[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Why don't you put out a GCA APB on Bryan and Jim and if you find them, please then ask why they are no longer participating in this thread they followed lo these 3500 posts or so...  

I'll await your report.  

[Mike_Cirba]

TE-Wayne-Mike

Isn't the he truth the truth? Please explain to me again why you choose to quote redacted documents instead of releasing a copy of the complete original. What are you afraid of?

Tom,

We have nothing further to say to each other until you prove your charges that I revised what I originally quoted from the MCC Minutes, or issue a retraction.

[John Moore II]

Tom Macwood-Maybe the club itself won't let them publish the documents in full, thats what I am trying to press for, as nicely as possible, at the present.

Tom Paul-Perhaps once they get everything together, the club would make the records available through the Special Collections at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the other major research universities in Philly, or the City Public Library if they have special collections facilities adequate enough. I certainly would like to see that happen. I, for one, not having gone through the whole of these threads, well over 300 pages now counting all the threads, think this is an excellent study of collaboration in design and construction efforts and how things are not always clear who is in charge and how much certain people may be involved. It would be a great service to have these records accessible by all interested parties.

[Tom MacWood]

TE-Wayne-Mike

Isn't the he truth the truth? Please explain to me again why you choose to quote redacted documents instead of releasing a copy of the complete original. What are you afraid of?

Tom,

We have nothing further to say to each other until you prove your charges that I revised what I originally quoted from the MCC Minutes, or issue a retraction.

You know you are complicit. Not only that, your constant exaggerations of Barker and Wilson's records are among the low lights of this thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

You know you are complicit. Not only that, your constant exaggerations of Barker and Wilson's records are among the low lights of this thread.

Tom,

Well, I guess it's obvious 6 hours after you made your charges against me that you can't find any evidence that I've changed anything I've ever posted about the MCC Minutes because I'm sure you and David have been searching high and low....

So, did you make a mistake or did you knowingly and purposefully lie about what I've presented regarding the MCC Minutes on this and any other threads?

You told everyone that I misrepresented the MCC records, and presented a 3rd or 4th version.

We've all made mistakes here, so no harm if you've done that.

On the other hand...

[Lloyd_Cole]

Really, are there 1000 replies to a typo?

[Bryan Izatt]

Lloyd,

We ought to be able to eke out another few responses on what you meant when you said "are there are".  I'm sure we can get at least two totally opposite views of what you meant to say.     That's how it goes on this thread.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Construct any strawmen you wish, but this is what the minutes say.   

Dan,

Nothing good, that's for certain...

All attempts towards productive end such as looking at land aquisition timelines and where the 117 acres may have been have been effectively subverted so now even guys like Bryan Izatt and Jim Sullivan have wisely skipped town.

So, since there are no further attempts to actually discuss real evidence, or actually even discuss what guys like Tilly and "Far and Sure" wrote, last one out of this room please shut out the lights...

Nope, I haven't skipped town.  But, there hasn't been much useful in the last number of pages in the run up to 100.  Rehashing old positions, repeating old demands, denigrating the opponents is just very, very old, on both sides.

John,

Let me give you my quick synopsis of why there won't be a positive response to your reasonable questions.

The MCC minutes and letters that are being hotly pursued were found within the last year at Merion Cricket Club, by Wayne Morrison, a member at Merion Golf Club.  Perhaps he was instigated to find them by David, perhaps, not, but it doesn't really matter.  Wayne has copies of the documents.  It is not clear to me whether the source documents in question are now at Merion Golf Club archives or whether they are still at MCC, a separate institution.

Wayne has allowed Tom and Mike to view some or all of the documents.  It appears Tom has copies of some, or perhaps, all of them. Tom and Mike have on occasion provided quotes that they transcribed (well, badly, misleadingly, etc depending on who you talk to) from the source documents.   Apparently Tom and Mike feel that Wayne is the owner of the documents and can decide whether or not any of them are revealed or published.  Wayne has apparently required that Tom and Mike not share any more information from those documents.  Wayne is angry at GCA.com and presumably Ran for throwing him off the site some time ago and for not putting a stop to these Merion threads or David's opinion piece.

So, I don't think that Mike and Tom P are in a position to publish the documents here for all of us to see and judge ourselves, no matter how many times, Tom M, David and Patrick try to badger them or cajole them or shame them into publishing them.  I expect that Tom P and Mike respect their frienship with Wayne more than they feel the need to appease those of us on GCA (whether they are part of the M&M group of two, or neutral observers like Jim and I, or they are in the Phillie camp like Jeff) who would like to view them. So, personally, I don't think that Tom P or Mike is going to relent anytime soon and forgo their friendship with Wayne and publish copies of the documents on here.

Now, Tom or Mike said that the documents would be in the long awaited Flynn book that Tom and Wayne have been working on for years.  I have my doubts, since these documents are not about the Flynn era.  So, unless the scope of the book has expanded, why would these documents be included?

The outstanding question is whether Wayne (or Tom, who is not a member of Merion) is the sole voice of Merion in regards to these documents.  Or, the sole voice of MCC, if the documents are still there.  Do they have control over who sees the documents.  Have they black-balled David and Tom M?   David refuses to discuss whether he has tried to obtain access at Merion, but I would infer that he has, and has been unsuccessful, hence his continued attempts to get TEP to provide them.  Would you or I be welcomed if we asked to see the documents (at MCC or MGCC).  Could we copy the documents and publish them on GCA?

So, that's where it stands.  The two camps locked into unmoving positions.  The only way around it for those of us who are interested, and are untainted by the bad blood, would be to try to access MCC or Merion ourselves.  Whether any of us would be allowed to copy the documents with a view to publishing them on GCA, I don't know.  Whether Wayne would try to block access for anyone, given his distaste for GCA, I don't know. 

Given the strong personalities involved, I'd say we are well and truly stymied.  It doesn't appear that Wayne is interested in removing the GCA burr from under the Merion saddle.

In the end, perhaps it doesn't matter.  If the documents were available, they may well not provide any further insight.  And, we can be sure that they would be interpreted by either side to say what they wanted them to say to support their own theories.

[Bryan Izatt]

In an attempt to get back to unearthing new information, perhaps someone could tell me whether the very business-like meetings at MCC that were well minuted, worked from an Agenda for each meeting.  Would the agendas be part of the record?  If they were, they might answer the question about who reported on which committee in April 1911.  I envisage an agenda item something like:


5.  Report on the Construction Committee             Lesley            15 minutes


Or, at least that's the way I'd expect to see their agendas laid out.

[Kalen Braley]

I propose all the parties throw down thier swords and join in for the celebration.....a GCA.com First!!    

[Mike_Cirba]

You know you are complicit. Not only that, your constant exaggerations of Barker and Wilson's records are among the low lights of this thread.

Tom,

Well, I guess it's obvious 12 hours after you made your charges against me that you can't find any evidence that I've changed anything I've ever posted about the MCC Minutes....

So, did you make a mistake or did you knowingly and purposefully lie about what I've presented regarding the MCC Minutes on this and any other threads?

You told everyone that I misrepresented the MCC records, and presented a 3rd or 4th version.

We've all made mistakes here, so no harm if you've done that.

On the other hand...


So, rather than deflect, or pretend that you don't understand the questions, or that something is misleading, perhaps you can try to answer my questions;

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."

THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently.   It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.

Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??!?!?!?!?!?

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans?!?!?!?!?!?!?  



Bryan,

Nice to see you.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I missed a few relevant snippets earlier, but the first series here put together by Joe Bausch compares "Far and Sure" of American Golfer with an article by A.W. Tillinghast in the Philadelphia Bulletin? right after Merion opened;







Next, see exceprts of Tillinghast's American Cricketer review of Merion compared to "Far and Sure"'s review of Merion in American Golfer.

Interestlingly, both appeared in the January 1913 issues of their respective magazines.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

  Quote from: Philip Young on Yesterday at 06:36:08 PM
David,
You state, "I am interested in viewing, verifying, and vetting the source material for myself..."
As the source material is in Merion's possession you HAVE to go to them for it. If you feel that you cannot, then you MUST trust that someone is giving you the correct information. If you can't trust anyone to do this you are out of options.
You can only do one or the other at this point... and that's a tough position to be in.

This is a false choice.  I don't have to trust these guys even if I can't get the information.   What I can do is continue to point out how Wayne Morrison and his two mouthpieces have misused and abused the historical record for their own rhetorical gain, and I can continue to demand that they come clean with the documents and allow us to vet their claims.    Anyone as interested in accurate historical research as you are ought to be right there with me.   What has happened here for the past year is preposterous and we all ought to cry it down.  These guys have made a mockery of the website and of Merion's historical record.   No one ought to get a free pass to dictate to us their version of the "truth" without backing up their claims with facts. 


David, you are mistaken. You can ONLY do one of two things in order for you to be able to “VERIFY, VIEW and VET the SOURCE MATERIAL” for YOURSELF!

That is, make an approach to Merion to do it, or get copies of them from someone who you can trust. Otherwise you can complain and argue and be mad at Tom Paul & Wayne & Mike all you want and tell the world how they have wronged you (in your opinion as theirs differ), and you still will not be able to “VERIFY, VIEW and VET the SOURCE MATERIAL” for YOURSELF!

One thing has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the other…

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

While much has been made about the possibility of TePaul and others not showing material because of what it might contain, it occurs to me that Tmac and DM might also be just as scared to actually see the material, because they might have to confront what it actually says and contains.  So, they keep up the bluster but don't really do anything to move the reserach forward. 

Is that a possibility, too?

I also was struck by DM's comment about "real historians" vetting material.  Just who would that be?  Are there any here?  Similarly, TMac points out that TePaul and Wayno would be laughed out of a serious historical discussion for trying to force us into accepting points with their transcriptions of source material.  I agree, but also wonder just how seriously DM's paper would be taken in the historical world when it was released despite knowing that there was source material out there and he didn't get it or use it?

Why do I keep singing the Mr. Ed theme song?  "Well a source is a source, of course of course, and there is no such thing as a talking source, unless of course the talking source is Mr Ed!"

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

As of now there is no way for me to view, verify, and vet the source material.   That being said, I will continue to point out the outrageous that has occured on this website regarding the source material and will still demand that Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike back up their spurious claims with facts.   As a researcher, you ought to be right with me on this and frankly I am having trouble understanding why you are not.    

John Moore is the main person speaking truth here on this as of late.  This playing games with the documents has created a circus and cannot reflect well on Merion, the website, or any of us.   Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike need to make amends and set the record straight.   Otherwise this will not end.  


Jeff,

No Jeff, that is not a possibility, and your suggestion is more than a little offensive.  Both Tom and I would very much like to have all information.  That has been our goal from the beginning.    You have absolutely no idea of what has been done on the "research end."  

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike need to make amends and set the record straight.   Otherwise this will not end.  

David,

Once again, I am not Tom Paul or Wayne Morrison.

I do not speak for either, nor have I been asked to.  

Wayne has asked me multiple times to just stop responding on this thread.

Once again, I do NOT have the MCC Minutes.   All I have is copied snippets of the sections that have been posted here prior by Tom Paul.

I have seen the MCC Minutes..twice.

The first time was well over a year ago at Merion, and the second time with Joe Bausch was back in March.

Personally, I would love to see them posted here because I think it would abruptly end all of this debate, but that isn't going to happen and I understand and respect Wayne's reasons for his decision.

As pieces of the MCC Minutes were posted here at times by Tom, I copied them to my own file, which I've periodically re-posted here second-hand as discussion points.

What I've seen posted here is accurately representative of what I saw originally.


What exactly am I supposed to make amends for?

For discussing, and debating, and sometimes arguing about the meaning and interpretation and context of evidence that was presented here to the both of us....to all of us??


Anything else I presented here was either 1) Part of the Sayres Scrapbook, which you have, as well...2) Stuff found by Joe Bausch that he shared with everyone, or 3) Stuff I found myself.

All of it was already in the public domain.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, you have been playing along in this charade from the very beginning, puppetting for Wayne and occasionally TEPaul as well.    While you may not be Tom or Wayne, you have been speaking for them.   It has been your choice to participate in this circus with the source material so you are as culpable as they are.    If these documents are indeed private (which is a joke of a claim at this point) then you should have never used them for rhetorical gain as you have, without the ability to have them authenticated.   You cannot say for certainty that what you have portrayed as accurate is accurate unless you have the minutes in their entirety, yet you still do so on an almost daily basis.  

This is about process and time tested procedures for ensuring that facts are authenticated and all claims are thoroughly vetted.

The irony is that Wayne Morrison is well aware of this process and these procedures and had long been the leading advocate for their application to this genre.  I've a whole host of quotes somewhere if you'd like to see them.   His tune changed once he started cherry picking the MCC documents to attack my essay.  
________________________________________

Bryan,  I generally agree with your summary above, but think it it somewhat misses the point from my perspective.  That point is that Wayne knowingly and purposefully created this situation by first cherry-picking the source material himself for his own rhetorical gain, and then by providing the information to TEPaul and Mike Cirba knowing and expecting that they would continue to do the same thing.   Not only that but he mounted an offline campaign to continue to try and make his rhetorical points by selectively showing snippets of the documents to individuals all around the country!  While he no longer posts here, he the person behind all the information at issue.

In short, Wayne Morrison created this mess.  He knew better, but even if he didn't know better, he was repeatedly warned about the consequences of his selectively using hidden source material for his gain.   It is foolish now for him or anyone else to be satisfied because he has pretended to take his ball and go home.   Wayne made a huge embarrassing mess out of all of this and he ought to clean it up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I'm sorry if my attempt at humor offends.  Last night we played the old party game of "Name that old TV theme song" and the Mr. Ed thing came to me.

I have no doubt you want the material and researched a lot. I also appreciate TMacs ability to dig up old documents and think he does golf history a great favor in doing so.  Lastly, when I reread your Merion essay a few weeks back (I think we were on page 83 then) I was struck by how respectful of Merion it was, but also by how the tone changed to speculation regarding what we now think is the critical time frame in question - Nov to April.  

It was because you didn't have all the documents. that you needed to have to write a complete essay, IMHO.  So, I agreed that the MCC guys weren't playing fair (but don't have too) and asked a fair question - does your own paper pass historical vetting in traditional circles if published with less than full info, even though you suspected or knew it was out there?

I also agree with you in full that it woud be really, really neat to know just what designs came out of which heads on the original MCC.  I support that without regard to credits, attributions, etc. It was always my main interest, too.  But this thread only seemed to be about that some of the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

How many times since you came back here did I tell you that you were at a huge disadvantage in discussing some of these issues because some had seen the minutes and you had not?   I don't know how I could have been more clear and direct.  

Yet, you persisted in trying to argue points that materials found since you wrote your essay clearly refute, and I'm not sure why that is.

Again, I would love to see the minutes released because I think they provide solid evidence for Hugh Wilson and Committee's lead role and as I mentioned to you, also strengthen and clarify Macdonald's role.

However, they are not mine, I don't have anything but the snippets posted here previously, and I both understand and respect Wayne's decision to not provide them to GCA.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'm sorry if my attempt at humor offends.  Last night we played the old party game of "Name that old TV theme song" and the Mr. Ed thing came to me.

I have no doubt you want the material and researched a lot. I also appreciate TMacs ability to dig up old documents and think he does golf history a great favor in doing so.  Lastly, when I reread your Merion essay a few weeks back (I think we were on page 83 then) I was struck by how respectful of Merion it was, but also by how the tone changed to speculation regarding what we now think is the critical time frame in question - Nov to April. 

It was because you didn't have all the documents. that you needed to have to write a complete essay, IMHO.  So, I agreed that the MCC guys weren't playing fair (but don't have too) and asked a fair question - does your own paper pass historical vetting in traditional circles if published with less than full info, even though you suspected or knew it was out there?

As John Moore correctly points out, the citations in my paper are not in proper form and lack some of the substance that they should.  But as far as I know, everything in my paper that is speculation is noted as such, and all of the bases for my conclusions are set forth in the essay.   The essay was based on the state of the record as existed at the time, which is all anyone can ever do.  I was not able to obtain access to the MCC documents, MGC had nothing that impacted my essay.   In fact, with regard to the focus of my essay I had much more information than MGC.

But these things are a process and views change with time as more information comes out.   Papers are much like a conversation should be.  Views are expressed and supported, and those views are challenged and further research takes place, and other papers are written which sometimes challenge those earlier works and sometimes carry if forward.   That was how my paper was intended.  As a base for further conversation.   I was clear from that in my paper and have been throughout. 

And as you may or may not recall, one of the reasons I came forward with my essay when I did was because I had exhausted my avenues of research that were available to me without incurring substantial expense.   My paper was intended to spur on additional research by those with better access than mine.   I was thrilled when Wayne finally went to MCC to get the documents and told him so.   I had very much hoped he or someone would.    Who would of thought he would abandon all that he had long been preaching and start blatantly manipulating the sources for his rhetorical game?

Not me, and it is disappointing still.
___________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

You just don't get it.   It is not a contest or a game.   I am at no "advantage" or "disadvantage."   I am not trying to win.   It is about proper process and procedures that exist to assure facts are authentic and that all claims are vetted.   You are one of those who have insisted on presenting facts that cannot be authenticated and making claims that cannot be vetted or verified.  That is garbage Mike.  Unacceptable.  Outrageous. Garbage. 

I don't suffer for it.  You do.  You, TEPaul, Wayne, and unfortunately probably Merion.  This is a circus.  It is a joke.  A laughing stock.    A shame.  And the reason for it is that you guys have insisted on hiding documents while at the same time using them for your rhetorical purposes.   You've tried to tear down those that disagree with you, you've tried to bolster your own positions.  BUT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO SUPPORT ANY OF IT WITH ACTUAL AND VERIFIABLE FACTS.  That is wrong, counterproductive, and foolish Mike.   And embarrassing, I would think.

[Jeff_Brauer]

DM,

Yes one of the things your paper did say was that it was intended to be ongoing research.  I give you that and the fact that the tone of that paper was very respectful of MCC despite challenging or fleshing out a different version of their history.  Of course, all of that respectful tone got lost in two years of threads somehow.  And we are all guilty of that.

How about a new thread called "Why is MCC such a lightning rod?"  I mean, of the amateur sportsman that TePaul mentions, couldn't there be a lot of the same questions about how much help those ams got?  Crump got some we know, and its never been a secret or up for much debate.  Of course, he still gets the lions share of the credit, too.  So, I guess it just comes down to an outsider challenging the legends, as you have long supposed, that raises the ire (regardless of who is right and wrong it would have caused a ruckus in any case, no?)

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I have no idea what verifiable facts you think I'm withholding here.  Could you please explain?

To the contrary, I believe I've posted more evidence and source information on this thread than anyone...I even posted the P+O letters as Tom MacWood asked me to.

Just because we don't have the same interpretation of what the evidence means isn't grounds for suggesting I'm hiding something David.

All I've ever done here is comment and speculate on the meaning of the evidence presented, no matter who put forward the evidence.

The reason I believe your paper generated such intensity and divergence of opinion is specifically because it was not presented as a collaborative search for the truth, despite the disclaimer, but because your thesis statement already determined that Hugh Wilson did not design Merion and you left little room for actual intellectually opposing or even questioning discussion or debate around that basic contention.

[Mike_Cirba]

In other words David, your thesis was presented as either/or, black or white, and susequent discussion on both sides ended up locked into unyielding positions, which led to subsequent refusal to acknowledge or aquiesce on even the most basic, trivial items and obvious truths.

There is no questioning, or continuing search for the truth implicit in this statement;

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan.

Both you and Tom MacWood had already reached a foregone conclusion that Hugh Wilson was too much of a novice to have designed Merion East and your presentation of evidence in attempting to bring us to that same conclusion was interesting.   However, you did little or no serious analysis of any contrary positions or evidence, you were forced to take basic terms such as "laid out" and attempt to convince us it meant something altogether different, and in the absence of large pieces of the evidentiary puzzle, you made some huge assumptions on items such as the Macdonald letter and the Francis Land Swap that have turned out differently than you originally hoped.

Your paper could have been an interesting collaborative exercise but that wasn't the intent.   It's like saying "Albert DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler" as your thesis statement, and then contending that you were only trying to figure out what really happened.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

A few comments on what you stated:

 "Phillip, As of now there is no way for me to view, verify, and vet the source material." That is a shame. I absolutely hope that at some time in the future it can change for you. I have been in that position myself at times and have found that patience goes a long way in getting there.  

"That being said, I will continue to point out the outrageous that has occured on this website regarding the source material and will still demand that Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike back up their spurious claims with facts." That, of course, is your privilege, yet I think that all it has done is hurt your credibility and, even more so, ability to be able to examine those documents and artifacxts that you want to to aid in your study of Merion. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this entire fiasco, for lack of any better words, may have made it difficult for you to approach other clubs if & when you want to study or learn about their history in the future. That may be the most unfair outcome for you personally in all of this.  

"As a researcher, you ought to be right with me on this and frankly I am having trouble understanding why you are not." You are convinced that there claims are "spurious" where I do not. Do I agree with everything said? NO! Do I believe that documents have been misrepresented purposefully? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Can I understand why you believe these two things to be so? YES!
I was recently asked how many clubs records and board minutes I have had the privilege of seeing and examining and I very much surprised the person by saying at least a dozen actual examinations with partial of more than 30 others. I understand far better than most the sensitivity and meaning these records have for those clubs. I also appreciate the pride they take in their history and how absolutely thrilled they are to learn new things about their pasts, even when it overturns what has been a popular belief that they have even published publicly over the years.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, yet for some reason it does for those on this site.

What is also NOT understood and appreciated is the trust that being allowed to do this places upon the researcher. Yet the greatest privilege in this , at least for me, is the recognition that every time a club allows a "researcher" to look at their club's records, it is costing a number of people at the club TIME! TIME that they would much rather be spending with their own families and friends and even at the club INSTEAD of the time spent helping a stranger, well-meaning as they may be, to do something that the researcher is interested in and that they very well may not.

That gift of time requires that those who wish it bestwoed on them appreciate it. Even if their research overturns long-held understandings, it is the way in which it is presented and treated which shows to the giver of the time that it was well-spent and deserved.

Demands and desires aside, in order to be given the gift of time and access one must show they appreciate and respect  it...

Look at it this way. How many times do you think Tom Doak has been approached to do interviews and even by some intrepid writers who desire to write about his career? What do you think that personally costs him each time he allows it, because there is a real cost. It is the same for the clubs we all desire to study.

They only have so much time and access that they can give. Some will get it and others won't. yet of those that don't get it, it doesn't dampen their desire to want to get that access.

Sorry I rambled on in my answer, but it was a few thoughts that i've wanted to express for a bit and i think that even if youdisagree with my reasonings, you will at least see that the gift of time and access is a precious one that these clubs don't have to bestow on anyone. That they do should be looked upon with appreciation whether we agree with what the one granted it states about what he/she had the privilege of seeing...

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Your motivation is somewhat different than Wayne and TEP's, but your ultimate objective is the same, preserving the Hugh Wilson myth at all costs. And in my mind you are just as guilty as those two, and in someways worse.

Restoring Cobbs Creek is your motivation. Unlike Bethpage-Black Cobbs Creek was never considered one of America's great courses. In fact it was never considered one of Philadelphia's better courses. The best thing it has going for it is its association with Hugh Wilson. His reputation is largely based upon his connection with Merion. You see the potential re-writing of Merion's history as an attack on Hugh Wilson, and indirectly an attack on Cobbs Creek. You see Macdonald & Whigham as a direct threat, and go out of your way to distort their accomplishments. You see Barker as a threat, and go out of your way to distort his accomplishments. You also exaggerate Wilson's golfing record and experience. You have no regard for historical accuracy.

You see TEP & Wayne's hiding and altering the original documents as necessary in preserving the status quo, and defend their actions. In your mind as long as the legend is preserved you don't really care what they do. You are the recognized expert on Wilson; Wayne & TEP have hundreds of his letters. Did they share those with you? No. They only give you info they believe will benefit the legend, and thats fine with you.

And speaking of those letters, as you may know there are two letters that mention Wilson's trip abroad in 1912. Wayne & TEP had those letters when they wrote their Merion history for their Flynn book. In their account TEP & Wayne ignored that new information and continued to tell the story that Wilson travelled abroad in 1910 before designing Merion. They had those letters when you were making a fool of yourself looking for every H.Wilson in the world who got on a boat in 1910. What does that say about their credibility and motivations?
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()