Pure if I...Can't you help me?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It is an interesting question, particularly for this website's discussion group. We don't have to deal in the realities of restoration master plan committees, or in the realities of real clubs on here so we can and probably should hypothesize or theorize about such a thing--on here.

Could such a thing actually happen today? In my opinion, I very much doubt it could in a normal golf club which is generally run by committees but at a golf course that is run by perhaps one man (a virtual czar) it certainly could have a chance of happening if that's what he was into.

Why don't you see if you could become the czar of PVGC somehow and you could make it happen there.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Are committees infallible?

I'd say the one area where it might very possibly happen is restoration of greens--if after restoring heavily contoured greens, the club insists on bowing down to the all mighty stimpmeter. If I'm not mistaken Gil restored some of Herb Strong's wild greens at Engineers and they are in the process of unrestoring them--a damn shame.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Are committees infallible?"

Tom:

When you ask a question like that--I truly hope you don't mean it in a rhetorical sense as this California cat, Moriarty, has taken to asking me now!

So, I hope you don't mean that rhetorically and if not, the truth is of course they aren't infallible--I've never seen one remotely so---and I doubt I ever will. That's why someone who believes in restoring the design intent and the principles of a great architect needs to do what it takes to truly understand what an original architect like a Ross is all about and then get in there and fight the battles that always have to be fought with those that don't understand those things and appear not to care.

Welcome to the realities of a classic course restoration committee meeting--even one with a great restoration architect like Gil Hanse in attendence.

That's why I wrote all those threads on "purists" and "so-called purists"---to explain to some of you fellows who've never done that what it's like and feels like.

To be perfecly blunt about it that's why I don't think a guy like you has any right or reason to question the motives of a guy like me and what I've done when it comes to what's pure and what isn't.

Are committees or restoration committees infallible?

Of course not! That's why we fight the battle we do and have the scars to prove it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Your condescending attitude is getting old.

I'm well aware of the realities of committees and restorations. Its been discusssed on this site in great detail for several years now. I've discussed those realites with both Gil and Ron Prichard. I've seen the committee at Ohio State in action. Anyone with half a brain understands politics and compromise is involved.

I know you would like to present yourself as the foremost expert on the  politics  and realities of restorations and I am certain you have done great things at GM...But you've got to get this idea out of your head that your experience automatically trumps those of us who may have a stronger historical sense....political expeience doesn't make up for a lack of historical knowledge.

If we bring to light that a restoration is not historically accurate or is poorly executed, it does not mean that the course as restored is not strong (see both Yale, Bethpage and Hollywood today; still fabulous courses) or that we don't understand club politics.

IMO poor restorations are not normally the result of compromise or club politics, poor restorations are the result incomplete research and a lack of historical knowledge.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Your consending attitude is getting old."

In that case you have no idea what old means, Tom MacWood. What does 'consending' mean by the way?

[T_MacWood]

TE
My bad...I corrected my spelling error.

Get a grip on yourself.

[DMoriarty]

I realize you don't know anything about either. Would you mind if I offer my opinions if others mention it, though, or do you think you should control everything that's said by others on a thread you start? Perhaps you think you have some copyright or editorial control over what others say on your threads. It certainly seems that way with me as everything I say to you or about purists or whatever you criticize for some reason.

Give me a break Tom.  First, you admonish me for bringing up this whole bunker issue, even though that is certainly not the case.  Then you digress into another series personal attacks on TomM, occasionally throwing me in for good measure.  Now, after I try once again to disengage, you attack me for trying to control the thread.  

You are correct Tom.  I have no editorial control over what you write or where you choose to write it.  Instead of censorship this board usually relies on posters' manners and sense of decorum to control the content and direction of the posts.   In my opinion your repeated conniption fits and attacks on Tom MacWood have put you well over the bounds of decorum and gentlemanly behavior.  

No one asked you to hijack this thread.   No one asked you to turn in into yet another forum to rail on Tom MacWood.   I certainly didn't and previous to this one your posts address me.  Your responses aren't responses to those who have mentioned Aronomink but rather vendettas against TomM.

If you have an issue with Tom MacWood, don't you think it is about time you take it off Ran's discussion board and quit ruining our conversations?    This thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Crump killed himself.   In fact it is obvious that your involvement in all these "purist" threads is nothing more than your way of continuing to needle TomM.  

If you want to sit at the big kids table, I'd strongly recommend that you quit acting like a spoiled little infant. Grow up.

Your recent behavior is an embarrassment to yourself and this website.

If you'd like to discuss this further, let's have the decency to do it off the public pages.  You have my number, or you contact me through the messages function.

[TEPaul]

"Get a grip on yourself".

Tom MacW;

That seems to be your standard answer to my continuous question to you to explain the architectural significance of the statement you made on here about Crump's suicide. I'm still waiting for that as I'm sure many are. The rumor that he shot himself is what's old---I've heard that as long as I've known PVGC. I'm just waiting for you to explain on here what significance you think that has to PV architecturally. Perhaps you've already forgotten you told me why you think it's significant to PV architecturally, and I told you I thought your conclusion on that was probably the most illogical thing I've ever heard. I simply feel if you put that statement on this website you owe the site an explanation of what you think the significance of it is architecturally which I'd expect would be the same one you told me---but perhaps not. Or do you feel you don't need to be particularly responsible for answering questions about the things you say publicly about Crump and PVGC?

Or if you'd perfer to "angle" an article on the search for the cause of Crump's death as an example of the life and times of an expert researcher/writer or what it takes to be an expert researcher/writer and all the ups and downs he has to go through such as a Philadelphian constantly barraging you with questions----then I encourage you to write it---I'd very much look forward to reading it and critiquing it on here.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I didn't disparage Tom MacWood persnally but you seem to fail to realize that. I'm simply talking about the ludicrousness of the things he said on this website about the restoration of Aronimink's bunkers. That's my opinion of what his opinion is. If that's disparaging his opinion---then so be it! I happen to think his opinion is wholly wrong and ill considered, not the least reason being he's never even seen the golf course before or since its restoration That's most of what this website is all about. What I feel you need to do is stop taking so many of the responses in these discussions personally.

Maybe you think this website should be one of constant 'Me-tooism all based around the idea of architectural purity. I don't happen to feel that way. I think there's always a lot more to it than that particularly regarding people who hip-shot opinions from an ivory tower in Ohio. If an architectural or restoration analyst wants to gain my respect with his opinions I believe he pretty much needs to go see the subject he has those rather specific opinions about.

Do you have a problem with that too?

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

I didn't disparage Tom MacWood persnally but you seem to fail to realize that. I'm simply talking about the ludicrousness of the things he said on this website about the restoration of Aronimink's bunkers. That's my opinion of what his opinion is. If that's disparaging his opinion---then so be it! I happen to think his opinion is wholly wrong and ill considered, not the least reason being he's never even seen the golf course before or since its restoration That's most of what this website is all about. What I feel you need to do is stop taking so many of the responses in these discussions personally.

Maybe you think this website should be one of constant 'Me-tooism all based around the idea of architectural purity. I don't happen to feel that way. I think there's always a lot more to it than that particularly regarding people who hip-shot opinions from an ivory tower in Ohio. If an architectural or restoration analyst wants to gain my respect with his opinions I believe he pretty much needs to go see the subject he has those rather specific opinions about.

Do you have a problem with that too?

Tom, while I havent take your resent tantrums personally, you've without a doubt lost the respect I used to have for you.  I am sure that doesnt mean much to you, but it does to me.  

[Tags:]

Tags: