual first name anyway? Is It Randolph or Ranulph or is it actually just RAN? What in the hell kind of name is RAN anyway? To me it sounds sort of like the PAST TENSE of somethng but if you know him that isn't indicative of who he is or the way he thinks. In the course of that conversation today we got into the subject of "original thought"....particularly original thought in GCA...the kind of thing that most can tell somebody didn't just borrow or glean from someone else but probably thought of all by themselves in and for some unknown or even ineffable reasons. We talked about the people who seem to have that, and have it where and how it actually makes sense to a lot of people somehow....people like Doak, or George Thomas, or a Mackenzie or a Geoff Shackelford. I suspect ....RAN....MORRISSETT might have it too judging from some of the things he said today as well as in the past). (Actually, my good buddy, Pat Mucci, also has some "original thought" too but unfortunately it doesn't make a lot of sense to 98% of the human population even though the precentage may be a tad less in the Italian "neighborhoods" of Nort Jusee and Nu Yawk).


"There are no "facts" here.

There was no Golf Digest "Greatest 100 You Can Play" in 1930, and even if there were, it would be simply opinion.

Hell, 99% of what is on this website is opinion.   Could it be any other way?   Isn't that what a discussion group is about?  

In "Frank discussion of golf courses", what else could it be?   Are we to somehow prove our beliefs beyond some court-standard burden of proof, or then be subject to public insults, continued harassment, and constant name-calling by a trained lawyer?   Is that what we want this forum to be??  

Don't even get me started on the continued personal insults and attacks, all under the guise and supposed search for truth, openness, and the American Way regarding architectural history.   What a crock.  

I'd ask any of the antagonists here to name a truly public course that opened before 1930 that was better architecturally, and/or had greater respect among those who played public courses than Cobbs Creek."




Tomorrow, Big Fella; for as the eternally wise Scarlett O'Hara said; "For TOMORROW is ANOTHER day."

[DMoriarty]

Congratulations Mike!
 After eight pages on this thread, another thread, and almost three weeks, you (Joe Bausch?) have finally found a single article that somewhat supports your claim.    Never mind that you had absolutely no support for your statement when you first made it -- or even earlier today -- you finally have a reasonable basis for at least part of your opinion.   If in the beginning you had said that in 1928 Frank McCracken of the Philadelphia Phactoid had claimed that Cobbs ranked as the finest public links in the land, then that would have been a reasonable basis for your claim, at least up to that point. Questionable and hyperbolic, but not asinine, because it had some at least with some sort of basis.   Now if only you could only learn that the facts are supposed to come before the opinion, we'd be on to something.

Unfortunately things go immediately downhill from there.  You wrote:

Unbelievably, even some guys from Los Angeles seemed to agree, which is just plain funny in this context.

Seriously?   Read the article Mike.  It isn't the Los Angeles golfers who said that Cobbs ranked best, it was the effusive McCracken.     I guess you saw Los Angeles and just figured you would fill in the rest?  

As for the rest of the articles, they are not reasonable support for your claim, for reasons previously given.   In fact, the first McCracken article calls your support into question.   Cobbs when from being one of the best, to the best.  How did that happen?   Are you related to Mr. McCracken?

By the way Mike, it is really bad form to continually post articles without providing the paper or date.  

Finally, I'm not sure if it's a badge of honor or not, but I would venture to say that I've probably played more vintage municipal and public courses of that era than anyone in the world.

Here we go again! Obviously you've learned nothing by your past statements.   Another asinine statement, even for you.  

There are no "facts" here.

There was no Golf Digest "Greatest 100 You Can Play" in 1930, and even if there were, it would be simply opinion.

Hell, 99% of what is on this website is opinion.   Could it be any other way?   Isn't that what a discussion group is about?  

In "Frank discussion of golf courses", which is the purpose of this website, what else could it be but personal opinion?

Some of us like to base our opinions on fact, but to each his own I guess.

I'd ask any of the antagonists here to name a truly public course that opened before 1930 that was better architecturally, and/or had greater respect among those who played public courses than Cobbs Creek.

So you've changed your claim again?   It is hard to keep up.  

_______________________________

(by the way, I had an excellent conversation earlier today with the inimitable Ran Morrissett about just these things and other things of importance on here);

I hope you told him how you have again been harassing me via private email and how you are again trying to pressure me to leave the site, under threat of further harassment.

[Mike Cirba]

*

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Really?   I thought I was being honest and accurate.

-- Did you or did you not misread the article that supposedly had the Los Angeles players calling Cobbs the best?

-- Didn't McCracken puff Cobbs a bit more in the second piece than in the first?    As you said, there were no rankings (at least none I am aware of) so what was he talking about in the second, except of course  for his opinion?  

-- Dont you agree that your claim to have played more old public courses than anyone on the world is more than a bit hyperbolic?

--  Don't you agree that the 1916 article and the others do not address your claim?  


I have plenty of knowledge, personal and otherwise, about qualifying courses I think were probably at least as good as Cobbs.  They were very possibly much better and more difficult than Cobbs, but that discussion would just be my opinion against yours.  Plus, I'd have no basis for saying so with much conviction because I didn't play them at the time of your comparison.  

Between the two of us, though, my guess is that I am the one with knowledge of Cobbs and the possible challengers I can think of.   But such a discussion would be pointless.    Who cares which course was hardest?    Plus, your mind was made up before you even had your facts straight, so why would I think you'd give my opinion or its basis a fair shake?  

[TEPaul]

"Mike,
Really?   I thought I was being honest and accurate."


Moriarty:

Are there any others on here you'd feel comfortable citing who subscribe to what your version of what 'honest and accurate' is?

Just wondering, but please don't feel constrained to have to actually answer that question, in case it might prove to be embarrassing to someone.

[DMoriarty]

Moriarty:

Are there any others on here you'd feel comfortable citing who subscribe to what your version of what 'honest and accurate' is?

Again TEPaul, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that honesty and accuracy are somehow beholden to the opinions of you and your cronies.   Fortunately for those of us interested in the truth, that is not the case.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Why is the Tam O'Shanter Dales course on the list over the Hills course?  As the Hills course opened in 1931?  I have played both and they are a ton of fun on some wild undulating terrain?  

Thanks,

Chris

Chris
I chose the Dales because it was the tougher (slightly) of the two, and the long time host of the Ohio Open. I thought about including both courses, but I thought I might be accused of being an Ohio homer.

Tom,

I have played both and I believe the Dales is a very good course and a solid assition to the list.  I just wanted to know if you have any rationiale for including one over the other.  I agree with this course a heck of a lot more than Ottawa Park.

On a side note, I played a 9 hole course in the area recently that I am positive is a Leanoard Macomber course - very similar greens, use of terrain and grassed in bunkering as the Hills and Dales at Tam O'Shanter.  I have not had time to dig into it to find out more about it.

I am enjoying your researching of this list - keep up the good work!!!

Thanks,
Chris

The more I learn about Macomber the more I want to check out his courses. He was a disciple of Colt's. He travelled to the UK to be tutored by him and built one or two of HS's courses over here. By the way I played Belmont Hills last week and thought about you and your appreciation of Emmet.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is an interesting picture of Split Rock.

[Tom MacWood]

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

Harding Park (1925) - W.Watson & S.Whiting
Haggins Oak (1932) - A.Mackenzie
Sharp Park (1931) - A.Mackenzie
Griffith Park-Harding (1923) - G.Thomas
Lake Chabot (1923) - W.Locke
Brookside Muni (1928) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-South (1927) - B.Bell
Sunset Fields-North (1928) - B.Bell
Patty Jewett (1898/1917) - W.Campbell & W.Watson
Rock Manor (1921) - W.Reid
Jacksonville Muni (1923) - D.Ross
Mount Plymouth (1925) - W.Clark
Opa Locka (1927) - W.Flynn
Pasadena (1925) - W.Stiles, J.VanKleek & W.Hagen
Savanah Muni (1926) - D.Ross
Big Run (1930) - H.Smead
Deerpath (1927) - A.Pirie
Glencoe (1921) - G.O'Neil
Palos (1919) - T.Bendelow
St. Andrews (1926) - E.Dearie
Sandy Hollow (1930) - C.Wagstaff
Duck Creek (1920) - W.Langford
Waveland (1901) - W.Dickinson
Beechwood (1931) - W.Diddell
Coffin (1920) - W.Diddell
Erskine Park (1925) - G.O'Neil
Armour Park (1925) - W.Clark
Keller (1929) - P.Coates
Meadowbrook (1926) - J.Foulis
Seneca (1935) - A.McKay
Riverside Muni (1931) - W.Stiles
Mount Pleasant (1933) - G.Hook
Belvedere (1925) - W.Watson
Rackham (1924) - D.Ross
Swope Park (1915/1934) - J.Dagleish & A.Tillinghast
Forest Park (1912) - R.Foulis
Bayside (1930) - A. Mackernzie
Salisbury Links (1908) - D.Emmet
La Tourette (1929/1934) - D.Rees & J.VanKleek
Split Rock (1935) - J.VanKleek
Durand-Eastman (1934) - RT.Jones
Hyde Park, NY (1927) - W.Harries
Bethpage-Red (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Bethpage-Blue (1935) - A.Tillinghast
Ashville Muni (1927) - D.Ross
Starmount Forest (1930) - W.Stiles & J.VanKleek
Community (1912) - W.Hoare
Mill Creek (1928) - D.Ross
Highland Park-New (1928) - S.Alves
Metropolitan Parks (1926) - S.Thompson
Tam O'Shanter-Dales (1928) - L.Macomber
Eastmoreland (1918) - H.Egan
Hershey Park (1931) - M.McCarthy
North Park (1933) - E.Loeffler & J.McGlynn
Tam O'Shanter, Pa (1929) - E.Loeffler
Beaver Tail (1925) - A.Tillinghast
Stevens Park (1924)
Tenison Park (1924) - S.Cooper & J.Burke
Brackenridge Park (1916) - A.Tillinghast
Memorial Park (1935) - J.Bredemus
Brown Deer (1929) - G.Hansen
Triggs Memorial (1933) - D.Ross
Indian Canyon (1935) - H.Egan
Jackson Park (1928) - W.Tucker & F.James
Janesville Muni (1924) - RB.Harris
East Potomac (1920) - W.Travis & R.White

[Mike Cirba]

*

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

Seeing Tucker had designed Jackson Park, I know that he also designed Pioneers Park in Lincoln, NB. I think it opened in 1927 and was later expanded to 27 holes.  It is on some really nice rolling property and a lot of great natural golf holes.

[Chris_Blakely]

Chris,

I like Brians new stuff a lot, but haven't played his redos in Ohio.

DM,

I agree in a way - no doubt MC is a homer!  TMac has postulated what his opinons as to better courses were, sometimes just to keep the battle going (and he is not alone) It seems to have started with the argument over the "best year" to make the list, because he just couldn't let Mike have his thread ending at 1930.  Shouldn't the author be allowed to pick a date for God Sake?

Under different circumstance, and without many feeling the need to elevate one over the other, his list of "Good Public Courses in the US pre 1936" is a nice accomplishment.  I have enjoyed reading his research and old articles.

Jeff,

I like his new courses as well:

The Quarry GC, Canton, OH i
Windy Knoll GC, Springfield, OH
Deer Ridge GC Bellville, OH
Shale Creek GC Medina, OH
Firestone Farms , Colubiana, OH
are all very good courses.

Some of his renovation work I do not like as much like Ellsworth Meadows GC, etc

Thanks,
Chris

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()