[John Kavanaugh]

Mike Cirba,

I believe MacWood is also an excellent and worthy Golfweek rater.  I don't want either of you two to be removed from the panel, I just want you guys to get along like the brothers you are.  I too am sorry I ever got mixed up in this mess and believe have paid a price for my intervention.

[Dan Kelly]

To all those who disagreed with my comment ‘Reflects badly on all of us’ I am minded of the following quote

“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing”

Melvyn:

With all due respect, I think this is a bit over the top. To compare a quote relating to the genocide of 6 million people with a controversy on a discussion board related to, of all things, golf architecture, diminishes the words of Simon Weisenthal in ways that are barely describable.

If Simon Wiesenthal said that (and I don't doubt it), he was certainly paraphrasing Edmund Burke -- who, for all I know, was paraphrasing some earlier sage.

A bit of post facto Googling casts some doubt on the provenance of that quotation.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (in exactly those words, or words very close to them) has been *widely* attributed to Burke for a long, long time.

At least some Google-able sources say it has not been found in his writings.

Even so, I'm with Melvyn. Simon Wiesenthal's use of that observation about life on Earth does not mean that, henceforth, no one may make the same observation without thereby diminishing the horrors of the Holocaust.

P.S. Proper attribution can be a dicey matter -- can't it.

[Thomas MacWood]

I do not believe it was the obligation of Tony Pioppi or Brad Klein to send their articles to Yale for peer review. I don't believe it was the obligation of Daniel Wexler to send his material on the architectural evolution of Augusta National, Quaker Ridge, Merion, Lakeside and Colonial to those clubs before publishing it. I don't think Geoff Shackelford or Ron Whitten are obligated to send their articles critical of Riviera or Baltusrol to those clubs for their approval. I don't believe it is the resposibility of George Bahto and Gib P to send their manuscript  to every club profiled or mentioned in their book for peer review. I don't believe it is the reponsibility of Paul Turner, Noel Freeman, Russell Tally, Sean Arble, Neil Crafter, Bernard Darwin, Walter Travis or HW Wind to send their articles on golf courses throughout the world to the clubs for peer review.

The idea that these writers are obligated to share their research on a subject with their subject prior to publishing is goofy. Again these are not state secrets; this is golf architecture history - pretty light-hearted stuff

I've always been under the impression history was not the property of any one person, group or entity.  

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

The most germaine question is whether Whitten cooperated with Bethpage when he asserted Burbeck was co-designer of the Black course, isn't it?

That article, in which I suspect Whitten did NOT feel necessary to get the blessing of Bethpage to print it, stirred a lot of heated discussion here, including some name calling, but it never got as personal as this.

The next germaine question is Mike Cirba's hope that this site could be useful rather than just a discussion group. I hate to say it but it IS naive on his part.  I don't think the net in general is thought of that way.  Case in point, the USGA and ASGCA are working on documenting architectural history and as noted, TePaul, among others is actually working on that.  I would love to hear an update from him on how that is going, personally, but that is a subject for another day.  However, while it makes sense that someone interested in gca history would participate here, I doubt the USGA ever seriously considered this site as a resource in and of itself.

[John Kavanaugh]

Bullies like John Kavanaugh above walk with inpunity around here.   Once again he comes forward pretending that he's interested in this website by ending this discussion with his "suggestion".

His suggestion was for Brad Klein to remove me from the Golfweek panel, even though to my knowledge, I'm the only member of that panel in the Merion discussions.  

John has always hated Golfweek, has a clear animosity and issue with Brad Klein, and has used this site over and over to insinuate all sorts of BS about the panel and it's members, yet most here seem to think he's just a misguided, nice guy.   "OH...that's just John".

Mike Cirba,

Please understand that I am capable of disagreeing with an individual or question how he controls his employees and still like, admire and respect that person.  How many times do I have to say that I like Brad Klein...I really, really do.  I think rating and publishing those ratings is very serious business and not just some tea party where you invite your friends even if they can't tell the difference between Oolong and Puerh.

[Mike_Cirba]

The most germaine question is whether Whitten cooperated with Bethpage when he asserted Burbeck was co-designer of the Black course, isn't it?

That article, in which I suspect Whitten did NOT feel necessary to get the blessing of Bethpage to print it, stirred a lot of heated discussion here, including some name calling, but it never got as personal as this.

Jeff,

That would certainly be the pertinent question if Bethpage Black were a private club.

However, even there, if I were to have researched the Whitten essay and was going to publish it on GCA, I would contact Phil Young, Geoff Childs, Mike Sweeney, Mike Golden and others here I know have a vested interest in Bethpage beforehand, especially if one of them like Phil had been the archivist for that course.

It's much easier to write controversial and inflammatory things about a public course, simply because access can't be denied.   ANGC suffers from the same thing, only because access is virtually impossible.

[Dan Kelly]

The most germaine question is whether Whitten cooperated with Bethpage when he asserted Burbeck was co-designer of the Black course, isn't it?

That article, in which I suspect Whitten did NOT feel necessary to get the blessing of Bethpage to print it, stirred a lot of heated discussion here, including some name calling, but it never got as personal as this.

On Tillinghast, Burbeck, Whitten and Bethpage Black:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3845.0.html

and

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3782.0.html

[Mike_Cirba]

A good example would be the Cobb's Creek stuff.

After the work our group has done on uncovering and documenting the history of Cobb's Creek, can you imagine someone coming on here and publishing a paper that essentially tries to directly or indirectly imply that what we wrote about the course was wrong, unfounded, or otherwise sloppy and lazy?
 
If they really wanted to get at all the facts, or their search was simply about to find the "facts" and truth about Cobb's Creek, can you imagine them not contacting me, Joe Bausch, Geoff Walsh, or others first?

If they didn't, might you reasonably wonder why and question what their agenda might be?

Wait...I probably just gave someone an idea.  


Dan,

Interesting that Patrick Mucci seemed to require a much higher standard of proof in his defense of Tillinghast over the revisionist account. 

Interestingly, "Fifty Years of American Golf" provides contemporaneous documentation that TIllinghast was indeed the architect of Bethpage.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
What difference does it make if Bethpage is private or public...a religious organization or state goverment? Does one entity have a stronger right to history than the other?

If any of those gentleman did not agree with Whitten, they were free to write a counter essay. Thats what Phil and I chose to do. I never felt it was Whitten's obligation to share any of his research with the State of NY or me.

We live in a free society.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
What difference does it make if Bethpage is private or public...a religious organization or state goverment? Does one entity have stronger right to history than the other?

If any of those gentleman did not agree with Whitten, they were free to write a counter essay. Thats what Phil and I chose to do. I never felt it was his obligation to share any of his research with the State of NY or me.

We live in a free society.

Absolutely Tom...you unquestionably have a right to publish whatever you want, wherever you want, about whomever you want.

Just don't cry foul when other's here sense your lone wolf style as antagonistic or personally motivated and become defensive and/or uncoorperative, espcecially on topics near and dear.

[Thomas MacWood]

Fifty years of American Golf didn't get all their facts straight on Merion either.

[Michael Blake]

Tom MacWood,

People certainly aren't "obligated" to send their articles to a club for peer review.

But isn't it common courtesy to contact a private club when you are about to make "research" public that totally questions its history?  

Wouldn't it have been more professional if the club was contacted prior to releasing this "opinion paper" so if Merion chose they could have shared private documents that may or may not have supported Mr. Morarty's hypothesis?

I'm not sure common sense played any part in this.

[Adam Clayman]

It's much easier to write controversial and inflammatory things about a public course, simply because access can't be denied.   ANGC suffers from the same thing, only because access is virtually impossible.

Mike, If I understand your point about ANGC, I either don't agree or don't see your point. Small gripe but the analogy doesn't translate to me.

Controversy and inflammatory comments about ANGC seems like a relatively recent reality. Granted, it does not live in vacuum and our world's IT advances have brought almost everything right into out living rooms. If ANGC had not changed a blade of grass under Hooties reign, would there have been inflammatory commentary?

Back to topic, I'll throw on saying it's everyones loss, not a reflection, when someone decides to no longer participate. It's just a much bigger loss when it's someone with Wayne's passion, knowledge and enthusiasm.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

The idea that these writers are obligated to share their research on a subject with their subject prior to publishing is goofy. Again these are not state secrets; this is golf architecture history - pretty light-hearted stuff

I've always been under the impression history was not the property of any one person, group or entity. 

I may accept the first part of your statement if the author was being paid for his work, but I though we all contributed on this site for free and with the intention of promoting Golf & Golf Architecture in all its forms. Or have I misunderstood things.

I would hate to think that some are receiving financial benefit for their essays, whilst others are not – this is the quickest way of stopping free and honest debate and the flow of interesting information.

[TEPaul]

"You would think by the tone of this long statement that we are dealing with state secrets. This is the history of golf architecture; we're not talking about sensative information. Again, the history of golf architecture; we're not identifying double agents or dealing with corporate espianage. And the events we are looking at took place ninety or more years ago. All the princilpes are dead, most children of the principles are dead.

I love the history of golf architecture, but we have blown everything out of proportion on this website...to be accurate a few have. Talk about needing some perspective."



Tom MacWood:

I completely disagree with what you said there. It's probably the basic difference between us. The actual history of the architecture of some of these great old courses is about people long gone, and even their sons and daughters are gone, and it's about events contained in documents and drawings and such long past.

But that is not all there is to it, or researching it or writing about it because that material does not belong to us, it belongs to those clubs and the people who administer those clubs and they are by no means long gone. And it most certainly is not that they don't care about it or their histories.

You two have attempted to couch all this into some assumption that these clubs and the people who administer them and have access to this kind of historical raw material inherently have something to hide---eg your constant presentation that those histories are somehow intentionally wrong, unfactual, inaccurate in some attempt to create and maintain legends and some status quo.

To me, and to others this is just a false premise, a smokescreen, basically bullshit on your part. It's just a guise you seem to want to use to make some subject your interested in look like something that NEEDS historical treatment----eg NEEDS a reinterpretation etc.

You just don't understand these people who are here now and are responsible for this old material. You don't know them and you don't seem to want to and this leads to your modus operandi replete with some very serious and dangerous rationalizing of their intentions.

You continue to maintain that we here in Philadelphia, particularly me and Wayne and Mike Cirba are just rude and defensive and insulting because we're trying to hide something.

The truth is we are no different than anyone else in and around any other golf club in America. It will always be this way with the approach and the methods you're using. This is not just about some old and cold raw research material from a century ago----this is very much about human nature both here and now.

Your approach is all wrong----it's basically as simple as that!

[Jim Franklin]

Wow, am I glad I skipped the Merion threads. It is a great course and I love it, but for people to get worked into such a frenzy is beyond me. Have at it I guess. Wayne, playing Merion is much more enjoyable than talking about it. Have fun.

[Kirk Gill]

The idea that these writers are obligated to share their research on a subject with their subject prior to publishing is goofy. Again these are not state secrets; this is golf architecture history - pretty light-hearted stuff

Tom MacWood - I can't disagree with this assertion. My only caveat would be that each club's membership and archives might prove to be a valuable resource, and shouldn't be ignored. A first attempt at access to information might be rebuffed, but if your work is subsequently presented to that club, then who knows? Another answer might be forthcoming. We ARE talking light-hearted stuff, I think, but stuff that still stirs strong emotions. If there's any obligation on a writer's part, Tom, it would be an obligation to do the best job possible, yes? And if a particular club doesn't grant access, the way that the writer deals with that response could prove to be a testing ground for how other clubs might deal with similar requests from that writer, or others.

I also agree, Tom, with this statement you made: "The Merion thread(s) got out of hand because personalities clashed, not because individuals were demanding anything from the Merion GC or the Merion Cricket C." Still, the totality of that situation ended up putting Wayne Morrison in a difficult position, and ultimately made him feel that he could no longer participate here, and that's too bad.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

When you wrote, "Mike What difference does it make if Bethpage is private or public...a religious organization or state goverment? Does one entity have a stronger right to history than the other? If any of those gentleman did not agree with Whitten, they were free to write a counter essay. Thats what Phil and I chose to do. I never felt it was Whitten's obligation to share any of his research with the State of NY or me. We live in a free society." you make very good points.

The problem though is that in the singular and specific case of Bethpage, it doesn't hold.

The first notice or contact with Bethpage by Ron Whitten or anyone else at GD was when he showed up at Bethpage with Burbeck's son unannounced to take photographs for the article. Even a public facility such as Bethpage has rules as to the use of photographic equipment and the way the images are used. They require permission whena photograph will be used for a profitable venture such as a magazine article.

Dave Catalano was simply told that GD was doing an article on the first superintendant of Bethpage and they wanted to photograph his son there for possible use. They chose to hide the nature and content of the article until they were leaving.

All those associated with park management were angry because they felt used and lied to. They also were upset that they hadn't been given a chance to speak to the "facts" of the article before publication, especially when they found out that it was being worked on for many months before this.

The problem as they, the USGA, Rees Jones, and others (I was contacted by all of these at this time just weeks before the Open), was that the purpose of the article was not for historical truth but was clearly and singularly for the express purpose of selling magazines.

Now GD is in business to sell magazines and make money, that is understood, but the way they went about publishing what they did was insulting to all involved... and that is before any articles could be written disproving any and all of their claims.

In addition, and I mention this in hopes that no one from GD will read this because they will quickly make the change, if Tilly didn't design the Black he didn't design the Red. Why then, if one looks up the Red course on GD.com, is the architect of Bethpage Red listed as A.W. Tillinghast with no mention of Mr. Burbeck? At least in my opinion, that speaks volumes as to GD's motivation and integrity.

In the case of a Bethpage Black, and as we can see the possibilities in the Merion threads for 2013, if you are going to knowingly publish something as outstandingly controversial as challenging the creator of the course that is about to host the U.S. Open and do so in a manner that deliberately doesn't allow either the club or the USGA to be given a FAIR ability to addrss the issues beforehand, you have done something highly unethical and wrong.

They should have contacted Bethpage during the research process regardless of their (GD's) conclusions.

Again, I feel this because it is singular to the Bethpage situation and not as a general rule. It is the exception that establishes it.

[Thomas MacWood]

The idea that these writers are obligated to share their research on a subject with their subject prior to publishing is goofy. Again these are not state secrets; this is golf architecture history - pretty light-hearted stuff

Tom MacWood - I can't disagree with this assertion. My only caveat would be that each club's membership and archives might prove to be a valuable resource, and shouldn't be ignored. A first attempt at access to information might be rebuffed, but if your work is subsequently presented to that club, then who knows? Another answer might be forthcoming. We ARE talking light-hearted stuff, I think, but stuff that still stirs strong emotions. If there's any obligation on a writer's part, Tom, it would be an obligation to do the best job possible, yes? And if a particular club doesn't grant access, the way that the writer deals with that response could prove to be a testing ground for how other clubs might deal with similar requests from that writer, or others.

I also agree, Tom, with this statement you made: "The Merion thread(s) got out of hand because personalities clashed, not because individuals were demanding anything from the Merion GC or the Merion Cricket C." Still, the totality of that situation ended up putting Wayne Morrison in a difficult position, and ultimately made him feel that he could no longer participate here, and that's too bad.

Kirk
My experience with these clubs has been very good, both from a research point of view and their reaction to what I have written. But I appreciate why you (and others) might not get another impression if you were to read the never ending criticisms of TE Paul. A good example is Crump & PVGC. If you listened to TE you would have thought a class action suit was eminent, I was wondering myself. But much to my surprise a respected member of the club thanked me for writing the essay and how I approached the subject, and invited me to be his guest.

It was not my intention to have Wayne depart from GCA. In fact, if you look back at his last comment, or one his last comments, he was thanking me for apologizing to him. I'm no angel but I try to keep things in perspective.

[TEPaul]

"Case in point, the USGA and ASGCA are working on documenting architectural history and as noted, TePaul, among others is actually working on that.  I would love to hear an update from him on how that is going, personally, but that is a subject for another day.  However, while it makes sense that someone interested in gca history would participate here, I doubt the USGA ever seriously considered this site as a resource in and of itself."


JeffB:

It's coming along nicely, I think, but it is not a simple process, all things considered. We hope it will open in the fall (The Internet component of the USGA's Architecture Archive). At first it will likely concentrate on four clubs and courses, as a first step and as an example for what will follow on a national or perhaps global basis someday.

Does the USGA look at GOLFCLUBATLAS.com as a resource? Sure it does in some ways. There are way more people out there who read GOLFCLUBATLAS than probably most on here realize---way, way more and that certainly includes the USGA. They even once talked to some of us on here about a discussion group component to the USGA Architecture Archive and basically two of us on here said: "Are you nuts, if you want to do that you sure will need some very tight and serious daily "monitoring" unless you want the kind of constant train-wrecking that happens on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com."

So I'm not sure what will happen in that way. What we're pushing for is maximum interactivity some day to simply make ease of information access as good as it can be with the tech tools available today. Maybe that will just include a link to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com

But I'll tell you one thing and that is we always will get back to good old human nature with any of this. If I see a guy like David Moriarty puts a statement on this website like he did the other day….

“"Not only that but the USGA is relying on you to put together a meaningful archive?  Yikes."

…..This website will get less cooperation from what I’m involved in and not more cooperation. This man and a few others will just have to start using his head better for things to work out well.

[TEPaul]

"But I appreciate why you (and others) might not get another impression if you were to read the never ending criticisms of TE Paul. A good example is Crump & PVGC. If you listened to TE you would have thought a class action suit was eminent, I was wondering myself. But much to my surprise a respected member of the club thanked me for writing the essay and how I approached the subject, and invited me to be his guest."


Tom MacWood:

If you're going to say things like that on here constantly you better get your story both right and complete.

I really don't give a damn if you use me constantly, as Moriarty does, as some excuse for everything that's gone wrong here, but the fact is you bear plenty of responsibility too even if you seem competely incapable of ever admitting or even acknowledging it.

My own problem with you is not really your arguing or challenges on these threads, it's your style and technique of not dealing with with clubs in any way before you produce some essay on them as your subject. And I believe the way Moriarty went about his essay is much worse than even what you've done with your Crump suicide essay. I don't think I could ever change my position on that or would ever care to, even if I am realizing more people on here than I suspected don't seem to see it that way. On the latter point all I can say is it both surprises me and disappoints me.

With what happened with you re Pine Valley, I've told that on here too and you just choose to ignore it. Yes, John Ott did invite you to Pine Valley but he did not do that before calling me and asking me both if I felt he should do that and also that he wouldn't do it unless I came down to be there and play with you. You sort of need to include that part to be balanced about it all, don't you think Tom MacWood? Or maybe you don't think that which is pretty indicative of a whole lot of the problem I've always had with you. John Ott was one of my closest friends for about thirty years---certainly in the world of golf. Furthermore, I'm the one who made it possible for you to email him your essay to him that he took to the club. You seem to constantly choose to ignore that too which is also indicative.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I think you are missing the point. The point is this Merion fiasco is an exception, and I'm not so sure the constant criticisms coming from some on GCA are even an accurate reflection of what the powers that be at Merion think - exemplified by Mr. Ott's positive repsonse to the Crump essay, with your help of course.

By the way I did contact PV's historian in preperation for my Crump essay. Club historians are wonderful resource and have been very helpful to me over the years.

As I've said we are discussing golf architecture history - not some heavy world altering subject.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Case in point, the USGA and ASGCA are working on documenting architectural history and as noted, TePaul, among others is actually working on that.  I would love to hear an update from him on how that is going, personally, but that is a subject for another day.  However, while it makes sense that someone interested in gca history would participate here, I doubt the USGA ever seriously considered this site as a resource in and of itself."


JeffB:

It's coming along nicely, I think, but it is not a simple process, all things considered. We hope it will open in the fall (The Internet component of the USGA's Architecture Archive). At first it will likely concentrate on four clubs and courses, as a first step and as an example for what will follow on a national or perhaps global basis someday.

Does the USGA look at GOLFCLUBATLAS.com as a resource? Sure it does in some ways. There are way more people out there who read GOLFCLUBATLAS than probably most on here realize---way, way more and that certainly includes the USGA. They even once talked to some of us on here about a discussion group component to the USGA Architecture Archive and basically two of us on here said: "Are you nuts, if you want to do that you sure will need some very tight and serious daily "monitoring" unless you want the kind of constant train-wrecking that happens on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com."

So I'm not sure what will happen in that way. What we're pushing for is maximum interactivity some day to simply make ease of information access as good as it can be with the tech tools available today. Maybe that will just include a link to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com

But I'll tell you one thing and that is we always will get back to good old human nature with any of this. If I see a guy like David Moriarty puts a statement on this website like he did the other day….

“"Not only that but the USGA is relying on you to put together a meaningful archive?  Yikes."

…..This website will get less cooperation from what I’m involved in and not more cooperation. This man and a few others will just have to start using his head better for things to work out well.

TePaul,

Thanks for the update.  I am head of the ASGCA internet site committee.....We briefly discussed a discussion board and dropped it for the same reasons.  We are looking instead to do Q and A with various architects but doubt we will allow public comment.  Maybe, but doubtful because we can't provide full time monitoring, as you suggest.

There really are some big picture issues that Merion threads highlight.  It may end up like the early days of the computer biz where a lot of indies sprang up, but eventually the big boys dominated the market.  As USGA and ASGCA get sites devoted to gca history and theory, its possible that this site will go down in importance, esp. given the funding the USGA could put towards a site compared to Ran.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Since I posted a reprint of Wayne's concerns on post #54 of this thread, I think the discussion on it has gone just fine. It's what I was hoping for.

You outlined your position and your philosophy on Wayne's concerns and I outlined mine. There is no reason at all to argue about them. They are what they are and I think we've both been clear. We very much disagree on this and I think we have both shown pretty clearly why we disagree.

I think that's all that can be asked for on here. It's good to do it this way. People can understand it so much better.

Thank you

[TEPaul]

"Thanks for the update.  I am head of the ASGCA internet site committee....."

You are? Cool. I guess I should have known that but we pretty much keep Chad in the loop on everything as it progresses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()