Tom MacWood said:
"David
I think we all know who the purist, ultra-purist and 'so-called' purist is in TE's mind....at least most of the time. If you do a quick search using this sites search engine...over the last two years or so...you will find 'purist' is one of TE's favorite words, in fact he by far is the biggest user of the term, the second biggest is yours truly...usually because I've included a quote from TE in my post."
Tom MacW:
You really are the "research man"! Searching the back pages for that is good work indeed. I probably am a "purist", matter of fact I know I am. And I'm proud of it. But I'm proudest, in restrospect, of "staying in the game" during my entire restoration project, and with some others, of not pontificating from some “ivory tower”, of not quitting and walking away in frustration although that seemed close plenty of times. At one point in a combined Master plan and golf committee meeting (this meeting was two years into the planning and it was to have the golf committee vote on the approval of our plan) my biggest adversary who didn't want a tree touched, didn't want the master plan or Gil Hanse or any of it confronted me in the combined meeting. He asked the meeting, "Who the hell is Donald Ross, that was ninety years ago?" I stood up and said that if the committee adopted that stance I was going to quit. He said: "Do you promise?" I stood up and said if it was coming down to this it was going to have to be him or me. He left the committee!
There were probably a hundred or two hundred items over those few years we had to fight for through the committees and the membership and the board and we got almost all of them approved through constant education and an attitude towards anyone and everyone (except that one guy that one time) that was dedicatedly non-adverserial (we all worked hard on that!).
I thought our plan was approved and on the way to implementation but to my disbelief the board sent us seven last items to review AGAIN for approval (because about two significant members were still fighting their approval). The first five were approved again. The sixth was a really interesting plan on one hole that Gil and I had worked really hard on and the seventh and last was to move the 10th green about 75 yards to the right. I could see the handwriting on the wall---that we just weren’t going to be able to send that list back to the board as it was and that the committee was going to take at least one item off it. The seventh item was something I’d fought to prevent throughout the entire two year process—and I was the only one--it was the thing that mattered most to me over everything. It’s one of the coolest Perry Maxwell greens you ever saw---ask Tommy Nacarato about it—ask Bill Coore---it was where he first said “poof”. There was a letter about the sixth item from a very reasoned member who happened to be the president of Merion at that time. I could see if I fought for item six, basically mine, item #7 would likely not get approved and that Maxwell green was going to be destroyed. So as item six came up for discussion I told the committee that they knew it was mine but if I could save item #7 (that Maxwell green) I wanted to take item six off the table for discussion and just vote to let it go (off the plan). They did that immediately and that Maxwell green was saved and restored. Things like this may seem like small potatoes to you or David Moriarty and others on here, I don’t really know, but I can tell you I’m proud of them---because I stayed in the game, took the knocks, made what I feel to be some intelligent compromises and did good for the purity of my golf course! Saving that green represented it all to me.
(Today, by the way, that guy I had the confrontation with in that committee loves the course and the restoration!).
So when I try to have a discussion on here about “purists” and how they function and do good for classic architecture I wonder what they really are doing, how effective they’ve been, what examples they can actually point to, whether they ever had to compromise to save something they really believed in, or do they just pontificate for the sake of pontificating archtiectural purity---particularly when they criticize my restoration for not been “purist” enough, for being a “hybrid” or whatever. What can you point to Tom MacW? Would you have hung in there on that committee and taken the knocks and compromised intelligently, or would you have refused to even enter into the process because you don’t think much of the opinions of memberships anyway. Would you have saved that great Maxwell green? Could you have by just sitting in your ivory tower and pontificating about architectural purity without taking the time and the knocks to get in there and actually convince opponents of architectural purity?
“When addressing me, TE uses it interchangeably with zealot, maniac, nut, fiend, fool, half-wit or ignoramus.”
You’re right, I probably do and have done. I feel strongly about “purity” in architecture, but intelligent purity that will achieve golf architecture’s ultimate goal---to increase interest and enjoyment for a membership. Matter of fact, I firmly believe that INTELLIGENT architectural purity can clearly do that---but it’s not simple and it’s definitely not a matter of just blindly “putting everything back the way it was in 1916”.
“I'm starting to get the impression he no like what I have to say.”
Congratulations! Too bad it’s taken you about five years to figure that out. But I like plenty of what you say and have said---the A&C movement articles were great---but you suggesting that my course was probably not significant enough to restore and that my membership over the years must have been in a constant redesign mode on a Ross course, and you calling into question numerous times my dedication to architectural purity, preservation, intelligent restoration etc is certainly not something I like hearing you say. Particularly for someone like you whose never even been there.
As for David Moriarty on the subject of “purists” and restoration purity, again, I have no idea what he feels---I can’t really recall him saying anything in particular. But he does constantly ask that I try to have intelligent discussions on here---so I guess I should ask him if this is “intelligent” enough for him? This is the real thing, not some hypothetical or some theoretical!
And lastly, Tom MacWood, there’s the issue of this Crump suicide thing. To me that falls into the realm of “purity” because it goes right to the heart of historical accuracy of the #1 course in the world. You made that claim that you could prove it, you’ve stated to me why you believe it has real significance to the truth and accuracy of architectural attribution but yet you continue to avoid the issue on here when we try to engage you in an intelligent discussion about it and I sure don’t like that at all.
So after all that do you think I’m being negative, should a guy like David Moriarty think I’m “witch hunting” purists? I don’t think so.