Who ACTUALLY Designed National Golf Links of America?

[Tom MacWood]

Steve glad you asked. I have NO IDEA!  Joe Bausch found it and I hope he chimes in and tells us...

Is this news to you? Every article written during the courses inception mentioned Emmet & Whigham (& Travis). CBM prospectus mentioned it as well, and there have numerous threads over the years that have mentioned it.

In his prospectus CBM thanked Whigham and Emmet for helping in laying out the golf course, and thanked Horace Hutchinson, John Low, HH Hilton John Sutherland, Tommy Linskill, Walter Whigham, Charles Whigham, Pat Murray, Alec MacFee, and CHS Everard in assisting.

I'm surprised someone who claims to have researched this era would not be aware of it, actually I'm not that surprised.

[Mike Cirba]

Challenging the accuracy of the article is not going to get anywhere.   

It was very accurately written based on the state of NGLA at the time in 1906, and quotes CBM directly.

I would defy anyone to dispute any of the facts presented in that article at the time it was written.

Don't shoot the messenger.   

For any number of reasons CBM did much of the course as a solo effort, but that wasn't the original intent.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Even I am astounded as to how you could twist my answer to the question, "WHO wrote the article and WHAT was the context that led to it being written?" into meaning that I didn't know anything about the design of NGLA and the fact that CBM praised others for the individual help they gave.

There is a simple, single word for that...

Please read the question I was asked and then read my answer again as I definitely don't want to apply that answer to you...

By the way, since as I explained I wanted to speak to the dangers of wrong interpretation based upon a single source and you have now provided several more sources, including from CBM himself, don't you then think that Emmet and Travis and Whigham should be given design credit with CBM? After all, you cite a single source only yet you believe that only HH Barker should be credited with Merion East's routing as you constantly challenge others to name someone who was specifically mentioned as having routed a course on the property.  

Consistency of applied principles Tom...

[TEPaul]

Phil

Please try to keep this thread and its discussion on point. The initial thread was good but #119 was excellent. Please try to keep the discussion from wandering from particularly Post #119!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

That is why I challenged him on the single source issue...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

Didn't Dewey defeat Truman in the Presidential election ?

Didn't a newspaper run that as their front page headline ?

[TEPaul]

Phil, Mike, even Pat, or anybody----


Are you guys going to try to continue to discuss (or argue) these things with this guy?

I'm wondering, because even for you guys who apparently have more patience than I do, I'm just wondering when the time will come when you too will just break down and publicly declare this guy a total idiot. No question a "rain-manish" researcher but when it comes to analysis, a virtual disaster!

[DMoriarty]

Frankly Phil,  I found the exercise to be entirely bogus.   Same goes for your conclusions, and the lessons we are supposed to have taken from it.

Some of us have discussed a slightly different variation of this article before, and repeatedly. So some of us didn't need to ask you about the context because we are familiar with the context.  In fact, I not only explained the context, but even supplied the source of the many mistakes.   The only ones who have tried to pass the article off as truthful and accurate are the same agenda-driven partisans who have repeatedly proven that they will misrepresent and manipulate anything if they think it will advance their agenda.   

And that is the problem with your entire indictment.  Those of us who have diligently looked into some of these histories aren't the ones who have made a mockery of the truth seeking process.  We aren't the ones hiding source material or inventing bizarre scenarios (like a second Wilson trip abroad or the 1909 purchase by Merion of half of Delaware County.)  We aren't the one's with public vendettas or with public and private witch hunts, or the ones trying to silence and stop research on local heros like Wilson and Crump.  Again, it is the overzealous advocates who will do and say anything to protect the legends of their pet courses and pet architects. 

So the comparisons you have drawn are inapt at best, offensive at worst.  For example, you have the nerve to compare my research and analysis regarding Merion with the bogus conclusions Mike Cirba  draws from these articles?   Surely you jest.

As for North Shore, I haven't followed all the threads, but the only mention I recall of CBM's involvement wasn't from some newspaper article riddled with obvious and easily understood errors like these NGLA articles, it was North Shore's Board who brought up CBM's involvement.   You cannot seriously be comparing the two!

Not a single person asked WHO wrote the article. No one asked WHAT was the context that led to it being written. It has been accepted as truthful by one and all yet the reality is that many, many golf writers and reporters have made far too many blatant mistakes over the years for a serious researcher to ascribe complete veracity to what is written.

Come on Phil.  Why would we ask you about the article when we already understood the context and even the mistakes?   

[TEPaul]

"Frankly Phil,  I found the exercise to be entirely bogus.   Same goes for your conclusions, and the lessons we are supposed to have taken from it."


Phillip:

Your thread and its subject is most certainly not bogus. It is unquestionably fundamentally important. I also think your post #119 expresses at least 2-4 separate themes that we definitely need to deal with in the future of this website and generally if this website has any chance of progressing.

The idea of the quotation above is an important symptom of what's wrong here and the one who posted it is the reason for much of the problem on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com today. That is in my humble opinion, of course!

I have a prosposal--which is-----ban Moriarty and MacWood from this website for a month, perhaps two, and I gurarntee you a thread like this will evolve into one of the best this website has had in the time they are gone!

[DMoriarty]

I have a prosposal--which is-----ban Moriarty and MacWood from this website for a month, perhaps two, and I gurarntee you a thread like this will evolve into one of the best this website has had in the time they are gone!

Like I said, it is not those of us who have diligently looked into some of these histories who make a mockery of the truth seeking process, it is those who will try to protect their legends at any cost, even if that means shutting down the conversation and getting rid of those who are actually interested and capable of figuring this stuff out. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

I would totally support David's and Tom Macwood's removal from this site for a month or two or even permanently... as long as you are removed as well. And also Myself, and Cirba and whomever else needs to be gone... Unless you also put yourself in that category you should stop making statements like that, if not elsewhere, then on this thread. I believe I have earned enough respect to make that request of you and for you to follow it.

David,

Let's examine what you stated and in honor of Mr. Mucci I'll write my answers in green.

"Frankly Phil,  I found the exercise to be entirely bogus.   Same goes for your conclusions, and the lessons we are supposed to have taken from it."

Thank you for your candor and I certainly can understand your point of view, but then again there are others who have both enjoyed the exercise and want to see it taken further and some who happen to agree with my conclusions. So let me ask you, if this exercise is bogus, why not just ignore it and not take part in it?

"Some of us have discussed a slightly different variation of this article before, and repeatedly. So some of us didn't need to ask you about the context because we are familiar with the context."

That may be true, but many don't know the context in which it was written and have given it no thought. I believe they should consider it.

"In fact, I not only explained the context, but even supplied the source of the many mistakes."

Actually I must disagree with this statement. The context I was talking about was that of the WRITER and what motivated HIM to make the statement. What you wrote was a long attempt to discredit what was written as being untruthful as you go on to further state...

"The only ones who have tried to pass the article off as truthful and accurate are the same agenda-driven partisans who have repeatedly proven that they will misrepresent and manipulate anything if they think it will advance their agenda."

Nonsense. By that statement you are saying that everyone who has commented on this thread who sees that there may be validity to what was written is clearly agenda-driven. I think you paint with too broad a brush.   

"And that is the problem with your entire indictment.  Those of us who have diligently looked into some of these histories aren't the ones who have made a mockery of the truth seeking process."

That phrase should have been spoken by Matthew Harrison Brady. You now seem to be claiming that there are only a very limited number of people who have "looked into these histories" and that if they disagree with your conclusions they "have made a mockery of the truth seeking process." Nonsense again.

"We aren't the ones hiding source material or inventing bizarre scenarios (like a second Wilson trip abroad or the 1909 purchase by Merion of half of Delaware County.)  We aren't the one's with public vendettas or with public and private witch hunts, or the ones trying to silence and stop research on local heros like Wilson and Crump.  Again, it is the overzealous advocates who will do and say anything to protect the legends of their pet courses and pet architects."

Yet couldn't one say the same of you? That you are simply carrying on a vendetta against any and all who disagree with your essay? Making the charge makes it neither right nor wrong, but it certainly affects ones veracity in my opinion. 

"So the comparisons you have drawn are inapt at best, offensive at worst.  For example, you have the nerve to compare my research and analysis regarding Merion with the bogus conclusions Mike Cirba  draws from these articles?   Surely you jest."

Exactly WHAT did I say about YOUR conclusions regarding Merion? I also disagree with your characterization of Mike's conclusions as bogus. And this coming from one who just stated that he has neither "public vendettas or with public and private witch hunts." One certainly might think you do when you make a statement like that. Just as you can and should be respected for the research, work and conclusions that you drew and took the additional courageous step of publishing it for any and all comments, so should Mike be appreciated for his public stand as he has clearly done a great deal of additional research and has also published it through his individual posts. That he disagrees with your conclusions doesn't merit him disrespect from you.

"As for North Shore, I haven't followed all the threads, but the only mention I recall of CBM's involvement wasn't from some newspaper article riddled with obvious and easily understood errors like these NGLA articles, it was North Shore's Board who brought up CBM's involvement.   You cannot seriously be comparing the two!"

Actually yes, I am comparing the two and they are completely comparable. The point of this "exercise" as you put it, is to discuss how much veracity to place on SINGLE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION in ascribing ATTRIBUTION OF DESIGN CREDIT. Go back to the North Shore board minutes and there you will find but a SINGLE reference to CB Macdonald in them, and that mention merely thanked him for his help because he was the foremost person in CONSTRUCTION of golf courses and in the same sentence stated that RAYNOR was the foremost GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT. Yet from that single sentence many ascribe full co-design credit between Raynor and Macdonald. It even led to a secondary TD trying to define what was Raynor's first SOLO design. Pardon me, but I simply cannot accept as TRUTH that Macdonald co-designed North Shore based upon THAT SINGLE piece of a sentence, be it in the board minutes or not. I can understand why some REASON that he was co-designer, but I simply don't think it is proven. Likewise with this. I simply presented a SINGLE CONTEMPORANEOUS ARTICLE and asked if we accept that it can be held true as a number of people do in the case of North Shore with Macdonald and Merion with HH Barker, then we should also accept that history has overlooked the TRUTH that all 4 men played an active role in the actual lay out, design and hole choices for NGLA.

You also stated, "Come on Phil.  Why would we ask you about the article when we already understood the context and even the mistakes?"

I know you're not speaking french, so exactly WHO do you mean by "WE?"

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,

You initiated this thread by saying that CBM should not be given full credit for NGLA and mentioned others who should be recognized  and assigned equal credit for its construction.

Now you say you were only trying to show how one lone article can be used to throw a monkey wrench into the work of getting a clear history of a course's beginnings because you have always fully believed that CBM was entirely responsible for NGLA.

Why the heck didn't you just pose the question you supposedly wanted to ask instead of linking it to what you knew was a completely false premise? What kind of baloney is that?

You don't need to school me Phil, and I think you do everyone who participated on this thread a disservice. Others have used articles and made conjectures that may or may not be valid, but at least they weren't being dishonest about it. You, on the other hand, have just admitted to creating a topic that was dishonest, not disputatious, in its initial premise.

I used to think you were only motivated by truth.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
Emmet and Whigham both wrote contemporaneous articles on the NGLA...who did they say deserved credit?

[Bill_McBride]

The problem with these contentious (and apparently endless) arguments is that there's no judge or jury to render a decision!

So the closing arguments go on ad infinitum (ad nauseum?) and neither side budges an inch.

Carry on!   

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

What you said in your last post is worthing following up on, in my opinion.

It seems what this thread is accomplishing, yet again , is not so much how some of us misunderstand and misinterpret some research material from the old days involving our subjects but how much and how often we misunderstand and misinterpret what others are saying and trying to say on this website.

It certainly does look like Phil Young is trying to say that CBM should probably not get sole design credit for NGLA in his initial post on this thread but it also looks like he's saying in Post #119, and in capitalized letters to boot, that he is NOT SAYING THAT!

Perhaps you should just ask Phil to clarify exactly what he did mean to say on this thread about what kind of credit CBM should get for NGLA or if that was his point at all. I guess I could intuit that in the last couple of sentences in his initial post Phil was just trying to be ironical about CBM's credit on NGLA, but, honestly, you should probably just ask Phil to clarify what he did mean because if he wasn't being ironical in his intial post, considering what he said in #119, one could certainly reasonably assume Phil contradicted himself on this thread!  

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

I evidently do need to school you (your phrase not mine).

You stated, "You initiated this thread by saying that CBM should not be given full credit for NGLA and mentioned others who should be recognized  and assigned equal credit for its construction..."

I did NOT. Go back to my initial post. Including the typos it reads, "Mt question then. WHY is CB Macdonald given SOLE design credit for the National Golf Links of America? I ask this question because..."

"Now you say you were only trying to show how one lone article can be used to throw a monkey wrench into the work of getting a clear history of a course's beginnings because you have always fully believed that CBM was entirely responsible for NGLA... Why the heck didn't you just pose the question you supposedly wanted to ask instead of linking it to what you knew was a completely false premise? What kind of baloney is that?"

Again, you simply don't seem able to read what I wrote. You put your own view of what you thought I was asking and saying into it. After the word "because" above I explained that the purpose for the question was how a number of times on this site single sources were being used to overturn long-held and accepted course histories. It was based on that premise that I then quoted the single source I did, after which I ASKED another question, "Based on this quite clear statement, how can CBM be given SOLE design credit for NGLA? It is quite obvious according to this article that there were 4 people, THREE of which were already well-known and respected golf course architects with numerous courses to their credit, who were ACTIVELY working on planning the design or "lay out" of the course."

All I've evr done is ask these two questions which were based upon examples of what others have done one the site and asked WHY... WHY if one is to insist that histories be overturned based upon SINGLE SOURCE DOCUMENTS shouldn't it also be done in this case?  

"You don't need to school me Phil,'

You're right, I don't, or I shouldn't if you didn't ascribe what you believed I was saying into what I did. Why, do you realize that not a SINGLE PERSON asked me directly if I was stating that I believed that CBM didn't design NGLA on his own? Not one; yet you and others are convinced that is exactly what I did when I didn't.

"and I think you do everyone who participated on this thread a disservice. Others have used articles and made conjectures that may or may not be valid, but at least they weren't being dishonest about it. You, on the other hand, have just admitted to creating a topic that was dishonest, not disputatious, in its initial premise."

Again, it was you who saw what you wanted. This thread has always been about the importance of Consistency of Applied Theories in ascribing design attributions in golf course architecture. Heck, I used that phrase so often that others even began using it! Contrary to your opinion I think I've done a good service for all who've participated on this thread. I demanded civility and in every instance where someone went over the line I called them on it and then when they refrained from being obnoxious also recognized and thanked them for doing so. The biggest service I feel that I have done is to show the importance of keeping oneself objective and not ascribing absolute proofs to a single source. A single source is merely a starting point. It may be that it turns out that only a single source may provide critical information on a subject; this topic proves the importance of careful application when using it.

"I used to think you were only motivated by truth."

Don't worry... I always have been and always will be...

By the way, I think this thread has served its purpose and reached its end. I am greatly surprised that so very few are interested in the concepts of single source attribution and consistency in applied theory in golf course design attribution. I believe it to be an important subject and will gladly continue with anyone who wants to discuss it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I don't think anyone, including CBM assigned sole design credit to CBM.

But, that wasn't your initial question or premise.

Neither Moriarty or MacWood should be suspended from the site, they're proven to be valueable contributors.
That the discourse has grown contentious is an unfortunate by-product of the passions of those involved.

As to newspaper articles, like any good investigator/researcher they/we have an obligation to follow up on any and all leads.
I just don't know how reliable they are since they're typically third party accounts or promos.
In the absence of other documentation how much credibility do you assign to them ?

I tend to discount newspaper articles when it comes to details, but, they can't be ignored in principle.

Jim Kennedy has a valid point with regard to camoflaging the "real" issue.
It's better to be direct so that focus can be on the real issue rather than diverted to a stalking horse issue.

I don't doubt that CBM may have embellished minor portions of his account, but, when you view his account from 1893 to 1928 it paints a pretty accurate picture.

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Patrick,

You made a few interesting points. "As to newspaper articles, like any good investigator/researcher they/we have an obligation to follow up on any and all leads. I just don't know how reliable they are since they're typically third party accounts or promos.
In the absence of other documentation how much credibility do you assign to them ?"

It is that exact principle that you raise in the question that I have been trying to see discussed, only I'm not limiting it to newspaper accounts, rather I am asking to what extent should a researcher/historian assign credibility to any single source documentation, and most importantly of all, WHY? What rules or standards should he/she follow?

For example, you stated that you "tend to discount newspaper articles when it comes to details, but, they can't be ignored in principle." Doesn't that tendency mean that in a single source documentation question you will always doubt the information contained in it? If so, then what is the rationale for applying a broad-based personal rule to a singular situation?

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,

I would totally support David's and Tom Macwood's removal from this site for a month or two or even permanently... as long as you are removed as well. And also Myself, and Cirba and whomever else needs to be gone... Unless you also put yourself in that category you should stop making statements like that, if not elsewhere, then on this thread. I believe I have earned enough respect to make that request of you and for you to follow it.

David,

Let's examine what you stated and in honor of Mr. Mucci I'll write my answers in green.

"Frankly Phil,  I found the exercise to be entirely bogus.   Same goes for your conclusions, and the lessons we are supposed to have taken from it."

Thank you for your candor and I certainly can understand your point of view, but then again there are others who have both enjoyed the exercise and want to see it taken further and some who happen to agree with my conclusions. So let me ask you, if this exercise is bogus, why not just ignore it and not take part in it?

Because others who are not as familiar with source material are taken in and come away with misimpression of what happened.  I'm trying to set the record straight.

"Some of us have discussed a slightly different variation of this article before, and repeatedly. So some of us didn't need to ask you about the context because we are familiar with the context."

That may be true, but many don't know the context in which it was written and have given it no thought. I believe they should consider it.

Most don't care enough to consider it, and they shouldn't have to dig through piles of misleading exercises to figure it out.

"In fact, I not only explained the context, but even supplied the source of the many mistakes."

Actually I must disagree with this statement. The context I was talking about was that of the WRITER and what motivated HIM to make the statement. What you wrote was a long attempt to discredit what was written as being untruthful as you go on to further state...

I discredited it by explaining the context and and the source of the errors.

"The only ones who have tried to pass the article off as truthful and accurate are the same agenda-driven partisans who have repeatedly proven that they will misrepresent and manipulate anything if they think it will advance their agenda."

Nonsense. By that statement you are saying that everyone who has commented on this thread who sees that there may be validity to what was written is clearly agenda-driven. I think you paint with too broad a brush.   
No.  As I said, most aren't familiar enough with all the source material to say one way or another.  

"And that is the problem with your entire indictment.  Those of us who have diligently looked into some of these histories aren't the ones who have made a mockery of the truth seeking process."

That phrase should have been spoken by Matthew Harrison Brady. You now seem to be claiming that there are only a very limited number of people who have "looked into these histories" and that if they disagree with your conclusions they "have made a mockery of the truth seeking process." Nonsense again.

"We aren't the ones hiding source material or inventing bizarre scenarios (like a second Wilson trip abroad or the 1909 purchase by Merion of half of Delaware County.)  We aren't the one's with public vendettas or with public and private witch hunts, or the ones trying to silence and stop research on local heros like Wilson and Crump.  Again, it is the overzealous advocates who will do and say anything to protect the legends of their pet courses and pet architects."

Yet couldn't one say the same of you? That you are simply carrying on a vendetta against any and all who disagree with your essay? Making the charge makes it neither right nor wrong, but it certainly affects ones veracity in my opinion. 

You can say whatever you want about me, but that wouldn't be accurate.  I am not "making charges" about them, they have admitted to their vendetta's and their witch hunts.   TEPaul can't resist trying to get rid of TomM and I even right after I called him out for it! I know you always try not to take sides, but like your ridiculous comparison in this exercise, not all comparisons equally balance and pretending that they balance when they do not is taking sides, and that reflects on your credibility in my opinion.

"So the comparisons you have drawn are inapt at best, offensive at worst.  For example, you have the nerve to compare my research and analysis regarding Merion with the bogus conclusions Mike Cirba  draws from these articles?   Surely you jest."

Exactly WHAT did I say about YOUR conclusions regarding Merion? I also disagree with your characterization of Mike's conclusions as bogus. And this coming from one who just stated that he has neither "public vendettas or with public and private witch hunts." One certainly might think you do when you make a statement like that. Just as you can and should be respected for the research, work and conclusions that you drew and took the additional courageous step of publishing it for any and all comments, so should Mike be appreciated for his public stand as he has clearly done a great deal of additional research and has also published it through his individual posts. That he disagrees with your conclusions doesn't merit him disrespect from you.

You used Merion and North Shore as examples where conclusions have been drawn based on limited information, like Mike's conclusions here.  And Mike's conclusions are bogus.  They are bogus because 1) they are inconsistent with the factual record, 2) Mike should know they are inconsistent with the factual record because we've covered this repeatedly before, and 3) even mike has admitted in the past that he was confused about all this and had it wrong, yet he still goes on with the same claims.

"As for North Shore, I haven't followed all the threads, but the only mention I recall of CBM's involvement wasn't from some newspaper article riddled with obvious and easily understood errors like these NGLA articles, it was North Shore's Board who brought up CBM's involvement.   You cannot seriously be comparing the two!"

Actually yes, I am comparing the two and they are completely comparable. The point of this "exercise" as you put it, is to discuss how much veracity to place on SINGLE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION in ascribing ATTRIBUTION OF DESIGN CREDIT. Go back to the North Shore board minutes and there you will find but a SINGLE reference to CB Macdonald in them, and that mention merely thanked him for his help because he was the foremost person in CONSTRUCTION of golf courses and in the same sentence stated that RAYNOR was the foremost GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT. Yet from that single sentence many ascribe full co-design credit between Raynor and Macdonald. It even led to a secondary TD trying to define what was Raynor's first SOLO design. Pardon me, but I simply cannot accept as TRUTH that Macdonald co-designed North Shore based upon THAT SINGLE piece of a sentence, be it in the board minutes or not. I can understand why some REASON that he was co-designer, but I simply don't think it is proven. Likewise with this. I simply presented a SINGLE CONTEMPORANEOUS ARTICLE and asked if we accept that it can be held true as a number of people do in the case of North Shore with Macdonald and Merion with HH Barker, then we should also accept that history has overlooked the TRUTH that all 4 men played an active role in the actual lay out, design and hole choices for NGLA.

Phil, if you disagree with some conclusion that has been drawn about North Shore, then make your case about North Shore.  No need for this elaborate and convoluted scheme to make your point.  No need to disingenuously muck up the history of NGLA even further.  No need to pull my Merion analysis down into this pathetic morass.  Same goes if you disagree with MacWood's hypothesis (not conclusion, hypothesis) regarding Barker.  Address the substantive issues.  Quit playing games.  It should be beneath you.  

You also stated, "Come on Phil.  Why would we ask you about the article when we already understood the context and even the mistakes?"

I know you're not speaking french, so exactly WHO do you mean by "WE?"

I know the context and mistakes.  Anyone who has read what I have written about these articles and their mistakes ought to know as well.  Including you.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Thank you for your well-thought out comments...

[Mike Cirba]

Well thought out?

David, it appears you are a fair-minded researcher and accurate historian in your own mind only.

You have an audience of one.

At least you're convinced of your own unerring accuracy and knowledge, so that's a start.

Look, I've tried a number of times now to just try to disagree agreeably with you, but I now seem to be your new "Wayne Morrison", who you seem to bring up in a derogatory and personally insulting way in 2 out of every 3 of your posts, if not more.

I'm asking you, again, to drop the crap.  

If you look at the Merion thread, I'm the one who has been introducing evidence.   You just don't like it because it conflicts directly with your essay.   WHEN was the last time you actually produced any relevant information beyond your essay posted years ago?    SO much for the ongoing "search for the truth", I guess.

I really think this personal crap detracts from this site, I called Tom Paul out on it, as well, and I'm asking you to up your game, if not out of respect for me, then out of respect for others here who might be interested in the history but don't want to wade through the sludge to get to it.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You made a few interesting points. "As to newspaper articles, like any good investigator/researcher they/we have an obligation to follow up on any and all leads. I just don't know how reliable they are since they're typically third party accounts or promos.
In the absence of other documentation how much credibility do you assign to them ?"

It is that exact principle that you raise in the question that I have been trying to see discussed, only I'm not limiting it to newspaper accounts, rather I am asking to what extent should a researcher/historian assign credibility to any single source documentation, and most importantly of all, WHY? What rules or standards should he/she follow?

For example, you stated that you "tend to discount newspaper articles when it comes to details, but, they can't be ignored in principle." Doesn't that tendency mean that in a single source documentation question you will always doubt the information contained in it? If so, then what is the rationale for applying a broad-based personal rule to a singular situation?

Philip,

I think it depends on the "single" source.

Certainly Board and/or Green Committee minutes can't be ignored or dismissed.
They can be discounted, but probably in a limited fashion and only as a concession to the process of "sanitizing"

Likewise, if Donald Ross, Tom Doak or CBM detail their account in diary or written form, that's a pretty reliable "single" source.
It's more than difficult to argue with Ross on Pinehurst # 2, Doak with PacDunes and CBM with NGLA.
Those guys were where the rubber met the road, on site and up to their necks in the design and work on the course.
A newspaper article that conflicts with a first hand account, the ultimate source, has to be questioned.
Given a newspaper account and the architect's account, my default mechanism favors the architect and discounts or dismisses the newspaper article.

I think the difficult part is when there's NO source information and everything is third party.
That's really difficult to sort out with certainty.

[TEPaul]

"David,
Thank you for your well-thought out comments..."


Phil:

If you think the Moriarty post you're referring to is well thought out you should read it again and then go back and tell him to keep me out of it because that is definitely not very well thought out. The same goes for his constant mention of Cirba and is often mention of Wayne Morrison in most of his posts that have anything to do with Merion.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I gave a polite and civil response. I in now way acknowledged that I agreed with anything heb wrote. I accept the fact that we will disagree on this and that is fine and it should simply end that way.

It is time for you to simply let some things go and not provide him any more fodder for another round of defending insults...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
You discredited yourself with this thread. It was started under a dishonest premise and meant to mislead anyone who participated.

I won't trust you a second time.+