[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Once again you are being more than a bit disingenuous. This is exactly what I wrote, copied directly from my post on "page 3":

"Yes, I have the dates for all of those courses including the actual opening days for a number of them. I know you're getting tired of hearing my "no" answer to if I'll share because of the timeline i'm working on, but I'm getting close to finishing it and when published I am sure that it will be the subject of much discussion. I will say that every date I give will be totally verifiable and the timeline will come complete with ciotations and notations..."

I gave more than enough specific information that you chose to ignore or disagree with, both of which you had the right to do. A "double standard" would require that you must accept it. You choose not to and don't and THAT is the GCA standard and one that I also go by.

I will reiterate what I said and if you want to call it a "double standard" or hypocritical do so and I'll support your right to your opinion of it.

When I am finished with my tilly timeline and feel that it is ready to present I will do so. It will first be published on the Tillinghast Association website and then, I am sure, it will be discussed and argued over on here. Until then you can do one of two things, either hold your breath and wait or do your own research and publish your own timeline...

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, by the way, I would guess that you must also consider David's refusal to answer legitimate questions and hold back information to ALSO be part of the GCA "double standard" otherwise you are acknowledging one of your own...

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Once again you are being more than a bit disingenuous. This is exactly what I wrote, copied directly from my post on "page 3":

"Yes, I have the dates for all of those courses including the actual opening days for a number of them. I know you're getting tired of hearing my "no" answer to if I'll share because of the timeline i'm working on, but I'm getting close to finishing it and when published I am sure that it will be the subject of much discussion. I will say that every date I give will be totally verifiable and the timeline will come complete with ciotations and notations..."

I gave more than enough specific information that you chose to ignore or disagree with, both of which you had the right to do. A "double standard" would require that you must accept it. You choose not to and don't and THAT is the GCA standard and one that I also go by.

I will reiterate what I said and if you want to call it a "double standard" or hypocritical do so and I'll support your right to your opinion of it.

When I am finished with my tilly timeline and feel that it is ready to present I will do so. It will first be published on the Tillinghast Association website and then, I am sure, it will be discussed and argued over on here. Until then you can do one of two things, either hold your breath and wait or do your own research and publish your own timeline...

Phil
Whatever you say. Anyone can go back to the early pages and read what actually happened, including the information I presented that seem to conflict with your information. It sounds like you are still gathering the information, which is likely why you refused to answer my question in the first place. You don't have the supporting documentation.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom, by the way, I would guess that you must also consider David's refusal to answer legitimate questions and hold back information to ALSO be part of the GCA "double standard" otherwise you are acknowledging one of your own...

Yes I do.

[TEPaul]

"Phil
You are a part of the double standard I was referring to, and ironically a good example can be found earlier on this thread (page 3). I asked you for examples of courses Tilly designed or redesigned that were not listed on his pamphlet. You listed a number of courses but when I asked for more specific information you refused."



Tom MacWood:

When you said the above apparently you did not read Phil's Post #482 just above your remarks very carefully. He gave good reasons for refusing to give out information in particular circumstances and at particular times. I'm not sure whether it's a matter of the fact you just don't agree with him or that you don't understand him.

Unfortunately for you I think at this point just about everyone on this website does understand what he's saying in this vein and agrees with him and not with you about a double standard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To end this spat, the need for the production of source material should be the same for everyone.

If that hasn't been the case in the past, it should be the case going forward.

[TEPaul]

"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."

Obviously something happened in 1917, if its not going out on his own what was it? What does post graduate mean? If he was an undergraduate prior to 1917, doesn't that indicate he was still working under the tutelage of the professor?"



Tom MacWood:

Not to me it doesn't. Perhaps you should try reading what Macdonald actually said again and considering it more carefully.

To me Macdonald said Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture by the time (when he mentioned 'By this time') the St. Louis, White Sulfur Springs and finally the Lido projects were underway and which Raynor worked on with CBM. When did those projects begin and when did Raynor begin working on them? All before 1917 and in every case well before 1917 such as 1914 and 1915!

After that Macdonald mentions that after 1917 Raynor built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses which Macdonald only mentioned he had never seen with the exception of the six courses he listed last which he said were the only ones he gave his personal attention to while working on them with Raynor. That would be Mid-Ocean, Yale, The Links, Gibson Island, Deepdale and The Creek.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

This is a discussion board and that is all. Even the "In My Opinion" pieces have no requirement for source attrributions.

Tom,

Once again, I support your right to say and believe, "It sounds like you are still gathering the information, which is likely why you refused to answer my question in the first place. You don't have the supporting documentation..."

As is the usual case, you also happen to be VERY mistaken.

[Adam_Messix]

Tom--

Thank you for the information.

All--

I understand where both sides are coming from.  If there is a book or a more formal introduction in the works, then let's wait.  All of these researchers have put a lot of time and effort whether it be Raynor/MacDonald, Tillinghast, Flynn; etc and if they have a desired method for presenting the material, I think that's their perogative.  None of us here have a right to the material before anyone else.  Also, whenever new material that could updend year's of club tradition becomes unearthed, it has to be carefully presented, particularly to the clubs themselves because THEY are the ones who have the most vested interest in it.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

That's not my point.

You can't take one person to task for not producing sources and give another a pass for not producing sources.

The standards have to be applied equitably, not selectively.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I completely agree when you said "You can't take one person to task for not producing sources and give another a pass for not producing sources. The standards have to be applied equitably, not selectively." That is why I have never taken anyone to task for not producing sources. In my example of David I made certain to include that I supported his right not to show his work or portions of it until he chose to.

You, though, seem to be advocating that one MUST show sources when you state, "To end this spat, the need for the production of source material should be the same for everyone. If that hasn't been the case in the past, it should be the case going forward."

Consider, too, the bigger picture. If all have to include source material then almost nothing will ever be able to be posted or discussed on here. Again, this is a discussion board and not a serious published journal that would require sources, footnotes, etc... If George Bahto makes a statement about Raynor I would expect it to be correct because I have deep respect for all of his research. If I believe him to be mistaken I will approach him in a respectful manner in questioning it. It is this lack of respect for each other that is the problem.

Not to pick on Tom, but he actually called me a liar just a few posts back. In response to his ascertion about what I stated early on in this thread I quoted my response:

"Yes, I have the dates for all of those courses including the actual opening days for a number of them. I know you're getting tired of hearing my "no" answer to if I'll share because of the timeline i'm working on, but I'm getting close to finishing it and when published I am sure that it will be the subject of much discussion. I will say that every date I give will be totally verifiable and the timeline will come complete with ciotations and notations..."

Did he respond with anything approaching a "I'll just wait" or "Please hurry and finish so we can see" or anything at all approaching respect? NO!

His response: "Phil, Whatever you say. Anyone can go back to the early pages and read what actually happened, including the information I presented that seem to conflict with your information. It sounds like you are still gathering the information, which is likely why you refused to answer my question in the first place. You don't have the supporting documentation."

The man flat out called me a LIAR! I didn't make a point of it earlier but Pat, the problem isn't one of not sharing and proving; it is clearly a problem of lack of respect. Frankly, Tom owes me an apology for that comment but I certainly don't expect that one will be forthcoming.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Phil is right. This isn't about the production of source material on some seemingly equitable or shared basis for all. I don't see that any of us have demanded the production of source material from others to support anything and everything said on this discussion forum.

The constant demand for shared source material for all pretty much only came from or comes from the likes of Moriarty and MacWood on here. In this way, Moriarty tried to turn this discussion group into something like a court of law with its concomitant "Discovery" process (the prosecution and defense sides cannot place into a trial or into the trial record any material evidence without giving the other side a chance to review it first and effectively respond to it when it is placed into evidence).

This website and its DG and "In My Opinion" sections is not anything like a court of law with its concommitant "Discovery" process and requirement and should never be made to be that way or looked at that way.

So why have both Moriarty and MacWood tried to make it seem that way on here for so long?

I would say because to them that is probably the only way they think they would be able to see and analyze material they don't seem to be able to get and consider on their own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

You said,

"You, though, seem to be advocating that one MUST show sources when you state",

"To end this spat, the need for the production of source material should be the same for everyone. If that hasn't been the case in the past, it should be the case going forward."

That's NOT what I'm advocating, although, production of sources adds credibility to one's position.

I am advocating fair and equitable treatment.

One can't demand that Tom MacWood produce his sources when he presents a theory or opinion and then abandon the same demand when someone presents a position to the contrary.

[TEPaul]

"One can't demand that Tom MacWood produce his sources when he presents a theory or opinion and then abandon the same demand when someone presents a position to the contrary."


Pat:

I'm not sure I can recall anyone demanding more source material from Tom MacWood. If anything he seems to produce too much source material to support his arguments and theses. To some of us he seems to think the sheer quantity of research or source material in some way supports his argument or thesis while to some of us it appears it is only semi-relevent or even just plain irrelevent to his thesis or attempted conclusion. A good example of that, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of others, was his Arts and Crafts essay. I think that was why an intelligent reader and reviewer such as Rich Goodale labeled that essay "all smoke and no fire" and another intelligent reader and reviewer and writer labeled it a classic example of "positivism."

I don't think any of us have demanded more source material from him; we only mentioned that what he did produce did not really help support his case, conclusions or thesis and generally because his assumptions, conclusions and theses are just historically fairly wrong. To me that is basically because even if he really is a good research producer his analytical skills of what his research materials actually says or indicates is quite poor.

Or to put into a short phrase----eg he's a good quantitative raw historical research producer/poor historical qualitative analyst.


On the other hand, Pat, I acknowledge your point and I agree with it, and I understand the point your advocating; it's just that the point your advocating above is not the same point as my point or our point on this thread.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I think you completely missed the boat on this one. I am NOT demanding or asking Tom Macwood to produce his sources. I have NEVER asked him to, not on this thread nor any other. NEVER! On the other hand, HE IS DEMANDING that I do and then when I choose not to for my own good reasons accuses me of LYING about having had the documentation in the first place!

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Philip

It always seem to be a one sided affair when dealing with proving source material, yet I would love to see the proof that actually states and proves that those who object are correct. There never seems to be any as it is generally based upon opinion rather than facts.

I am all for helping pass on information but feel it is now a waste of time. Peoples seem to prefer their set agendas rather than real facts of what actually happened.

So rather than you proving the point, others should be required to proved their statement giving   their reasons and supporting information to assist their case.

None of us are above making mistakes, but it’s also down to others to disprove.

Keep your info to yourself until you feel the time is right to disclose it.

Melvyn   

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Again, Phil's right. Maybe you haven't missed the boat; maybe it's just that you are on another boat than we are.

MacWood has accused Phil of lying or being a liar and about material that MacWood seems to suggest he has never even seen (presumably because for various good and logical reasons Phil has refused to provide it to him or to provide it immediately at the time he demands it).

MacWood and Moriarty have accused me of lying or being a liar too (MacWood said that to me again on this very thread) or even of altering original documents of Merion's when in fact he and they (Moriarty and MacWood) have never even seen those documents, so how would they ever even know what they actually say or don't say?

To me that is a pretty clever attempted trick or ploy on their part or else just plain dialectic bullshit!

Too bad you can't recognize it or apparently even understand it. Does it have anything to do with the fact you have never really tried to establish a good working relationship with some of these clubs either, such as Merion or Pine Valley or Shinnecock, or....----and for that reason alone your inclination, like theirs, is to just demand the material from us so you can see it and consider it?

[Tom_Doak]

Amazing to me that a thread about NORTH SHORE C.C. could generate 500 posts.  Which all goes to show it's about the individuals, and not about the actual topic.

BTW, I'm headed to North Shore the end of next week to try and sort out what can and will be done.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think you completely missed the boat on this one. I am NOT demanding or asking Tom Macwood to produce his sources. I have NEVER asked him to, not on this thread nor any other. NEVER! On the other hand, HE IS DEMANDING that I do and then when I choose not to for my own good reasons accuses me of LYING about having had the documentation in the first place!

Phil,

My use of Tom MacWood's name was a mistake on my part.

My comments weren't meant to be a Tom MacWood versus insert name

My comments were intended to create a uniform standard, not to pit one position against another.

I believe that "Credibility" is increased when supporting documentation is produced.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

You're right this thread is amazing in its endurance but you have to remember it happened in two basic parts and times----the original question of George Bahto, some discussion of the mystery of why some of it looks so much like Raynor while being attributed to Tillinghast, then a hiatus of about six weeks followed by a reprisal after Steve Shaeffer's important discovery of the material in the New York Historical Society. It probably should have ended shortly after that as no new important material has been generated in the ensuing ten pages after Shaeffer's discovery of the club records back then attributing the design of the course to Raynor.

[Mac Plumart]

I don't even think it is about North Shore per se any more.  It is about process and credibility and how those things can be applied in this research effort and others.

Another thing that I think is obvious, but it appears not everyone sees it, is that if you all work together as a team you can find out the answers in a very efficient manner.  But if you post curt, hostile, antagonistic, accusatory, questions/comments then it appears to be Member X versus Member Y rather than Member X working with Member Y to refine the research efforts/process to find the truth.

Perhaps it is just me, but the most successful endeavors I have been a part of always start with a team of passionate people dedicated to a common cause that spend their time helping each other out.

Just some thoughts...take'em or leave'em.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

All true; couldn't agree with you more. However, to make any of these kinds of investigations successful ultimately, that team of collaborating people pretty much need to start by establishing a relationship with the golf club first, as Steve Shaeffer did before making this important material find public. This is the thing that apparently everyone on here sees and understands except Tom MacWood who has pretty much just continued to avoid addressing the importance of that issue altogether.

[Mac Plumart]

 Tom...I can't see how you are wrong on that one. 

I don't do golf course architecture research for a living...I do investment analysis and portfolio management.  If I am going to review company X for investment purposes, I go straight to their records first (annual report, 10-Q, proxy statement, etc).  If I have questions on their reporting, I call the company and ask questions.  It only seems reasonable, as they are the ones who know what they put in their reports/statements and they know why.

Now, if I disagree with their accounting, reporting, etc...I have other ways to slice and dice their information and check/verify my own thoughts.  If I don't like what I see, I sell or short.  If I do like it, I buy.

Perhaps, in the golf course architectural world rather than buy or sell, you look for other sources of information to prove or disprove aspects of the clubs records you doubt.  Perhaps newspapers are a way to get information.  But I do know that newspapers do not always have the story correct.  My junior year in high school I led our team to a win in the state tournament with a bases loaded double.  In the paper the next day, it had a write up on me but the picture posted (which had my name under it) wasn't me...also in basketball, I remember the paper reporting I scored 8 points one game when in fact I scored 12.  Newspapers aren't always right...despite their best efforts.

And then, as Pat Mucci stated...sometimes golf course modifications happen miraculously overnight!  No record of it, no committee meetings, no nothing.  Amazingly bunkers get deeper one night.  Or trees appear out of the blue during tournament play...think Inverness.

This is why I think working together to research and vet information is the best way to go.  Help each other out...which is what I see most of you all doing. 

Anyway, I'll shut up now...as I am tired and hitting the rack soon.  I just think this stuff is fascinating and I would like to see the full potential of your guys work fulfilled...not sidetracked.

Later!

[TEPaul]

"Anyway, I'll shut up now..."


Mac:

Yeah, me too. TD said he was going to the club this week to look things over. The club has some important original architect attribution material in their possession now and a good team formed with Mark Hissey to consider it all. This thread veered into other areas where it probably shouldn't have gone such as Mountain Lake, relief models and what Macdonald meant in his autobiography about Raynor in 1917 and such.

[Tom MacWood]

"Obviously something happened in 1917, if its not going out on his own what was it? What does post graduate mean? If he was an undergraduate prior to 1917, doesn't that indicate he was still working under the tutelage of the professor?"



Tom MacWood:

Not to me it doesn't. Perhaps you should try reading what Macdonald actually said again and considering it more carefully.

To me Macdonald said Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture by the time (when he mentioned 'By this time') the St. Louis, White Sulfur Springs and finally the Lido projects were underway and which Raynor worked on with CBM. When did those projects begin and when did Raynor begin working on them? All before 1917 and in every case well before 1917 such as 1914 and 1915!

After that Macdonald mentions that after 1917 Raynor built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses which Macdonald only mentioned he had never seen with the exception of the six courses he listed last which he said were the only ones he gave his personal attention to while working on them with Raynor. That would be Mid-Ocean, Yale, The Links, Gibson Island, Deepdale and The Creek.

"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."

TEP

St. Louis, White Sulfur and Lido all began before 1917, but you still haven't explained what post graduate means. What does it mean? What happened in 1917, how did their working relationship change?

Also how do projects not mentioned, like Shinnecock Hills, Sleepy Hollow, Greenwich, Blind Brook, Piping Rock and CC of Fairfield, fit into to their working relationship, are they undergraduate projects or post graduate projects?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()