Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...

[JakaB]

Huck,

I'm just using you as an easy example to prove that potshots are necessary on this site.   Everybody know you yap on and on at levels that drive most people crazy...and everybody knows that Geoffrey was right on certain levels that I do make a mockery of the study of Golf Course Architecture and should be banned from this most worthy site...just not everybody has the courage to stand up and say it.  Sure, you're a yappy sack and I'm a jerk wad..and if thats good for golf, so be it..I just doubt it.

[THuckaby2]

JK:

I am proud to serve as your easy example.

I just don't see any of what is said in here being good, or bad, for golf.  The game will survive, or not, no matter what gets said in this forum.

In any case, Geoffrey was right that you make a mockery out of the study of golf course architecture - AT TIMES.  But you make your contributions to such as well.  If one was to say that I yap on at levels that drive people crazy, well he'd be right about that as well.  But I believe I make my contributions also.

The bottom line though is that it always has been, and continues to be, my feeling that the study of golf course architecture NEEDS to be mocked from time to time... and yapping among friends also NEEDS to happen.  Because good lord if all this gets taken too seriously, with no sense of humor and nothing but fights to the death, well I don't think that's good for golf either.  Certainly the study of this is not even close than worth losing a friendship over.

But then again, I go back to the feeling that nothing that gets said in here is gonna matter a whole hell of a lot anyway.
So mock on.  I shall yap on.  Hopefully readers can separate the wheat from the chaff.  If not, then lightening up is sage advice.

TH

[George Pazin]

Thank you, Shel. I am somewhat heartened to see that the person I consider the most thoughtful individual on the site seems to be the one person who understands what I'm trying to say.

Tom P -

I'll come right out and say it. I am really frustrated at what has been transpiring between you, Wayne and Tom. You three are flat out three of my favorite posters on the site. Not too many people know this, but when I first printed the t shirts, I sent out a select few unsolicited to posters that I really enjoyed. You and Tom were the first two to get them, after Ran, of course.

I get the fact that you three have serious disagreements. I especially get the fact that you are angered over Tom's comments re: Crump, and I believe your criticism of him in this issue is completely warranted.

What I don't get is this - this is the remark that prompted this thread:

I admire Geoff's willingness to say what he thinks and present it so well.  Combined with an incredibly well thought out and well researched viewpoint; it is as good as it gets.  He is a wonderful advocate for much of what we all believe in.  And he's been there too, he knows it as well as anyone; an important ingredient that ought to be considered by Ohio armchair analysts.

Is it really necessary for Wayne to take a shot a Tom while complementing Geoff? In my opinion, no. Does it really add anything to the site? Again, IMO, no.

We all have different reasons for being here, we all have different motivations for saying what we say, posting what we post. We all have different methods for developing our ideas.

But does it really add anything to take a shot like this?Heck, I could understand it if it were JK, who seems to pride himself on getting a rise out of others.

But is it really necessary to keep on taking shots on any thread where there is a possibility of a shot? Maybe you guys feel it is, but I would guess that I'm not the only one out there who would apprecitate it if folks could at least limit the cheap shots to threads where people are actually disagreeing about something.

Dave M and I have had our share of disagreements, mostly over political things. But I don't feel the need to include a shot at his wacko views everytime I post.

Challenging someone's posts is not what I'm talking about.

Ribbing a friend is not what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying we all need to get along - I'm just tired of the ad hominem attacks (thanks for the words, Shel).

[Marty Bonnar]

I love this website and DG (for my sins it is always the first thing I log into) and had assembled a heartfelt and exhaustive Post explaining why. At the last moment, I baulked and decided instead to allow greater men than I to illustrate:

"Cut to a quayside. John and Michael, dressed in tropical gear. John stands still while Michael dances up and down before him to the jolly music of Edward German. Michael holds two tiny fish and from time to time in the course of the dance he slaps John lightly, across the cheeks with them. The music ends; Michael stops dancing. John produces a huge great fish and swipes Michael with it. Michael falls off the quay into the water."

About as important and vital as 90% of discussion on Golf Course Architecture. QED.

FBD.

[THuckaby2]

George:

Believe me, I understood your point straight from the start also.

But at first, you didn't want to name names.

Thus I took it in a different direction, which I do consider valid.

I also am proud of you for the good-natured dig at Dave M.  See, I didn't think your take was that all stuff like that needs to be eliminated, but the careful way you phrased on this in your first post on this topic made me unsure.

TH

[Mark Brown]

George,

I'm with you. When I first joined the group the artillery was pretty active. I love humor, but everyone knows when they've crossed the line.

What bugs me the most is when several members start a personal conversation on thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It's almost like a filibuster and the thread gets so far off track that it's lost. That shows a lot of disrespect to the poster.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

1. No, not everyone does know when they've crossed the line.  Thus George's advice takes on added importance.

2. Sure threads do get off track, but not THAT often.  So I guess this too does need to be watched, but again, a little of that is better than a rigid site where people are so afraid to say anything that it's nothing but dead serious discussion.  I believe this is not what you meant, it is just worth pointing out that there are two sides to this.   Anyway no one ever means this as disrespect to the poster, for sure.  So your admonition is well taken.  But a little lightness remains better than 100% heaviness.

3.  Are you the Mark Brown going with me to Bandon in July - 1985 graduate of SCU?  Because if you are and you haven't identified yourself to date, well... good one.  

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

A day without making fun of TEPaul is like a day without sunshine.

I prefer to bathe in the sunshine while raining on his parade  

[Lou_Duran]

Strangely, I find that those people who tend to agree with me are generally extremely well-mannered and thoughtful.  Their insights are typically sharp and focused, reflecting a high level of intelligence.  They seldom whine, and their motives and intentions are beyond reproach.  There is also some consistency in their perspectives.  Seldom do they take "potshots" at the actor, but typically talk plainly about the play.  These folks also seem to have thicker skin and take much more flak.  But that too is okay.  We can take it.

 

[RJ_Daley]

How many other discussion sites have this periodic self correcting, group therapy session about every couple of months?  I have been personally disappointed that Dr Katz does not make many appearances like the good old days of GCA.com.  But, perhaps he is a practioner of the Rogerian method, whereby letting the patients ramble is more self illuminating and theraputic than too many interventions.

This thread, like many before it is that form of intorspective, self correcting therapy.  I think that the comments, even the sarcasm, the bluster, the needling and the serious challenges to eachother's points of view or even admonshments to posting ethics are all part of the on-going life on the web.  It does seem that one way or another, we finally get to the crux when things have gotten a little beyond the bounds, and we do seem to come back to a more centered or rational position.  

The most stale and monotonous part of this entire on-going discussion from my point of view, is that we don't have enough of that sexy intellectual female input, that a few ladies ventured to offer, all too infrequently.  Sometimes it is like and old musty lounge at a stodgy ivy league university fairy men's club around here... ( err not that I know much about that )

George, is that too much of a potshot at the entire group of us?

[ed_getka]

John,
  Calling Huck's posting yapping is not called for, and I can assure you that most here DO NOT mind Tom's frequent posting.

One thing that I think would help with the potshots is for people to take the time to acknowledge valid points made by others.

[THuckaby2]

Ed - thanks.  But I think I get JK's point, and I take no offense.  He's using me as an example of a larger point, as he says.  And hell, even I'd say I do yap at times.

And hmmm... another thing I've been taken to task on is TOO MUCH "me too" acknowledgement of good points made by others.  Obviously I think that needs to be done - it's courteous if nothing else - but can this be taken too far as well?

TH

[T_MacWood]

No its not necessary, and it adds absolutely nothing to this site.

This feud between TE and myself can be traced back to my Philadelphia syndrom comment to him during a discusion about Macdonald/Whigham at Merion...many months ago. My point being that Philadelphia (and TE in particular) holds on very tightly to their legends. Any new information is met with violent disagreent. At that time he sent me a number of messages that I had crossed the line and from that point forward he would do everything in his power to disagree with me at every step (no matter the subject). My thought at the time was, thats your choice, I don't think you will be doing yourself or your reputation any good going that route, but so be it

Fast forward to December I sent him a private message trying to make the point that we are constantly discovering new information, which means our understanding of events must change and as a result history will constantly evolve. Call it revisionist history if you want, but history is constantly being revised (admittedly there are too many cases today were history is being incorrectly changed to help support a political or social agenda), especially the history of golf architecture which is a relatively new area of study....but these new discoveries don't necessarily take away from that persons accomplishments.

In this message I mention half a dozen or more examples: "does Macdonald and Whigham's advice takes away from Wilson's accomplishements (or Flynn's for that matter), the same with Colt and Crump. Tillinghast did compromise his design principles, does that wipe away his many accomplishments? Ross said some extremely insensative things to say from a religious point of view. Billy Bell may have been the equal, or possibly more talented than George Thomas. MacKenzie's 1930's minimalist approach was taken from Tom Simpson. Colt was  criticized for taking a penal approach. Simpson had some serious personality flaws. Crump killed himself. History and analyzing history isn't about painting an unrealistic picture."

Well unfortunately he only read the last example, and it set him off. I was out of town that day, but I later found that my private message was all over the DG, and he was demanding that I answer for Crump's death. When I returned home late on a Friday I found about half dozen IMs demanding an answer, followed by a not so pleasant phone call...in which I was called a liar, a fraud and someone who invents information. This has been followed by a systematic attempt by TE and Wayne to discredit me. My attitude, in the words of the immortal Curious JJ: "Bring it on Bitch!!!"

If I am being criticized for claiming Crump killed himself on this website, someone has got their facts wrong. I mentioned it to TE in a private e-mail, he was the one that brought it into a public forum, not me. I have told him and everyone on this site I will discuss it in detail in the near future, but I want to do the right way, and right now I'm not ready. By the way I am not a liar and I don't invent information...fraud, now thats another story.  

Their reaction has been the strongest case I could have ever made for existance of a Philadelphia syndrom.

[wsmorrison]

"does Macdonald and Whigham's advice takes away from Wilson's accomplishements (or Flynn's for that matter)"

All I have ever said is that since we don't know what their "advice" was, and there is no indication that it was substantial in any way specific to the course, it is impossible for this to have any bearing whatsoever to anyone's accomplishments.  Nothing can convince me otherwise.  Unless you or any of us dig up some facts, you are merely speculating and that is a waste of time.  In fact, your multitude of speculations seem a cause for concern as you do have a following of believers.

Tom and I started to look into the death of Crump a long time before you contacted him with your proof and your sources.  I was not actively pursuing the matter for some time, I'm busy with other research at the moment.  But we did make some phone calls early on.  When you reported your discovery, we actively looked into it and our findings differed substantially from yours.  It is a curious fact and will be sorted out at some point, maybe by you.  

We think it is an interesting finding in of itself IF Crump killed himself due to unbearable pain from dental problems that went to his brain or from depression.  But the most important factor in this you continuously avoid.  We don't think such a finding has any bearing on anything to do with the historical record.  You do.  

I don't care anymore--its a waste of my time--but to set the record straight one last time, you proposed that Crump's death somehow was interpreted by the membership as giving his life to the club (odd since his life's work at that point was to continuously work on the course and he decided to leave it, however he died, unfinished) and thus sparked a systematic effort to glorify Crump at Colt's expense.  This interpretation regardless of the cause of death is silly.  If he committed suicide, his friends would have mourned his passing.  If he died suddenly from natural causes as a result of a dental infection, his friends would have mourned him.  What is the difference?  

I agree that we should try to be more civil, but it does work both ways.  Baiting and name calling from both sides of the fence has occurred.  There is no Philadelphia Syndrome.  This term is a result of an unsatisfactory reaction by you to some of us that dispute your interpretations.  

[TEPaul]

"GeorgeP asked:

"Is it really necessary for Wayne to take a shot a Tom while complementing Geoff? In my opinion, no. Does it really add anything to the site? Again, IMO, no."

George:

I'm afraid it is. Look again at that quote of Wayne's you used. Wayne isn't personally criticizing Tom MacWood. He's simply criticizing a method of architectural analysis Tom MacWood often uses and that's criticizing some restorations projects and sometimes some specific detail of a restoration project when he's never even seen the golf course---before or since.

Wayne and I firmly believe that one cannot do that effectively--not Tom MacWood---not anybody!

It just doesn't work that way in reality. You really do have to go see what you're critiquing in architecture to do your critique justice. You can't do this stuff properly, no one can if you don't see it---there just aren't enough photographs of any golf course to do it that way.

That's why Wayne called Tom MacWood an 'armchair analyst'. It's pretty hard to sit in Columbus Ohio and criticize an Aronimink or a Merion East or particularly analyze the creation of a PVGC all in the Philly region if you've never laid eyes on any of them.

I'm very certain, George, you understand the importance of this. Wayne's not criticizing Tom MacW, he's criticizing the method he often uses. And we'll continue to do that.

I do have a very interesting subject for you, though, that I had a long conversation this morning with Ran about. I think I'll start a thread on it. I might call it the supreme irony.

It's about a Tom MacWood's ability to analyze PVGC for instance---a club he has zero connection to---never having seen the place and probably never knowing a member VS my ability to speak freely about all I know of the place. I have friends there, loads of them and they may not appreciate me getting into every detail of their golf course. I'll probably just ask permission of the one who I have the largest committment to that way as a friend. If he tells me to go for it on here I will, but if he tells me not to, I won't. I do have  more of a responsibility to some of my friends at some of these courses than I do to architectural discussion on here.

So, if  Tom MacWood does write an article on the creation of PVGC I may have to sit here and look at the mistakes he's making and not fully respond. That's frustrating because I know things about the place he never could know, never having been there.

That could be the supreme irony for me---and it would be frustrating as hell. Not the least of which the most important material he has came from me. I gave it to Paul Turner and I told him it was just for him. Obviously it all got to Tom MacWood and that was not my intention. In this way I've probably already violated the trust of some over there in me and I don't feel so good about that.

I'd much rather see Paul Turner write an article on PVGC creation than Tom MacWod because I feel he'd do a much better job of it than Tom MacWood. But maybe Paul is coaching him in every detail. At least Paul has been there a few times and I know he played it once.

So it could turn out to be the supreme irony for me---and frustrating.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I honestly wasn't aware that the Alison report was meant to go no further. (The Carr/Smith report is in the USGA library).  Everyone was friendly towards eachother back then And Tom was writing an article on CH Alison.

Anyway, I really do believe it's best if all the info is available to anyone who is interested.  Rather than keeping it all secret.

[George Pazin]

I certainly understand the need to criticise someone's methods. What frustrated me about that particular instance was that it seemed like an inappropriate time, in a completely separate thread. It's hard enough dealing with these issues without seeing them pop  up in semirelated threads. Unfortunately, people are already using this thread on other threads to suggest that we should avoid harsh criticism, which is definitely not my intent. I would just like to see it confined to the issues at hand on those particular threads.

I guess I've said my piece. As my partner says to his son, "Let your conscience by your guide."

 

[THuckaby2]

I guess I've said my piece. As my partner says to his son, "Let your conscience by your guide."

 

Your partner is Jiminy Cricket?  Man you do travel in high circles, George.

Sorry, needed to be said.  I'll delete this if you ask.

 

[Jason Topp]

As one who recently pushed this topic (and appreciates Mr. Daley's multiple responses), and as someone pretty new to this site, a few competing thoughts:

1.  The value of this site is unfetterred opinions.  I don't have any involvement or training in the industry.  I simply enjoy the game.  Most other sources of information I have seen on the topic consist primarily of meaningless marketing hype and occassionally thoughtless bashing.  I appreciate informed viewpoints whether positive or negative.  I would never want to see that aspect of this site compromised.  

2. Probably more important than unfettered opinions is that this site is fun.  As I constantly say to any caddie unfortunate enough to have my bag, "Good thing we are not trying to cure cancer here!"  I don't want to see that aspect of the site compromised.

3.  Humour is tough on an internet posting.  With so many readers, and the lack of typical cues with live spoken humour, it is difficult to fully devine the intent of the poster.  So if you are going to do it, make it good.

4.  I think it is tough to lay out any general rules other than ask people to keep in mind the very public nature of communications on this site, the potential impact of stinging comments and to think a bit about whether commentary advances the reasons you participate.


This post sounds like my mother.  Take it for what it is worth.

[TEPaul]

"I honestly wasn't aware that the Alison report was meant to go no further."

Paul:

I can certainly understand that. I thought I told you but maybe I didn't or wasn't that clear about it. I think the Alison report and all that final work is fascinating but don't forget, Crump had been dead for three years when that happened. Probably the most significant item of all for all kinds of reasons are those "remembrances"! To truly understand the significance of those reports one really does have to know that golf course intimately. And that would be virtually impossible for Tom MacWood to do never having been there.

I'm sure you do feel all this information should come out. I do too Paul but the one thing none of us should EVER forget is it does not belong to us---it belongs to Pine Valley! Perhaps you take that lightly, I don't know, and I'm totally certain Tom MacWood would never give something like that a second thought. But I take that seriously---on principle more than anything else.

There seems to be a switch in direction with Tom MacWood on Crump and PV anyway. Ran tells me that he's now decided to point out that the membership actually should've glorified Crump for what he did there. As you well know the two of you have been telling me all along that the club set out to glorify Crump simply to minimize Colt's part. That's certainly what Tom MacWood told me many times and even mentioned on here briefly. Now apparently he's going to maintain that they should have glorified Crump perhaps for his part in the architecture but maybe more so for shooting himself and basically laying his dead body on PVGC or some such thing. I think this is how he thinks he's going to tie in this suicide thing. In my opinion that's perhaps the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard and if he says that I'm gonna just howl with laughter. It didn't matter a whit HOW he died---the fact is he just died suddenly in January 1918---they were shocked as hell no matter what the reason for his death was, his financial contribution to the construction of the course was gone, he was gone, they sure had all loved the man and there are tons of architects and others who've testified all over the place to what he did there in the years after Colt left. And if this is the assumptions and conclusion Tom MacWood is going to make I just can't wait to hear how he'll rationalize how all his friends and the club got together to drum up this phony story (according to Tom MacWood) that he died of poison from a tooth abscess. What about our letter from Hugh Wilson to Piper just days after Crump died mentioning poison to the brain. I guess Tom MacW thinks Wilson was in on this big cover-up too. Tom MacWood thinks there's some big "Philadelphia School of Architecture" conspiracy thing about something anyway. I'm sure some have seen him mantion that on here to me. So, it'll be an interesting article--I can't wait.

So I don't know, maybe what I've been telling you two about that glorification/minimization thing and what the membership has always felt about Colt's part has never been anything like minimization, is starting to sink in. Everyone I ever knew there thought Colt designed or at least routed the course before the Shelley and Finegan books. They all seemed proud of that---they all thought Colt was a great architect. Nobody I ever knew there seemed to have been aware of some of the indications about who may've done what between them that're in Thomas and Hunter's books. And then Tillinghast's words are great for descriptions that create timelines of who did what.

Frankly very few people even understand the significant distinction between a routing and the "designing up" phase. I wonder if a Tom MacWood is even aware of what that means in the case of PVGC!

There's plenty on this post alone to help you on your article Tom. If I can be of any help please don't hestitate to call!  

[wsmorrison]

George,

In my mind, I've been pretty reserved about this and not made any personal attacks.  Attacks against methodology and analysis, yes however not personal--or I hope not in any case.  

But it sure is an interesting juxtaposition to present Geoff Shackelford's initmate familiarity with a course and restoration that he is critiquing with that of Tom MacWood who is not intimately familiar with much of what he comments on.  This is why I thought it was an appropriate time to bring the subject up.  

Honestly, there's a lot more crap that goes on with this website far more egregious than my comment which sparked this thread.  I really thought it had to do with other back and forths and was surprised that you singled out mine.  Your welcome to your opinion and I'm sorry you found fault.  I'm not at all sorry about what I said or where I said it.

[Paul_Turner]

"As you well know the two of you have been telling me all along that the club set out to glorify Crump simply to minimize Colt's part."

I don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort.  What I have written is that the official face of the club glorifies Crump which then minimizes other's input.


And yes, given that the Carr/Smith report is in the USGA, I think it's OK to reveal what's in there.  

[Sean_A]

George

Tom H is on about Mr. Cricket, nonsense, you are a blueshead!  Sonny Boy gets to shift about in his grave.

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"And yes, given that the Carr/Smith report is in the USGA, I think it's OK to reveal what's in there."

Paul:

Wow, I forgot that and I was just looking at it the other day up there. If that's there maybe I don't need to be concerned about any of what I have being private. If they gave most of that to the USGA I take that as public information. Maybe I really can say all that I know on here.

"I don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort."

Oh, you certainly have and Tom MacWood most certainly has to me!
 
"What I have written is that the official face of the club glorifies Crump which then minimizes other's input."  

Have you now? "The official face of Pine Valley" Well, I've been done there a lot of years and known a lot of members over the years and I've never been aware there was a "official face of Pine Valley". I'll have to ask the mayor about that. He's been there over forty years. I wonder if he's heard of the "official face of Pine Valley".

They are quite private about their affairs Paul, but that's not the same thing as an "official face of Pine Valley".

Don't you think perhaps you fella are getting a tad over-dramatic here? In this case it would probably be helpful to know people there rather than just reading about them in old magazines and newspapers.  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
You've got to be kidding me. You haven't attacked me? Go back and read all your attacks on my ability to evaluate...no details mind you, just my ability to analyze is completely faulty. I've written a number of essays that are right here on this site, I don't recall you ever pointing out where I went wrong in my conclusions and why.

Not to mention your attempt to discredit me on this site regarding my original Crump source--which I regretfully gave you. You were all too eager to anounce on GCA that my source claimed that he never spoke to me, told you Crump didn't die in said town, and claimed they didn't have any record of his manner of his death.

From what I understand this same source is now saying he did die in said town and does admit they do have the record. I don't recall you posting that information on here to clear the record. Thank God I don't have rely upon this source anymore. After you & TE got through with him, he's as paranoid as you two.

TE
You are extremely paranoid. Why don't you wait until you read it before go off the deep end. If you liked by Arts & Crafts essay and the Alison piece, I'm sure you'll like this one as well.