[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - do you really believe that passionate interest in golf course architecture is at the heart of this whole mess? I don't. What I see instead is something much more basic, and base, i.e. the main participants here HATE each other, and have hated each other for years now. If those involved have 'binders' on, those blinders (and that blindness) is hate. I've barely checked in over the last year for two reasons - a) I've come to a fairly stable conclusion about what I think happened back in the early 1910s, and b) I could no longer stomach the hypocrisy of people who hate each other pretending to actually bear with each other by calling it "a shared search for truth".  I'll tell you one thing (and I know this sounds arrogant): I truly believe that if David M had asked ME to edit his essay before he posted it here originally -- and I mean editing just in terms of the writing and organization of the material, not the content -- theses threads and this discussion would've been over (and successfully concluded) a long time ago. I think David EXPECTED to be hammered, and so shaped his material so as to prepare for the fight by itching for a fight - that was his mistake.  I think Tom P and others came ready to HAMMER the essay, whatever it said and whatever way it was said -- and that is to their shame.  

Well, all water under the bridge now. And while I believe that you believe in taking the high road and expecting better of all involved, it seems to me that you're failing to see how destructive the hate is. But...maybe I'm wrong.

Peter

PS - if you respond to this post, Pat, and I don't respond back, please don't see it as a lack of respect for you of for something you write. I don't feel like arguing or getting more involved in this - I just wanted to say my peace (or it is piece) and move on out.  As I noted, I'm well aware that I could be wrong, so someone telling me that I am doesn't disturb me much. By the way, my view on what I think happened in the early 1910s, for what it's worth, is found somewhere in the middle of the pack. I like to believe that more than a few on this board would share the same view.

[Tom MacWood]

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

Pat
I totally agree. It would appear Jim is claiming Barker designed the course, but I don't think that is clear at this point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


I am aware of the level of animosity, I tried to dilute it on numerous occasions.

It's unfortunate that a discussion/debate went far beyond being contentious.

A lot of vile things were said on this website, IM's, emails and over the phone.
And over WHAT ?

A 100 year old golf course's origins ?  ?  ?

I think some lost their bearings and perspective.

Despite the unpleasantness, I think a substantive amount of information  came to light for the great majority of lurkers and participants.
I know that I learned a great deal.

It's also unfortunate that some left the site over this thread.
That seems silly to me, especially when the debate continued via emails off site.

I'd certainly like to see those who left, return, but that's up to them.

David's essay was greeted with anger BEFORE it was published, so I'm  Pretty sure the exact nature of the content wasn't a material factor in creating the battle.

Since we communicate through the typed word on this website, the only thing I would ask of those engaging in debate is intellectual honest, first, and a civil tone, second.  And if you want to do away with the civil tone, that's OK with me as long as you avoid personal attacks.

Discussion and debate only retain their merit when intellectual honesty is maintained.

Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Your transparent and hypocritical effort to appear as an objective, unbiased peacemaker when you've been nothing but a staunch, blind advocate for one side and repeated instigator for continuing conflict here is perhaps the perfect denouement to this thread.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, you are not the innocent messenger and paragon of virtue who can deliver it with any shred of credibility at this point.

If nothing else, the contemporaneous articles and other evidence that have been provided in this long-running thread continue to have historical value and provide us with insight into how things were done back then.   People reading this thread should simply skip the interpretive parts in between from all parties.

Have a good day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your completely transparent and hypocritical effort to appear as an objective, unbiased peacemaker when you've been nothing but a staunch, blind advocate for one side and repeated instigator for continuing conflict here is perhaps the perfect denouement to this thread.
Mike,

Part of the problem is that you really don't have a clue when it comes to my position on this issue. 
You think I'm biased because I refused to accept your repetition of the party line.
You think I'm biased because I resisted your attempts to shove the party line down our throats.
You think I'm biased because I called for equality when it came to the burden of proof.

I clearly stated my position, just a few replies ago.
And, that has always been my position.
Your problem is that you confused theories with positions, and there is a distinction

While I agree with much of what you wrote, you are not the innocent messenger and paragon of virtue who can deliver it with any shred of
credibility at this point.

That's your opinion, one that's not universally shared by others

If nothing else, the contemporaneous articles and other evidence that have been provided in this long-running thread continue to have historical
value and provide us with insight into how things were done back then.   People reading this thread should simply skip the interpretive parts in
between from all parties.

Newspaper articles have proven unreliable when it comes to the facts, you've even admitted that , especially when an article didn't support your position.  And you rejected Findlay' contemporaneous 1912 account when it undermined your position, so please don't lecture anyone on hypocrisy

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Did the phrase "intellectual honesty" strike a nerve ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Yes, I found your use of the term particularly ironic and hypocritical considering your behavior on this thread.   You can claim objectivity and lack of bias all you like, but your actions speak much louder than your words.

Let's move on....have a good day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Yes, I found your use of the term particularly ironic and hypocritical considering your behavior on this thread.   

You can claim objectivity and lack of bias all you like, but your actions speak much louder than your words.

Mike,

You're confused again.

MY WORDS are MY ACTIONS !
The two are inseperable on this forum.
They're synonymous.

Hence, my actions are solely my words, which speak the truth, as distasteful as that might be for you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Over the weekend I played with several members from Merion.
I was introduced to them as one of the guys on GolfClubAtlas.com.

We had an exceptionally delightful round and drinks afterwards.

The only time we discussed Merion and golf course architecture was when they told me that they thought that Macdonald spent an inordinate amount of time on the phone with the Merion committee discussing his plans.

[Tom MacWood]

That is funny. I remember when I presented my Crump essay, though I thought it was a pretty balanced account, based on my experience with a few locals I expected all hell would break loose shortly. Much to my surprise most appreciated it, and were extremely kind and generous. I have the utmost respect for the membership at Pine Valley.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think the well intended  passion of those taking exception to David's premise, unfortunately morphed into a form of fanaticism not adopted or embraced by the  general membership.

It's my belief that most people believe in discovery and revelation.

There are always those that want to protect the status quo, those that inherently resist change.  I'm probably one of them on certain issues.

David's premise, was just that, a premise, nothing more.
That premise was attacked BEFORE it was ever released/published.

As I reflect on all that has transpired, I would say that the prior, accepted belief was that Wilson designed the course AFTER his return from the U.K.

And that the revised belief, as a result of David's premise and the debate that followed, is the belief that the course was routed, with individual hole designs PRIOR to Wilson's trip to the U.K., that CBM played an expanded role and that specific attribution on the specific routing and specific individual hole designs is unknown.

[DMoriarty]

Just to reaffirm what TomM wrote above, my communications and dealings with Merion Golf Club about these matters have been always been cordial and positive from those speaking for the club and almost all the members with whom I have had any contact.  The frustrating part is that a few individuals here took it upon themselves to try and defend the legends of those courses at all cost, and given that (agree with the conclusions or not) the IMO was and is sound, this has always been more about trying to destroy my reputation than actually addressing or considering what I wrote.  This was misguided at best.
_____________________________________________________________________

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!

Jim, this reminds me of the statement you made months ago which led me to ask you to come up with the specific instances in the contemporaneous record where Merion indicated that the Construction Committee (and not CBM/HJW) had planned the East Course.  As I recall you never came up with such a list.  Does this post mean you are back on the project and preparing the list?  

Also, I wonder if perhaps you are both glossing over and lumping together different events and stages in your statement above?  Unfortunately, when we break it down a bit, I am not sure it holds.   No one is disputing that Construction Committee laid the course upon the ground, like Lesley wrote.  But in the minutes Lesley also told us that this was to have been done according to the plan CBM/HJW approved.

Surely you are not contending the "the minutes make it clear" who came up with the plan, are you?  If you are, could you point me toward where this is in the minutes?
 
I am increasingly of the opinion that the Construction Committee was responsible for constructing the golf course.  While I don't know for certain, I am doubtful that the "construction committee" had yet been formed when when the planning took place.  

Can you or anyone explain to me how you know the construction committee had even been formed when the planning took place?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Over nine months later, on August 26, 1907, the final plans for the routing and hazards of the golf course was published.   What is interesting to note at this point is that the targeted width of the fairways is still at 50-55 yards, MUCH narrower than they were to become as noted previously where the average width of the fairways today is approximately 72 yards.   This lends credence to the idea that it was only later in trying to create strategic avenues of play around hazards for the weaker players did the overall size of the golf course increase significantly from what was originally anticipated, effectively squashing the original plan to create building lots for the founders on the "Surplus Land".


Joe Bausch,

Is this map/schematic dated August 26, 1907 ?

If not, what is the date of the map/schematic below ?

Mike,

I resurrected this thread just for you, now you can continue your NGLA discussion without tainting the Pine Valley thread

[Tom MacWood]

August 26, 1907, Brooklyn Daily Eagle

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
You have claimed CBM used a topo map to route the NGLA, as if it were a known, provable fact. Where did you read that or is this actually a theory?  Where did you read a topo map was created prior to routing the golf course?

[Joel_Stewart]

This may be the longest thread in the history of GCA and is brought back up in honor of George Bahto.

George Bahtos influence on golf architecture and particularly the history of NGLA, CBM and Raynor and all of their courses will be forever remembered and appreciated. 

 

[Tim_Weiman]

Joel,

I never did participate in this thread and really wasn't qualified to make any contribution. But, wow! Right or wrong, the participants reflect a real love and passion for golf architecture. Pretty amazing.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Oh man, we had even more content meat added to this thread than what appears now -- lost in the Great Internet Erasure of 2014. 

[Bill Crane]

Current statistics:

116 pages !

2,892 posts !!

118,217 views  !!!

A touch of acerbic invective.   

Priceless

When I retire I will have the time to read it.

Wm Flynnfan

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()