[Tom MacWood]

In order to believe what you believe you have to suspend rational thought and common sense, and to have little or no historical perspective.

The explanation we were originally given for the hiring of a bunch of novices was because that is the way it happened, which is not an explanation. Then we were given the explanation they thought Wilson showed the potential to become a modern day Leeds, which is extremely far fetched. There is not single elite club in the 1910-1913 timeframe that went with a novice to design their golf course. They turned to men like Barker, CBM, and Colt to design their golf course (and they were laid out it short order). If you study what was going on in architecture circa 1910, you will logically conclude there is no way they turned to complete novice.

There is no disputing #2.

I've always thought the golf course was originally routed in a week, most likely in December. There is no contradiction. The only dates that can be pinpointed in the Lesley report is the period when they re-arranged the course (March, when they returned from the NGLA) and when Macdonald approved the final plan (April). The Lesley report gives no indication of when the many courses were laid out or when they arrived a single routing, only that it was prior to March. You are confused.

Despite yours and Mike's bizarre interpretations, I think the P&O letters are quite clear, especially if read with the knowledge Wilson's 1916 account. I've always felt odd that you have brushed those two most important accounts under the rug.

I believe the evidence suggests the golf course was routed in December or January, and the fact that the golf course, or routing if you wish, was being re-arranged in March is further proof.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Which are the two most important accounts?  perhaps mimicking the Merion records themselves, you don't specificaly mention them....insert smiley.

Not sure how you can dispute that they had the final routing ONLY AFTER CBM approved among the five they drew in April?  As you say, there is no clear cut words to pin down the front end of the routing process, but there sure is one when they all got dropped but the one they built to. 

I am trying to imagine what you are saying - 

Many routings had been prepared in advance of the NGLA meeting (we will debate that more later, I am sure)

That by NGLA, 18 holes had been routed, and the first 12 holes had mostly been settled (as per Francis, they came easy)

That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.

That the only re-arranging necessary was those six holes and and the Francis had his land swap idea after the NGLA meeting

That the swap included just minor variations of the theme to get the last six holes in? 

That is actually not a totally unreasonable read of the Lesley letter.  It doesn't contradict anything in it, whereas before, your insistence of the importance of the word "course" stumped me.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

This thread is toxic due to the behavior and constant insults of a few here and I'm done with it.

I'm quite confident that I've provided enough actual contemporaneous evidence to make my case in the minds of most reasonable people and as far as the rest, so be it.

Those without evidence ask us to trust their self-professed higher intelligence and logic.   It's very funny actually., and reading the last couple of pages today after some absence was at turns both hilarious and pathetic.

I'd also say that I'm even more confident that when the history of Merion is re-written by an excellent, objective golf writer for the 2013 US Open that it will be based on actual facts, the complete historical records, and once again all of this nonsense will be shown to be much ado about very, very little.

Have a nice day.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Which are the two most important accounts?  perhaps mimicking the Merion records themselves, you don't specificaly mention them....insert smiley.

Not sure how you can dispute that they had the final routing ONLY AFTER CBM approved among the five they drew in April?  As you say, there is no clear cut words to pin down the front end of the routing process, but there sure is one when they all got dropped but the one they built to. 

I am trying to imagine what you are saying - 

Many routings had been prepared in advance of the NGLA meeting (we will debate that more later, I am sure)

That by NGLA, 18 holes had been routed, and the first 12 holes had mostly been settled (as per Francis, they came easy)

That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.

That the only re-arranging necessary was those six holes and and the Francis had his land swap idea after the NGLA meeting

That the swap included just minor variations of the theme to get the last six holes in? 

That is actually not a totally unreasonable read of the Lesley letter.  It doesn't contradict anything in it, whereas before, your insistence of the importance of the word "course" stumped me.

I'm obviously not disputing that change to the routing. Just two or three posts ago I said the Minutes and Francis account are remarkably similar, which you disagreed with. I'm saying there was routing in place much earlier and it was a 23rd hour change.

The two most important accounts are Wilson's letters and Wilson's 1916 report.

Could you give us some examples of elite golf clubs circa 1911 engaging a complete novice to design their golf course?

[Tom MacWood]

Patrick,

This thread is toxic due to the behavior and constant insults of a few here and I'm done with it.

I'm quite confident that I've provided enough actual contemporaneous evidence to make my case in the minds of most reasonable people and as far as the rest, so be it.

Those without evidence ask us to trust their self-professed higher intelligence and logic.   It's very funny actually., and reading the last couple of pages today after some absence was at turns both hilarious and pathetic.

I'd also say that I'm even more confident that when the history of Merion is re-written by an excellent, objective golf writer for the 2013 US Open that it will be based on actual facts, the complete historical records, and once again all of this nonsense will be shown to be much ado about very, very little.

Have a nice day.

Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right. Before you go could you confirm if you've had access to the Cricket Club's archives?

[Tom MacWood]

That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.

He was? Where did you come up with that?

[Mike Cirba]

Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right.

Now THAT is funny, Tom.   You and David don't even agree and the only person you've seemingly convinced of anything is trying to gain an invite to CBM's shrine and is presently publicly worshiping at the altar.

Thanks for keeping the humor going and for ending my participation here with a smile on my face.   I knew you had it in you!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You avoided answering my question.

Have you been granted the same unrestricted access to MCC's and MGC's archives that you claim David and Tom have been granted ?

Your failure to answer this question, which I've asked repeatedly, leads me to believe that you haven't been granted unrestricted access, and further,, that neither have David, Tom or myself.

Irrespective of the flair ups, as Jeff Brauer stated, far more appears to have been uncovered through GCA.com discussions, debates and heated/toxic exchanges, than was previously known, and that reasonable time lines are more discernible despite the protestations from the Merionettes.

You have continually attempted to end/eradicate this thread, and the ironic thing about the thread is that YOU started it.

Could you please answer my question/s

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right.

Now THAT is funny, Tom.   You and David don't even agree and the only person you've seemingly convinced of anything is trying to gain an invite to CBM's shrine and is presently publicly worshiping at the altar.

Thanks for keeping the humor going and for ending my participation here with a smile on my face.   I knew you had it in you!    

I'm sorry if my toxic behavior has driven you from this thread. As far as David and I agreeing or not agreeing, its called independent thinking. You should try it some time. A good start would be for you to make a visit to the MCC archive and share with us what you find.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Macwood,

My guess, based somewhat on Mike's failure to respond, is that unrestricted access by non-members is another myth, one that Mike felt comfortable perpetuating, despite the absence of facts supporting his claims.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I think you have it figured out.  Mike has been offering up Merion's Minutes like a circus barker.  Here are a few of Mike's past posts on this issue, the first from May 5, the next two from June 25 . . .
"Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.
   Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding.   Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course."
. . . and . . .
"I'd suggest you make a trip to Ardmore to see the original.   I certainly don't have an electronic scanned copy, but those artifacts are available for viewing by those who go through the proper protocol.   I'd be happy to take you to dinner."
. . . and. . .
". . . All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.  
   If you don't want to go, fine.   That's not my problem."

Now, after having repeatedly invited about everyone and their mother-in-law to come to Ardmore and review the Minutes, and after having falsely indicated that some of us have refused this invitation, Mike has gone mum.  I think you have hit on exactly the reason why.
_____________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,  

You owe it to all of us to set the record straight.  I have been waiting for you guys to so do here and elsewhere but given your latest "exit" and your unwillingness to answer Patrick's questions, it seems I am waiting in vain.  

Your posts above and similar posts, proclamations, and invitations concerning Merion Golf Club's policies and procedures were way out of line and misrepresent Merion's policies and procedures. Wayne Morrison and TEPaul misinformed you and mislead you, and you in turn mislead and misrepresented us here on this website.   While I am sure you must be embarrassed and disappointed that they mislead you again, you really should have known not to trust these guys by now.

How many times have these guys and others sent you down this road, where you have haughtily treated gossip and misinformation as fact, only to find later you were dead wrong?   How many failed witch hunts have there been thus far?  You guys seem to be living proof that not everyone learns from their mistakes, but it is not too late to admit responsibility and try to learn from this one.  

Merion deserves better than to have you guys falsely representing their policies in on and off this forum.   You guys need to make things right.   At the very least you need to admit that your statements above were a mistake, that you were misinformed, and that you had no idea about whether what you were saying was true or not.  The same applies to Brauer.

[JESII]

Who, on this thread (or otherwise), has actually went through appropriate channels to seek access to Merion's archives?

David, Tom and Patrick,

If you're going to hold out Merion (as distinct from Mike, Tom and Wayne, as should be done) as not being receptive to proper requests to view the archives I'd suggest you better explain your process clearly because I doubt any of you have actually done so.

Are you really waiting for an invitation?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I know you're well intended, but I think you're misinformed, or perhaps uninformed on this issue.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim and Pat, check out TMacs post 2847.

He says, "I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited."  That is consistent with the contentions of TePaul and Wayne.  But, for time and perhaps cost reasons, I don't believe either TMac or David has taken advantage of the resource.  And David has seemingly had a different experience, based on his posts on the subject.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim and Pat, check out TMacs post 2847.

He says, "I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited."  That is consistent with the contentions of TePaul and Wayne.  But, for time and perhaps cost reasons, I don't believe either TMac or David has taken advantage of the resource.  And David has seemingly had a different experience, based on his posts on the subject.

I was also told the documents I was most interested in seeing were not part of the archives. For some reason you failed to mention that part of my quote.

I'm certain there are electronic copies of all those documents; I'm not sure why they are not being distributed to all interested parties. We are not talking state secrets here.

[JESII]

Tom,

Are you serious? Have you been offered the opportunity to view the archived material at Merion GC?



Pat,

You may be quite correct, but Tom's post just prior to this one indicates he would be welcome...which is incredibly shocking IMHO...and that he is placing conditions on his acceptance.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Yes, I'm serious. I've said it more than once on this site including a couple days ago. Thankfully I inquired, before making the effort, if the minutes from November and April were included, and I was told they were not. In fact its my impression none of the minutes were included at the time. An archive is of limited use that when the most important documents relating to the creation of the golf course are not included. I got the impression they were playing games with me.

What good is access to an archive that does not include its most important information? It allows people like to say hey he was given access but he did not take advantage of it. Give me a break.

I assume you've been through the archives since it is open to the public. What are some of the artifacts and documents you've found most interesting?

[JESII]

You do of course realize that those minutes would be Merion Cricket Club property, not Merion Golf Club, correct?

Also, I never suggested any of this was publicly available, in fact I think you're totally insane for thinking you deserve to see any of this stuff on your own terms.

Neither Merion Golf Club nor Merion Cricket Club has been involved in these discussions for one minute...Tom Paul is not MGC or MCC, and Wayne may be a mamber at MGC but has never, to my knowledge, spoken on here as an officer of the club.

I doubt you actually want the answers you would find.

[Tom MacWood]

I do realize that. Would there be some compelling reason why they would not share those minutes and make them accessible to the entire world? I understand they have shared this information; some of these documents are in the Flynn book. We are not talking about state secrets. And after all this 2011, and making photo copies and/or electronically scanned copies is common place. Its not that difficult.

I was told by Wayne that the Merion archives were open to the public. I was not given access to anything that the public did not have access to, including you. I assume you've been through the archives. What are some of the artifacts and documents you've found most interesting?

My own terms? These are historical documents. Since when do historians and legitimate archivists put terms upon historic documents? You either share them or you don't for reasons unknown to me. Explain to me why they would not share them?

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
My correspondences were directly with the Merion GC archivist. I would send him a private correspondence and I would get response from Wayne, and was told by Wayne that he would be my official interface. Obviously the archivist was forwarding my messages and the two were colluding for some unknown reason. From that point I began copying the president of the club on my messages (to no avail). I also sent the archivist the code of ethics from the SAA (Society of American Archivists) because he broke about half their codes. Is there a different code of ethics in Philadelphia?

Code of Ethics for Archivists
Preamble

The Code of Ethics for Archivists establishes standards for the archival profession. It introduces new members of the profession to those standards, reminds experienced archivists of their professional responsibilities, and serves as a model for institutional policies. It also is intended to inspire public confidence in the profession.

This code provides an ethical framework to guide members of the profession. It does not provide the solution to specific problems.

The term “archivist” as used in this code encompasses all those concerned with the selection, control, care, preservation, and administration of historical and documentary records of enduring value.

I. Purpose

The Society of American Archivists recognizes the importance of educating the profession and general public about archival ethics by codifying ethical principles to guide the work of archivists. This code provides a set of principles to which archivists aspire.

II. Professional Relationships

Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users.

III. Judgment

Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

IV. Trust

Archivists should not profit or otherwise benefit from their privileged access to and control of historical records and documentary materials.

V. Authenticity and Integrity

Archivists strive to preserve and protect the authenticity of records in their holdings by documenting their creation and use in hard copy and electronic formats. They have a fundamental obligation to preserve the intellectual and physical integrity of those records.

Archivists may not alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence.

VI. Access

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies. Archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives. Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

VII. Privacy

Archivists protect the privacy rights of donors and individuals or groups who are the subject of records. They respect all users’ right to privacy by maintaining the confidentiality of their research and protecting any personal information collected about them in accordance with the institution’s security procedures.

VIII. Security/Protection

Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible and guard them against defacement, physical damage, deterioration, and theft. Archivists should cooperate with colleagues and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute thieves and vandals.

IX. Law

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.

 

[DMoriarty]

Jim, I agree that there are two clubs involved here and that complicates things, and I agree that Wayne Morrison is NOT authorized to speak in behalf of either club.  And TEPaul, Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer most certainly are not.

But this makes matters all the more strange. Why has Mike Cirba repeatedly inviting people to Ardmore to view these documents?   Why have Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer taken shots at some of us for "refusing" to go to Merion, and why have they written about how TomM and I could have gone to look at the documents but have not?  Any why has Jeff Brauer called me a liar, but refused to explain himself?

Unfortunately these misrepresentations trace directly back to Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul.  Wayne falsely claimed to speak on behalf of Merion Golf Club, and as his statements about Merion's policies and his treatment of the Minutes have directly contradicted Merion's policies.  Without getting into detail here, Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have been parroting these two, but the information Wayne and Tom Paul have given them is wrong as to Merion Golf Club's policies, wrong as to Wayne's authority to speak on behalf of MGC, and especially wrong as to my dealings with Merion Golf Club. 

They all really ought to set the record straight.  Specifically, they need to come forward and admit that they had it wrong, that they were misinformed, and that they do not have the first clue as to MGC's policies or about my communications and dealings with the clubs.

And Jim, nothing I have posted should be construed as a shot at Merion Golf Club.   My communications and dealings with Merion Golf Club about these matters have been always been cordial and positive.   But as you indicated above, there is a big difference between Merion Golf Club on the one hand, and Wayne, Tom Paul, and Cirba and Brauer, on the other.   The authorized representatives of the former speak with knowledge and authority, while the latter have only feigned authority and have made a number of blatant misrepresentations.  

[Mike Cirba]

David/Tom/Patrick,

My limited misunderstanding of the admission rules and contents of the Merion Archives was largely based on a series of private emails all of you were copied on.   I've also been there in person, but not in any formal capacity to do research or otherwise hunt through the files.

I would admit that I don't know the formal process to obtain access but also understood that access by interested, well-intentioned researchers and other observers was encouraged.   Further, and perhaps most important to these discussions, I had read in one of the emails, or perhaps misinterpreted, that photocopies of the original copies of the MCC Minutes were included in the archives.   I've come to find that this isn't quite true...what exists in the archives are the transcribed, typed copies, and not scans of the originals.

Given the circumstances here, I regret that I encouraged each of you to visit and sincerely apologize if I've misrepresented the policies of the club based on my limited understanding.  

In a perfect world, I would like all of us to have access to all of the documents in question and more.   I'm a believer in full disclosure and have probably shared more here personally than some folks might be comfortable with, but I like to let the facts and evidence speak for themselves.   However, I sense we'd still all interpret things differently, and that's ok.

We seem to have entered this discussion on Merion here with no real new evidence or facts than we've had over most of the past eight years since we've been discussing/debating this.   I'm hopeful that someday more surfaces, but until that time I think we all have our beliefs based on the evidence and I for one am moving on to other topics and hopefully more productive endeavors.

Again, I wish you the best in your own personal searches and regret that I've provided information here that was inaccurate based on my limited, third-hand misunderstandings as a non-member..

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

While I appreciate your attempt to set the record straight, I don't understand why you are still making claims about what is and is not in Merion's Archives.  You have no idea and it is not your place to make such claims.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

You may recall that I warned against accepting information blindly and that you too should have questioned the representations made to you.

If we're all on a search for the truth, then we should question any and all information provided to us, irrespective of the source, friend or foe.

What's mind boggling about this issue is that we're just discussing a golf course and its history, not which drug to select to save lives.

While we're passionate about architecture and related matters, we shouldn't become fanatical about such matters and we shouldn't wear blinders when examining issues.

It would appear that the attribution we're seeking, doesn't exist, thereby making all opinions valid and invalid at the same time.

Until attribution is established, I think we have to say that we don't know, with specificity, who designed Merion.

[JESII]

Pat,

If "with specificity" is to mean identifying whose idea each feature of the original course was, then of course you're right. But the minutes make it clear who Merion's leadership at the time thought created their course...AND who helped them do it!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()