News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #100 on: June 18, 2008, 12:07:06 PM »
Tom

The idea that these writers are obligated to share their research on a subject with their subject prior to publishing is goofy. Again these are not state secrets; this is golf architecture history - pretty light-hearted stuff

I've always been under the impression history was not the property of any one person, group or entity. 

I may accept the first part of your statement if the author was being paid for his work, but I though we all contributed on this site for free and with the intention of promoting Golf & Golf Architecture in all its forms. Or have I misunderstood things.

I would hate to think that some are receiving financial benefit for their essays, whilst others are not – this is the quickest way of stopping free and honest debate and the flow of interesting information.


Melvyn
I don't follow you. Please explain.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #101 on: June 18, 2008, 02:29:05 PM »
This thread shows everything that is wrong with this site.

All this fighting over golf courses and stories?
H.P.S.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #102 on: June 18, 2008, 03:12:26 PM »

Melvyn. 

I believe that is the first time on these boards that I have been compared to Hitler.  Thanks for keeping all of this in proper perspective.   

I am confused by your position.   

Previously you have explicitly blamed the Merion mess on me.   Your reasoning was that I should have known that TEPaul, Wayne, and Mike Cirba would be very upset about what I had to say, yet I nonetheless came back, posted my essay, stood up to them, and continue to stand up to them.

Now you suggest that Wayne is leaving because the site has not stood up to the evils he faced, those evils presumably being me and Tom MacWood.   

I detect more than a bit of hypocrisy.  Isn't our War Crime simply that we stand up to these guys, in the face of endless and unsupported barrages of personal attacks, criticism, even threats?   

If we should all stand up for anything, shouldn't we stand up for anyone's right to come here and freely and openly discuss golf architecture without being endlessly attacked and ridiculed?  Shouldn't we stand up for the notion that a person ought to be given the opportunity to address criticism leveled at him or his work?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 03:26:22 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #103 on: June 18, 2008, 03:20:50 PM »
Your Honor, I rest my case.   ;)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2008, 03:27:23 PM »
I'd like to clarify a few things. 

The Use of the Private Information of the Clubs
I used nothing but information in the public domain for my essay.  I have not demanded access to material from MGC, MCC or any other club.   

If Wayne's club wants him to keep the MCC information private, then that is what he should have done.  I have no problem with that.    But Wayne did not keep it private.  He selectively posted part of the source material in an attempt to disprove my essay, he shared the information with non-Merion members, and he and TEPaul have claimed and continue to claim that the source material proves 90% of my essay invalid.   Aside from one cherry-picked letter, they have not produced a single verifiable fact to back up their claims.   As recently as Wayne’s last post, he and TEPaul continue to take shots at my essay solely based upon information that they refuse to allow me to verify. 

In short, these guys have been using the MCC material as a sword to ridicule, yet they also use the club’s supposed privacy concerns as a shield to block any attempts to validate any of their claims.  It can’t be both ways.  Either put up or shut up, to put it bluntly.

I remain willing to respect any club's wish to keep their private documents private, but I will not silently abide by the direct or indirect use of supposedly secret documents to discredit me or my essay.   I also remain willing to reconsider any and every portion of my essay, and conform it to the historical record where it does not.  But not without the facts.

My Decision Not to Contact Merion
I considered providing Merion with an advanced copy, and even discussed it with Ran, but I ultimately decided against it. 

Whenever I had previously tried to discuss Merion, my efforts met nothing but extreme hostility and resistance from those associated with or claiming to be speaking for the club.   More than that, I had been told specifically, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms that the powers at Merion, including the club historian and chairs and members of various key committees, had said that they were extremely upset that I was even researching Merion’s history, wanted me to stop, and wanted nothing to do with me.   (While I did not know it until recently, these were apparently lies, told to get me to stop looking into Merion.)

So my concern was that presenting the work to Merion would have accomplished nothing positive but would have creates a number of problems.  I feared they would have tried to stop me or delay me from releasing it, or that they would have given it to Wayne and TEPaul, who undoubtedly would have done everything they could to discredit me and my essay and to stop me from releasing it before anyone even got a chance to read it.  Those who have been around for a while may recall the incessant bullying, nastiness, and ugliness directed toward Tom MacWood when these guys got word he was researching Pine Valley and Crump.  I wanted no part of that.

As it turns out, some of my concerns were at least partially justified.  What I thought were private communications with Merion somehow immediately found their way to TEPaul who promptly tried to use them rhetorically against me on the boards.  I doubt that was Merion’s intent, but I also doubt that they fully understand that if they involve Wayne he will inevitably involve TEPaul, and that TEPaul knows no bounds when it comes to trying to protect what he feels is his to protect. 

Now I have few questions for all of you:

When it first leaked out that I was working on something that significantly contradicted the accepted notion of Merion’s history, where was the outcry for me to go to Merion first before releasing it?   

As I recall, there was none. To the contrary, there was a frenzy of attacks and criticisms because I wanted to finish the essay before posting it.  Those criticizing me now for not having gone to Merion are some of the same ones who demanded then that I post everything I had immediately.   They could not even wait for the essay to be finished!

Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul were certainly involved in those pre-essay “discussions.”   In fact, before even coming back to the site I forewarned Wayne, Tom Paul, and a number of other posters that I was coming back to openly, honestly, and frankly discuss Merion, and that my ideas would very likely be cutting against much of the accepted notion of Merion’s history.   I even gave them a sampling of the kinds of contentions I would raise.   I asked them, specifically, if they had any problem with any of that. 

If Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul or anyone else thought that I needed to go to Merion first, then why did they not tell me so before?    Everyone had ample opportunity to do so. 

The fact is, this whole notion is being used as yet another distraction to detract from the substance of my essay, and as an excuse for Wayne and TEPaul to continue to try and trash me and my essay without allowing me to verify any of their claims.   


Why Did I Not Go to TEPaul and Wayne?
I am shocked whenever someone like Mike Cirba, Wayne, or TEPaul even suggests this, and more shocked when anyone who knows anything about what has happened in the past takes it seriously.     

Again, I am put in a difficult position with how to respond.  If I tell the reasons and provide examples, I will be accused of attacking them.  (Imagine.  This is so twisted that my exposing their egregious behavior toward me and others is considered me attacking them!)  So, without getting into details let me just say that I did not contact them for the following reasons:
1.    These guys have repeatedly shown they are incapable of having a honest, frank, and fact-driven conversation about anything having to do with Merion.
2.   These guys have repeatedly shown an unwillingness or inability to deal with key source material without misrepresenting it, misunderstanding it, ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or overlooking it. 
3.   I cannot work with people I do not trust, and both Wayne and Tom have proven themselves to be untrustworthy when it comes to these issues.

Despite all of this, I did try and work with Wayne, once my essay was out there.   I provided him all of the source material which I had and he said he did not, as well as a number of interpretations and explanations about issues which he and TEPaul had completely wrong for a number of years.   I told him I would help him in any way I could (and the offer still stands.)   He indicated his willingness to cooperate with me as well, but as soon as he finally went to MCC to look at their source material he abruptly cut off all cooperation and direct communication.   He has not even had the decency to honor his word regarding documents he told me he would provide to me!

So again, in my opinion any suggestion that I should have tried to work with these guys is outrageous, and purely rhetoric used to justify their unjustifiable behavior.  Shouldn't my opinion be the only one that counts with regard to who I choose to work with and who I choose not to work with?

_____________________________

My suggestions for how we get past all this are simple, and I cannot imagine why anyone would disagree with them.   Following these suggestions would, however, require a significant change in behavior by TEPaul and Wayne.

1.  Try to treat each other as we would if we were face to face. 

2.  Stick to specific, substantive, and supported critiques rather than empty platitudes and vague and general insults.   

3.  If you cannot or will not back up your factual claims with the actual facts, then do not make the claims.

4.  Play by the same rules as everyone else, no matter your affiliations or sense of self-importance.

Thanks.

David.
_______________________________________

[Post moved from previous one to separate issues only tangentially related.]
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #105 on: June 18, 2008, 03:34:36 PM »
David,

Would your essay have been published by Golf Digest without some attempt to contact Merion GC about your research? I doubt that it would have been published. Anyone can "publish" anything on the internet. That's why there are websites like snopes.com and http://urbanlegends.about.com.



"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #106 on: June 18, 2008, 03:36:37 PM »
Excuse me?

Oh, no sir, Your Honor, I already said I rest my case.

Are you asking me if I think we should have a continuance so opposing counsel can seek psychological treatment? If so, I'd prefer to leave that up to him or up to you, Your Honor. Or perhaps we should leave that up to the jury, after-all they're the ones who have to listen to him.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #107 on: June 18, 2008, 03:51:02 PM »
David,

Would your essay have been published by Golf Digest without some attempt to contact Merion GC about your research? I doubt that it would have been published. Anyone can "publish" anything on the internet. That's why there are websites like snopes.com and http://urbanlegends.about.com.

Steve,  I don't know.  I didn't try to publish it.  So far as I am concerned there is a lot that should be done with the essay before it would be ready for broader publication.  I MAKE THIS POINT IN THE ESSAY ITSELF.   That is why I put it in an "In My Opinion" Section on a website catering to architecture geeks.  It is as close as I could come to broad-based peer review. 

You put the word "publish" in quotes like I think I have "published" my essay the way the traditional term is used.  I don't think I have.  If I used that term, it was a mistake and I'd be glad to change it.   As I stated in the essay, it is a work in progress. 

I explained why I did not contact MGC.   If I knew then that I had been misled about their views on my work, and that those purporting to speak for Merion did not, then I would have gladly provided my essay to Merion.  I have great respect for the place.   As it is, I contacted them after my essay was posted, but consider my communications with them private, so I won't get into them here. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #108 on: June 18, 2008, 04:09:07 PM »
Steve,

You asked David, "Would your essay have been published by Golf Digest without some attempt to contact Merion GC about your research?"

Go back to the previous page and look at my comments about the Whiiten article on Burbeck and Bethpage Black. They not only didn't contact Bethpage, but when discovered on site taking photographs simply stated that they were for an article about Burbeck's work as the original superintendant... It was only later that the told them what it was really about. They purposefully misled.

I can't state whether they would have published David's piece or not or, if they did, whether they would have been in touch with merion first, but if the past portrays the future then I would find it hard to believe that they would have.
 
Again, I think David should have contacted Merion, but when challenged on this point (see above post) he gave a solid explanation (whether one agrees with it or not) as to why he chose not to.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #109 on: June 18, 2008, 04:55:37 PM »
David and Phil,

I think any responsible editor who have required a Merion contact first to see if their archives or even MCC had any information to the contrary.

I realize that David's essay is a work in progress and regret that it took the course that it did on this site. When will the revision take place now that "broad based peer review" has taken place? I would imagine there will be many asterisks given that MCC won't permit further access and/or publication beyond that which WM has provided.

I objected to Ran's use of the word "excellent" in the heading as well to no avail.

My basic reaction from the beginning was why didn't CBM himself write about his consultations with the Merion committee. I find it difficult to imagine that CBM did not publicize his Merion involvement if it was indeed more than just a consultation.



"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #110 on: June 18, 2008, 05:42:22 PM »
David and Phil,

I think any responsible editor who have required a Merion contact first to see if their archives or even MCC had any information to the contrary.

We have been hearing on this site for years from the self-acclaimed Merion experts that they had searched everywhere, including in Merion's archives, for records relating to the origins of the East, but that there were none, and that they had probably all been destroyed in a flood.  Again it was probably my mistake for believing this, but it was only after my essay was posted that I began to realize just how much important material had been overlooked, ignored, concealed, misrepresented, and/or misunderstood by those who had been making the representations concerning the complete absence of source material.

As for MCC I did contact them over a year ago to try and arrange for access their documents for research purposes,  but was denied access because I was not affiliated with MGC. 

Quote
When will the revision take place now that "broad based peer review" has taken place? I would imagine there will be many asterisks given that MCC won't permit further access and/or publication beyond that which WM has provided.

Wayne has produced the text of one letter that negates one of my inferences and this will have an impact on other portions of the essay as well.  Others have had some productive comments and inputs, and I have reconsidered a few things, and found a few errors or unsupported points as well.    Tom MacWood found the article that proves some of my analysis was correct but in doing so renders some of it moot, and I have not decided whether or not to leave those portions.

The main thing is that there is obviously much more out there and it definitely will impact my essay and it seems absurd to make the changes now and then more changes when I get access to what these guys are working on.  I just don't see that there could be much wrong with my essay, otherwise wouldn't Merion and even these guys want to get the information out there that would correct it?   

Quote
I objected to Ran's use of the word "excellent" in the heading as well to no avail.

I am not sure why Ran should refrain from offering his opinion on this site.  My understanding is that he started this site so he could offer his opinion on golf course architecture and those related to golf course architecture.  The demands that he should censor himself are bizarre, I think.   It is not as if he hasn't provided a forum for anyone else to set the record straight if they so choose.  Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Quote
My basic reaction from the beginning was why didn't CBM himself write about his consultations with the Merion committee. I find it difficult to imagine that CBM did not publicize his Merion involvement if it was indeed more than just a consultation.

I think CBM's reputation for trying to take credit for everything has been largely misrepresented on this site. Even in Scotland's Gift he only mentions a very limited number of his courses.  So why would you expect that he would have written about Merion?  As far as I know, he was not even involved in building it. 

_________________

Steve and Phil,

I understand why people think I should have gone to the club first.  As I said, that was my instinct as well.   But, ultimately, given the situation, is that a sound reason to discount or disparage the substance of my essay?   I don t think so.   Nor is it a reason to criticize my essay without allowing the source of the criticism to  be verified.

Steve, what if anything would have changed about my essay had I gone to Merion first.   I am unaware of anything. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #111 on: June 18, 2008, 05:54:57 PM »
David Moriarty wants facts. So now I’m going to give you just facts, nothing more. These are facts that have been on this DG for two months. Below from a post of his today he recounts that he was met by extreme hostility before his essay came out. There was none of that at all---nothing. Matter of fact, in a group email exchange from Pat Mucci on another subject entirely I asked David Moriarty if he would please consider coming back. I made the same request to Tom MacWood on that group email.

All we did is simply wait for his essay for about two weeks. He did provide a brief outline in that group email on what points he would cover, nothing more. I never asked him anything about his research material or where it may have come from. I still don’t know that and it’s never mattered to me. Perhaps two or three weeks into these threads following his essay I asked him if he'd ever been in contact with Merion because I'd never known. He certainly never volunteered to tell me anything about any of it. Below he seems to try to make it look like we warned him that Merion would be resistant to his research and essay. That never happened all, not an iota. We had no idea what his essay was going to be about and either did anyone else at Merion but he certainly makes it look that way. Basically none of us knew a thing. All any of us did was wait.

He makes it sound like all we did is threaten and bully him both before his essay and as soon as it came out. So I’d like you all to judge that for yourselves. Just below is what he said today happened back then before his essay came out and as soon as it came out. Following that is the first post from me followed by the first post from Wayne Morrison. You Judge for yourselves if it looks like anything remotely like hostility. I’d say it looks to be just about the opposite!   ;)








My Decision Not to Contact Merion
I considered providing Merion with an advanced copy, and even discussed it with Ran, but I ultimately decided against it. 

Whenever I had previously tried to discuss Merion, my efforts met nothing but extreme hostility and resistance from those associated with or claiming to be speaking for the club.   More than that, I had been told specifically, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms that the powers at Merion, including the club historian and chairs and members of various key committees, had said that they were extremely upset that I was even researching Merion’s history, wanted me to stop, and wanted nothing to do with me.   (While I did not know it until recently, these were apparently lies, told to get me to stop looking into Merion.)

So my concern was that presenting the work to Merion would have accomplished nothing positive but would have creates a number of problems.  I feared they would have tried to stop me or delay me from releasing it, or that they would have given it to Wayne and TEPaul, who undoubtedly would have done everything they could to discredit me and my essay and to stop me from releasing it before anyone even got a chance to read it.  Those who have been around for a while may recall the incessant bullying, nastiness, and ugliness directed toward Tom MacWood when these guys got word he was researching Pine Valley and Crump.  I wanted no part of that.

As it turns out, some of my concerns were at least partially justified.  What I thought were private communications with Merion somehow immediately found their way to TEPaul who promptly tried to use them rhetorically against me on the boards.  I doubt that was Merion’s intent, but I also doubt that they fully understand that if they involve Wayne he will inevitably involve TEPaul, and that TEPaul knows no bounds when it comes to trying to protect what he feels is his to protect. 

Now I have few questions for all of you:

When it first leaked out that I was working on something that significantly contradicted the accepted notion of Merion’s history, where was the outcry for me to go to Merion first before releasing it?   

As I recall, there was none. To the contrary, there was a frenzy of attacks and criticisms because I wanted to finish the essay before posting it.  Those criticizing me now for not having gone to Merion are some of the same ones who demanded then that I post everything I had immediately.   They could not even wait for the essay to be finished!

Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul were certainly involved in those pre-essay “discussions.”   In fact, before even coming back to the site I forewarned Wayne, Tom Paul, and a number of other posters that I was coming back to openly, honestly, and frankly discuss Merion, and that my ideas would very likely be cutting against much of the accepted notion of Merion’s history.   I even gave them a sampling of the kinds of contentions I would raise.   I asked them, specifically, if they had any problem with any of that. 

If Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul or anyone else thought that I needed to go to Merion first, then why did they not tell me so before?    Everyone had ample opportunity to do so. 

The fact is, this whole notion is being used as yet another distraction to detract from the substance of my essay, and as an excuse for Wayne and TEPaul to continue to try and trash me and my essay without allowing me to verify any of their claims.   




From TEPaul:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 11:26:31 am »   
 
Thanks Ran and David! I, for one, am glad this "White Paper" is finally here.

I haven't had a chance to do more than scan it but I'm looking forward to analyzing the credibility of particularly this idea that H.H. Barker essentially routed the land that is Merion East golf course and that Macdonald and Whigam (and/or Barker) essentially "designed" the holes that basically became Merion East.

THAT, most certianly is something that the history of Merion GC does not contemplate or remotely mention in any way, or ever has to my knowledge, regarding the creation of Merion East, the golf course. As to whether that is just unsupportable speculation promoted by a series of preceding events, or is, in fact, something about which there is some hard provable evidence, I guess we will just have to see with some really good analyses of all the other information extant about the creation of Merion East golf course.

David, that looks to be a lot of work, and congratulations from me on doing it all. We're certainly looking forward to analyzing it carefully, but I should note here and now that simply doing a lot of work (analogous example---Tom MacWood's five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf") both shouldn't and won't NECESSARILY pass in and of itself as indicating an accurate historical reexamination of Merion East's golf course and its entire creation, or anything else, for that matter.

Let's have a really good AND CIVIL analysis of and dicussion on this paper!

« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 11:29:55 am by TEPaul »    










From Wayne Morrison:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under I
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 02:34:08 pm »   
 
David,

I congratulate you for putting forth such a tremendous effort, and to think this is only part 1.  You must have had access to board records of the Cricket Club that I have not yet seen.  While my research has concentrated on Wm Flynn's work subsequent to the opening of the East Course (he was not present for the initial construction of the course), I am keenly interested in the earliest iteration of the East Course.  If possible, I would like to have a look at some of the primary assets you utilized in the making of this essay.  Reading the article (I must do so in a more thorough fashion) clearly indicates that you have material on hand that I have never seen and which the club is unaware.  I guess you found the Sayers scrapbooks as some information you mentioned is contained in there. 

I have found some inconsistencies and errors in my initial review and hope to give it a more concerted effort over the next week or so.  Before jumping to conclusions (as others have done) I want to give this report the consideration it deserves.  I will be happy to share with you my findings.  Clearly the record needs to include some of your discoveries though I am hesitant to say to what extent that history is revised by them.  In fact, if your findings regarding Hugh Wilson's lack of design involvement proves correct (and I am not presuming that it does as yet) then it has some profound impacts on matters closer to my field of study.

I must say that I am concerned or rather alarmed by the quick rush to judgment by Ran, Tom H and others that agree with the findings without a more informed understanding of the course and its history and certainly without an exhaustive study of the essay.  The only way they can agree with David's conclusions are if they take for granted or assume what he states is correct.  While there are an awful lot of facts presented, and potentially very important ones at that, some of the conclusions are troublesome and require a great deal of consideration.  Something that neither Ran nor Tom has done and on a subject that neither one of them knows very much about. 

While the conclusions they say are obvious and proven may turn out to be for the most part true, any judgment to that effect is premature and poorly considered at this stage.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 05:56:54 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #112 on: June 18, 2008, 06:09:02 PM »
"We have been hearing on this site for years from the self-acclaimed Merion experts that they had searched everywhere, including in Merion's archives, for records relating to the origins of the East, but that there were none, and that they had probably all been destroyed in a flood.  Again it was probably my mistake for believing this, but it was only after my essay was posted that I began to realize just how much important material had been overlooked, ignored, concealed, misrepresented, and/or misunderstood by those who had been making the representations concerning the complete absence of source material."


No, we never said that. What we did say is contained on this website, and a number of times. We said;

1. Our primary interest was researching Merion's architectural record that had to do with William Flynn because that's who we were writing a book about. Any significant architectural contribution to Merion East by Flynn probably began about 1914 and 1915 and the first drawings from him began about 1915 or 1916.

2. We said that for about 5-6 years we had in our possession over 1500 letters on Merion East's and West's agronomy but that there was practically zero architectural material from that early period beginning in 1910-1911 up until about 1915. This included those sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps that he was said to have returned from abroad with after seven months in 1910. In the last month or so we determined that the 1910 story abroad from which Wilson returned with those sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps may not have occured until up to a half century AFTER the creation of Merion East. David Moriarty did not discover or determine that---we did.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 06:13:55 PM by TEPaul »

Matt Dupre

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #113 on: June 18, 2008, 06:21:02 PM »
Curiosity finally got the best of me.  With no pressing work left, and nothing on TV while in my hotel room, I fell victim to the Merion threads.  I can only liken it to rubbernecking at an auto accident.

I realized what the impetus of the threads was, and headed over to David Moriarty’s essay on the “In My Opinion” section of the site (I would emphasize "Opinion").  As I have no dog in this fight, and really didn’t know the early history of Merion, I found it interesting, and appropriately footnoted with regard to source material.  It’s obvious to me that a significant amount of work went into it, and that if follows a fairly common formula – identify an idea or conclusion, and support it with research, facts and logic.

What wasn’t obvious to me was any agenda, malice, or any significant leaps of faith.

I also noticed in the essay’s opening paragraphs that it had been reviewed by unnamed individuals, and obviously had been reviewed by Ran prior to it being posted.

Moving on to the threads, it became obvious that sides were drawn early.  What was even more obvious was that those who questioned the essay did not dispute any of the factual evidence supporting the essay’s claims and contentions.  What they questioned was Mr. Moriarty’s agenda, his scholarship, his historical research, his supposed lack of peer review, and his ethics.  Forced to defend himself instead of his essay, Mr. Moriarty fell victim to one of the oldest political tricks in the book – move attention from the facts to the author and/or his motivations.

I saw that every time Mr. Moriarty tried to move the focus of the dialogue back to the essay – asking for any refuting evidence or opposing interpretations – he was rebuked and rebuffed. 

I also saw him questioned about not sharing his research with Merion or the Merion “experts,” as if that had a direct relationship with the quality of his scholarship.  I would contend that by sharing his hypothesis he invited input, and after posting anyone who had evidence contrary to the hypothesis could certainly have addressed the essay’s findings.  I still haven’t seen anything specific, but those reading the threads have been asked to take a leap of faith accepting that the MCC archives have information that would turn the essay on its ear.

David Moriarty used the site for what it was intended, IMO – a vehicle to discuss aspects of gca, which includes the historical record.  Plenty of good, well thought out questions were asked – but unfortunately not by those “defending” Merion.  One I hope Mr. Moriarty will address, even with conjecture, is Mr. Shaffer’s regarding the lack of self-promotion by Macdonald and Wigham regarding their involvement with a course that was so highly regarded so early in its development.

What has struck me most after going through this mind-numbing exercise is the frankness with which Mr. Moriarty has defended his position throughout.  I kept going back to Wayne Morrison’s first post after reading the essay, which stated that there were numerous facts but that the conclusions were “troublesome.”  It seems that they were troublesome more because they changed the perceived historical context of Merion’s evolvement as opposed to being wrong, false, or indefensible.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #114 on: June 18, 2008, 06:25:55 PM »
David Moriarty

What the hell are you talking about – this post is about Wayne, nothing to do with you.

Just what is it with you, is it because I did not mention your name in every thread.  Sorry David, you are not even in my thoughts let alone in this post.

As for the quote, again it was not aimed at you. It was a statement of fact.
Just read my comments with an open mind. Man, have you got some serious problems.

              To all those who disagreed with my comment, ‘Reflects badly on all
              of us’, I am minded of the following quote,

              “For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing”

               Make of it what you will, but this was a post to try and show
               what we are loosing with the departure of Wayne Morrison. His          
               leaving is our loss. We have been unable to persuade him to stay,
               a reflection of our collective failure of persuasion and of our unity
               as a (internet) discussion group.

I have not said why Wayne was thinking of leaving the site. I don’t know. All I am saying is that he should stay and participate in GCA.com. David, stop trying to put words into my mouth. If I have something to say to you I will address you, or just not respond if I feel it more appropriate.

I don’t know you - never corresponded with you before your return to GCA.com. I had a totally open mind and was interested in what you had to say. In fact, I was impressed with the depth of research you clearly undertook for your essay. As for the content of your document, I cannot comment as I don’t know the history of Merion or any of the American clubs, and was interested in finding out. However, one thing I did noticed very quickly, was the way you constantly complained, whining and playing that poor little boy act. In fact, I wondered why you had return to GCA.com. Had you decided to seek some sort of revenge?

No David, this post is not about you. It’s about a guy who has proved his quality by showing his kindness and his willingness to help others. Trying to persuade him to stay is all it’s been about. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please, let's get back to the point of my post - Wayne Morrison remaining at GCA.com. It's not about Merion or David Morarity - I have had enough of both of them for the time being.


Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #115 on: June 18, 2008, 06:40:22 PM »
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us

is pure hyperbole.

I regret that Wayne has withdrawn from the site but I had nothing to do with it, nor did several hundred other contributors.

Matt,

Yours is quite the best post of the lot.

Wayne, Tom and David are very smart men and passionate in their beliefs, I have met two of them and it pains me to see friends at odds with each other. I daresay that kiss and make up is not in the cards but a respite from this feud would be a positive for GCA.

Bob

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #116 on: June 18, 2008, 07:01:06 PM »
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us

is pure hyperbole.

I regret that Wayne has withdrawn from the site but I had nothing to do with it, nor did several hundred other contributors.

Matt,

Yours is quite the best post of the lot.

Wayne, Tom and David are very smart men and passionate in their beliefs, I have met two of them and it pains me to see friends at odds with each other. I daresay that kiss and make up is not in the cards but a respite from this feud would be a positive for GCA.

Bob

Amen Bob, well spoken.

Too bad you didn't chime in earlier.  You said all that needs to be said in that brief post and we could have saved 4 pages of going back and forth and ended it with that.

Tom Huckaby

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #117 on: June 18, 2008, 07:07:01 PM »
Melvyn:  

Bob is right - to say this reflects badly on all of us is indeed hyberbole.  The vast majority of participants here had nothing to do with the events that lead to his departure, as Bob says.  But on top of that, I firmly believe that there's little if anything any of us could have done to prevent it, and it's unseemingly if not ineffective to beg him to come back now.  He's a grown man, and no begging ought to have any effect.  He left and that's that.  Like I said, it's happened many times before.  Wayne may come back - as most do - but he may not.  I hope he does - my exchanges with him have always been educational and great fun.  If he does not, it is a shame.

But there's nothing any of us innocent bystanders can do - or really should do - one way or the other.

Thus my incredulity about your topic here, and your references to evil and the like.  Heck, in the end it's just talk about golf courses.  Which of course to me is the saddest part of all... when a seemingly innocuous subject leads to such hard feelings.  But that's for the participants to ponder, not us bystanders.


Tom H.

Andy Troeger

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #118 on: June 18, 2008, 07:17:54 PM »
I agree with these last three posts (Bob, Kalen, Tom). I too had a few pleasant exchanges with Wayne over a variety of topics and certainly hope that at some point he rejoins GCA.

Something tells me if we'd stick to talking about golf courses that we'd lose fewer participants in the long run.

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #119 on: June 18, 2008, 07:25:03 PM »
"Wayne has produced the text of one letter that negates one of my inferences and this will have an impact on other portions of the essay as well.  Others have had some productive comments and inputs, and I have reconsidered a few things, and found a few errors or unsupported points as well.    Tom MacWood found the article that proves some of my analysis was correct but in doing so renders some of it moot, and I have not decided whether or not to leave those portions.

The main thing is that there is obviously much more out there and it definitely will impact my essay and it seems absurd to make the changes now and then more changes when I get access to what these guys are working on.  I just don't see that there could be much wrong with my essay, otherwise wouldn't Merion and even these guys want to get the information out there that would correct it?"



I don't know that there is definitely much more out there. But these MCC meeting minutes and documents supporting the things those minutes indicate do make it clear to me what happened and when and why and who did it. I would say it certainly is absurd to try to make changes to your essay now. We are in no particular hurry to get information out there that would correct your essay as we feel through even these lugubrious Merion threads following your essay it's pretty clear what happened and what didn't. As far as much being wrong with your essay I think these particular points are included in what's wrong with it:

1. Macdonald/Whigam did not do their own routing or design for Merion East, certainly not in 1910 and not in 1911. What they did do is advise the search committee on the suitablility of land in June 1910, they had the committee to NGLA in 1911 for seemingly a day and a half in which sketches from abroad and plans for NGLA were gone over and explained and the next day the committee was taken out on NGLA and the principles of architecture were discussed and how to apply them to natural features and such. In early April Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day and went over the plans created by Wilson and his committee, they toured the grounds, they then selected one of those plans that they described as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world (later reported in the newspaper). The committee gave that plan to the board and it was approved and construction began.

2. The Francis event did not occur in 1910 because for various reasons to do with the business structure and land transfer details it couldn't have happened before the turn of the year.

3. Your premise that Francis' idea created that entire triangle is not true. The triangle existed on the plans and the "planned" road was merely reconfigured up and down its length in 1911 to better accommodate the holes on the plan up and down Golf House Road. The road was eventually built in 1912. The triangle was merely reconfigured slighly to fit #15 green and 16 tee up into. Before and after plans with precise scales on them confirm this completely.

4. Your premise that Wilson was too much the novice to create a routing and design plan for Merion East just doesn't matter. The fact is the board minutes indicate that Wilson and his committee did DESIGN Merion East just as his brother Alan Wilson reported in his report for Merion's first history writer; "Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and construction of the two courses rests upon the special construction committee....."   The "Except for this" reference is to the advice and suggestions "those two good and Kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam..." provided to the search committee on one occassion in 1910, on another occasion for a day and a half at NGLA to Wilson and his committee and on the last occasion for a single day in April 1911 to Wilson and his committee, all of which Merion was most grateful and said so in a few committee and board reports and in two later reports from the Wilson Brothers.

The foregoing four points and more indicate the architectural history as reported in the record of Merion East is correct and accurate as we have always maintained, with the exception of the 1910 trip abroad which I have already been over and the fact that he really did go abroad in 1912 which never has been reported in Merion's history.


(These are my opinions of events as I feel they happened from all the material I have seen. I am not at this time suggesting they are proof. Matter of fact, as others have done, I doubt I will ever claim I'm offering proof---merely the most informed opinion I can give from whatever it is I've seen. I think that is all this discussion board should do. I do not consider this place to be remotely similar to a court of law and this board should never be put to that test, and no one should claim that it should be, in my opinion)



So to save yourself time and effort I'd suggest that you just wait for these MCC documents to be released probably in our report which will certainly go into the Merion G.C. archives. But I would certainly be willing to make the request that the total wording in the MCC documents that we will use in our report be send to you first thing following the report. There is certainly no reason for you to have to travel to Philadelphia. But please understand that is not my call or my decision to make--it's Merion's and Wayne's, as far as I'm concerned. But I will at least make it if it helps end all this rancor which has gone on for so long.   
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 07:31:11 PM by TEPaul »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #120 on: June 18, 2008, 07:30:35 PM »
Bob/Kalen/Andy/Tom

You may well have a point, you had nothing to do with it – it’s been a total waste of my time.

Nothing worth fighting for, I’ll just live in my little world, what a waste of 4 pages.

Sorry Guys did not intend to cause you a problem and I apologise to all those who feel the same way. I should not have used the wording ‘It reflects badly upon all of us’.

This post started with the hope of persuading Wayne to stay but has now got me wondering if I want to be a part of GCA.com.
 

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #121 on: June 18, 2008, 07:36:08 PM »
Dr. Katz. STAT!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom Ferrell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #122 on: June 18, 2008, 07:40:39 PM »
Dr. Katz. STAT!

Oh, the humanity!

For the love of God, get the one doctor who can help this situation...

"Paging Dr. Daniels, Dr. Jack Daniels."

TEPaul

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #123 on: June 18, 2008, 07:41:16 PM »
" What was even more obvious was that those who questioned the essay did not dispute any of the factual evidence supporting the essay’s claims and contentions."

MattD:

I beg your pardon. We most certainly did question the essay's claims and contentions very specifically and the factual evidence supporting those claims and contention. For starters just look at the four numbered points I just made in post #122. His only responses were he was right and we were wrong. I believe this material when released will indicate to most everyone who was wrong and who was right.

Thanks

Tom Huckaby

Re: Wayne Morrison departure from GCA.com reflects badly on all of us
« Reply #124 on: June 18, 2008, 07:42:45 PM »
Melvyn:

If this causes you to leave, that too would be a shame.

But yes, in the end this may have been a waste of time.

If you do stay, you'll see why over time.  People come, people go.  It's happened time and time again.  Persuading them to stay doesn't work, at least not with anyone worth keeping.  And in fact, if it makes you feel better, what's happened in the past is that the more one announces he's leaving, the more likely he is to return.  The ones who never come back tend to be those who just plain stop posting, with no announcement.

So we shall see about Wayne.  I don't feel like I've seen the last of him.  If so that would be shame.  But like I say, me begging him to come back wouldn't matter a bit anyway.

In any case, I doubt any of us are being insensitive; rather we are being realistic and speaking from experience.  And you caused no problem for any of us, I believe.

TH






Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back