Ran and Ben: Stop the Madness!

[wsmorrison]

Ran, please stop the madness!  Your site has been dragged down beneath the mud because there is no fact checking done on this site.  If you wish to raise the profile of this site by allowing daily train wrecks, and car fires, then this site needs to be reevaluated and changed. 

Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have enough information to be dangerous because it appears they know what they're talking about and in some corners, they are believed.  They fooled you and they fooled Pat Mucci.  Mostly they fool themselves.  Let's hope they don't fool too many in the outside world.  If this site were self-contained and their false and foolish revisionist histories were in a closed loop, who would care at all?  But it is not closed.  This site comes up very readily on Internet search engines so information presented here is readily disseminated.  I don't see that the site can be self-regulated.  There is too much garbage being masqueraded as fact.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the Missing Faces essay that you, unfortunately endorsed with rare enthusiasm.  I know you're going up to Yale pretty soon.  I suggest very strongly that you stop by Philadelphia on your way and have a talk with some of us.  We will show you our raw evidence and the soon to be completed essay on the history of Merion East.  I would like you to consider taking down the essay or issuing a retraction if the evidence presented compels you to do so. 

You have to decide what this site is meant to be.  If this site is to be taken seriously as a resource of valuable information, such as provided by Neil Crafter, Paul Turner and many more I do not name, then you must have FACT CHECKING.  Even though articles are in the IN MY OPINION section, that is not enough of a cover.  This site needs to stop publishing agenda laden essays replete with errors, bad analysis and biased reporting.  It isn't about protecting local legends.  It is about the truth.  That is what this site should promote.  If the truth be boring, so be it.  I don't feel like spending much more time defending the truth on this site from the likes of Moriarty and MacWood when you do nothing at all to minimize the mistakes, both deliberate and unintentional.  Something has got to change, and I believe it must be in the structure of how this website operates.

Start with the Missing Faces of Merion essay.  Do your homework and then make a decision.  You were far too premature in endorsing that essay.  Not once did you talk to Tom Paul, myself, John Capers or anyone that might help you understand the problems with the essay and the implications of publishing it.  You need to do a better job or let everyone know that this site is about banter and free expression, not about serious history.  It is time for you and Ben to restructure or redefine.  You can no longer pretend this site is about serious study when you allow so many untruths to be passed off as fact.

There can be no more hiding behind essays being published in an opinion section.   It does not come across that way in internet searches.  We need better.  In one way or another, we must have it.

[David_Elvins]

Wayne,

I hope that those on this site that are interested are able to read your soon to be completed essay.  It is no doubt an interesting topic.

I will respectfully stay out of the rest of your post!

[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne,

I know and appreciate the passion behind what you are saying and suggesting; unfortunately I must disagree with you.

First of all I see this as a two-fold problem shared by many on both sides of the situation. First and foremost it is not one of inaccurate or incorrect facts. Rather it is one of interpretation and whether others agree with the interpretations issued and/or published.

Simply put a fact checker checks facts. They can not check interpretations.

For example, it has now been agreed by all that H.H. Barker produced an original routing before anyone else for a golf course to be built by the Merion Golf Club. A fact checker could only agree with this.

That David & Tom have interpreted this to mean that Barker's routing may have or even was used in part or full (and here I must acknowledge that David & tom differ on features of this interpretation) is something that no fact checker could confirm as fact or fiction, only that they have made this statement.

This is something then that neither Ran nor Ben could or should do anything about; not if they want a full and free flow and discussion of ideas on the website. To do so would be to sanction censorship. I may believe that David has come to a number of idiotic and unsupportable conclusions on a number of topics, but I acknowledge his right to do so. By the way, he would be the first one to tell you that he, too, thinks that I have reached a number of highly idiotic and unsupportable conclusions on a number of topics, but that he also recognizes my right to have done so.

Fortunately only ONE of us is correct!  

The REAL problem, and it is one that both Ran and Ben can choose to address if they so choose, is the matter of how individual members treat others while on RAN'S WEBSITE. It is, after all, his.

Too many members have complained both in public and private about the bickering, name-calling, in some cases foul and vulgar language and complete lack of respect for one and all displayed by some on certain threads.

That is something that MUST STOP!

Respect does NOT mean agreement... it means disagreement with one another in the proper fashion.

Ran & Ben, it is for this that I want to join in the spirit of Wayne's appeal and ask you to do what i've asked you in private by email and gca-mail...

Step in and set standards of decorum that must be maintained. This site has become the standard within the industry for intelligent and quite high-academic discussions on any and all things related to golf course architecture. If there is any doubt at all about this then one simply has to read through the current discussion about Poa Annua and why it is hated. The level of scholarship demonstrated by the comments is brillian and, in my opinion, far beyond what would be found in many a university landscape architecture class.

This at least you can do...

[wsmorrison]

David,

Of course some will, but first the clubs themselves.  I don't think this site will work as a place to disseminate the entire essay as it is about 200 pages long.  But we'll see how the clubs respond to the piece and then make the final determination.  I hope we can get together again and go over it sometime--after a round of golf.

Phil,

Agreed.  Interpretations and connections made with raw data are the issues, not fact checking.  I guess it is nearly impossible to prevent poor research and conclusions.  But I hope something more than better decorum can result with needed changes.

[John Kavanaugh]

Before it all changes I just want to congratulate the site on an OT free front page. 

[Dan Herrmann]

I wonder if a disclaimer on the top of each "In My Opinion" article...  Something like "The following essay expresses the personal views and opinions of the author.   No imprimatur should be implied as to its historical accuracy based on its posting on this site"

[Ran Morrissett]

Here is what the front page of In My Opinion says:

" 'In My Opinion' is available for anyone who would like to submit a detailed essay as it relates to golf course architecture.

All essays are saved and a library is created to which everyone has full access. No editing is performed, so this feature can be a place to speak one's mind in great detail without fear of having the published result edited into a watered down version. However, as with the site, the articles are meant to be constructive in nature - mean spirited articles will not be published. Controversial ones will but please note: GolfClubAtlas may or may not share the views that are expressed in these articles. "

David's piece stimulated debate and promoted further research on an important topic - GolfClubAtlas.com was pleased to have helped in that regard.

On a side note, the instant message function still works. People who really care about a subject tend to send me IMs rather than make public posts as they appreciate that many people few such posts as nothing more than a (sad) cry for attention.

Cheers,

[wsmorrison]

Ran,

I appreciate all you've done to establish this site as the preeminent Internet site covering golf course architecture.  I do not appreciate your lack of oversight which has allowed this site to fall far short of its potential and does more harm than good in some instances.  It is all well and good to retreat behind the In My Opinion essays as just that.  I have no doubt that this is your intention.  However, in the real world, these essays are not taken as opinion pieces, they are perceived rightly or wrongly depending upon the author's competency,  as research findings.  If someone Googles or Yahoos a subject matter, the essay comes up and there is no reference to opinion or notice of lack of academic standards.  It is regarded as tacitly endorsed by your publication of it. 

Rather than a fact checker, that was a bad idea, all essays should offer detailed citations and references, with links to the original source when possible.  Nothing along the lines of "well, it was published on GCA, but it was deleted"  or general thank yous to Tom MacWood for sharing information on Barker or to Joe Bausch for making uncited newspaper articles available.  There needs to be a baseline standard of reporting information.  If you don't feel you owe it to getting it right, how about a sense of obligation to the clubs that are discussed.  I would think you would strive to achieve a higher standard than heresay and biased opinion.  You are in your rights to do so as owner of the site.  However, that says a lot to me about you and how you view your mission statement. 

How is it constructive for essays to promote errors, misrepresentations and biased agendas?  Is a false history of Merion or any other club worthwhile simply because it gets others to find out the real truth?  Remember, you're not the one that spends hundreds or thousands of hours posting, researching and discovering truths or finding faults in the stuff you allow to be presented as fact.  You sit back and allow the train wrecks and car fires to be front and center.  You take a detached approach yet you endorse essays as if you know them to be true when clearly you do not. 

You made a huge mistake when you endorsed an essay that you knew so little about.  You fail to realize it even today.  You won't even bother to learn the truth nor do you show any inclination at all to set the record straight.  I asked you to come to Philadelphia on your way to Yale and you disregard the invitation to learn more about a subject you have minimal understanding of.  Even less after you read the essay because it is so wrong.  Never mind that a good percentage of the posts and information comes from Philadelphia.  You show no consideration at all for hearing other viewpoints on the website.  Oh, if it is by private IM, that's OK.  Well, I've appealed to you in IMs and on telephone calls.  You don't want to do anything to remedy issues that some of us feel are needed. 

You think I am making this public because of my sad need for attention?  If so, you merit no further consideration. 

[RJ_Daley]

Phil Young really does make the most sense in my view.  Wayne, when you disagree with an "In My Opinion" article, you have only to write a rebuttal, and more people will read it if you set out your own contrary to what was posted ideas, say them the best way you can, and in a tradition of civil discussion, and let those that are interested in this stuff try to come to their own conclusions or understanding. 

I personally love the wit and wry humor that some people have a gift for.  Great discourse is laced with humorous 'put downs' if you will, like the great British debaters.    But, anyone can bludgeon and insult another without too much finesse.  The bludgeoning and over the top diatribes on all sides of these Merion issues is what has been so confounding to the rest of us, because we otherwise know many of the participants aren't really that bad of fellows, when you take this obsession of Merion and being the primier historian out of the equation.

Please give the public complaining and insults a rest, all of you.

[Thomas MacWood]

Ran,

I appreciate all you've done to establish this site as the preeminent Internet site covering golf course architecture.  I do not appreciate your lack of oversight which has allowed this site to fall far short of its potential and does more harm than good in some instances.  It is all well and good to retreat behind the In My Opinion essays as just that.  I have no doubt that this is your intention.  However, in the real world, these essays are not taken as opinion pieces, they are perceived rightly or wrongly depending upon the author's competency,  as research findings.  If someone Googles or Yahoos a subject matter, the essay comes up and there is no reference to opinion or notice of lack of academic standards.  It is regarded as tacitly endorsed by your publication of it. 

Rather than a fact checker, that was a bad idea, all essays should offer detailed citations and references, with links to the original source when possible.  Nothing along the lines of "well, it was published on GCA, but it was deleted"  or general thank yous to Tom MacWood for sharing information on Barker or to Joe Bausch for making uncited newspaper articles available.  There needs to be a baseline standard of reporting information.  If you don't feel you owe it to getting it right, how about a sense of obligation to the clubs that are discussed.  I would think you would strive to achieve a higher standard than heresay and biased opinion.  You are in your rights to do so as owner of the site.  However, that says a lot to me about you and how you view your mission statement. 

How is it constructive for essays to promote errors, misrepresentations and biased agendas?  Is a false history of Merion or any other club worthwhile simply because it gets others to find out the real truth?  Remember, you're not the one that spends hundreds or thousands of hours posting, researching and discovering truths or finding faults in the stuff you allow to be presented as fact.  You sit back and allow the train wrecks and car fires to be front and center.  You take a detached approach yet you endorse essays as if you know them to be true when clearly you do not. 

You made a huge mistake when you endorsed an essay that you knew so little about.  You fail to realize it even today.  You won't even bother to learn the truth nor do you show any inclination at all to set the record straight.  I asked you to come to Philadelphia on your way to Yale and you disregard the invitation to learn more about a subject you have minimal understanding of.  Even less after you read the essay because it is so wrong.  Never mind that a good percentage of the posts and information comes from Philadelphia.  You show no consideration at all for hearing other viewpoints on the website.  Oh, if it is by private IM, that's OK.  Well, I've appealed to you in IMs and on telephone calls.  You don't want to do anything to remedy issues that some of us feel are needed. 

You think I am making this public because of my sad need for attention?  If so, you merit no further consideration. 

Wayne
I think your emotional attachement to the Merion legend has clouded your judgement. And lets be honest, your complaints are based on one essay and one essay only. I don't recall you complaining about any other essay presented on GCA.

IMO David's essay has been the most carefully crafted essay in the history of GCA. He went into greater detail as to the sources of his info than anyone else I can recall.  And I thought he was extremely careful about his conclusions, clearly stating what was fact and what was opinion.

This is a discussion group. If you write anything that is in the least bit controversial you will be questioned. In that way the site is self policing. The Bethpage essay was heavily debated, the A&C essay was thoroughly scrutinized, Mike Young's essay on architectural genius was criticized, the Crump essay was attacked before it even came out, Meylvn and my essays on the early architects drew sharp responses, errors in essays from other sources are also questioned like Ron Whitten's and your essay on Flynn in GA, but no essay has ever been picked apart like David's, and he welcomed it.

IMO the process is very healthy and in the end we all benefit from the free exchange and the new information that is uncovered.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

The "madness" is that it takes two sides to make an argument, and neither side in this argument will back down, or move on.  It's like a bad tag-team pro wrestling match!  If one side quits making posts on one thread, the argument just carries over to another thread. 

That is hardly Ran's fault or Ben's fault.

I agree with RJ.  The best way to answer an essay you find fault with is not a back-and-forth flaming internet argument -- it's with a better essay.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,

Would you call anyone a serious researcher if they stopped their quest for info after coming across a piece of purported history, such as DMoriarty's IMO essay?

Post a dang rebuttal piece as Dick Daley suggests.

....and add a new chapter (possibly titled "Myths, Rumors & Innuendos) to the forthcoming book that you and TE are working on.  

[BCrosby]

Wayno -

I'm with the two Toms above. Ran can't be put in the position of policing content. That's our job. Ran doing so would only shift the arguments we now have among ourselves onto him. Ran didn't bargain for that. 

By and large I think the process works well. A little less personal venom might be nice, but the process is working.

Bob

[wsmorrison]

Tom Doak and RJ,

You are right.  I am not going to fight the good fight (well, it was in my eyes) any longer.  MacWood and Moriarty can post whatever they like.  I'll let their inaccuracies go unchecked.  They can continue to find a motive in our replies because of our protection of legends and emotional investment.  I guess that's better than them facing the truth, which is they are WRONG.

I've had enough of the back-and-forth flaming internet argument.  Time to move on.

Bob,

Yes, I had a talk with a fellow that used to be on this site.  He told me the author should have primary responsibility to make sure the essay is accurate and supply as comprehensive an amount of source  material as possible.  And I guess we need to counter as well.  However, when it comes to Moriarty and MacWood, the tone always gets nasty and the engagement always devolves into bitterness and anger. 

Despite Tom MacWood's opinion, David Moriarty did a very poor job of citing his source material, at least in my mind.  It is so far below accepted standards that it raises a lot of red flags.

Ran should not be the fact checker nor police content.  There should be some sort of gatekeepr though.  Ran or someone he appoints should talk to knowledgeable people and the clubs before he promotes an essay and endorses it the way he did.  He did zero due diligence.  I'm backtracking now off making the responsibility entirely his and Ben's.  I was wrong.  But he and Ben shouldn't be complete bystanders in this regard either.  Just like a publisher of a magazine or newspaper, an editor needs a list of sources and double check some things.  Given that Ran may now be paying for essays, he should require a higher standard than he's accepted till now.

[Sean_A]

Wayne

If what you mean by madness as the constant whinging by several members concerning what has become an epidemic of Philly cheesesteak proportions, then yes, I agree.  The problem isn't Ran or the subject matter.  The problem is the the players and their of respect for each other.  No wonder the game is no fun!  I understand that you have been placed in a difficult position, but surely only you can move things forward by discontinuing further ad hoc posts and write a rebuttal essay.

I will agree in one area.  Too much stuff in general, not just this site, but in life doesn't give proper credit to what came before or even acknowledge at least with a selected bibliography.  Omitting that sort of stuff is criminal, at elast that is what I learned in school.

Ciao

[Matt Dupre]

What is required here is an apology to Ran - throwing him under the bus for not being a better "gatekeeper" is inexcusable.  He's probably devoted as much time if not more than various posters to providing a site for like-minded individuals to read or communciate or opine about golf architecture (along with myriad other "somewhat related" topics).

It's not his job to vett "opinion" for accuracy - from what I can see all contributions that are placed on the site are legitimate and professional, and open to discussion and disagreement.

Unfortunately, this disagreement degenerated into something like the others, with the same results - calling capabilities, motives, and abilities into question.  Apologies have been demanded for far less, but I get the feeling that Ran is too much of a gentleman to take that approach.

[Jed Peters]

Wayne:

I am not speaking here to the facts/issues that surround the Merion Debate.

And I am not trying to be terse.

But I see the potential here for you to get your point across in two (2) ways:

1. Write a counter-point essay (that will doubtlessly be published here)
2. Start your own site dedicated to the same.

Best,

Jed Peters

[BCrosby]

"[A]n epidemic of Philly cheesesteak proportions,.."

I'm having trouble visualizing that, but sometimes only wacky metaphors will do the job.

Good stuff.

Bob

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom D: Have you seen a good professional tag team wrestling match?

[BVince]

I do not know enough about the facts concerning the arguments between the parties.  A true scholar, will make an argument/claim based on factual cited evidence that supports the research, anything less will tarnish his/her repuation and the essay completely.  A "fact checker" is not entirely a bad idea but hard to achieve, especially for a free website with no external advertising.

I hope the quest for the truth is never lost.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think this situation is unusual in many respects, not the least of which is an "opinion" presented as fact was expressly complimented as "Excellent" by Ran.    Of course, that's his right as well, as founder and sponsor of this site, but it does give credibility that is not warranted, when David states the following total conjecture as his subject line;


"While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land.  Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.   After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.   Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East."

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

For what it is worth, I believe the majority of people on this website are smart enough not to take everything we read as gospel facts.

That is not to say we believe anybody intentionally narrates information they know is unture, but"my opinion" means just that.
Not to name drop, but I was talking to Ben Crenshaw yesterday and he was commenting on what a knowledgable website this was, full of smart passionate golfers who love their architecture.

We are not a screened journal nor should we be, it is site to us to cast opinions openely without being ridiculed for those opinions.
I happen to think that Royal Birkdale is the finest course on the Open rota...I know that my friend Tom Doak knows more about golf course architecture than me and disagrees with that view....but that is okay. It is a privelage to be a part of a site where I can make that statement and have someone of his reputation tell me I am wrong!

long live gca....
mwp

[George Pazin]

Wayne,

I know and appreciate the passion behind what you are saying and suggesting; unfortunately I must disagree with you.

First of all I see this as a two-fold problem shared by many on both sides of the situation. First and foremost it is not one of inaccurate or incorrect facts. Rather it is one of interpretation and whether others agree with the interpretations issued and/or published.

Simply put a fact checker checks facts. They can not check interpretations.

For example, it has now been agreed by all that H.H. Barker produced an original routing before anyone else for a golf course to be built by the Merion Golf Club. A fact checker could only agree with this.

That David & Tom have interpreted this to mean that Barker's routing may have or even was used in part or full (and here I must acknowledge that David & tom differ on features of this interpretation) is something that no fact checker could confirm as fact or fiction, only that they have made this statement.

This is something then that neither Ran nor Ben could or should do anything about; not if they want a full and free flow and discussion of ideas on the website. To do so would be to sanction censorship. I may believe that David has come to a number of idiotic and unsupportable conclusions on a number of topics, but I acknowledge his right to do so. By the way, he would be the first one to tell you that he, too, thinks that I have reached a number of highly idiotic and unsupportable conclusions on a number of topics, but that he also recognizes my right to have done so.

Fortunately only ONE of us is correct! 

The REAL problem, and it is one that both Ran and Ben can choose to address if they so choose, is the matter of how individual members treat others while on RAN'S WEBSITE. It is, after all, his.

Too many members have complained both in public and private about the bickering, name-calling, in some cases foul and vulgar language and complete lack of respect for one and all displayed by some on certain threads.

That is something that MUST STOP!

Respect does NOT mean agreement... it means disagreement with one another in the proper fashion.

Ran & Ben, it is for this that I want to join in the spirit of Wayne's appeal and ask you to do what i've asked you in private by email and gca-mail...

Step in and set standards of decorum that must be maintained. This site has become the standard within the industry for intelligent and quite high-academic discussions on any and all things related to golf course architecture. If there is any doubt at all about this then one simply has to read through the current discussion about Poa Annua and why it is hated. The level of scholarship demonstrated by the comments is brillian and, in my opinion, far beyond what would be found in many a university landscape architecture class.

This at least you can do...

This is one of the best posts on here I've seen - exceptionally well said.

[Tom Ferrell]

I thought Wayne left this group sometime back.    

The argument that Ran needs to institute "fact checking" is ridiculous.  This is a discussion group, not a commercial publication or scholarly journal.  It is a gathering site.  Ran has done the game of golf a great service and is owed a debt of gratitude for his work on this site.

A counterpoint essay is a good idea.  Continued whining and tantrums are not.

[Rich Goodale]

I too will agree with the idea of a "counterpoint" essay, particularly if it is done in conjunction with a cease fire.  I see this not as a tag-team match but a cage event, where most of the combatants were lucky or wise enough to get thrown out early, but a sad few got stuck inside the cage after the referees lost the key and/or the plot.  The rest of us watch it, periodically and guiltily, just as we take glances at road-side accidents, but with increasing boredom and nausea.  To quote Roberto "Hands of Stone" Duran:

NO MAS!