[wsmorrison]

David Moriarty has finally pushed me past my limit of tolerance.  I have not posted on any of these Merion threads in weeks yet he continues his unrelenting hate-filled rants.  All the while without nearly enough condemnation from the site members and a lack of effective oversight by Ran and/or Ben.  The time for consequences has arrived.

Tom and I will not post our opinion piece on GCA.com in whole or in part.  In fact, I will not post anything further relating to Merion on this site.  We will finish our analysis and report and present them to the Merion Cricket Club and the Merion Golf Club.  Following that, if given permission, we will offer our findings outside the clubs, but only to the USGA.  We will let them determine what shall be done with it in terms of dissemination to the public. 

In the meantime, if anyone on this site wants to see the final results of our work, the means to do so will be to come to Merion Golf Club and seek permission to gain entry into the Archives.  When the  Flynn book is finally published, it will contain the material as well.  Given that it is being privately published in a very limited edition, the opportunity to consider the findings in that manner will likewise be limited.

By not disseminating our findings on this site, Moriarty will insinuate that we are hiding material that is detrimental to our position and supporting his own.  That is simply not true.  We have additional information of an era that we were not considering for the Flynn book.  Moriarty's essay forced us to delve deeper and earlier than we did previously.  Unfortunately, the material will not be made available to this site. 

In writing our essay, there will be peer review with appropriate checks and balances.  Just because Moriarty is not a part of that process, it doesn't mean the process does not exist.  Our standards will be as suggested by Dr. Childs.  Facts will be presented as facts and educated guesses will be properly presented.  There will be no doubt as to what is fully supported and what is partially supported. 

It is sad that everything has devolved to this state.  But it clearly has, so this is my final word on the subject.

[Joe Hancock]

Wayne,

I will not suppose to know anything of your/TEpaul's positions, nor David M. or Mike Cirba or anyone else who has devoted much emotion and research. I don't know anyone's true motivations for all of this effort.

I will say, however, that from one who is involved in the field of golf, the mudslinging and all the other drama that has been spewed on the pages of GCA.com (most recently, involving Merion) have made me consider whether being involved here (by association or otherwise) is a liability or an asset in the eyes of those who may be looking in from the outside. There are many that I know of who see this as a comedy of errors and uninformed people with striong opinions. I don't agree with that, in general, but the recent tenor here has made me rethink whether being associated with all this is worth it.

Joe

[Brad Klein]

Lets hope the Merion posts are not GCA's defining moment.

[Mike_Cirba]

I find it sadly ironic that within a few weeks of each other we've had maybe the high water mark of this site with the collaborative research and multi-facted cooperation towards a positive historic outcome with the Cobb's Creek thread, and now have what in any objective assessment could at best be generously termed a shameful disgrace.  

I think there are a number of people, myself included, who need a lengthy hiatus from this place.   As high as I was with seeing the amazing collaborative potential we have here realized with the Cobb's research stuff, I'm presently completely disgusted with the vitriolic, unyielding trainwreck that this entire debate about the origins of Merion has become and regret my own personal involvement when it became clear to me early on that this was not going to be productive, educational, cooperative, or useful in any way, shape, or form.

[PThomas]

there's an expression "we have to agree to disagree"...

[Peter Wagner]

Wayne,
Your only true responsibility is to your club.  You're doing the right thing.
- Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Here's a simple proposal:

How about if no one posts on an existing Merion thread, or starts a new Merion thread, for 30 days.

In union negotiations, that's called a 30 day cooling off period, sometimes required to settle down a seemingly intractable impasse.

You can vote by ignoring this post!

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's a simple proposal:

How about if no one posts on an existing Merion thread, or starts a new Merion thread, for 30 days.

In union negotiations, that's called a 30 day cooling off period, sometimes required to settle down a seemingly intractable impasse.

You can vote by ignoring this post!

Bill,

[John Mayhugh]

Wayne,
When you get frustrated with people that don't agree with you and other guys on GCA not "condemning" David, I recommend you do two things. 

First, recognize that no matter how knowledgeable and passionate you are about Merion, it is possible that you could be wrong (at least to some extent) about CBM's role. 

If that doesn't work, go play golf!  You're fortunate to be able to go out and play one of the best courses in the country any time you want.  Forget about disagreements over who did what and take pleasure in what a special place Merion is. 

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

While I think your advice to Wayne is generally sound, I don't think the problem with David's essay was that he was trying to give more credit to Macdonald and Whigham for the design of the original Merion course.   I think it was that he was trying to give them full credit for the routing and design of Merion while making Hugh Wilson and the Merion committee into essentially gloried construction foremen, which is something that certainly requires more in the way of proof than some circumstancial evidence.

He certainly had some interesting evidence in that regard, which due to a couple of really understandable and probably unavoidable mistakes on his part was later found to be faulty.   I speak of his assumption that the July 1st Macdonald letter actually included something more than general advice about doing some more due diligence like taking soil samples before buying the land, and more importantly, his misunderstanding of the timing and extent of the Francis Land Swamp, which due to Francis's wording 40 years later, he placed before November 15, 1910, which would have proven that a routing was in existence or being worked on before Hugh Wilson's arrival, but that interpretation was later shown to have been impossible.

I know...for weeks after David produced that evidence I made the exact same mistake and then assumed that the routing had to have happened earlier...and that Hugh Wilson had to be involved earlier...etc.   So we went round and round and round arguing some really meaningless points when we already had our answer weeks ago.

So, if we are to accept that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham had more to do with Merion than the historical record already documents, which is that he provided the committee with great advice that they thanked him for repeatedly, then we need some verfiable proof...not speculation.

David tried to provide that, and he did a really good job of research.   It just turned out not to be accurate, but that's ok.   The mistakes in his conclusions were almost unavoidable given his findings and what they suggested at first, and even second glance.   

[Dave_Miller]

David Moriarty has finally pushed me past my limit of tolerance.  I have not posted on any of these Merion threads in weeks yet he continues his unrelenting hate-filled rants.  All the while without nearly enough condemnation from the site members and a lack of effective oversight by Ran and/or Ben.  The time for consequences has arrived.

Tom and I will not post our opinion piece on GCA.com in whole or in part.  In fact, I will not post anything further relating to Merion on this site.  We will finish our analysis and report and present them to the Merion Cricket Club and the Merion Golf Club.  Following that, if given permission, we will offer our findings outside the clubs, but only to the USGA.  We will let them determine what shall be done with it in terms of dissemination to the public. 

In the meantime, if anyone on this site wants to see the final results of our work, the means to do so will be to come to Merion Golf Club and seek permission to gain entry into the Archives.  When the  Flynn book is finally published, it will contain the material as well.  Given that it is being privately published in a very limited edition, the opportunity to consider the findings in that manner will likewise be limited.

By not disseminating our findings on this site, Moriarty will insinuate that we are hiding material that is detrimental to our position and supporting his own.  That is simply not true.  We have additional information of an era that we were not considering for the Flynn book.  Moriarty's essay forced us to delve deeper and earlier than we did previously.  Unfortunately, the material will not be made available to this site. 

In writing our essay, there will be peer review with appropriate checks and balances.  Just because Moriarty is not a part of that process, it doesn't mean the process does not exist.  Our standards will be as suggested by Dr. Childs.  Facts will be presented as facts and educated guesses will be properly presented.  There will be no doubt as to what is fully supported and what is partially supported. 

It is sad that everything has devolved to this state.  But it clearly has, so this is my final word on the subject.

Wayne:
We can disagree like gentleman and there is no need to get drastic.  As for me I got bored to tears with this debate and checked out of it some time ago.
We all need to lighten up
Dave

[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly,

Are you suggesting that such a controversial piece should have been vetted privately with club officials and perhaps their designees prior to public distribution?

If so, I would certainly agree, particularly in hindsight.

Once it was out there, and especially given the explicit endorsement of the piece as historical truth by the owner of this site, I believe it set the scene for the public fireworks that followed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I'm with ya, participating only to learn and hoping to learn more. There is an old saying about watching sausage and laws being made. Perhaps it applies to vetting club histories, too!

But it is a brave new world, and I think most new history theories are vetted in public magazines (albeit not widely read outside the historic community)  It just happens quicker here, and the main combattants didn't necessarily follow the code of public conduct.  Do a few emotionally charged issues/replies reflect badly on a club like Merion? I don't think so.  Is acting like a jackass on a public forum disrespectful to Merion, the person in question, or the active readers of the forum?

If Merion deserves more respect (and I think it does) don't golf architects, supers, other courses, specific holes, etc. who have gotten slammed in this space repeatedly in the past deserve the same?  What's different other than the emotional involvement of a few people here that makes this a special case?

Perhaps this incident will actually contribute to some future code of conduct for internet reviews, which almost certainly have to be the wave of the future in the greater historcial community. Perhaps its one of the few cases where the moderators should have done something, although I can understand their reluctance to censor and set to broad a precedence.  How many threads have ever been locked or deleted here?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

Well, I am sure Rees and Fazio and Damian Pascuzzo weren't exactly willing and able participants here either!  Niether were Tilly and Burbeck, etc. but I see your point.  As to Ran, I agree(d) that ultimately, we are all responsible for our own post content, but I do think most websites lock threads, take away posting privleges, etc. as necessary.  Luckily, its rarely needed here.   It may have been a case where he could have tapped the brakes a bit. Who knows, there may have been private emails to the main combatants to tone it down.

I don't really know the protocol of such things, but as internet sites like these are used more for historical research dissemination, I presume the code of conduct for posting such "In my opinion" pieces like DM's would get refined, just like fact checking in print media and television has.

The funny thing is, I went back to reread the first part of DM's essay, in large part due to the comment that Ran explicity endorsed his views.  The entire intro to the piece admits that there are flaws, its not finished, and is entirely respectful of Merion.  It apparently contributed some new facts and also apparently had a few inaccuracies.

But for the most part, the disagreements over Merion have been emotional opinions on all sides.  No one disagrees that CBM spent four or five days in total consulting with Merion.  Or that Hugh Wilson spent a lot of time on design and especially construction early, and on design and construction in 1924-5 which shaped the final course. Absent a lot of documentation, there is a lot of debate about how much CBM could have done in those days and what it means as to the attribution of the course. 

Some say "consultand" or "advisor" is proper.  Others say "co-designer" would be more appropriate.  DM at least once asserted that "designer" would be most accurate, but I don't think he's firm on that anymore.  I am still unsure of why that kind of name assigning would lead to so much name calling among the usually distinguished participants here.

So, yes, we are all ultimately responsible for our own writings.

[Mike_Young]

KBM,
I am with ya...if I go to Merion I go to play....put a ball in the rack...take my coupon from the paper and give it to the pro...get a couple of lake balls go....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not quite the same, but I skipped one day of the 1999 US Open to spend it in the Tufts archives.  I am just geeky enough that I might take a seat in the Merion archives if given the chance!

[henrye]

In the meantime, if anyone on this site wants to see the final results of our work, the means to do so will be to come to Merion Golf Club and seek permission to gain entry into the Archives.

When do you expect to the final results will be complete?

[Peter Pallotta]

Some good and thoughtful posts here. My take: If I had expertise in a subject stemming from many dedicated years of study and if I were so placed that I could access key documents that were difficult to come by, I'd send any essay I wrote about that subject to the most definitive and official and authoritative journal or institution possible (if I couldn't sell it for a lot of money, that is.). Sorry, but in my opinion golfclubatlas.com is not a definitive or official or authoritative source for/archive of the study of golf course architecture or its history, and it can never be that. (Maybe no site can be that, I don't know).  It's an excellent discussion board where interested and smart folks (including experts and professionals, thankfully) hash out ideas, for better and worse.
 
Which is to say, I think Wayne should and is right to send any essay he writes about Merion to the USGA or to whomever he pleases. He doesn't owe me anything; neither does David M or Tom P or anyone else. I'm grateful for what people choose to share here, and try to recoignize that generosity...but I don't expect it.

Peter   

[TEPaul]

"I think what got me to jump in was the tone of Waynes initial post on this thread.  It is one of the most unfortunate turn of events I have witnessed here, it's message is profoundly disappointing and I hope someday will be viewed with regret.


Kelly:

Do you really mean that?

Wayne Morrison was doing his best to produce information on those threads after he was let into the archives of the old club of Merion (Merion Cricket Club Golf Association of MCC), and as most know Wayne and I work on almost everything we do in architecture together. That's not the same club as Merion G.C. today. But even if it was Merion G.C.'s archive material he was willing to put on here can't you understand he needs to get permission to do so FIRST? And the same probably goes double for MCC. Maybe the problem here was we put some of the information from those MCC archives on here without quoting them because that's what we think we need permission to do---eg GET PERMISSION to put the actual transcribed minutes on here! Maybe we shouldn't have said anything at all on here but can you imagine the baiting we would've gotten from a person like Moriarty for stonewalling if we said nothing at all??

Merion G.C. did give him (us) permission to write a documented essay or timeline of this period David Moriarty's essay concentrates on. But MCC hasn't done that yet (even though I hope they will). Plus we need to write it and that takes some time!

So while all that is going on David Moriarty is slamming us every single day for not putting the transcribed minutes on here, which we need to get permission to do.

Can ANY OF YOU UNDERSTAND WAYNE NEEDS TO GET PERMISSION FIRST???

That's been said on here a number of times but is anybody LISTENING? Or is it that they just don't GET IT??

Apparently not, and most certainly not David Moriarty. He just continues to bait us and insult us day after day!

Wayne just got sick of all that GOD-DAMNED BAITING from Moriarty and he appealed to Ran Morrisett a number of time and so did I and we never even got a RESPONSE!

There is something very wrong going on all over this website and it better get fixed fast if the participants on here are EVER going to get some cooperation from golf clubs and their members and friends to cooperate with this site with information many participants on here would obviously like to see and learn more from.

No one on this website has been baiting Morrison and me other than DAVID MORIARTY!! NO ONE!!!

Wayne Morrison just got sick of it and I don't mind telling you he sure is wondering why more people on here didn't and haven't told MORIARTY to just stop that stupid SHIT of baiting us day after day. This information would probably be on here very soon if it wasn't for the way he's been carrying on on this website for weeks and it's just getting worse and nobody is doing a thing about it.

If this website and its participants want this information, and its really good information, SOMEBODY better prevail on DAVID MORIARTY to get a grip on himself with these recent posts of his or it will never happen on here. Hell, I even offered to cooperate with him this mornining on going through a step by step analysis of that Richard Francis landswap event which is central to his essay's credibility. He said he didn't understand my post! Are you kidding me??? Didn't UNDERSTAND IT?? I only offered to go through a step by step analysis using two of the best pieces of research material that will resolve it. But obviously he DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT!! Do you have any idea WHY?? I sure do. It will likely prove his Francis premise WRONG and that's about the last thing he wants to see happen so he'll probably just continue avoid it.

And this is a guy who says all he wants to see is the TRUTH?? Bullshit!! All he wants to do is AVOID seeing anything about his essay proven wrong!

And if there are enough people on here who just can't understand what I'm saying here then I'm sure it never will happen on here.

This isn't that complicated and that's why Wayne is pretty disappointed in this website right now and so am I.

[Dan Herrmann]

As am I.  Wayne is one of the classiest gentlemen I've ever had the good fortune to meet.  Questioning his motives is just plain wrong. 

[DMoriarty]

So while all that is going on David Moriarty is slamming us every single day for not putting the transcribed minutes on here, which we need to get permission to do.

TEPaul,  I never asked you guys to post the transcribed minutes on here, or in any way to breach the confidences of the Clubs.

The problem has been that you guys have selectively used snippets and summaries of the source material to justify your claims and to attack my essay, yet you claim the Clubs' confidentiality rules prohibit me or anyone else from critiquing, verifying, and/or reviewing the basis for your claims and attacks. 

If you guys reference the source material to justify arguments and attacks, then your arguments and your sources ought to be subject to the same degree of scrutiny as were my essay and sources. 

If the Clubs do not want their 98 year old documents challenged and critiqued, then Wayne should never have posted the text of the CBM letter or relied on it, and you should not be discussing and describing the rest of the material on a daily basis. 

So, while blaming me for his predicament is foolish, I think Wayne is trying to do the right thing here, at least when it comes to refraining from posting about the topic before he is willing and able to back up his positions with his sources.   If you are truly concerned with keeping the Clubs' confidences, then maybe you ought to consider joining him.

[TEPaul]

"The problem has been that you guys have selectively used snippets and summaries of the source material to justify your claims and to attack my essay, yet you claim the Clubs' confidentiality rules prohibit me or anyone else from critiquing, verifying, and/or reviewing the basis for your claims and attacks. 

If you guys reference the source material to justify arguments and attacks, then your arguments and your sources ought to be subject to the same degree of scrutiny as were my essay and sources." 


David:

So that's the problem, is it? Is that the sole problem you're having with those meeting minutes and what we've said about them to date?

In that case, I will personally take full responsibility for that. Is that OK with you?

I can't take back the snippets and summaries I've put out there or Wayne has but once we get permission to put the transcribed meeting minutes on here then all of us at the same time, including you, will have the chance to analyze them and critique them. Do you have any particular problem with that?

But if you keep on slamming Wayne and me day after day, those clubs may not give us permission to put that material on here and frankly Wayne may not either because he's grown pretty tired of being slammed on here over this day after day by you.

No one else is doing it to him or to me so if you'd just agree to stop doing that they may get on here. Of course I'd have to convince him to do it because obviously this particular thread shows how completely frustrated he's become over all this. Do you blame him? Does anyone? I can't see how after all he is the member here, and I may not be able to convince him to change his mind. Frankly, I think his idea to try to put them on the USGA's new Architecture Archive Internet component is an excellent idea. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is certainly not the only research entity out there and the USGA's will be a big help.

Do you feel there is any particular reason you can't wait for the same time as everyone else to see this information transcribed on here or on another site? Do you feel there is some particular reason you should have some special entitlement from Merion or MCC here? And if so, why is that exactly? Do you have some particular special arrangement with Merion G.C. or MCC you haven't told any of us about that you think they aren't following up on?

[henrye]

Wayne Morrison was doing his best to produce information on those threads after he was let into the archives of the old club of Merion (Merion Cricket Club Golf Association of MCC), and as most know Wayne and I work on almost everything we do in architecture together. That's not the same club as Merion G.C. today. But even if it was Merion G.C.'s archive material he was willing to put on here can't you understand he needs to get permission to do so FIRST? And the same probably goes double for MCC. Maybe the problem here was we put some of the information from those MCC archives on here without quoting them because that's what we think we need permission to do---eg GET PERMISSION to put the actual transcribed minutes on here! Maybe we shouldn't have said anything at all on here but can you imagine the baiting we would've gotten from a person like Moriarty for stonewalling if we said nothing at all??

Merion G.C. did give him (us) permission to write a documented essay or timeline of this period David Moriarty's essay concentrates on. But MCC hasn't done that yet (even though I hope they will). Plus we need to write it and that takes some time!

So while all that is going on David Moriarty is slamming us every single day for not putting the transcribed minutes on here, which we need to get permission to do.

Can ANY OF YOU UNDERSTAND WAYNE NEEDS TO GET PERMISSION FIRST???

That's been said on here a number of times but is anybody LISTENING? Or is it that they just don't GET IT??

TEPaul.  I'm not trying to bait you, but from an outsiders perspective I would assume you & Wayne have already been granted permission from both clubs to share the source documents.  Isn't that what the MacDonald letter was?  It seems it was published by Wayne within a day or two of him reviewing it.

I hope you can understand David's concern when he is told that you are awaiting permission from the clubs to publish anything, yet Wayne has already published a source document.  The issue is that the only source document that has been published from Wayne's investigation is one that challenges David's essay and some of its conclusions.

Anyways, I'm one who is hoping that Wayne publishes his theory here on GCA, as I think it would add to an already excellent site.  I also hope that the name calling from both sides comes to an end and that Wayne changes his mind, and in the end allows David to review his source documents, even the ones that may not fully support your positions.

[TEPaul]

henrye:

I know you're not trying to bait me, and you do mention that you just see all this from an outsider's perspective.

Without intending to sound callous or elitist or something I think one of the major draw-backs of this website is it has pretty much always created something of an access disaster for some members of some clubs from what you yourself term an "outsider".

This was evidenced by way more requests from people on this particular webesite to play these courses who club members really don't even know than ever happened before in my experience in golf. Any number of participants on here who belong to or have connections to some of the great private courses will tell you this in spades.

AND NOW, it seems that the same thing has happened with expected access from people who call themselves "serious researchers" to be given carte blanche access to club records.

To me this is all pretty amazing and it has had and can created some real problems for club members!

The thing that makes it far more amazing to me is that some of these people (and Moriarty is the latest example) who think they can and should get the attention and cooperation of clubs and their members to make available to them all their records by first challenging something like their "legend" architect or the status quo of their recorded architectural history FIRST before even approaching their subject club and even mentioning it to them first!

This is really just upside down thinking, in my opinion, borne of some sense of entitlement that this website has developed even if unintentionally---and for what reason really? Is it just because these people think if they love architecture or they are "serious researchers" that gives them some type of entitlement? And it gets to the point, evidenced by these Merion threads, that if they don't get the kind of special access they feel entitled to they are then entitled to bait members and club friends like this! To me this is a new phenomenon, probably borne of the Internet and this particularly website even though I have never seen an instance before so egregious as is being foisted on Merion and one of its members like David Moriarty has done here for well over a month since coming back on this website (seemingly for this purpose alone).

I don't exactly understand what has happened here and how this website has seemingly promoted this phenomenon of access entitlement in these ways, but I suggest the administrators of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com stop all of it right here and now or these clubs and their members and friends will.

[Craig Van Egmond]

You guys got to let this go, at the end of the day this is only a website.  If you can't sleep at night over something said on GCA then your life needs a little perspective.  Maybe a little self imposed break ala Tommy N  is in order.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()