Jeffrey,
After writing this I have debated whether to post it because while I mean what I say I really don't mince words and it may come off as harsh. (What's new, right?) Please accept my assurance that I am not trying to embarrass you or Mike, but rather am trying to explain to you my perspective on all of this and my frustration with some of it. I'd like your opinion on it because, beleive it or not I would like to get past some of this this animosity. Here goes . . .
While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing.
Really? Did you stop to consider the hypocrisy in this statement? Because I seem to recall you repeatedly railing on my various theories even when they have been thoroughly researched and even when there was nothing contradicting them! In fact not long ago I posted about some research I had done about Shinnecock and you repeatedly posted about how I should have done more research and made sure I got my facts straight BEFORE I posted, even though I had done extensive research and even though I had my facts straight. From one of your posts on that Shinnecock thread:
"I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public? If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?"Similarly, you have come after me and MacWood on similar grounds on Merion, Myopia, and other courses, although I would put the quality and depth of our research and analysis against the field, including the self-appointed experts on those very same courses. So why the hypocracy? Why the double standard? Why rail on us for quality work and then condone and support Mike specious and unsupportable claims and games?
And what of Mike's own hypocrisy? Shouldn't Mike at least be held to his own standard? Here is what he had to say on that same Shinnecock thread:
In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.Surely you must have gotten a laugh just now out of the absolute absurdity of this? At least a chuckle? While Mike has presented a number of new and different versions of NGLA's established history, has he DONE ALL HIS HOMEWORK? Honestly? Has he done any? And do you suppose he took each of his garbage theories to NGLA prior to posting them here? I sure hope he didn't embarrass gca.com by actually presenting this crap to these clubs.
Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach? Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
Again hypocrisy, given your criticisms of TM's approach and mine. But lets set that aside and consider the difference in our approaches. The difference between approaches is not one of preferences, it is of INTENTION and RESULT. MacWood's approach works and so does mine, and each of us is primarily interested in figuring out what really happened. In contrast, Mike's approach produces an endless procession of bogus claims. Because with Mike facts and truthfulness are subservient and malleable to the desired conclusion. And the result is the constant misrepresentations, exaggerations, changes in direction, etc. Anything to serve the conclusion.
Look Jeffrey, I don't think Mike is necessarily dishonest at his core. He's pulled some nasty crap with me (like his witch-hunt about the intentions of my essay) but I write most of that off to emotion getting the best of him. But that said, perhaps because of the mentoring he has received from some (but not all) of the "researchers" with which he has associated himself, he has absolutely no concept of how this process is supposed to work. As I have written to you before, one cannot start with big picture conclusions and work backward from there, but that is all Mike does. All of his "research" and "facts" are meant to serve his predetermined conclusions, and they inevitably get twisted and turned to serve that purpose. And because he is always overly emotional about this stuff (see his unprovoked, "David, Fuck Off and Die." comment on the other thread today) he slips into a web of idiotic misrepresentations and contradictions, and unfortunately tries to escape by spinning more.
That is why, within three posts, he can tell me that he never suggested land "near the Canal" and tell you that he has only suggested the land "near the Canal," yet not even notice that he has contradicted himself. That is why he argues that all that was done on the horseback ride was a general inspection of the soil and contours on the 450 acre site, and at the same time argues that during the horseback rides they had chosen the site, found six holes, a yacht basin, found the first and last holes, could describe the dimension, had numerous others inspect the site, and everything else described in those December Articles. That is how he can argue that a site not anywhere near SHGC can also be adjacent to SHGC. He can berate Patrick for thinking the horseback rides were productive when his own theory dictates that everything mentioned in those December Articles happened on those same rides! He can argue that "to lay out" a course definitely meant to design it when referring to Wilson and Merion, but definitely didn't mean to design it in the case of Campbell at Myopia. And that is why he agreed with me as to the meaning of the October articles one day, but when asked to consider the implications of this not only dropped this understanding, he considered questions based on this understanding to be "stupid and insulting." Etc.
In the above examples, his analysis was subservient to his conclusions and the analysis and facts could discarded and changed as he saw fit. It has been going on for years! Remember how Mike used to argue that CBM and HJW were not known for their expertise as golf course designers in 1910? (Even he ought to admit that was absurd, but I am sure he won't.) Similarly, remember how he used to argue that NGLA wasn't even that big a deal by 1910, that it was just being constructed, and that it wasn't all that well known? Remember how he (and others) used to focus on the opening date of the clubhouse to try and create the false impression that the golf course at NGLA was more a contemporary of Merion than a predecessor? Remember how he used to take his cue from Wayne and try to portray NGLA as a course with at least one foot and maybe two feet stuck in the dark ages of design? I won't even get into the nonsense concerning Hugh Wilson's trip or various other aspects of Merion's history.
So while I understand my shots at Mike sound harsh, and will try to tone it back, it is more about his approach than anything else. His approach is at the root of all of this.