[TEPaul]

"TEP
I believe you were the one that is continually mentioning Merion and Mypoia, not me. You can interpret my words any way you'd like."


Tom MacWood:

This is your statement;

"You should have added objective competent researcher/analyst. There is the rub. For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored."



Tom MacWood, If you are not saying or implying in that statement that it is Merion and Myopia that you think are so paranoid then why did you mention in that same remark that the result (of paranoia) is that people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of records get doctored? If it was not Merion or Myopia you were referring to what clubs are you referring to that did doctor transcribed versions of their records and bury the contributions to their courses of Campbell, HH Barker and CBM?

[Tom MacWood]

For those interested in rehashing the Myopia thread here is a link. You have to be pretty gullible to believe the original course was designed by Appleton & Co. and the original nine was not incorporated into the larger 18. The evidence would to contradict that claim.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40810.0/

You have to give TE credit for his consistency in supporting his favorite myths, and trying to defeat all new interlopers. On one hand you have him singing the praises of Appleton & Co., then on the other hand claiming the original nine was not utilized (when it looks like Campbell might be responsible). Typical.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Mac,

Could you answer my question?

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Once again you simply refuse to read what was written and go off in other directions.

You responded to me, "Phil, I said some clubs, not all clubs..."

Well Tom, I didn't say ALL clubs either... I said that EVERY club whose records I examined...

You continued, "and I don't recall saying anything about angry..."

Once again Tom, I didn't state that YOU DID. In refering to the clubs where I showed them that the "architect of record" was not who they thought I said, "Did the ones that learned that it was another architect who designed their course become angry and upset about it? Not a single time."

You followed up with "Now I have observed some odd reactions from people who are dedicated to a single architect, reaction that seem to border on angry. Your reaction to Burbeck being given some credit at Bethpage comes to mind..."

You are entitled to your opinion, but you obviously have no conception whatsoever as to my feelings on the matter as ANGER is MOST DEFINITELY NOT one of them.

So now I would like to know how many clubs "administrative records," including board minutes, you have examined. I won't ask you to name them as that wouldn't be proper, but I am curious if you'd care to answer.

Two open letters to Ron Whitten...if not angry how would you characterize that response?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom Mac,

Could you answer my question?

Thanks

No thank you. I have no desire to rehash that thread. If you are truly interested in the subject why don't you read the thread. I thought it was one of the more interesting threads dealing with an attribution...make note of those producing documentation and those not producing documentation.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Since you seem to suggest you know something about the original 1894 nine at Myopia or want those on here to think you do why don't you just try and go hole by hole and explain what it was and where it was?

Can you do that?

Or if you'd prefer, why don't we just take it from the first hole and go hole by hole and discuss it? Do you have a problem with that? Is there something about that you're worried about?  


Or else why don't you just try to answer Posts #43 and #50 first? If you don't what you're hiding is becoming patently clear. 

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Mike_Cirba on Today at 08:27:59 PM
Tom Mac,

Could you answer my question?

Thanks


No thank you. I have no desire to rehash that thread. If you are truly interested in the subject why don't you read the thread. I thought it was one of the more interesting threads dealing with an attribution...make note of those producing documentation and those not producing documentation.




Tom MacWood:

That response shows clearly as a researcher/analyst or even as a mere discussant on here you are pathetic.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
No need, in the last pages of that thread there are two very nice maps depicting the original nine and the full 18...its all there graphically for anyone interested.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "Two open letters to Ron Whitten...if not angry how would you characterize that response?"

As someone who is trying to get someone to discuss the issue and the "proofs" that the two of us have... There was absolutely NO ANGER at all. In fact, as some who I discussed the issue with off-line would tell you, I LAUGHED about the entire thing. I posted the "Open Letter" fully expecting him to NOT respond.

You & Ron are actually very much alike; you both deflect when challenged with irrefutable proof and usually refuse to answer direct questions as you have done with me once again by not answering the one I asked in the post to which your above response was directed. So, once again, in case you missed it earlier:

"So now I would like to know how many clubs "administrative records," including board minutes, you have examined. I won't ask you to name them as that wouldn't be proper, but I am curious if you'd care to answer."

By the way, telling me that you don't care to answer the question would be an acceptable answer... 

[TEPaul]

"By the way, telling me that you don't care to answer the question would be an acceptable answer..."



Phil:

Maybe that would be an acceptable answer from MacWood for you but for me, at this point, it most definitely would not----at least not seeing as what he has already put on here about clubs like Merion and Myopia and their paranoia and their friends and such doctoring records.

In my opinion, what this man MacWood has said on here in that particular vein has either got to stop or he has to be taken down bigtime! For some of the things this man has said and implied on here about a few significant clubs he deserves no credibility or respect at all unless and until he changes his ways and his MO on here. 

It's one thing to imply the things he has but when questioned on them to at least anwer the questions honestly and to the best of his ability. But he won't even do that and hasn't for years! He has constantly refused to do that, and just continues to play deceptive bullshit games and word games with all of us.

I hope he starts to change his ways on here or the best thing that can happen to him is to follow his tag-team buddy, Moriarty, into oblivion.

[TEPaul]

"On one hand you have him singing the praises of Appleton & Co., then on the other hand claiming the original nine was not utilized (when it looks like Campbell might be responsible). Typical."



Tom MacWood:


The original 1894 nine of Myopia compared to Leeds's "Long Nine" for the 1898 US Open, and then Leeds's full eighteen hole course for the next three US Opens up until 1908 just was what it was.

But the deal on here is you can't or won't even try to discuss what and where that original 1894 nine was because you just don't know do you? And don't you think that might have something to do with the fact you have never even seen Myopia or any of their records?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
No need, in the last pages of that thread there are two very nice maps depicting the original nine and the full 18...its all there graphically for anyone interested."



Tom MacWood:

That is absolutely not true. What you said there is completely inaccurate historically. Those two very nice maps, as you call them, do not depict the original nine (1894) and the full 18.

Those two maps depict Leeds' 1898 "Long Nine" and then the full 18 hole course in 1902!

Why do I virtually know that you will rationalize away or ignore or avoid this reality too?

On the other hand, it would be nice if you could discuss it but I doubt you will for particularly obvious reasons!

Here's the real question I would love to see you answer honestly for once:

Would you like to even TRY to discuss the similarities and differences of the original 1894 Myopia nine and Leeds' "Long Nine" on which Myopia's first US Open was held in 1898?

[Jay Carstens]

With the Senior Open on the horizon, Omaha Country Club.  Maxwell's redesign and now Foster but I've never heard anything about the original architect at the present site.  I'm not sure Omaha is significant (a very nice course) but it certainly is a mystery.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Mac,

Could you answer my question?

Thanks

No thank you. I have no desire to rehash that thread. If you are truly interested in the subject why don't you read the thread. I thought it was one of the more interesting threads dealing with an attribution...make note of those producing documentation and those not producing documentation.

Tom,

Sorry to hear that.   I spend a lot of time trying to answer your questions, even when they come with an insulting putdown.

It's strange you have no desire to rehash when you were the one who brought Myopia into this thread, and I did in fact go back yesterday and re-read that thread and still have the exact same question.

Is it possible that Willie Campbell merely "laid out" the course "on the ground" to the routing pre-determined by the Myopia members shortly after his arrival on these shores?  Why or why not?   

Apparently Mr. Appleton of Myopia had previously built a course on his own property, so they certainly had the chutzpah to think they could do it.   Also, the schematics of Campbell's early course I've seen are very geometric and honestly if you told me they were designed by some amateurs I'd never be able to differentiate, so it's not like Campbell's arrival on these shores was the start of The Enlightenment. 

I think it's perfectly possible that Campbell built the greens and tees for them as the new pro in town and accepting that would in fact clear up any remaining questions about the attribution of Myopia.


You spent a lot of time over the past few years trying to convince us that "laid out" in the vernacular of that time did not mean "design" in the case of Hugh Wilson, yet seem to rule it out prima facie in this situation.   Why the double standard?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
What do you base your understanding of who-did-what-and-when upon? TEP or some other source?

[TEPaul]

"Mike
What do you base your understanding of who-did-what-and-when upon? TEP or some other source?"



Mike Cirba:

You asked Tom MacWood a very legitimate question about the architectural history of Myopia above (I think initially on Post #42). As usual he refused to answer it.

Do you really wonder why?

On a subsequent post I asked him to try to describe hole by hole the original 1894 nine of Myopia. He refused to answer that too and just deflected it.

Does anyone really wonder why? 

If so I will be glad to tell you. It's because he can't but apparently he would prefer that no one know that. He's never been there, he's never looked at the club's records other than Edward Weeks 1975 history book, and he doesn't understand that part of the course's architectural history. It appears he even thinks the so-called "Long Nine" was the original 1894 nine!   

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Just like a number of other legitimate questions put to you on this website by a number of people that you continue to deflect and refuse to answer, you're not even going to try to discuss the hole by hole nature of Myopia's original 1894 nine, are you?

What is the real reason for that? 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

This is your statement;

"You should have added objective competent researcher/analyst. There is the rub. For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored."



Tom MacWood, If you are not saying or implying in that statement that it is Merion and Myopia that you think are so paranoid then why did you mention in that same remark that the result (of paranoia) is that people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of records get doctored? If it was not Merion or Myopia you were referring to what clubs are you referring to that did doctor transcribed versions of their records and bury the contributions to their courses of Campbell, HH Barker and CBM?



Tom MacWood:

Are you just going to ignore answering the question just above? And if so, why is that?  

How about Myopia's original nine and the question of where the holes were on it? Are you going to ignore that question too and why is that?  

How about the fact you made a mistake with Bob Crosby's essay and what he said about when Behr first mentioned the "sport/game" distinction? Are you going to continue to fail to acknowledge that as well by blaming it on your Word applicaton or whatever  , and why is that??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()