[SPDB]

Is a staff (even of one) contemplated? I think an ideal candidate would be an individual with a professional background in archivism, with no real knowledge or interest in golf.

I agree with Bob that it should be first and foremost a repository. I would take it further such that it should only be a repository.

I understand David's concerns about the risk that a club may selectively disclose, but what's the alternative? These are private institutions that are by no means obligated to disclose anything.  I suspect these clubs, keenly aware of their historical significance, will provide materials. Whether they disclose everything is, of course, their decisions. If they selectively disclose materials that will preserve their view of history that is regrettable but suspicion of that motive is not a reason to question the whole endeavor.

Perhaps the USGA AA could be endowed with subpoena power?

[Thomas MacWood]

Sean
I agree, respository only.

Attempting to write architectural histories can be dicey - see Merion. Not only that but how do you deal with unfortunate (IMO) changes to historic courses - like ANGC, Oak Hill, Inverness, Bethpage, Aronimink, Scioto, Bel Air, CC of Detroit, etc. The USGA is directly or indirectly responsible for many of these redesigns.

[Jeff_Brauer]

 

[DMoriarty]

These are private institutions that are by no means obligated to disclose anything.  I suspect these clubs, keenly aware of their historical significance, will provide materials. Whether they disclose everything is, of course, their decisions. If they selectively disclose materials that will preserve their view of history that is regrettable but suspicion of that motive is not a reason to question the whole endeavor.

SPDB,  I agree that the clubs will only give what they want to give, and that there is only so much that can be done about this.  My concern is more with the structure and how those put in charge will go about getting the information.   Will they encourage or discourage full disclosure from the clubs?   My fear is that at least some of those involved will favor censoring information and discourage honest and full participation from the clubs.

And what of factual material obtained and offered by those other than the clubs?   Will it be accepted and included within the club histories?  Even if the clubs do not want it included?  Will the USGA need to obtain the clubs' permission before they include facts about the clubs?

TEPaul has said on a number of occasions that research efforts on this website were hurting the cause of the USGA AA by discouraging clubs from participating.    If club participation is contingent on no questions being asked or research being conducted, then I have a hard time seeing how this will work.  And if the USGA's gatekeepers frown upon the dissemination of anything remotely controversial, then what good is such a facility?   

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Instead of tearing into the USGA AA initiative before it has even produced one piece of finished product, might I not suggest a proactive role on your part?

Why don't you polish up your essay and send it in to Rand Jerris at the USGA. I assume he is deeply involved with the initiative if not in complete charge of it. Say nothing about GCA.com or the controversies here or anyone by name. State that you read about the initiative and want to contribute your own research to the Merion section and to send in the following up parts as they are completed.

This will allow your work the best chance of being given serious and impartial consideration for inclusion and, if turned down, provide you a vehicle to then protest or criticize the initiative and the manner in which it is being run.

To do so in the manner you are doing by asking questions that are unanswerable at the moment is like trying to keep yourself dry while running in a downpour by waving your hands over your head.

Just a suggestion...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is the argument skewed a little by the recent Merion threads?  Frankly, whether it was Merion or any of the old great clubs I can't see how it would affect them, at least architecturally to have those records available, despite the brouhaha around Merion around here.

Would a discovery that Thomas just let Bell "have at it" for bunker placement as well as look disturb LA, Riv and Bel Air?  What if CBM was sick and Chicago Golf was really more Raynor (similar to Merion, after 1924 it was anyway)  We know a lot of Ross courses were built by his numerous associates and it would be interesting to know more about which ones did what, but would it affect those cousres reputation?

If I was part of a club I would check my records before sending them off to be viewed publicly, but I would be thinking in terms of any back room deals, racist or other outdated and unfortunate policies that might reflect badly on past members, which I presume wouldn't make the USGA architectural archives. 

I suppose that the names of the tree planting committee members and chairman could go down in infamy at many clubs, though.

[Steve Lang]

  
I would hope that:

1) an archive is an archive (just the facts, nothing but the facts)

2) architectural histories are professionally researched and

3) museum quality exhibits are presented in context without too much bias

and if its not too much to ask..

these three things are not mushed together

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul has said on a number of occasions that research efforts on this website were hurting the cause of the USGA AA by discouraging clubs from participating."


I have never said anything of the kind. Not many times and not once. What I said is a few clubs have said (to me) if they are to be treated as Merion has been treated on this website primarily by a few on here (do I need to name them) they may not be that interested in putting their material into the public domain. I'm not the one who wrote the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion". You did David Moriarty. And I'm not the only one who critiqued it and read the threads that followed it. I'm not the only one who completely disagreed with it and the whole manner in which it was researched (partial ) and presented. I have no problem with you saying and writing anything you feel like but those that read it will critique it as they see fit no matter how you might feel about the consequent critique.

You will have the opportunity to see some new material and when you do logic and commonsense would indicate you will need to seriously reconsider and rewrite your essay in light of that new material. Those who know Merion's history have every right and reason to assume your rewritten essay will simply agree with Merion's own architectural record (minus the 1910 trip abroad story). In that case the need for an essay like yours becomes questionable and perhaps redundant.  

In any case, if any researcher has some bone to pick with the accuracy of the architectural record of a club or course they should take that up with the club and see what kind of satisfaction they can get from it. As we all know you didn't take your bone to pick with Merion's architectural record up with Merion directly, you took it up on this website without informing Merion.

I seriously doubt the USGA's new Architecture Archive wants to get into the kind of argument that's been carried on here about your theory that Merion was routed by Macdonald or that his roll in Merion East's original creation was minimized. I doubt anyone will be interested in that when the evidence to the contrary is made available.

I'm afraid the time has probably come for you to choose another topic.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"Attempting to write architectural histories can be dicey - see Merion. Not only that but how do you deal with unfortunate (IMO) changes to historic courses - like ANGC, Oak Hill, Inverness, Bethpage, Aronimink, Scioto, Bel Air, CC of Detroit, etc. The USGA is directly or indirectly responsible for many of these redesigns."

How do you deal with the changes to historic courses?

How, else, but factually and honestly? Isn't it interesting that so many clubs who are in the process of restoring their courses to some of their original designs are doing just that? Furthermore, the USGA of today and the USGA of the future does not necessarily have to be the same USGA of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

Times change, they always have, and they always will.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
To my knowledge the USGA has continued to stimulate redesign. They continue to redesign Bethpage as we speak. The news that the NGLA was chosen to host the Walker Cup was bitter sweet.

There is a difference between being a repository of architectural documents and attempting to write a history. Archives typically collect, store and preserve documents.

[TEPaul]

"TE
To my knowledge the USGA has continued to stimulate redesign. They continue to redesign Bethpage as we speak. The news that the NGLA was chosen to host the Walker Cup was bitter sweet."


Tom MacWood:

There is no question in my mind that you have always tried to cast "redesign" as a completely negative concept and act. The subject, I'm afraid to say, is probably a whole lot bigger and more important and certainly complex than that rather myopic mindset or construct of yours---ie "it's unfortunate IMO! 



"There is a difference between being a repository of architectural documents and attempting to write a history. Archives typically collect, store and preserve documents."



Yes, you said that in some of those pretty critical and negative emails you once sent to me. I accept that an "archive" typically collects, stores and preserves documents. But perhaps this new USGA Architecture component can do that and go farther, in that perhaps it can also ACTIVELY inform and educate and perhaps even in a fairly interactive way someday.

It seems most of the problem you have is you seem to think you should be the one to inform and educate and I'm afraid that is not going to be the only way it will be. Others will as well, including others who don't share your opinions.

Also, Tom MacWood, since you seem to want to use this forum to express some of your opinions on these subjects, like the USGA Architecture Archive and perhaps what it should be and shouldn't be, let it be known on here, that I asked you-- and twice, if you wanted to take an active part in this USGA Architecture Archive initiative and project and you refused---twice. Please don't try to deny that because those emails are filed in the entire 3-4 year long planning record that went into this, along with everyone else's.   

[Thomas MacWood]

Te
You did ask me twice, and I respectfully declined. I didn't feel comfortable with the concept, which I explained to you. An archive/repository preserves and presents historical documents for historians, researchers, and those interested in the subject. Archives typically aren't involved in writing and presenting historical documents, usually they remain neutral. When a history is presented in the archives in essence the USGA is puting their good housekeeping seal upon that interpretation. Is that something the USGA should be involved with? I don't think so. But I could be wrong.

[TEPaul]

"Te
You did ask me twice, and I respectfully declined. I didn't feel comfortable with the concept, which I explained to you. An archive/repository preserves and presents historical documents for historians, researchers, and those interested in the subject. Archives typically aren't involved in writing and presenting historical documents, usually they remain neutral. When a history is presented in the archives in essence the USGA is puting their good housekeeping seal upon that interpretation. Is that something the USGA should be involved with? I don't think so. But I could be wrong."


Tom MacWood:

Those are the kinds of philosophical issues we've been dealing with for over four years now. There are a number of awful good people involved in this entire thing, as I suppose even you might be able to imagine. Some have been at it from the beginning and some have come on later in the game. The point is there are plenty of opinions that go into making up this final product and that's probably the way it should be---probably the only way it could be.

The point is we get involved in it and actively, and for whatever reasons, others don't seem to---like you. Is it because they really don't want to or because they just don't know how to catch the boat, so to speak. Or is because they'd rather be on the outside because they just don't want to TAKE or ACCEPT any RESPONSIBILITY??   

The thing is we don't ask endlessly! The deal is, like with most things in life, if someone refuses a few times, what's the point of asking endlessly or even asking again? If someone just keeps refusing for whatever their reasons, at some point, they won't be asked again. The interesting thing you should consider is who it was who asked you to get involved----and twice! It was me.

The thing is Tom, as I've always told you---you've got to engage, you've got to get out in the field on restorations and such and try to learn what really goes on in the real world out there. You've got to get engaged with the clubs that become your subjects and try to understand them better than anyone possibly could who has never seen them---never even been there---never even seen or known a single member.

You've just got to engage, Tom MacWood, you've just got to get involved. I've told you that for years, and I've even called and emailed and offered you the opportunities, but you always refuse. When one engages and gets involved they put their reputation on the line and that can get tough because you open yourself up to making mistakes and getting criticized for them, but that's just life, don't you think? Don't worry about that, you can overcome it, anyone can if you come at it unselfishly. 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip and others,

Not sure why there is such hostility toward what seem to me to be some pretty basic questions. 

We have been hearing about this great new USGA Archive  for some time now, and are fortunate enough to have some of those apparently in charge as participants here on GCA.com.  To me it seems like the time to work out any potential problems is before this thing gets off the ground, so I would think that this group would appreciate the questions and contributions of those interested in historical research. 

Do I have a chip on my shoulder?  Of course I do.  How could I not?  But the chip is about the way these guys have treated not only me and others, but also in the way they treat research and source material.   Two of those apparently in charge of this archive project have said that I should never have disclosed that H.H. Barker did a routing for Merion East in 1910!  Leave me out of it, but ask yourselves:  Should these really be the ones in charge of an archives on the history of gca?  At the very least, it gives me pause, and it ought to give you pause as well.

Am I the only one who recalls the bashing that MacWood took for even researching Crump and Pine Valley?  Not by the Pine Valley of course-- apparently Pine Valley was ultimately pleased with and thankful for Tom MacWood's contribution,  but by a few of the members of the group in charge of the USGA archives.   They took it upon themselves to defend Pine Valley (whether they asked for defending or not) against an outsider, and did everything they could to stop his research.   If I recall correctly, the major claim which supposedly justified this bashing was that Tom MacWood had no business looking into anything to do with Pine Valley.   So they harassed, ridiculed, and browbeat MacWood for trying to conduct research about the architect of one of the nations best golf courses.  As I said before.  Yikes.

Surely, at least questions are called for.

David,

Instead of tearing into the USGA AA initiative before it has even produced one piece of finished product, might I not suggest a proactive role on your part?

Why don't you polish up your essay and send it in to Rand Jerris at the USGA. I assume he is deeply involved with the initiative if not in complete charge of it. Say nothing about GCA.com or the controversies here or anyone by name. State that you read about the initiative and want to contribute your own research to the Merion section and to send in the following up parts as they are completed.

First,  My essay really has nothing directly to do with my concerns.   I had these same concerns before my paper was posted.  In fact it was going to be the topic of my first post once back, but I was discouraged from addressing the issue then, as I am being discouraged now.   The title of the post was going to be something like Should History be Left to the Members?   I have the same question more than ever.

Second, I don't think an essay like mine belongs at the USGA Archives.  Archives ought to focus collecting the and preserving the factual record, not on the opinions of me or anyone else.   That is why I question this notion of histories being written. 

Third, what would be the purpose of providing them with my account be, given that my account needs to be updated with information supposedly found since my essay was posted?   But those in charge of the Archives do not want me to have the information to update my essay until after they get around to trying to prove the current draft wrong.  Apparently it is just no fun if I simply set the record straight.    Hardly seems the proper attitude of archivist to me, but hey who am I to say?

Fourth,  I'd like to know a bit more about this archives before I'd consider contributing anything to it.   Which is why I am asking questions.

Why aren't you?

To do so in the manner you are doing by asking questions that are unanswerable at the moment is like trying to keep yourself dry while running in a downpour by waving your hands over your head.

I think every question I asked is easily answerable.   I am surprised you see it differently.  Shouldn't an archive have a protocol from the beginning?   I don't think that asking how they will deal with source material from third parties is any less important than which clubs they will start with or which clubs they will consider. 

Notice above how TEPaul avoids the issue of whether histories will be included, calling it a philosophical question.   Do you think that the essay he and Wayne are writing, which they have already repeatedly said would be in the archives, will impact the answer to this "philosophical question?"

______________________

I would hope that:

1) an archive is an archive (just the facts, nothing but the facts)

2) architectural histories are professionally researched and

3) museum quality exhibits are presented in context without too much bias

and if its not too much to ask..

these three things are not mushed together

Steve Lang,

I think these are all very good suggestions.  I am not sure they need histories at all, but would add that they need a professional archivist without any significant club affiliation and without any strong allegiance to any particular club or designer.   

"TEPaul has said on a number of occasions that research efforts on this website were hurting the cause of the USGA AA by discouraging clubs from participating."

I have never said anything of the kind. Not many times and not once. What I said is a few clubs have said (to me) if they are to be treated as Merion has been treated on this website primarily by a few on here (do I need to name them) they may not be that interested in putting their material into the public domain.

So, you have said on a number of occasions that research efforts on this website were hurting the cause of the USGA AA by discouraging clubs from participating. 

You will have the opportunity to see some new material and when you do logic and commonsense would indicate you will need to seriously reconsider and rewrite your essay in light of that new material. Those who know Merion's history have every right and reason to assume your rewritten essay will simply agree with Merion's own architectural record (minus the 1910 trip abroad story). In that case the need for an essay like yours becomes questionable and perhaps redundant. 

I am confused.  I get to see the material?  You seem go back and forth on this.  It was just recently you had this to say on the subject (as if it was your decision to make:)

David Moriarty:

Let it be known to you and to all on here you are never going to get anything from us or from Merion G.C. or MCC. The reason for this is your on-going adverserial attitude and NOTHING MORE. We will make that kind of material available to anyone who shows an interest in it and in reasonably analysing it. I say this because noone else has ever exhibited the attitude you have toward us, toward the architectural history of a club and its attributed architect, not even close, except perhaps Tom MacWood. 

Once permisson is granted we'd be glad to make this kind of material available privately to anyone if it never gets on some public Internet entity and is just reposited in the club (which does provide access to their archives). 

But we'll never do that for you. You apparently have no consideration for any of us here and this will be the result of it. You've made your own F..ing bed this way and now you can just sleep in it forever! Any more of your pathetic caterwalling demands for material will fall on deaf ears in the future.

You seem to have some idea that history is something to be used as a carrot or a stick to try and control the behavior of others.   Hardly a proper goal of an archives.   

[TEPaul]

 

[Thomas MacWood]

"Do I have a chip on my shoulder?  Of course I do.  How could I not?  But the chip is about the way these guys have treated not only me and others, but also in the way they treat research and source material.   Two of those apparently in charge of this archive project have said that I should never have disclosed that H.H. Barker did a routing for Merion East in 1910!  Leave me out of it, but ask yourselves:  Should these really be the ones in charge of an archives on the history of gca?  At the very least, it gives me pause, and it ought to give you pause as well."

David Moriarty:

I can tell you right now, chip on your shoulder or not, you are just not going to drag this USGA Architectrure Archive into this argumentative quagmire you've dragged Merion and us into on GOLFLCUBATLAS.com. It's not going to happen, pal, not even close. These people involved in this will not be listening to stuff like that from you. You may be able to grandstand for a while on this website that seems to be almost devoid of administration but that won't happen with the USGA.

The irony is, I've offered to collaborate with you and deal with you, and Tom MacWood as well, but the both of you always refuse. Apparently you seem to think I'm total anathema to you but the comical thing is everywhere you turn I'm always there and I'm pretty sure even you both know I always will be.

Considering the wonderful old baseball adage---three strikes and you're out---why don't you two consider all of this for a while, and then can back to me? 

Te
With all due respect I took up your offer to collaborate, and as we dug further it turned out your idea of collaboration was for me to turn over my research and then leave the interpretation and writing to you and Wayne. I told you that was not my idea of collaboration and your offer appeared to be nothing more than grand standing.

[TEPaul]

"Te
With all due respect I took up your offer to collaborate, and as we dug further it turned out your idea of collaboration was for me to turn over my research and then leave the interpretation and writing to you and Wayne. I told you that was not my idea of collaboration and your offer appeared to be nothing more than grand standing."

 
 
Tom MacSpruce:

That has nothing---let me repeat---nothing whatsover to do with MY OFFER to you to get involved in this USGA Architecture Archive. What you're talking about is this preposterous theory of yours, and then Moriarty's, going back well over five years that Macdonald's contribution to Merion East had been compromised in Merion's historical record. That has nothing to do with this USGA Architecture Archive which I asked you to get involved in three years ago and then again this year. You refused to get involved both times! 
 
 
 Te
With all due respect I took up your offer to collaborate, and as we dug further it turned out your idea of collaboration was for me to turn over my research and then leave the interpretation and writing to you and Wayne. I told you that was not my idea of collaboration and your offer appeared to be nothing more than grand standing. 
 
 
 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Your message above disappeared.  Among other things, you suggested that you offered to cooperate with me and I declined.  You may recall that you rescinded your offer to cooperate with me before I even had a chance to read it.  Here is your post where you did so:

Matter of fact, Moriarty, consider yourself shut down. You will get nothing more out of Philadelphia with that kind of post! You can belay that email to Ran Morrissett you probably just got in which I just offered to cooperate with you and Tom MacWood. It's more appropriate with what you just said if we just take our time and hopefully get MCC's permission with direct source material and just disprove your essay and make the fool out of you that's deserving of your kind of crap assumptions, conclusion and essay! Honestly, I think you've single-handedly destroyed the credibility of this nearly ten year old website to such an extent a prudent person wouldn't want to be part of it anymore. I can think of a few good ones who've left since you came back. I can't believe it was me who actually asked you to return.   

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Your message above disappeared.  Among other things, you suggested that you offered to cooperate with me and I declined.  You may recall that you rescinded your offer to cooperate with me before I even had a chance to read it.  Here is your post where you did so:"


No, David Moriarty, that's not what I offered to collaborate on with you that I'm talking about (athough I did offer to collaborate with you on Merion months ago). I offered to collaborate with you about Macdonald's life and times OTHER than to do just with GOLF ARCHITECTURE. Would you like me to put my offer on here to collaborate with you on both (Merion and Macdonald's life and times) to refresh your memory?

PS:
Yes, my message did disappear, and that's because a very "wise head" advised me not to repond to you----and I took his advice and made my response to you disappear.   

[DMoriarty]

"TEPaul,

Your message above disappeared.  Among other things, you suggested that you offered to cooperate with me and I declined.  You may recall that you rescinded your offer to cooperate with me before I even had a chance to read it.  Here is your post where you did so:"


No, David Moriarty, that's not what I offered to collaborate on with you that I'm talking about (athough I did offer to collaborate with you on Merion months ago). I offered to collaborate with you about Macdonald's life and times OTHER than to do just with GOLF ARCHITECTURE. Would you like me to put my offer on here to collaborate with you on both (Merion and Macdonald's life and times) to refresh your memory?

Yes.  I'd like to see it, but in its entirety. 

[DMoriarty]

On second thought Tom, post it if you want, but don't do it on my account.   I have already explained to you why I did not want to cooperate with you.

Let's try not to turn this into another personal clash here.   My concerns are of a more general nature. 

The concept of an impartial archives at the USGA sounds great, but only if it is impartial and neutral.  I am sure that in theory you agree, but I believe that you and I have different ideas on what impartiality and neutrality would require. 

Perhaps if we focus on a single issue where our approaches diverge it may help you and others understand my concern and yours. 

Take the 1910 H.H. Barker routing for Merion.  You were quite adamant that I should never have brought forward the fact that Barker had done an early routing.  Could you explain why you  think that such documents should be censored?   

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"On second thought Tom, post it if you want, but don't do it on my account.   I have already explained to you why I did not want to cooperate with you."


No, you know David, I think it's probably important to post those emails because you did ask for them on here, and I know you just said not to do it on your account but you have asked for these things in the past----eg you ask for the "facts" and you've accused me of deletions. I know a lot of crap has gone down on here over the years but I think this site should see exactly how I reached out to you off-line and how you refused. That's the way you recall it happened, right?

Frankly, I wasn't even sure I had them anymore but I do, so don't you think they should be seen----you want to see them, right?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Are you really sure you want to talk to me about H.H. Barker and that routing of his that was provided to Merion via an independent developer who had nothing at all to do with MCC or MCC Golf Association?

If you really want to talk to me about that I think I can show you a very good reason WHY Merion turned to C.B. Macdonald, and very quickly!! 

This is all some of the reason I sent you those private emails and offered to collaborate with you on something more to do with C.B. Macdonald. This is the very reason I think Merion turned to Macdonald which wasn't just about architecture. This is the very thing I just don't think you and Tom MacWood understand or appreciate, and that you need to learn and probably want to learn--if you are truly after the truth. Are you ready to hear it? Are you ready to consider it.  Are you ready to have an OPEN MIND?? 

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You missed the point of everything that I was trying to say to you in my post.

First you answered, "Phillip and others, Not sure why there is such hostility toward what seem to me to be some pretty basic questions..."

I have expressed ZERO hostility toward you, your statements or the questions you raised on ANY of the threads... NONE, yet you state that I did.

Secondly you wrote, "To me it seems like the time to work out any potential problems is before this thing gets off the ground, so I would think that this group would appreciate the questions and contributions of those interested in historical research..."

I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT IN IT'S ENTIRETY! THAT is why I suggested you contact the USGA ON THE MATTER! Even though Tom Paul and Bob Crosby are both on the group working on the initiative, they are the ONLY members of GCA.com who are (Remember Wayne is no longer a member). It is quite evident from you postings on this subject that YOUR CONCERNS are more personally-principled and involve Merion and that if you are correct in what you see as inequities and information gathering toward Merion that it follows that it is a flawed system operating a good idea.

You MAY be RIGHT... you also MAY be WRONG!

Let me ask you a question. If you believed that McDonald's hamburgers were being made the wrong way would you tell your concerns to Burger King and then complain when NOTHING was done to make them correctly?

By writing to the USGA you will be dirctly addressing the ONE AND ONLY group involved in the initiative... the ONE and ONLY group that can make any needed adjustments to the system THEY came up with.

Regardless of what you think of Tom & Wayne, there are some pretty bright guys at the USGA working on every single project, and that includes the Architectural Initiative. You can't say a tire isn't turning if the car hasn't been started or moved. Likewise, you can't state that things aren't being done correctly with this initiative until it actually begins the real process and produces it's first finished product.

If the finished product reflects acurately that your concerns came true, and that you warned the USGA BEFOREHAND that you saw it coming, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED that either the USGA's AA is corrupted by the members within the panel. It is that point that you can PROPERLY address your concerns to the Executive Committee and trust that they will take the necessary actions to correct the situation.

Of course, there is also the very real possibility that they will disagree with you on it. The problem in your complaint is that neither committee has been addressed by you on these concerns. You need to do that.

By raising the complaints on GCA.com rather than directly to the USGA you lose your ability to be properly heard and treated seriously, especially when you write on a public forum, "Should these really be the ones in charge of an archives on the history of gca?  At the very least, it gives me pause, and it ought to give you pause as well..."

If this claim has any validity it should be addressed to the USGA and not here. If you don't you can't ever criticize them for any alleged mistakes in fact or interpretations. Even if they think that your opinions are full of crap, unless they get to address them they can never state it to you and you can't use any forum to say that they were either fools or unjustly treated you or anything else, because they haven't.

There are just someprocesses one has to follow whether they like it or not to have their day in court so to speak. This is one you have to follow otherwise your complaints, true, false or ignored, will be like the sound made when a tree falls in the woods and no one is around... There really is a sound just no one to hear it.

You also wrote, "Second, I don't think an essay like mine belongs at the USGA Archives.  Archives ought to focus collecting the and preserving the factual record, not on the opinions of me or anyone else.   That is why I question this notion of histories being written..."

I was stunned by this revelation... It is obvious on it's face that your essay is an opinion-driven piece, yet when anyone states that they have a disagreement with an opinion it contains, you respond by stating that your writing is FACTUALLY ACCURATE AND OPINION IS TRUE while theirs IS NOT. If you are saying that your essay only contains OPINIONS and no RELEVANT FACTS concerning the question on Merion's origins, than I can't understand your problem with any of the questions that have been raised toward it. 

Finally you asked me directly, "Fourth,  I'd like to know a bit more about this archives before I'd consider contributing anything to it.   Which is why I am asking questions. Why aren't you?"

How the heck can you state that I am NOT ASKING THEM QUESTIONS? Becasue I haven't listed them on this or any other public forum? That is both an insult to me and ludicrous on it's face.

Just two days ago I emailed Bob Crosby a question that I had. I have done so with others on the committee in the past as well. I have offered suggestions to them. Yet according to you I haven't...

Consider, can you possibly believe that there won't be Tillinghast courses considered as part of this initiative? Can you imagine that the committee will not approach the Tillinghast Association as to whether they might have anything in their archives that might be relevant and need inclusion? Do you know who is the Official Historian for the Tillinghast Association and whom the committee will be directed to when they ask for help? Can you possibly imagine that Bethpage will not be one of the courses chosen? When it is, who do you think the people at Bethpage will direct the committee to speak with regarding their history?

The answer to those questions, for better or worse, will all involve one person.

I think you need to repsect the ENTIRE PROCESS and TRUST a bit that there are FAR MORE PEOPLE involved in this project than the few you have apersonal problem with...

Write the USGA.. you might be quite surprised when they give a listen...

To end on a lighter note, just as with Melvyn, you misspelled my name.. My name is Philip with ONE "L" the same as the father of Alexander the Great... and with that in mind, it's time I got my sons off their lazy asses... 

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul:

I have the email to which you refer, and will post it if you really want me to, but only in its entirety.  I think it serves no purpose and will probably cause some embarrassment, so I'd rather not.   I explained the reasons I will not work with you.  If you insist I will go through the reasons again.  But again, this will probably just lead to embarrassment and hurt feelings, so why keep reliving it?

David Moriarty:

Are you really sure you want to talk to me about H.H. Barker and that routing of his that was provided to Merion via an independent developer who had nothing at all to do with MCC or MCC Golf Association?

If you really want to talk to me about that I think I can show you a very good reason WHY Merion turned to C.B. Macdonald, and very quickly!! 

This is all some of the reason I sent you those private emails and offered to collaborate with you on something more to do with C.B. Macdonald. This is the very reason I think Merion turned to Macdonald which wasn't just about architecture. This is the very thing I just don't think you and Tom MacWood understand or appreciate, and that you need to learn and probably want to learn--if you are truly after the truth. Are you ready to hear it? Are you ready to consider it.  Are you ready to have an OPEN MIND?? 

Tom Paul, You misunderstood my question.  I have no interest in hearing again about why you think Merion turned to Macdonald. I DO NOT want to turn this into yet another Merion thread.   

My question for you is very specific.   You were quite adamant that I should never have brought forward the fact that Barker had done an early routing.  Could you explain why you think that such documents should be censored?  

In my opinion this has nothing to do with your view on why they may or may not have used the Barker routing or turned to Macdonald.  It is directed toward our differing approaches toward dissemination of source material.   

_______________________________

Phil,

I prefer open conversations to behind-the-scenes conversations.   I'd rather address the issues here before going to the USGA.  It seems a good place to here different viewpoints before bothering the USGA with it.   Maybe I have nothing to worry about, and that will be explained here.  Why bother Rand Jerris if I don't have to?

While I appreciate your advice, I'll address my concerns in the forum I see fit.  Thanks.

David.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()