News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3425 on: July 25, 2009, 08:07:43 PM »
Mike,

You need to look up the word "verify" and the phrase "verifiable fact" in the context of academic research, and just maybe you'll start to understand the problem with you, TEPaul, and Wayne making claims without backing them up with the actual source material.

And Mike, I am not sure I would call reposting the same old source material over and over again as actually producing source material.  So far as I know in your thousands and thousands of posts on this issue you (as opposed to Joe Bausch) have come up with one single article, and you even deemed that to be unimportant and sat on that for a few months before you finally brought it forward.   Repeating second or third hand information without allowing us to verify us does absolutely nothing but further blur the historical record.

So far as my essay goes, that you and Wayne and TEPaul and such notable social critics as Bradley Anderson did not accept my essay in the spirit it was intended is no criticism of my paper but it sure reflects poorly on all of you.    I mean give me a break, YOU WERE MAKING FALSE AND DAMNING ACCUSATIONS ABOUT MY INTENTIONS AND MY ESSAY BEFORE MY ESSAY EVEN CAME OUT EVEN CAME OUT.  So you have a lot of nerve now blaming this hostile environment on me.   It is outrageous, in fact.

__________________________

Phillip, I've always respected Merion's right to keep their documents private.  The problem is, Wayne has been using their documents for his rhetorical gain.  So Wayne needs to back up those claims.   If this creates a problem for him at his club, then that is his doing, not mine.  

And Phillip, as a researcher you should be with me on this whether or not TEPaul and Wayne have been intentionally misrepresenting the source material.   Researchers need to rely on facts, not someone's representation of the facts.   For this reason alone you ought to with me in condemning their refusal to back up their claims and demanding that they set the record straight.  

Imagine that Whitten wrote a new article on BB and directly attacked you and your work on Tilllinghast.  Imagine also that he claimed to have new evidence that proved conclusively  that it was a Burbeck course.   But instead of producing the evidence he simply paraphrased it and wrote his conclusions, claiming that it was privately owned and that he would not let anyone see it.     I suppose in that situation you might better understand the importance of researchers presenting their analysis in a form where it and the evidence can be thoroughly vetted and verified.
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: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3426 on: July 25, 2009, 10:41:06 PM »
David,

You wrote, "Imagine that Whitten wrote a new article on BB and directly attacked you and your work on Tillinghast.  Imagine also that he claimed to have new evidence that proved conclusively that it was a Burbeck course.   But instead of producing the evidence he simply paraphrased it and wrote his conclusions ..."

That is EXACTLY what HE DID in this year's U.S. Open issue! EXACTLY!

"...claiming that it was privately owned and that he would not let anyone see it." That he didn't do.

"I suppose in that situation you might better understand the importance of researchers presenting their analysis in a form where it and the evidence can be thoroughly vetted and verified."

I understand the process COMPLETELY. Frankly though, there is NO VETTING PROCESS that any researcher or historian is required to go through... NONE!

I wrote and published a 350+ page biography of Tilly... Name the VETTING PROCESS I was required to go through? Where did I have to submit my work for PEER REVIEW?

And on that very topic, please enlighten all of us with where YOU VETTED YOUR ESSAY before publishing it on GCA.COM? Can you tell us the name of a single FACT CHECKER who examined your essay for the purpose of VERIFYING the accuracy of what was mentioned within it?

You are quick to demand of others what you don’t of yourself.

You wrote an “IN MY OPINION PIECE”. You did NOT write a thesis that would serve as the proof for academic credentialing nor a paper that outlined a new scientific theory that demands Peer Review and Verification processes before publishing.

You told us what you believe to be true and explained why this is so and provided facts, figures, examples and analysis to back it up. It was a wonderful accomplishment whether one agrees with your conclusions or not. I guarantee that I, far more than most on here, understand and appreciate that, which is why I emailed you back then that it was a wonderful accomplishment and do so publicly today.

Actually your illustration with Whitten and Bethpage Black touches on a point that YOU keep overlooking. Let me explain what I mean by posting a piece of an email that Ron Whitten sent me in response to my challenge to discuss the Burbeck/Tillinghast issue on GCA.COM. I think you will agree after seeing it that I DO UNDERSTAND what you are trying to say.

Whitten wrote me, “Your insistence that my conclusion that Burbeck deserves to be listed as architect of record, and Tillinghast as consultant, reminds me of the controversy that raged here in Kansas in recent years, by those who insisted evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools because it's only a THEORY. Your challenge states "You need to prove it in a scholarly manner against the points and arguments raised against it by others of equal, greater and lesser scholarly ability." No I don't.  I needed to convince my editors and fact-checkers that the material I based my research upon was credible, accurate and correctly cited. I did that. The articles ran.”

THAT is the state of golf historical writing today. There is NO VETTING PROCESS! NONE! That is why you didn’t go through one when you posted your essay. You may have shared it with others for opinions beforehand, but there simply was not a PEER REVIEW process before to avail yourself of.

You began your comments to me by stating, “Phillip, I've always respected Merion's right to keep their documents private.  The problem is, Wayne has been using their documents for his rhetorical gain.  So Wayne needs to back up those claims…”

Actually, no he doesn’t as the example of Whitten above shows. No one, and that includes yourself, is required to do anything before publishing historical information except for one single thing. That is, FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL PUBLISH IT!

Did Ran require any vetting or fact checking process for you before running your piece? NO he didn’t. Was I required to go through any vetting or verifying process before he published my own IN MY OPINION piece on Tillinghast? NO he didn’t. That is his choice as owner of GCA.COM   

Tom, Wayne and Mike are not bound by any ethics or requirements to share the materials they have with you or anyone else they don’t care to. You criticize them for not doing so and then complain that they still won’t.

You have raised serious questions as to whether they SHOULD have shared ANY information if they have been asked by the club not to do so in a public forum is proper; but to do so in the insulting ways in which you have done so has only made certain that the club will not allow “outsiders” access to study them.

You and Tom Macwood both have reasons to be angry over things that have happened and been said, but you are not alone in this. Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison and Mike Cirba ALSO have justification for the same outrage and anger for that have happened and been said.

MANY on here have counseled all to STOP the public vitriolic toward each other to no avail. Yet here you claim an innocent’s right of self-defense when you aren’t. In this I am not taking sides because I have been among those who publicly criticized the vitriolic comments by EVERYONE in direct posts on the topics.

Have there been times where Tom, Wayne & Mike have written things and said things in their posts that they should not have? Most definitely YES! Then again so have you and Tom Macwood!

Once again I say that you should cajole, disagree and even argue with any and all who criticize your thesis and the points within it when you believe they are mistaken in their points of view. That is more than you right, it is required of you if you want to be thought of as a serious historical researcher. But do it in a PROFESSIONAL and proper manner. Up until now you have been sorely lacking in this as have others.

This thread, and all the others on Merion should be ended NOT because of what is being discussed but because of the MANNER in which it continues.

I have said this before… be the better man…
 



Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3427 on: July 25, 2009, 10:53:08 PM »
Philip,
I'd be banging my desk to signify strong agreement if I were a Member of Parliament.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3428 on: July 25, 2009, 10:54:59 PM »
Phillip, I allowed my essay to be posted here so that it could be vetted.   So self respecting writer, researcher, historian or even gca participant would make claims of fact but then refuse to allow those claims to be verified and vetted.    None.  I am a bit dismayed that you stand behind the jokers who have done this.   I've done nothing to them except demand they play by the same rules as the rest of us.
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: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3429 on: July 25, 2009, 11:17:37 PM »
David, saying that "I've done nothing to them except demand they play by the same rules as the rest of us..." is not just inaccurate it is greatly disingenuous. You have been every bit as vulgar and disparaging in your comments to them that you accuse them of.

You continued, "Phillip, I allowed my essay to be posted here so that it could be vetted..." If that is the case then you should allow for the criticisms whether they are fair and accurate or foul and self-serving without resorting to the virtiolic comments that you have made in return. You demand respect and professionalism and yet have a very hard time showing it to others.

It is when one's critics are at their worst that one must act their finest, otherwise one loses the ability to "stand on principle."

You continued "[No] self respecting writer, researcher, historian or even gca participant would make claims of fact but then refuse to allow those claims to be verified and vetted." You keep using the phrase "vetted" yet I think you do so wrongly. Can you DEFINE the "vetting" process? Isn't it ALWAYS done BEFORE PUBLICATION? Otherwise the "vetting" is useless for there is nothing of which to approve! Also, there is no formal or informal “vetting” process for an “In My Opinion” piece as it is an essay that simply expresses the author’s OPINION! “Vetting” is neither needed nor required and is actually not even possible, for who can in any manner tell another what is THEIR OPINION?

You close by stating that, “I am a bit dismayed that you stand behind the jokers who have done this. I've done nothing to them except demand they play by the same rules as the rest of us.”

I am sorry that you are dismayed, but among the “JOKERS” who I have stood behind is YOU! I have continually in public and private asked and demanded that they STOP the vitriol that they have thrown at you and your work. Those comments can be clearly seen in the posts where I have said to them exactly what I say to you now, once again… BE THE BETTER MAN!

You state that you, “…demand they play by the same rules as the rest of us.” That is true, you do. The problem is that you fail to see that they HAVE been playing by the same set of rules as you for there AREN’T ANY RULES IN THIS!

There are ETHICS which should clearly be followed but, in my opinion, there have been enough ethics infractions on all sides to no longer allow anyone involved to claim foul in that regard.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3430 on: July 25, 2009, 11:27:07 PM »
Phillip that you compare my behavior to theirs means that you haven't been paying attention. 
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)

Gib_Papazian

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3431 on: July 26, 2009, 12:43:47 AM »
Gentlemen,

I would like to suggest a short intermission from this circular argument so that we all may share a moment with a group that does not care if Hugh Wilson, C.B. Macdonald or Mary Pickford designed Merion.

This must be seen to be believed:

From our friend Dan Kelly.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/23/massive-dance-number.html


 



John Moore II

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3432 on: July 26, 2009, 12:45:58 AM »
Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access. Having not been involved the whole time, David and others may have gone about seeking this in the wrong way; I don't know for certain. However, I have written a fair amount of historical research papers and essays before I got in the golf business and I have worked with some other very, very good historical writers. From time to time it is possible that some citatons will come from unpublished manuscripts and the like. However, it one researcher were to hoard this information and not allow access to anyone because he felt like it, he would be laughed out of the business. No reputable publisher would print his works and no journal would publish. He would have absolutely no credibility in the eyes of his peers.

And this is not a one sided attack, I made it very clear that, given the current state of the citations within David's essay, I would put limited credibility in it as well. Because I can't look at the source material myself to see if he's full of crap or not.

David-perhaps, given the present state of the discussion, you should just wait for the book project to be published and at that time try to get the other primary source material for yourself through other channels. I can sort of understand the position if these sources provide a cornerstone of the project; you would not want someone to get hold of that and undercut your whole work by throwing something else into the market before you. But thats still a thin arguement.

TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3433 on: July 26, 2009, 06:56:20 AM »
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."


JohnK:

By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3434 on: July 26, 2009, 08:26:53 AM »
Here's a good summarization of the role of pre-publication peer review:

American Historical Association
Statement on Peer Review
The American Historical Association (AHA) strongly supports the peer review process for research and publication funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Education, and other federal agencies. As a result, it opposes political interference with the peer review process.  Projects endorsed by peer review panels composed of competent, qualified, and unbiased reviewers that reflect a balance of perspectives should not be denied funding because of political, religious, or other biases of political appointees in the funding agencies.

Peer review means that a manuscript or research proposal will be read and evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals.  As peers of the author in a specialized field, these reviewers provide analysis to the review boards of agencies on the scholarly significance of the article: Does the author display knowledge of existing work in the field? Does the research design, processes and methodologies, for example, conform with professional standards? Does the author advance an original argument and provide valid evidence to support the work?  If particular areas are weak or absent in the presentation, the peer reviewers suggest revisions that will strengthen the project and call for resubmission before funding is awarded or a manuscript is accepted for publication.

Peer review had its roots in nineteenth-century scholarly publications, as editors of journals in newly professionalized fields consulted with colleagues about the merit of submissions.[1]  In 1895, William Sloane, editor of the newly founded American Historical Review, described his goals for the new Review.  “It ought chiefly to be a critical review, fearless to denounce a bad or superficial book which solicits public favor, equally courageous to sustain one which presents unpopular truth, and sufficiently learned to give reasons for its opinions.”[2]  Peer review became formal and institutionalized only in the mid twentieth century, as the number of scholarly articles expanded rapidly and fair and orderly publication required a system in which experts could provide objective evaluations before publication.

Peer review is not a flawless process.  A large literature has addressed the many biases that can creep into it. Awareness of the potential for bias has led to practices designed to prevent it so far as possible. Above all, it is vital to ensure that judgments are made by the scholarly criteria listed above, and not on the grounds of how closely a proposal adheres, for example, to the tenets of one faith or one political philosophy or theory. Scholars support the concept of carefully monitored peer review as the fairest way possible to ensure disinterested evaluation of research.  The American Historical Association believes that such peer review will best serve the American people who fund the research.

(http://www.historians.org/press/2005_08_15_PeerReviewStatement.htm)
----------------------------

Granted, this is geared to more academic fields, but a key factor to me is the fact that the peer review takes place prior to publication.  Now, in 2009, what does "publication" mean?  Does it mean an "In My Opinion" piece here, or does it refer to something more substantial.  I think the latter, and I also think David's piece is a lot more than an "In My Opinion" because it asks the reader to substantially alter current historical thinking.  And challenging current paradigms is good and welcome, but I propose that it be done in a more formal manner.

Remember, peer review doesn't meen consensus building or getting to a "kumbya" moment.  It just means that the thesis is criticized thouroughly and fairly outside public view.  Peer review can, as we've seen, be a bit like making hot dogs - seeing the process in place can be pretty gnarly.

If David's thesis (again, to me it's way beyond an opinion piece) had been subject to private peer review, we could've been a lot further along than we are now.

Perhaps it's now time to begin that process of peer review offline.  Taking it to a more formal process doesn't mean defeat for either "side" of this discussion - it's just taking the process into a different direction.

What should that process be?  Heck - I'm an IT guy, so I don't know.  Maybe it's time to contact a person that makes history his/her career for advice.

Peace, all :)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3435 on: July 26, 2009, 09:41:25 AM »
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."


JohnK:

By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?

This seems to be yours and Wayne's modus operandi, cut off all information to and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject you feel is your own. You tried the same thing with me when I was writing my essay on Crump. Even more disturbing in this case Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents. He won't let David or I to see the documents but he has shared them with you and others he deems friendly. He is going use these same documents in his Flynn book. That is a conflict of interest.

Here is the code of ethics from the American Society of Archivists:

Code of Ethics for Archivists
 
Preamble
The Code of Ethics for Archivists establishes standards for the archival profession. It introduces new members of the profession to those standards, reminds experienced archivists of their professional responsibilities, and serves as a model for institutional policies. It also is intended to inspire public confidence in the profession.

This code provides an ethical framework to guide members of the profession. It does not provide the solution to specific problems.

The term “archivist” as used in this code encompasses all those concerned with the selection, control, care, preservation, and administration of historical and documentary records of enduring value.

I. Purpose

The Society of American Archivists recognizes the importance of educating the profession and general public about archival ethics by codifying ethical principles to guide the work of archivists. This code provides a set of principles to which archivists aspire.

II. Professional Relationships

Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users.

III. Judgment

Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

IV. Trust

Archivists should not profit or otherwise benefit from their privileged access to and control of historical records and documentary materials.

V. Authenticity and Integrity

Archivists strive to preserve and protect the authenticity of records in their holdings by documenting their creation and use in hard copy and electronic formats. They have a fundamental obligation to preserve the intellectual and physical integrity of those records.

Archivists may not alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence.

VI. Access

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies. Archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives. Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

VII. Privacy

Archivists protect the privacy rights of donors and individuals or groups who are the subject of records. They respect all users’ right to privacy by maintaining the confidentiality of their research and protecting any personal information collected about them in accordance with the institution’s security procedures.

VIII. Security/Protection

Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible and guard them against defacement, physical damage, deterioration, and theft. Archivists should cooperate with colleagues and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute thieves and vandals.

IX. Law

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.



« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 09:47:54 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3436 on: July 26, 2009, 09:47:03 AM »
Dan
The last paragraph deals with potential biases. Do you think Wayne, TEP, Mike and you are biased? What does the American Historical Association say about falsifying documents?


TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3437 on: July 26, 2009, 10:22:07 AM »
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 04:56:20 AM
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."


JohnK:

By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?







"This seems to be yours and Wayne's modus operandi, cut off all information to and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject you and Wayne feel is your own. You tried the same thing with me when I was writing my essay on Crump."


Tom:

John K. Moore made an interesting point to Phil Young and I simply asked John K. Moore a question about what he said to Phil. If just asking him a pretty simple question seems to you to be some modus operandi of me and Wayne to cut off all information and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject then I'm afraid you pretty much need to stop and totally reconsider what you are both doing and saying on this website, particularly on subjects like this one!




"Even more disturbing in this case Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents. He won't let David or I to see the documents but he has shared them with you and others he deems friendly. He is going use these same documents in his Flynn book. That is a conflict of interest."



Now you're saying on a worldwide website that it is disturbing that Wayne Morrison is the acting architectural archivist for Merion?? Perhaps instead of saying something like that on Golfclubatlas.com you should try to discuss it with Merion GC itself so you could at least start to understand what Merion GC believes Wayne Morrison has done for them over the last 5-6 years as far as the architectural portion of their archives is concerned.

As far as Wayne not letting you or David Moriarty see documents that is not the case at all. You contacted Merion's historian and you were told regarding the particular information you had mentioned that you should be in contact with Merion's architectural historian. That's Wayne Morrison. Anyone contacting Merion for that kind of information would be told the same thing in the same way you were. He did not tell you that you could not see anything, he just told you the present disposition of the things you were asking about and told you that like anyone else making these requests of Merion GC you should just follow the procedure for access to their archives (not MCC, just Merion GC). Part of that procedure is actually coming to Merion with the intention of seeing their archives. Apparently you don't want to do that and you never have. Why is that? Do you think you should be treated any differently than anyone else?

You mention him or Merion sharing documents with people he or Merion deems friendly. That has nothing to do with anything. I just happen to have a good working relationship with Merion and have had for many years, and long before I ever knew Wayne and became involved with him on various projects such as Flynn and Merion.

The long and short of all this is if you want the kind of information you say you are seeking you are just going to have to follow their established procedure and if you do hopefully some day you too can establish a working relationship with Merion. I've told you this now for over six and a half years. You better start believing me and taking what I say seriously if you want any real satisfaction with what you say you are seeking.

Merion does have a well established procedure for this kind of thing as do many clubs like it. I have never known them to discriminate towards anyone for no particular reason. In your case, however, if they have developed some particular reason to deny you access it really wouldn't surprise me. They have a pretty standard procedure for anyone but they are also human beings with feelings like anyone else and they do appreciate manners and etiquette from anyone towards the way they do things; it may even be accurate to say they do not appreciate someone who shows poor manners and poor etiquette and real disrespect towards one of their important members on this specific subject and issue, and the fact is the very things you have said on this thread and are saying now may be and probably are pretty objectionable to them.

You just insulted and denigrated their architectural historian who they have a good deal of respect for and who they are very grateful to for the massive time and effort he has put in with the architectural history of Merion G.C.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 10:54:06 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3438 on: July 26, 2009, 10:26:25 AM »
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.



Tom MacWood,

Thank you very much for introducing this topic, despite your historically and fundamentally inaccurate understanding of the role of Cobb's Creek in Philadelphia and US Public golf, as well as incorrectly speculating on what I feel and believe.

I believe that the research done primarily by Joe Bausch, Geoff Walsh, myself, and some others into the true history of Cobb's Creek provides some very instructive parallels and contrasts to the subject at hand.

I had always been interested to learn more about the history of Cobb's Creek, which "myth" had stated was designed by Hugh Wilson, but which I'd never seen anything that proved that belief.

A few summers back, while also being curious about the original routing, which no one seemed to know for certain, I contacted the Hagley Museum in Delaware and through their Dallin Aerial collection they were kind enough to send me eight images from the 1920s and 1930s that clearly showed the original routing and the fact that all of the original greensites remained intact.

Excitedly, I posted those results on GCA, and thus began an almost two-year old collaborative effort by many of us interested in finding the true history of the golf course, which led to our ongoing restoration activities.

You can follow the entire investigative, collaborative discovery process right here, in the open, online at:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31872.0/

Over the next months though a series of archived news articles that Joe Bausch was able to find, as well as some of us going to find the original source documents in the Minutes of the Golf Association of Philadelphia (which we had no idea existed or not prior to digging), as well as finding the original topographical routing of the golf course at the Archives of the Fairmount Park Commission in Philly.

Throughout this process, everything was done real-time, online, and in the sunshine of an open process.

We had no agenda to protect or preserve the Hugh Wilson "myth".   When we came into it we were already aware of a rumor that it wasn't Wilson at all.

Still, we dug and dug and presented evidence as it surfaced.   What did we find at the end of the day?

We found that Cobb's Creek had been designed by a GAP-appointed Committee that included Hugh Wilson, but also lesser knowns like A.H. "Ab" Smith of Huntingdon Valley, J. Franklin Meehan of North Hills, George Klauder of Aronimink, as well as the very pleasant surprise that George Crump of Pine Valley, heretofore believed to have had no other design involvement, was on both the committee to find a site for the first public course in Philadelphia, but also on the design commitee.   George Thomas was also onsite during construction.

Moreover, lest you state that we have a Philadelphia bias, we also found the exciting accounts of The Old Man, Walter Travis, helping the committee in the later stages of the project.  

Did we try to hide this information?   Did we shut down a thread because it appeared clear that Hugh Wilson had a lot of help with Cobb's Creek?

No, we embraced it, because unlike the way you've presented my beliefs, all of the additional information we found about Cobb's Creek's creation that wasn't just about Hugh Wilson created a much richer, much more detailed tapestry and gave all of us a much clearer picture of what is now known as the Philadelphia School, which was made up of collaborative committees working for the good of the game.


And ultimately, the results of our work turned into a 237-page detailed history that we put together, bound, and donated to the archives of Fairmount Park, of GAP, and of Cobb's Creek, and also provided copies to many interested observers including the USGA.


Perhaps the following editorial from the Philadelphia Press, June 4th, 1916 will give you a more accurate understanding of the thinking in Philadelphia at the time, and the expectation;

.."Many local golfers who were instrumental in having this course built are now receiving congratulations upon the successful result of their campaign.  Rather, however, should they be bending their efforts towards the building of at least two more public courses.   One such golf playground for a city of this size and importance in the sporting and golf world, and a city with such a great population argues a lack of energy on the part of the great body of golfers of this city and a selfish spirit."

"Many cities smaller than Philadelphia have more than one such course, while a number of cities of only a small fraction of Philadelphia's size and population have been supporting public golf for years.   Only one thing makes it possible to have municipally-owned golf courses, that is the golfers.   If these men do not possess the spirit and the sportsmanship to give their time and efforts towards procuring public links for their less fortunate sportsmen, then the possibility of politicians and city officials urging them is very remote."

"The present course at Cobb's Creek Park has been pronounced BY GOLF EXPERTS (caps mine) a remarkably fine course, one to test the mettle of good players, and containing every element necessary to the development of good golf players.   Some of this city's leading golf men gave their time and attention to this work.   The complaint, however, is that not enough have interested themselves in this important work."



Tom, you seem to live in a world where more credence is given to the possibility that a foreign golf professional may have stopped in Philadelphia during a train ride to Atlanta for a day as greater design proof than the fact that reams of evidence tells us that five dedicated men spent months on the ground studying every possibility the land offered for golf, and sought out advice from others, which is the REAL model of the Philadelphia school, whether at Merion, at Pine Valley, at Aroninmink, or at Cobb's Creek.

During our research we found wonderful stories that showed that these guys were avid and sought collaboration and discussion and excellence.

Much like Macdonald did at NGLA, and probably using it as their model, these guys moved away from the old ways...this idea that through some birthright a foreign professional who could play golf well also had inherent amazing creative design abilities such that an hour or two in their presence would yield some remarkable golf course of mythologic proportions.

That was the real "myth", Tom, that all of these guys were actively dispelling.

They learned from Garden City, from Myopia, from NGLA....that to create a great golf course it took time and attention to details from people on the ground willing to undertake the work implicit in that task.



« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 11:26:23 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3439 on: July 26, 2009, 10:35:24 AM »
"II. Professional Relationships

Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users."



Tom:

Notice the word "users" in that particular section of what you just posted. Do you actually think it looks to anyone on this worldwide website that you have or are showing any respect for Merion's architectural archivist/historian? In my world, insulting someone on an Internet website and then denigrating them like you just did today just above because you don't seem to like the fact that THEY hold a particular position within a private golf club is definitely in no way synoymous with respect! Matter of fact, since he does hold that postion and Merion selected him and put him in that postion, what you just said shows no respect at all for Merion GC either!
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 10:38:06 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3440 on: July 26, 2009, 10:50:51 AM »
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 04:56:20 AM
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."


JohnK:

By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?

"This seems to be yours and Wayne's modus operandi, cut off all information to and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject you and Wayne feel is your own. You tried the same thing with me when I was writing my essay on Crump."


Tom:

John K. Moore made an interesting point to Phil Young and I simply asked John K. Moore a question about what he said to Phil. If just asking him a pretty simple question seems to you to be some modus operandi of me and Wayne to cut off all information and/or intimidate anyone writing on a subject then I'm afraid you pretty much need to stop and totally reconsider what you are both doing and saying on this website, particularly on subjects like this one!

When you and Wayne learned I was writing my Crump essay you made every effort to stop me. You saw Crump and PV as your private domain, and did all you could to prevent me from writing it. That is a known to everyone who followed the issue back them. I won't go into the sorted details again but there is plenty of evidence on the back pages of this website.

"Even more disturbing in this case Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents. He won't let David or I to see the documents but he has shared them with you and others he deems friendly. He is going use these same documents in his Flynn book. That is a conflict of interest."

Now you're saying on a worldwide website that it is disturbing that Wayne Morrison is the acting architectural archivist for Merion?? Perhaps instead of saying something like that on Golfclubatlas.com you should try to discuss it with Merion GC itself so you could at least start to understand what Merion GC believes Wayne Morrison has done for them over the last 5-6 years as far as the architectural portion of their archives is concerned.

Yes, based on his track record it is disturbing they would allow Wayne to control their archive. He clearly has a conflict of interest. If you are going to allow access to information there should be equal access. He allows you and Mike access to the April 1911 report, but doesn't allow access to David or myself. You and Wayne use the portions of this report to attack his essay on the worldwide web, obviously it cannot be that sensitive. And Wayne is clever enough to invite me to view everything they have in their archives, to prove he's not holding anything back, but when asked about access to the April 1911 report I am told it hasn't yet been added to the archive.

As far as Wayne not letting you or David Moriarty see documents that is not the case at all. You contacted Merion's historian and you were told regarding the particular information you had mentioned that you should be in contact with Merion's architectural historian. That's Wayne Morrison. Anyone contacting Merion for that kind of information would be told the same thing in the same way you were. He did not tell you that you could not see anything, he just told you the present disposition of the things you were asking about and told you that like anyone else making these requests of Merion GC you should just follow the procedure for access to their archives (not MCC, just Merion GC). Part of that procedure is actually coming to Merion with the intention of seeing their archives. Apparently you don't want to do that and you never have. Why is that? Do you think you should be treated any differently than anyone else?

How would you know what transpired between the Merion historian and myself?

« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 10:53:04 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3441 on: July 26, 2009, 10:53:50 AM »
I would also point out in case it isn't obvious, there are implicit fundamental differences between what we did in researching Cobb's Creek, a public course with all information in the public domain, and a Private Club like Merion.

My point was simply about how we used GCA as a collaborative tool to get to the truth, whatever that truth turned out to be.

Completely contrary to what Tom MacWood contends, we never sought to protect or preserve any existing "myths" around Hugh Wilson, or anyone else.

And what we learned was much more interesting and more educational than holding onto any myth could ever be.

That to me is probably one of the greatest ironies here;   the work that some of us did to dig deeper as a result of David's essay has given us a much deeper understanding and appreciation for exactly how much Hugh Wilson did actually design and how much of an impact his work had on early golf in America.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 10:57:53 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3442 on: July 26, 2009, 10:56:26 AM »
Mike
Cobbs Creek was never considered one of the better courses in Philadelphia, much less a course of architectural significance nationally. The biggest thing it has going for it is its association with Wilson.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3443 on: July 26, 2009, 11:05:48 AM »
"II. Professional Relationships

Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users."



Tom:

Notice the word "users" in that particular section of what you just posted. Do you actually think it looks to anyone on this worldwide website that you have or are showing any respect for Merion's architectural archivist/historian? In my world, insulting someone on an Internet website and then denigrating them like you just did today just above because you don't seem to like the fact that THEY hold a particular position within a private golf club is definitely in no way synoymous with respect! Matter of fact, since he does hold that postion and Merion selected him and put him in that postion, what you just said shows no respect at all for Merion GC either!


TEP
If you are referring to Wayne, he (and you) are receiving the respect you deserve based upon the respect you have given others over the years.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3444 on: July 26, 2009, 11:10:32 AM »

Mike
Cobbs Creek was never considered one of the better courses in Philadelphia, much less a course of architectural significance nationally. The biggest thing it has going for it is its association with Wilson.


Tom,

I assume you're likely familiar with James Govan, George Crump's right-hand man at Pine Valley, as well as Norman Maxwell, winner of the North-South championship?




« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 11:45:11 AM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3445 on: July 26, 2009, 11:18:30 AM »
Tom Macwood,

While you are quick to cite standards such as the “code of ethics from the American Society of Archivists” yet do not yourself hold to the spirit of it.

You stated that, “Wayne is the acting archivist for Merion, and has a control of all their documents…”

Really now, where did you get that information from? Certainly NOT Merion or the Philadelphia Inquirer. Just this past Thursday the 23rd there was an interesting article about John Capers III. The article, titled “History in the Archives of the Merion Golf Club” CLEARLY states that, “Capers, the historian-archivist for Merion Golf Club in Ardmore…”

Wayne is definitely NOT the Historian for Merion NOR is he there ARCHIVIST as you not only claim but then cite a Code of Ethics that he is not living up to! Yet you then, in response to Dan’s posting of the standards of the American Historical Association, ask, “What does the American Historical Association say about falsifying documents?”

That’s more than a bit “cheeky” shall we say considering that you just FALSIFIED Wayne’s relationship with the Merion archives and how he is viewed by the club in that regard!

It is my understanding that Wayne served on the committee which set up the archives… so what! It certainly doesn’t grant him greater access to them than any other club member. How can I say that? Go read the article in the Inquirer about Mr. Capers as it will open your eyes a bit on the subject. It states, “Capers steps out of the archives and carefully locks the door. ‘There are only two keys. I have this one, and the club has one. There are no others.’ He arches his eyebrows to underline his words.”

You accuse Tom, Wayne and Mike of being biased and unethical. In this instance at the very least you appear the same…

Bottom line is that for all of the claims of bias, falsifying documents and demands that things be seen, neither David nor yourself has asked for access to see and study the documents from the two that can grant them to you, John Capers III and/or the Merion Golf Club.

I personally believe that it is not too late for one or both of you to do so. Send them a letter and ask for it. Express the sincere desire that you have to know the history of the club. DON’T mention anything NEGATIVE about anyone! Follow it up with a phone call a few days later. Allow them to hear your passion and love of the game. I will personally (not that I expect it would help at all) write a supporting letter on your or David’s behalf asserting that as the official Historian for the Tillinghast Association that I can vouch for your sincere desire to learn and that you are a serious researcher of golf history. I am also sure that, if asked, others on here would do the same.
Wayne is NOT preventing you from ATTEMPTING to gain access! Yet you and David continually publicly state that he is not only doing that but has actually PREVENTED it and DENIED you access to documents that you desire to study! That too is not true.

If Merion or Mr. Capers denies you access then accept it. If it is granted enjoy it and learn as much as you can from those documents. In NEITHER CASE blame or credit Wayne with the outcome.

Until you even try to gain access you have no right to say you’ve been denied…

Kyle Harris

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3446 on: July 26, 2009, 11:19:14 AM »
Mike,

Where was that article printed?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3447 on: July 26, 2009, 11:22:12 AM »
While mentioning Pine Valley, this article by Tillinghast that followed his January 1913 review of Merion in the"American Cricketer" also shows another example of how the term "expert" was being used and was understood around Philadelphia at that time;





John Moore II

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3448 on: July 26, 2009, 11:27:22 AM »
"Philip, if this is real scholarly work, then the material should be accessible to those who are willing to seek access."

JohnK:

By that statement of yours do you believe that one can then fairly assume if the material is not accessible, for whatever reason, then the so-called scholarly work should not be attempted or at least should not be published purporting to be scholarly work?

No, you can publish it and call it scholarly work, that is fine. And like I said, I can even see keeping the unpublished sources a secret until the work is published, though in most cases I don't agree with that. However, once the work has been published, the qouted sources should be at least semi-accessible to someone willing to go through the process of contacting the writer and doing a bit of work, otherwise, credibility would be lost. I tried to tell David he should perhaps wait and see what happens after this work is published.

TEPaul

Re: Merion's Early Timeline
« Reply #3449 on: July 26, 2009, 11:30:23 AM »
"When you and Wayne learned I was writing my Crump essay you made every effort to stop me. You saw Crump and PV as your private domain, and did all you could to prevent me from writing it. That is a known to everyone who followed the issue back them. I won't go into the sorted details again but there is plenty of evidence on the back pages of this website."


Tom:

With the Crump/PV thing never of us looked at it as any private domain; all Wayne and I ever did was ask you if you could prove Crump committed suicide and how you could prove it. You told me you could prove it and you even told me how you began to go about it. Obviously the way you began to go about it surely did not sit very well with us or with the person you began to go about it with. He is still there and is more than capable of expressing his own feelings about that; that's for sure.

The only other objection I had with you on the Crump suicide issue is that you were unwilling and apparently refused to even mention to Pine Valley what you were thinking of doing, what you were doing and what you did do-----eg put that Crump essay on here first before mentioning anything about it to them. A few years before you wrote about it Geoff Shackelford was thinking about writing on the very same subject----eg Crump's suicide, but after discussing it I feel he showed the good sense not to do it without speaking to Pine Valley about it first.

I realize there is nothing whatsoever to prevent anyone from going about a subject like that in that way; I only happen to believe it is remarkably ill-mannered and disrespectful towards a club and its membership and the memory of its beloved architect to do it that way; call me old fashioned that way if you want to but I do understand that plenty of others, and perhaps plenty of others on here, might disagree with me on that.

I love PV, as I do Merion, their memberships, their ethos and I have a long relationship with them and its members and administrations. I just sort of felt pretty bad for Pine Valley that my old friend John Ott had to take that essay and walk it down to the clubhouse and the GM and president and lay it before them with the resigned remark: "And now the whole world knows what Crump's family and the club apparently never chose to say about how he died."
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 11:36:10 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back