[TEPaul]

The "story" that Crump shot himself has been around Pine Valley for longer than anyone on this website has been alive and that's a fact (even Crump's own caddie was aware of that story and he was the one who remembers Crump walking around the course at the end with a towel in his mouth). It was mentioned in a magazine article years ago. Tom MacWood did not break that story but he did prove it was true.

If some on this website want to give him credit for making the world aware that Crump may've committed suicide I have no problem with that but he did not break that story, he simply proved it to be true by producing Crump's death certificate.

If anyone from the club had ever wanted to prove that story they could've done so very easily by simply doing what MacWood did---eg asking for Crump's DC. No one seemed to want to do that and I can understand the reason even if some on here don't appear to understand that.

The point that is probably more important is the nature of his death had no effect on what Crump did in life with the golf course during his years there constantly. The record of his architectural condribution is clear and factually supportable. Thankfully the suggestion that was implied that Crump and his roll with the architecture of Pine Valley was glorified by the club because of the shock of his sudden death seems to have dissipated (one can find that suggestion and implication in the back pages of this website). I think it's important to make that clear on here. Colt's roll with the architecture of Pine Valley has also been made more clear and has been factually supported.

To me this is the value of a website like this one. There are the club architectural histories and occassionally they may be challenged as to their historic and factual accuracy. Some details may be found to be bogus or generated years later for various reasons. They are then reanalyzed and these histories obviously become clearer.

Pine Valley's story is certainly different from Merion's, and both are very different from Myopia's but the point is Crump's contribution and Colt's contribution has now been more specifically identified and defined and it's more historically accurate. Colt's contribution will no longer be minimized by anyone. With Merion, Macdonald and Whigam's contribution has also been more accurately identified and defined and the point is their contribution is exactly what the club and its record said it was contemporaneously back in 1910 and 1911, despite the contentions of some who suggest it was in some way minimized by Merion. It wasn't! And for that reason the on-going research via GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has done a good job with the details of that club's early architectural history, as is the case with Pine Valley. Myopia's may be on-going but to date this website has seen nothing solid to suggest that Myopia's early architectural history should be revised somehow by the club.

In the end these are the things that're important. It's not about the people who look into these things, it's about what is ultimately found out.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood proved the Crump died at his own hand from a gunshot wound.

However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself.   I think Tom's procurement of the death certificate simply proved the long-time "insider" rumor.

[Thomas MacWood]

Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself?  How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture?  We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others.  But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself? 

Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual.  Others respect the privacy of individuals.  Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects.  Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study.  Crump was not a public figure.  He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district.  As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story.  His death was a factor.  But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace.  The circumstances of his death are not fully understood.  Why he committed suicide will never be revealed.  So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?

[DMoriarty]

Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine.

Tom,   I know it is unimportant, and that you think so.   I have just grown very tired of watching the extent to which these guys will go to avoid acknowledging that anyone other than themselves could ever figure anything out.   Backroom rumors, gossip, and local myth may satisfy TE Paul's thirst for "knowledge," but he should not trying to pass off hearing gossip as an accurate understanding of history. 

________________________________________________________________________


Wayne Morrison,

You have a lot of nerve lecturing Tom MacWood on privacy concerns and on coming forward with information unrelated to the topic at hand.
-- Have you forgotten your repeated attempts at sullying MacWood's reputation with your vague and unsupported third-hand rumors about some supposed indiscretion at some private club or another?
-- Have you forgotten that you once did your best to spread laughably false and third hand rumors about my supposed snail's pace of play? 

What does it say about a man when he has more concern for the long dead than he does the living?   

Tom MacWood,

Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself?  How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture?  We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others.  But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself? 

Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual.  Others respect the privacy of individuals.  Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects.  Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study.  Crump was not a public figure.  He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district.  As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story.  His death was a factor.  But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace.  The circumstances of his death are not fully understood.  Why he committed suicide will never be revealed.  So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?

Yet another shining example of why the USGA should have absolutely nothing to do with a guy like Wayne Morrison when it comes to building its archives:   Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed.    Wayne and Tom Paul, you do realize that the roles of Censor and Archivist are in opposition, do you not?   


Wayne, I am fascinated at your willingness to so flippantly decide what is part of the story and what isn't. 

-Is this the real reason you let the Barker routing slip your mind?

-Is this the real reason you have longe misrepresented the identity of the real draftsman of some of the Flynn drawings?

-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?

-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the portion of the Alan Wilson report which credited C.B. Macdonald?

-Is it the real reason you (reportedly) left references to Macdonald and Whigham's role at Merion out of the early drafts of the long awaited Flynn Puff Piece?

-Is it the real reason you never bothered to take a closer look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?

-Is it the reason you knowingly misrepresented M&W's role at Merion, trying to reduce them to glorified travel agents?

-Is it the real reason you sat silently while TEPaul lied about Merion purchasing the property in 1909?


You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed    Astonishing.
 

I guess that is also the reason you and TEPaul are now cherry-picking the information from MCC.  You decide what is "important to the story," on the one hand, and what should be concealed, on the other.

[TEPaul]

"However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself."

Excuse me, Mike, but GeoffShac did not know that Crump shot himself. All he knew is that he had read there was a rumor to that effect in a magazine some time ago. He did talk to me about writing about that but he decided against it on his own apparently.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

For one who has continuously taken others to task for misrepresenting what had been stated by them, you sure take a liberal view for yourself when quoting others.

Where in anything of what Wayne wrote that YOU quoted from, does he ever state that Crump's suicide needed to be "CONCEALED?" The word and phrase isn't in there and the meaning of what was written doesn't support this conclusion.

Still, you wrote, "Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed..." and also "You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed... astonishing."

David it is time for you to stop doing exactly what you are critical of others for.

It's time for ALL of you guys to let this stuff go and quit ruining good discussions because you can't stop yourselves fromtaking shots at each other.

[TEPaul]

"Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine."


Tom MacW:

I'd agree with that---eg who broke the story is not that important but the truth is. However, I'm afraid almost no one can see what that has to do with Pine Valley and Crump's roll there. Therefore when you speak about the "legend" of Crump I fail to see what difference it makes if he died suddenly of suicide or poison to the brain from a tooth abscess. Do you see what difference it makes to the legend of George Crump in the context of his legendary status as the creator of Pine Valley? Was George Crump a legend in some other way that we are not aware of? As a golfer or perhaps a legendary hotelier? 

I think the fact that Wilson may never have gone abroad before 1912 and that the 1910 story which I do give David Moriarty full credit for discovering, actually makes Wilson and Merion and his part in its creation even more interesting and probably significant within the history of American architecture.

Of course, David Moriarty's contention in his essay was that the 1910 story abroad was always used as a rationale for how such an inexperienced man in architecture could have done as much as he did with the course, and that if that 1910 story was proven to be false it would prove that there was no way Wilson could have done in 1911 what the club gives him credit for. I think the more remarkable thing all this research has proven is that even if he never did go abroad BEFORE routing and designing and constructing the course in 1911 he nevertheless actually did do what Merion's history says he and his committee did. And now records perhaps not used in research in close to a century prove that to be the case.


As for your contention that Campbell designed the original nine holes of Myopia in 1894, I'm afraid that will just have to remain your opinion unless and until you produce something that establishes that. For the time being I believe the club's own record of who did it (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) are probably a whole lot more accurate than some unproduced Boston Globe newspaper article!  

But if you ever do produce it then it might be worthy of some level-headed discussion on here.

[DMoriarty]

David,

For one who has continuously taken others to task for misrepresenting what had been stated by them, you sure take a liberal view for yourself when quoting others.

Where in anything of what Wayne wrote that YOU quoted from, does he ever state that Crump's suicide needed to be "CONCEALED?" The word and phrase isn't in there and the meaning of what was written doesn't support this conclusion.

Still, you wrote, "Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed..." and also "You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed... astonishing."

David it is time for you to stop doing exactly what you are critical of others for.

Phillip, I did not quote him as having used the word "concealed."   That is my understanding of his position.   He thinks the information should never have been brought forward.   

Both TEPaul and Wayne have repeatedly written and said that the information about Crump's suicide should never have been brought forward.   Plus, they did everything they could to try and pressure and brow-beat Tom MacWood into not bringing it forward.   Plus, in the quote Wayne is scolding MacWood for having brought the information forward, even stating that it reflects poorly on MacWood as a human being.   

Moreover, this is part of a long pattern of behavior on the part of these two.   They have repeatedly concealed, misrepresented, ignored, forgotten, cherry-picked or never even bothered to look closely at documents that did not fit with their version of the story.   You are a researcher, so you know that this is inappropriate behavior.   Once cannot pick and choose facts but must represent and consider them all.   

It's time for ALL of you guys to let this stuff go and quit ruining good discussions because you can't stop yourselves fromtaking shots at each other.

Phillip, at this point it is impossible to have a good discussion about any historical issues,  because these guys think they can always control the agenda.  Ignoring them does not work so I am taking them on whenever they do it.   

[DMoriarty]

As for your contention that Campbell designed the original nine holes of Myopia in 1894, I'm afraid that will just have to remain your opinion unless and until you produce something that establishes that. For the time being I believe the club's own record of who did it (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) are probably a whole lot more accurate than some unproduced Boston Globe newspaper article! 

But if you ever do produce it then it might be worthy of some level-headed discussion on here.

Tom Paul,  you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you?   You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacW:

I'd agree with that---eg who broke the story is not that important but the truth is. However, I'm afraid almost no one can see what that has to do with Pine Valley and Crump's roll there. Therefore when you speak about the "legend" of Crump I fail to see what difference it makes if he died suddenly of suicide or poison to the brain from a tooth abscess. Do you see what difference it makes to the legend of George Crump in the context of his legendary status as the creator of Pine Valley? Was George Crump a legend in some other way that we are not aware of? As a golfer or perhaps a legendary hotelier? 

TE
Reread the essay. I was telling the story of Crump's life. The trials and tribulations encountered while building PV and his suicide are not important events in his life? If that is your opinion, I'm confident you are in the minority.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

Good point about not taking any more potshots at one another---AND SO---how about we get back to Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick----the subject of this thread----that is if anyone has ansything left to contribute about him and what made him tick.

I just came back from there where ironically I played in a 3-4 day invitational called the Herbert C. Leeds. There seems no question listening to some who know the history of the club best (although there are two gents they say I need to talk to who really do know most about the place at this point) but that Leeds could be a pretty tough hombre. No one denies he could be really tough on having women around in certain situations and it seems like when some termed him a martinet they were probably right on. When he was alive the club members referred to him as "Papa" and it seems like he got his way however he wanted to do it.

So what made Leeds the architect tick? Who really knows but it appears that whatever his particular reasons just like Crump at Pine Valley and maybe Wilson of Merion and even Fownes of Oakmont they all went at their particular course they made famous with a singlemindedness of purpose that was pretty remarkable and most all of them did it for the remainder of their lives which just may be the most important thing of all for people like us to know and appreciate!

[Mike_Cirba]

"However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself."

Excuse me, Mike, but GeoffShac did not know that Crump shot himself. All he knew is that he had read there was a rumor to that effect in a magazine some time ago. He did talk to me about writing about that but he decided against it on his own apparently.

Tom,

It wasn't Geoff who shared that with me back then.   

[TEPaul]

"TE
Reread the essay. I was telling the story of Crump's life. The trials and tribulations encountered while building PV and his suicide are not important events in his life? If that is your opinion, I'm confident you are in the minority."


Tom:

I don't need to reread your essay on Crump. I've read it a number of times, I've told you a number of times I think it's good for what it is and I know exactly what it says and what your contention or implication appears to be of what led to his suicide. I'm sure I probably know more about George Crump and particularly his life and times at Pine Valley through those years at Pine Valley than you do or ever will never having even been there and while your assumption of what may've led to cause him to shoot himself, while certainly very plausible, is surely nothing more than common guesswork on your part or anyone else's.

I mean no disrepect to you when I mention it but the multitude of reasons that may've led a man like that to do what he did are probably staggering. That time and that class and even that avocation really did produce some remarkable people in some ways that most today would probably term an eccentric, even an extreme eccentric. It seems like George Crump was definitely that albeit and unusually lovable one by all who knew him or saw him.

I mean, come on, right off the bat it is just not that normal to basically hie into the woods in first a tent and then a little cabin and spend the remainder of your life, basically five years, pretty much just doing what he did down there. I'm not too sure many really understand what he did that way and what it must have been like.  He lost his wife young, he sold his business before he was forty and he went into the woods with this single-minded fixation. It's like have the man went into deep exclusion and pretty young.

One might fairly ask what in the hell did he think he was going to do with the rest of his life if he expected to live a normal lifespan?? One thing seems sure---he never said, not to anyone. What happened to him really did seem to be a total shock and wrench to everyone who ever knew the man.

I'm the only one on here who ever laid eyes on someone who actually knew him and that sure was the impression I got from that person even if he was very young at the time. On the other hand, that man was equally as fascinated by John Arthur Brown too. That guy caddied at Pine Valley from the time he was about ten until he was almost ninety.

When I tell you stuff like this your general response is that I must live in a Holiday Inn Express or something. It's pretty mindboggling, the degree of the defensiveness!  
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,  you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you?   You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?"


Don't worry, I'm quite sure I know what the differences and distinctions are between a club history book and club records and minutes and archive material a whole lot better than you do. The reasons are pretty obvious---eg I've dealt with a whole lot more of all of them than you ever have. It is a most interesting learning process, that's for sure.

I'll tell you one thing for sure---if I had to go about trying to learn the history of a club or its architecture the way you have tried to do it, I doubt I would've ever tried it at all. It is no fault of yours, and I'm not suggesting it is, but apparently you simply cannot even imagine what a real disadvantage you have put upon yourself trying to truly understand a club or its architectural history the way you have gone about it.

The same is true of Tom MacWood. We've told you endlessly that one can never truly understand much of anything about a club like a Merion or Pine Valley or Myopia or even the history of its architecture if they never even go to it. Of course neither of you are even remotely willing to listen or consider that from us. It really doesn't matter anyway, since you probably never will do it or listen to those who have gone before you. You two birds are really some God-damned pair, that's for sure----a couple of guys who promote themselves as these "expert researchers" of courses without ever really even seeing them or any of their own records. To me it used to be kinda maddening but now I see it pretty much as just a joke.

No wonder you two guys, particularly you, Moriarty, question, insult and challenge us on practically every post. Obviously there isn't anything else for you to do, at this point---you never had much in the first place and even you guys know that's pretty apparent now.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, what about PART TWO?? That seemed pretty dumb in the beginning but it's seems a lot dumber now, don't you think? 

[TEPaul]

"Both TEPaul and Wayne have repeatedly written and said that the information about Crump's suicide should never have been brought forward."

In a sense that's true and that's accurate, at least for me. I can't really speak for Wayne. I never would've said that or ever felt that if MacWood had just gone to Pine Valley first. In a way it was no different than the discussion I had with GeoffShac on the very same subject---eg writing about Crump's life and apparent suicide some years before I ever knew of MacWood.

I asked him if he decided to do it if he would approach Pine Valley about it first. I believe he said he wasn't sure. I remember we did discuss what he might do if he did go to them first and they tried to discourage him. I think he said he probably wouldn't do it but that he understood it's a free country and they certainly had no real right to stop him. That was that and for whatever his reasons he obviously decided not to do it in the end.

I think MacWood or anyone doing a story like that should go to the club with it first. Call me old fashioned if you want, that's OK---that's just the way I felt, still feel and I hope I also will with a thing like that.

[DMoriarty]

"Tom Paul,  you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you?   You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?"


Don't worry, I'm quite sure I know what the differences and distinctions are between a club history book and club records and minutes and archive material a whole lot better than you do. The reasons are pretty obvious---eg I've dealt with a whole lot more of all of them than you ever have. It is a most interesting learning process, that's for sure.

I'll tell you one thing for sure---if I had to go about trying to learn the history of a club or its architecture the way you have tried to do it, I doubt I would've ever tried it at all. It is no fault of yours, and I'm not suggesting it is, but apparently you simply cannot even imagine what a real disadvantage you have put upon yourself trying to truly understand a club or its architectural history the way you have gone about it.

You have no idea how I have gone about researching Merion's history.  As for your methodology, you may want to reconsider considering how badly you guys had botched Merion's history.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, what about PART TWO?? That seemed pretty dumb in the beginning but it's seems a lot dumber now, don't you think?

I have said many times that I'd like to revise Part I first, but it seems sort of silly given the hide-the-ball games you guys are playing with the source material.

But now you have made clear that your promised "point-by-point counterpoint" of my essay is not going to happen (gee, I wonder why?) and your promised report to the USGA is not going to happen.  In fact, you guys are apparently only doing is a slight revision to your ever growing Merion Chapter to reflect the information and analysis that I brought forward.   So I guess I might get around to making some changes in Part I and turning to Part II.

Still seems silly though.  I do my rewrite, you guys come forward and nitpick it based on sources you won't even let me see, we repeat the process.   

[TEPaul]

"You have no idea how I have gone about researching Merion's history.  As for your methodology, you may want to reconsider considering how badly you guys had botched Merion's history."

Maybe I don't and I'm afraid I really don't want to know when I see the result of the way you've gone about this and what you've produced.

You keep saying that---eg that we've botched Merion's history. Despite the fact we've told you a number of times, which you always ignore, that is not an era of Merion's history Wayne and I ever intended to write about in detail. What we intended to write about was William Flynn, and there's surely a lot more to his life and work than just Merion. We've also told you numerous times Flynn even if perhaps there in that early era (1910-1911) was not significantly enough involved for us to get into.

We've told you this over and over and over again and you simply ignore it each and every time. At this point I really don't care if you do continue to ignore it and if you continue to tell us on this website we botched some history we never intended to write about or really research in detail in the first place.

I'm glad you do continue to do this over and over and over again. Hopefully it will serve to show this website even more clearly just what a defensive and personally consumed charlatan you are.

Frankly, at this point, David Moriarty, I would strongly encourage Tom MacWood to sever any connection he has to you whatsoever, even in perception. Both of you are so blatantly trying to promote yourselves as what you refer to as "expert reseachers" but at least he's worth something on here that way and to architectural research. You have pretty much proven, at this point, you are basically worth less than nothing that way!

[TEPaul]

"I have said many times that I'd like to revise Part I first, but it seems sort of silly given the hide-the-ball games you guys are playing with the source material.

But now you have made clear that your promised "point-by-point counterpoint" of my essay is not going to happen (gee, I wonder why?) and your promised report to the USGA is not going to happen.  In fact, you guys are apparently only doing is a slight revision to your ever growing Merion Chapter to reflect the information and analysis that I brought forward.   So I guess I might get around to making some changes in Part I and turning to Part II.

Still seems silly though.  I do my rewrite, you guys come forward and nitpick it based on sources you won't even let me see, we repeat the process."


David Moriarty, aren't you ever going to get it?

This is just not always about you, even if you just never cease with trying to make it seem like it is. Merion and others interested in this subject have read your essay and they've all considered it and what it means. It doesn't do anything at all for anyone I've spoken to about it from the club or otherwise who matters. It's just basically a flop pal, why don't you just get real and either just go away on this subject or get onto to something else about architecture with which you can learn from the mistakes you made trying to do this thing.

We all totally realize you will never admit how we've shown specifically how your points and premises just don't make any logical sense. Unfortunately for you, I guess, most everyone else seems to understand that or accept it but you. They also see the way you've tried to keep all this going for months---it's not me, it's you and now all you do is attack us. We didn't research for you and we sure didn't help you write what you did. That's your work, your product and I can understand that it has to be hard for you to face up to this, I really can but what are you going to do?

It's time to drop all this. There's no need for you to rewrite your first part or do a second part. The history of Merion is clear and its supportable as well as their relationship with Macdonald and Whigam back then and their non-relationship with H.H. Barker.

We told you all along and many times that the way Merion's history and record treats C.B. and Whigam is accurate. Those people who recorded that Merion record were there throughout, they all saw it and lived it in detail and despite both yours and MacWood's preposterous contentions to the contrary they did not lie about what they did or Macdonald did or didn't do. It's all right there in its raw state.

If you want it or want to analyze it in real detail do not brow beat me and Wayne Morrison any longer about withholding anything from you. We are not doing that and we never did. If you want the kind of access to that club or any other that we may've had and enjoy then I guess  you pretty much better learn how to do what we've been able to do over the years, maybe ten for Wayne and maybe thirty plus for me.

Honest to God, this is really getting old and it's become tiring. Let it go and we sure will. Are you OK with that? Just let it go. Get onto to something else. I proposed a great subject for you to get involved in next but you weren't interested. That's too bad. You should reconsider what I said and recommended. Macdonald is obviously your man but you're going to need to get a whole lot more objective about him and a whole lot less defensive towards some people about him first.  

[wsmorrison]

Wayne Morrison,

You have a lot of nerve lecturing Tom MacWood on privacy concerns and on coming forward with information unrelated to the topic at hand.
-- Have you forgotten your repeated attempts at sullying MacWood's reputation with your vague and unsupported third-hand rumors about some supposed indiscretion at some private club or another?

I've tried to ignore you.  But since you insist on telling lies and distort facts, I am once again forced to respond.  Ask Tom MacWood about the way he introduced himself at Garden City and the embarrassment he caused the member who attempted to help him..  After that, shut up.


-- Have you forgotten that you once did your best to spread laughably false and third hand rumors about my supposed snail's pace of play? 

I did not try my best.  I made one side remark about it.  You are a liar and when you don't lie, you distort.  The same gentleman confirms that story to this day.  Why should he make it up?

What does it say about a man when he has more concern for the long dead than he does the living?

You merit no respect or concern.   


"Tom MacWood,

Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself?  How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture?  We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others.  But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself? 

Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual.  Others respect the privacy of individuals.  Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects.  Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study.  Crump was not a public figure.  He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district.  As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story.  His death was a factor.  But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace.  The circumstances of his death are not fully understood.  Why he committed suicide will never be revealed.  So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?"

Yet another shining example of why the USGA should have absolutely nothing to do with a guy like Wayne Morrison when it comes to building its archives:   Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed.  Wayne and Tom Paul, you do realize that the roles of Censor and Archivist are in opposition, do you not?   

Good thing the USGA and all other reasonably thinking entities and individuals give you no consideration whatsoever.  You merit none.  You distort and twist my words and finger me as a censor.  I gave my opinion.  Not an official one in any capacity, but a simple opinion.  You have no idea what you are talking about and it is consistently evident to everyone but you and your Ohio mentor.


Wayne, I am fascinated at your willingness to so flippantly decide what is part of the story and what isn't.

I would think with your simple mind that everything fascinates you.



-Is this the real reason you let the Barker routing slip your mind?

No.  He was not hired to do anything by the Club.  He worked for the development company that sold the land to the Club.  Perhaps if I was concentrating on the move from Haverford to Ardmore, I would have mentioned it.  It now has a place in the Flynn book.  However, unlike your essay, I got the story right.

-Is this the real reason you have longe misrepresented the identity of the real draftsman of some of the Flynn drawings?

A lie.  You have no idea what I've represented or misrepresented because you have not seen the Flynn book manuscript.  Just because I don't put something on GCA doesn't mean it isn't recorded.  Don't be so stupid all the time, it is wearisome.

-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?

I didn't conceal anything.  You and MacWood think because you are not aware of something that it has been concealed.  Plenty of people, all more competent than you have seen the results of our research efforts.  Why should we share anything with you?  You are insignificant and have proved time and time again incapable of interpreting raw data and limited data at that.

-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the portion of the Alan Wilson report which credited C.B. Macdonald?

See immediately above.  

-Is it the real reason you (reportedly) left references to Macdonald and Whigham's role at Merion out of the early drafts of the long awaited Flynn Puff Piece?

You are an asshole.  If you have seen the Flynn book, the person that showed it to you broke his confidentiality agreement.    If you haven't seen the Flynn book manuscript, then you don't know what you're talking about.  That never stopped you before so why should I expect it to be different now?

-Is it the real reason you never bothered to take a closer look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?

You have no idea what you're talking about.  I used the Sayres Scrapbooks for the book I was writing...about William Flynn.  The contents of the scrapbooks I was interested in dealt with Flynn's efforts at Merion, not before.  The only reason I got involved in studying the earliest history of the move from Haverford to Ardmore was to verify your essay.  You cannot accept that this investigation proved your speculative essay false.   When you finally consider the MCC board minutes, you will realize your faulty process was bound to create such a error filled mess.  Ran will certainly see his endorsement as premature and unfounded.

-Is it the reason you knowingly misrepresented M&W's role at Merion, trying to reduce them to glorified travel agents?

I never said that.  You misrepresent my position and just about everything else you present.

-Is it the real reason you sat silently while TEPaul lied about Merion purchasing the property in 1909?

He made a mistake and admits it.  You won't let it go.  You have nothing but the flotsam of your scuttled essay to cling to.


You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed.  Astonishing.  

It is not astonishing that you lie and twist the facts in your absurd statement that has no bearing at all on reality.
 

I guess that is also the reason you and TEPaul are now cherry-picking the information from MCC.  You decide what is "important to the story," on the one hand, and what should be concealed, on the other.

I am sure it comes as no surprise that you are wrong in this regard as well.  If yours was a random process, you'd have better results than you do.  Yours is a systematic fault.  You need help.  A great deal of it.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
How did I introduce myself at GCGC?

[TEPaul]

"-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?"


David:

My God man, at least do something positive for yourself where you really do deserve it!

Have you become so outraged and blind with your vindictiveness towards some of us that you've actually forgotten you were indirectly responsible for that letter to Oakley that provided the real date of Wilson's 1912 trip abroad?

Wayne and I never had that letter all these years from the so-called Wilsons to Piper and Oakley agronomy files at the USGA.

Because I began to doubt that Hugh Wilson ever did go abroad in 1910 because of your manifest research and your essay in April or so I actually took a day and drove to the USGA and spent most of the day trying to do a time-line on Wilson's wherebabouts in 1911 and 1912. And it worked, as it essentially proved Wilson had no time to take a trip abroad in 1911 as he keep writing letters so often through that entire year from Philadelphia to Oakley (Piper had not yet come on the scene at that point).

I kept on going into 1912 and there I found that early May 1912 letter from Richard Francis to Oakley explaining he was fielding Wilson's coorespondence to Oakley while Wilson took 'a hurried trip abroad.'

There was a letter from Wilson to Oakley written on March 1, 1912 and we know Wilson returned from France to America on May 1, 1912 thanks to your ship manifest research. That only left a window of two months maximum (several months not seven months) and it looks more like that trip was no more than 4-5 weeks, if that even with transatlantic travel time, given the nature of the time differential in that correspondence.

We never withheld that letter to Oakley from you. We never had it in the first place. When we made our copies of our so-called "Agronomy letters" about five years ago we only read through all the letters in those files for the ones that mentioned William Flynn. That was probably no more than 15 percent of the total app 1,500 letters.

Here you are accusing us of withholding something from you when in fact your own research actually got me to go up there and corroborate the validity of perhaps the only thing of substance you ever have proven on Merion's history----eg that Wilson's trip was in 1912 and there may not have been one in 1910.

By the way, those facts really will become a revision to Merion's history and if you want the textual credit in the archives for it I'm sure we'll be glad to give it to you. The interesting point, though, is that never was a misinterpretaton back then (the 1910 trip). That does not seem to have appeared in the record for up to a half century later.

Jeeesus, do not get so consumed in your vindictiveness towards us that you actually forget that you got me to do something which served to corroborate your one and only real and bone fide point and discovovery to do with Merion's history.

How in the hell bizarre is this on-going dispute going to get anyway? That remark of yours about us withholding that letter from you really is bizarre. The next day I put it on this website. I don't think you even mentioned it or thanked me for it. You just continued to challenge us.

Really incredible. REALLY incredible!!

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
How did I introduce myself at GCGC?"


Tom:

Just forget about it. It's not the kind of thing this website needs to hear. But GCGC was not the only one. My advice to you would be when you go to these clubs maybe you might consider that the people who arrange it for you are doing you a favor. Maybe you think you're doing them and their club a favor because they should know you think you're some kind of "expert" researcher who's about the only person out there that's capable of setting their architectural record and history straight.

You know pal, it kinda, sorta, doesn't exactly work that way. Believe me guys like me and Wayne who do this stuff all the time know that. My advice to you is when you plan these study trips of yours or whatever they are just get on the schedule of your host or try to act like you are rather than asking them to get on yours. And when you've got that schedule set don't even think about just showing up on another day and expect that nobody cares. They do care. This just must be part and parcel of the fact you have just about zero understanding of clubs from a membership perspective. Believe me that shows loud and clear on most everything you say on this website. You actually act like you don't even care what the hell a membership thinks about their own architecture and that you might even need to protect it from them. It's beyond belief in my opinion, and it's always been that way with you on here.

Thank God you aren't still so obtuse you call yourself the one and only defender of the Old Dead Guys on here anymore as you used to. That stuff is still in the back pages of this website! 

[TEPaul]

"When you finally consider the MCC board minutes, you will realize your faulty process was bound to create such a error filled mess.  Ran will certainly see his endorsement as premature and unfounded."

Wayno:

Ran sure might but don't you think you're being a bit overly optimisitic that David Moriarty or Tom MacWood ever would? We could probably show them a series of hole designs and a Merion East course design plan with a 1911 date on it with Hugh Wilson's signature that completely matches the way the course was originally built and I have no doubt those two would try to find some way to dismiss it or discount it as hyperbole or some exaggeration to keep their Merion history revision charade going.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
That is outrageous....he showed up on the wrong day. Who was that?

I had wonderful day at GCGC, the only downer was that Pat couldn't make it. In fact of all the clubs I visited on my tour the GCGC folks (members and professional) were the most hospitable and generous. Inviting me to have lunch after my tour around; we had a very spirited discusion about the history of the course. The highlight for me was the head pro (Gil) getting up from lunch periodically running into the clubhouse, to bring out old photos of the course that were hanging inside. You should have been there, you might have learned something.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()