[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Two corrections. First you stated, "It may be true to say there is not a truly qualified historian on here to "vet" something like Moriarty's essay." I disagree with that. There are more than a few on site who have the ability to "vet" David's work. The problem is not one of ability but one of access."


Well then, Philip, who might you be referring to (more than a few)? You must have been referring to someone or some people or why would you have made that statement? 

[Phil_the_Author]

One other point since we got talking about "vetting." The purpose of "vetting" a paper is NOT to pronounce it correct but to verify that the facts as stated are true and correct, that the conclusions drawn CAN be inferred and that it is deserving of DISCUSSION and POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE as being true.

Based on that alone I would have approved David's essay for publication. Certainly it has provided for more than lively debate and discussion without the arguing. Remember, it was published by Ran as an in My OPINION piece, not as a work declaring a new scientific axiom.

Agreeing or disagreeing with his conclusions are separate issues...

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "Well then, Philip, who might you be referring to (more than a few)? You must have been referring to someone or some people or why would you have made that statement?"

To name just a FEW members:

Daniel Wexler
Chris Clouser
Tom Doak
Mark Rowlinson 
Joel Zuckerman
Richard Mandell
Ran Morrissett

[TEPaul]

"Both you & Wayne have stated that you have not been allowed to do so, therefor despite someone's PERSONAL ability to access those records, their PRACTICAL ability to do so for the purpose of "vetting" David's work doesn't exist. If their was a mutual respect between David and a person who had PERSONAL access to the records then he might very well accept someone saying that he was incorrect in his conclusions, but since that person doesn't seem to exist on GCA then again, "Vetting" can't happen.




No, Philip, you don't quite understand. Particularly Wayne Morrison (we collaborate) has already written a very voluminous architectural history of Merion's golf and golf courses (Haverford and Merion's East and West). I'll count it again but the Merion architectural history is about 250 pages. It is not formally published YET because it is part of the 2,200+ biography of William Flynn. Wayne has very much been allowed to certainly put it into or make it a part of Merion's archives. We expect it may even be part of the USGA's Architecture Archive soon.

If the latter becomes true, then FINALLY, someone like Moriarty and MacWood and anyone else will have access to all the research material that the likes of Moriarty and MacWood should've had if they simply approached Merion first like any good researcher, analyst, historian should do. The same goes for MacWood. AT THAT POINT, the likes of Moriarty and MacWood will finally have access to the research material they should have sought out and analyzed before these threads began and which they finally will have due to Wayne Morrison's approximately ten year research of Merion.

The fact is Wayne Morrison ( I basically help him analyze some of it) WILL HAVE PROVIDED all the reseach information to those two and others that they were never heretofore either willing or able to get or do for themselves!!


If you don't understand that, Philip, I will try to put it into more basic and simpler terms and explanations for you.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip I agree with you that it would certainly clarify things if I the minutes weren't being hidden from me, but I'd add that this is the very reason they are being hidden.   I mean come on, we are not fools, are we?

Also I disagree with you that there aren't people who have the information to vet my piece.  
--First, everything I relied on in that essay is in the public record, and most of it stands are falls regardless of Merion's records.  The minutes might clarify things, but they wouldn't change the timing of the trip abroad, the timing and purpose of the NGLA trip, the trip back to Merion, etc.
--Second, TEPaul and Mike Cirba have access to those documents, and Wayne is still feeding TEPaul those documents.  You guys didn't think TEPaul was just the other day quoting from the 1896 minutes verbatim because he was present at the meeting did you?  
--Third, anything in those minutes that could be even remotely twisted to be used against my essay has already been brought forward.  TEPaul, Wayne, even Mike have gone to the minutes repeatedly to try to take down my essay.   The fact that they failed doesn't make it any less obvious that they tried.   If anything in there is contrary to what I say, we'd have seen it a long time ago.  
-- Fourth, given the way those documents have been selectively used to try and bring down my essay, the reason they have been hidden from me becomes very obvious.   It is no coincidence that Wayne Morrison, who had been one demanding full vetting, access, and full peer review, suddenly changed his opinion on all that and clammed up within days of taking a look at the minutes.    It is no coincidence that he quit posting all together shortly thereafter.  Why does he claim he left?   Because Ran posted my essay in a positive light in the first place?  Well then why did he keep posting between the time my essay came out and the time he finally bothered to look at the MCC documents?  No. Wayne hid because Wayne has something to hide.

So while I agree with you generally, this is not a typical situation.  This is an instance where one team realized they were losing badly and that it was going to get worse, and so they declared victory took their ball and went home.

The irony here is that it is ultimately Merion who gets the short end of the stick.  With their USOpen fast approaching this silly discussion rages on, all because a member and his blue blooded buddy are too proud to admit they were wrong.  

____________________________________

Tom, I realize that is your position regarding MCCGA, apparently better than you do.  As recently as yesterday or the day before you seemed to think that there had never been anything like the MCCGA before 1909.  More evidence of Wayne's continued involvement.  

But you guys are confusing a legal formalization of an already existing association with the independent creation of a new association.  Merion's golfing members made up the MCCGA since the mid to late 1890's.  Merion's golfing members purchased the golf course in the name of the MCCGA.  Merion's golfing members, still known as the MCCGA, eventually left MCC and changed their name to the MGC.

[TEPaul]

Well, I'm going to bed because I've got to get up at 5 am and go officiate the final round of the Pa Open Championship at Applebrook. But before I turn in, just let me say that Moriarty's post #179 is just about the most obnoxious post ever foisted on this website about a signficant club, course, member, membership and friends. I suspect, if you all don't rise up together and censor this influence on here, and encourage this website's administrators to debar him from participating on here in the future than this website will suffer significantly for it in all kinds of ways, indirect and otherwise. If you can not recognize the negative influence this person has had on here then you probably deserve him. If you have any question as to what I'm referring to then please get in touch with me. I think you probably know where to find me. 

[Mike Cirba]

David and TMac,

Holy cow...you guys typed all that today but couldn't/wouldnt answer my simple either/or question?!?
,
Wow.  I see this is going well.  Good thing I didn't stop this "progress" by trying to leap ahead to the only friggin point that actually matters here.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Unlike you I am not so quick to call someone a liar which is, in effect, what you are doing in regards to Wayne, Tom & Mike. They have each stated that they are not ALLOWED to publish information DIRECTLY from those records. Therefor they do NOT have a publicly verifiable ability to "vet" your work.

Secondly, your entire response sounds more than a little paranoid. "Phillip I agree with you that it would certainly clarify things if I the minutes weren't being hidden from me, but I'd add that this is the very reason they are being hidden.   I mean come on, we are not fools, are we?" And "anything in those minutes that could be even remotely twisted to be used against my essay has already been brought forward And "given the way those documents have been selectively used to try and bring down my essay, the reason they have been hidden from me becomes very obvious."

I think you need to simply stop being on the uber-defensive and simply answer questions asked of you and then let your answer stand. All that can be done to you is that someone will say they disagree. Oh well, if you are correct that is their loss and if you are wrong it is yours.

Once again, since it seems that even you accept that Merion's reccords contain information that might corroborate your theory, as you can't get access to them, and this is also something that almost no one else can and certainly no one can PUBLISH them publicly, let your work stand on its own legs! Those who disagree with it will and those who don't won't, yet there are also some who will read it and consider... And isn't THAT what you really want? Open-minded consideration?

It is my opinion that until you allow your work to stand in the light of day without all of this arguing that it is only YOU who pays any consequences. Answer honest questions and realize that maybe some who've you had problems with you in the past may now be trying to show respect and approach things with an open mind. I believe that Mike really was trying to do that very thing on this thread and that you simply just could not see it. Give him a chance.

You have a major problem with Tom Paul, everyone on here knows it. So ignore him unless he respectfully asks a question that is meaningful and then answer it with respect back to him. If he disagrees with the answer then that is that and leave it that way. Going back and forth with each other when it is obvious that a simple "we agree to disagree" should have been stated many posts before, really does harm YOU most of all. I say that not because he is more or less credible than you but because it is YOUR WORK that has been presented for consideration.

You worked too hard on it to not let it stand on its own merits...

[DMoriarty]

Well, I'm going to bed because I've got to get up at 5 am and go officiate the final round of the Pa Open Championship at Applebrook. But before I turn in, just let me say that Moriarty's post #179 is just about the most obnoxious post ever foisted on this website about a signficant club, course, member, membership and friends. I suspect, if you all don't rise up together and censor this influence on here, and encourage this website's administrators to debar him from participating on here in the future than this website will suffer significantly for it in all kinds of ways, indirect and otherwise. If you can not recognize the negative influence this person has had on here then you probably deserve him. If you have any question as to what I'm referring to then please get in touch with me. I think you probably know where to find me. 

Terrific timing.  Perfectly on cue, TEPaul jumps in to help prove my point for me.   If you can't beat them, shut down the conversation.  Whether by hiding the source material, or by vague threats of TEPaul's wrath if I am allowed to express my opinion, that is their M.O.

Everything in my post above is common sense and ought to be obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention.   And it says nothing negative whatsoever about Merion.

Maybe I'll start a new thread.  The most obnoxious post ever!   I can think of a few I'd nominate.  

________________________________________________

Phillip,  I didn't call Mike a liar.   And TEPaul just explained to you that Wayne can do what he wants with the documents, and they have proven it over and over again, including just the other day when TEPaul was quoting directly from the minutes.  So lets not pretend that there are any restrictions on these documents that would keep them, one way or another, from using them.

Secondly, your entire response sounds more than a little paranoid. "Phillip I agree with you that it would certainly clarify things if I the minutes weren't being hidden from me, but I'd add that this is the very reason they are being hidden.   I mean come on, we are not fools, are we?" And "anything in those minutes that could be even remotely twisted to be used against my essay has already been brought forward And "given the way those documents have been selectively used to try and bring down my essay, the reason they have been hidden from me becomes very obvious."

TEPaul and Wayne Morrison have told me on numerous occassions that they would to everything they could to keep me from ever seeing those documents.  Others not affiliated with Merion have been allowed to see the documents, while I have been denied access.   So I don't quite think it is being paronoid to say they are hiding them from me.   

I would have been glad to allow my work to stand on its own merits, but I will not stand by while TEPaul continues his vendetta to thrash the essay and me.   

______________________________

Mike wants to rehash the same conversation we had for again and again and again.  I understand his position and mine is out there for him to understand or not.   Nothing productive comes from repeating the same conversation over and over again. Plus, I wanted to give Jim's process a chance.   

[Phil_the_Author]

Then I will follow my own advice and agree that I disagree with you and stay off this thread...

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the advice and you are probably correct, but I've never been one to sit back and let someone endlessly pummel me especially when they have no basis for so doing.  I've tried.  I've even quit posting for long periods.  But it goes on even when I am not around.  

If they want to say something about the essay in a coherent critique backed up by sound analysis and/or facts, then I am all ears.  But I'm not planning on sitting quietly taking shots, especially when TEPaul's entire purpose is to shut me up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

As the old joke goes, "Just because David is paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out to get him!"

I think both are true to a degree in this case.  There is no doubt that he happened to pick a research subject that just happens to have some very passionate defenders.  Thus, the pot shots come with the territory, I gather, not unlike being a gca and getting PO'ed when I get negative reviews.

Just out of curiosity, did you have any really negative reactions to anything you wrote about a Tillie course?  I have to imagine there was some where you broke traditional boundaries.  I also would love to hear from Tim Cronin how Medinah took his revelations that the rebuilding of Medinah No. 3 wasn't in reaction to a 63 by Harry Cooper, but in reality, a result of some shady land dealings that had seemingly been swept under the rug for generations.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Then I'll just conclude that you (and Tom MacWood) still somehow believe Merion was completely routed by Nov 1910 in which case I feel comfortable that I completely disproved that theory yesterday morning with verifiable facts and conclude there is nothing productive left to discuss with someone who still believes in the myth of some invisible, undocumented, unmentioned CB Macdonald routing for Merion that just mysteriously happened before 1911.

Jim,

Do you still believe these guys are looking for a productive discussion about Tolhurst and related events?

Seems like just another forum to attack strawmen and rail on about the unproven (hell, they don't even want to be challenged!)errors in Merion's history.

I knew this would be another big waste of time,

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Ironically, perhaps David may take some comfort in your tag line, thinking he may be on to something great and worthwhile since it was his original crazy idea.  You both fight him and inspire him with every post and tag line.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

The irony is that none of this even got interesting until 1911 when they started trying to place the holes...

Seems like a lot of trial and error to me and I think CBM got them on the right path.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree.  From memory, the facts are out there about how much time CBM spent on Merion, although there may be some unknown letters that could be found, indicating more involvement than anyone knows.

So, the debate is down, IMHO, to how much influence CBM had in those three days.  Merion certainly acknowledged the influence, but credited Wilson.  David and some others seem to feel he didn't get enough credit and Wilson got too much.  So, we aren't discussing facts anymore, just opinions and I doubt any one is going to change any one elses opinions.

I hope to see either the Barker routing (even though never used at least in full due to property changes) or any other material related to the NGLA visit, and maybe even those maps Hugh Wilson mentions to Oakley.  Those might be game changers.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

Yes, I have received negative comments about what I've written about Tilly. Not a single time did I ever believe that someone was specifically targeting me and out to get me. I shrug all of them off as I do with the OVERLY positive ones (there are more than a few of those and yes I actually do shrug them off). You can't do serious research and writing unless you can let that water run off your back.

There is no question that Tom has singled out David and that he has crossed a line by stating that he would follow him from thread to thread; I get it and have told him that he is wrong to do so. David knows I've told him this. In my opinion there actually is a shared singular problem between David and Tom in that they both see nothing but wrong in the other. That is why they both need to begin ignoring each other. I think it is safe to say that almost everyone who follows a thread where the two of them are in conflict begins reading any of their posts ALREADY LOOKING FOR THE FIGHT. As a result, they both have lost credibility in anything they are trying to say.

If they simply ignore each other, and by that I mean don't respond where the other states anything inflamatory, they may be able to get back to being able to discuss the issues. They might disagree always, but at least it won't be the personal train wreck that it has become. It will also allow for others to do the same and allow both to have their credibility restored to the high levels they both deserve.

One final note on "Vetting." You asked me to list some of those on this site that I believed could properly vet David's work. Included in the list was Ran. Since he officially published it I am of the opinion that the piece HAS been vetted. I also stated that I would have approved it if I vetted it as well. Again, vetting it simply is an affirmation that the research is properly done (that doesn't mean total but to the extent of what was available to him), well-written, thought out coherently in its conclusions (that does not mean that one agrees with the conclusions reached) and that it is worthy of serious discussion by means of its publishing.

For me, then, his piece has been properly vetted, though I can understand others who would disagree with that.

[DMoriarty]

Meanwhile, If anyone ever wants to bother to get back to Tolhurst . . .

Jim,

Not sure you if you caught it amid this endless discussion about the discussion about the discussion, but I've said what I think needs saying about those first few paragraphs in Tolhurst's account.  Do you think its time we moved on?    Or is there something more you want to explore dealing with this first bit?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

It (1911) really is where the meat is on any bone here.

I think there is plenty to explore in the timing and progression of known collaborative events, and there is indeed a rich documented trail here to follow and discuss, because indeed it seems to me that CBM did keep Wilson and his committee on course, or perhaps more accurately providing perhaps some mid-course correction, yet it seems that the meaningful events are sadly being lost in the clutter and refusal to concede even the most obvious of points.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

It (1911) really is where the meat is on any bone here.

I think there is plenty to explore in the timing and progression of known collaborative events, and there is indeed a rich documented trail here to follow and discuss, because indeed it seems to me that CBM did keep Wilson and his committee on course, or perhaps more accurately providing perhaps some mid-course correction, yet it seems that the meaningful events are sadly being lost in the clutter and refusal to concede even the most obvious of points.

Mike,  1911 has to be where the meat is on the bone for you, because according to Wilson, he wasn't even involved until then.   Whereas CBM had been involved since
Merion was trying to choose the land.  As for the clutter it is a product of your unwillingness to contain yourself to the topic, and Jeff's unwillingness to quit making this his bully pulpit to endlessly discuss how much I piss him off.   While Jim and I disagree, we (and occassionally TomM) seem to be the only ones remotely interested in addressing the topic at hand, so I really have no idea what the rest of you are even doing here.  

As for your continued pithy digs about what has or hasn't been conceded, give it a rest.  We disagree on what the available facts suggest happen in 1910.   You think that Merion announced they were purchasing an oddly shaped and specifically sized parcel without any inkling of how or even whether a golf course would definitely fit;  I think that they wouldn't have done so unless they had a pretty good idea of whether it would fit and how it would fit.   On that we disagree and you'll just have to live with that.  There is nothing about that disagreement that keeps us from moving on to 1911 and the most serious errors in Tolhurst.

[JESII]

David,

I think there is a real difference between the 1890's MCCGA and the 1910 version simply because the 1910 version was a formal corporation whereas the earlier version seems to have been the equivalent of a golf committee. Is 1909 meaningfully different than 1909? Not in my book...inaccurate, yes...meaningful, no.

The motivations for the move must be several but I clearly will not impress you with that...although I do think it's curious that the document you are using as sort of a current account of what happened with the clubs decision making and notification to members is written as a report of what they had done and sort of an invitation to join the new club...hardly a real time account of the reason(s) for the move. In that light, I think it's best to view that circular as a sales tool to encourage the Haverford membership to join the new golf facility going up in Ardmore. Why would they worry about any other reason for the move than..."this is a better deal financially over here in Ardmore so why don't you come along?"

Do you agree that the circular dated 11/15/1910 was a sales piece for the newly agreed upon location?


Mike,

For me personally, the time frame from June 1910 all the way through the final decision on a "Plan" is equally interesting...we just have sadly little on the first 4 months of that...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Where did the "oddly-configured" purchased and leased land differ from the historic boundaries of the Johnson Farm, the Dallas Estate, and the 3 acres of railroad land?

The only area to be determined by any routing considerations was the western border of the northeast(above ardmore ave)quadrant of the former Johnson Farm.  All of the rest of the boundaries were fixed, and the one in question got determined during spring 1911.  It also required them to buy 3 more acres than the 117 they originally secured.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I would argue that the timeframe in question was mostly spent trying to wrangle the Dallas Estate under HDC control, as it was obviously a valuable, contiguous piece of land to control for either golf or real estate purposes.

Why don't you believe Francis when he said that workmen were out there blasting a day or two after his brainstorm?  I've told you what I think he meant when he quoted the 130x190 dimensions.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  that is off topic and was thoroughly covered in past discussions.  Perhaps instead of derailing this conversation you should reread those past threads.

Jim, I don't think it was a committee, but rather an association of the golfing members of the club.   And it remained that way until it broke away.  Incorporation didn't change this, it just made it easier to organize the purchase.

I assume you mean late 1890s compared to 1909.  To you it may not seem like a big difference, but in terms of the history of golf at Merion these were different times .

More to the point, Jim, is that frankly Tolhurst seems pretty confused about all of this.  He seems to think that MCCGA was a committee created to study the Ball' and find a new site.  It wasn't.  Yours strike me as after the fact justifications relying on theories that have nothing to do with what he wrote.  Or am I wrong about this?

[JESII]

Or am I wrong about this?

Would you accept a simple yes?





Seriously though, there is a very big difference and distinction between an intra-club association/committee of golfers and a formal corporation...that you cannot see this or accept it continues to baffle me. I amnot going to bother hypothsizing about what Tolhurst may have been looking at with regard to hard data on the rationale for the move so I am happy to move on from that portion.

I would like an answer, though, to my question about the 11/15/1910 circular being a sales piece soliciting members as opposed to a documentation of why the move to Ardmore was being executed. I know it's a shift, but I never really thought about the letter like that before, and it certainly doesn't prove there are other reasons for the move beyond financial, just curious about your interpretation of the letter.


Mike,

I know what you would argue and what you think happened...it just doesn't make a little bit of sense to me for these guys to buy the property they did without knowing where the golf course was generally going to go. I'm not suggesting a final, exact plan for the course, just a good idea of the routing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()