Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: George Pazin on February 15, 2005, 09:45:57 AM
-
in every thread?
It's getting tiresome and childish.
I hope by the time Ran deletes this thread that everyone will look inside himself and think about what brought us all together and understand that we can each have different opinions, approaches and motivations and still respect each other. It doesn't mean we have to have agreement and backslapping, but I think some modicum of respect without the snide remarks is in order.
No smiley this time, unless someone can tell me which of those smileys reflects disappointment.
-
Screw you George. Steelers suck! Pirates blow themselves! Oakmont is an overrated piece of shit! Black Mesa is the greatest course ever conceived and anyone who doesn't see that is dumber than a doorknob!
;D ;D ;D
Lightening up sounds good to me. And I am not talking to YOU, obviously. You are just the messenger.
On the other hand, when has this site - and it's predecessors - ever NOT had a certain amount of potshots?
TH
-
George,
I agree completely. For my part, no more off-topic sarcasm in discussions of which I'm not a key participant. And I hope to show more restraint in the threads in which I am closely involved.
It's funny how the sort of thing that can be all in good fun in small doses gradually takes on a life of it on to the detriment of ones real purpose in being a member of the forum.
-
George, It'd be helpful to site any recent examples of what you're calling potshots.
Is it possible that the discourse is stimulated when passions are enflamed? Similar to the flask in the back pocket theory, yet different. Aren't their copies of a certain book selling on Ebay for hundreds of dollars that many felt where potshots?
It's evident that complacency breeds mediocrity, or do it?
-
Brent: good points. Only there is a fine line between self-censorship and restraint and having fun. I'd hate it if this site became SO rigid that I couldn't tell George the Steelers suck (even though I don't believe that).
One thing DOES need to be taken to heart: one can only use sarcasm and what I call shit-giving with people with whom he has a solid friendship first. It's fine and dandy to say "I meant it in good humor and you should have understood that"... But if you have to say that, well... the receiver obviously did not understand it that way.
So Brent you are right in one sense - I think one ought to err on the side of caution before one makes shit-giving comments.
On the other hand, I feel safe in saying the Steelers suck to George. Hell we've only met in person once, but it's funny how not much face to face time is required to achieve the friendship level such that shit can be given.
I feel safe in saying ANYTHING to Dave Schmidt, as he can and should to me....
I don't feel this way with everyone though - I am human and my skin isn't elephant-hide thick...
So I know how this goes.
TH
-
The thing that brought the issue to mind for me yesterday was when I found myself interjecting a totally off-topic bit of general sarcasm into a topic that I had not contributed to. I was reading the responses and a comment that seemed witty at the moment popped into mind so I posted it. That just adds to the noise level with no possible benefit (and it wasn't particularly funny, in fact). Just a sloppy habit on my part that needed a bit of pruning back.
-
Brent: OK, makes sense. But I'll take 25 of your saracastic fun asides over 50 rigidly serious posts about arcane issues in golf course architecture....
But that is likely just me. I guess most people want the 50 rigidly serious posts. So you're right, best to err on that side. Methinks I need to take that to heart a bit also.
Nah. What the hell am I thinking? I couldn't do it even if I tried.
;D
-
I don't want rigidly serious posts - I seriously doubt anyone does.
I'll try to create an example. I have had discussions at length with Matt Ward about Black Mesa (Huck's favorite course listed above). We differ greatly on our opinion of this course, specifically as it relates to high handicappers. We have argued about this on the public side of the site and the private side of the site. Some of it has even gotten kind of heated. I don't think either of us even remotely influenced the other's opinion. There is nothing wrong with any of that.
If I were posting on a mildly related thread, say about some other desert course, and I said something like "yeah, it would be nice if that long hitting guy in NJ had a clue about high handicappers", that would be an unwarrranted potshot that only serves to lessen the site.
Read what I've written on virtually any of the purist threads - disagreement is fine, disagreement is needed.
Potshots aren't disagreement, they are childish.
-
George: understood. But if it were you and me having this debate - which we did, about Black Mesa - I'd be somewhat bummed if you DIDN'T make a comment to the effect of "well what the hell does a short fat California supposed to be low-handicapper know about higher handicappers from Pittsburgh anyway."
And that's my point. Time and a place for everything. So yes, with Matt, you were likely wise to keep it on the higher plane. One can learn a lot from him, even if one disagrees with him (as I do all the time). And perhaps with him, these potshots detract rather than add.
On the other hand, there is a place for friends having fun with friends, no?
In any case it is best to err on the serious side, I guess. Why does a thread like this make me a bit sad, though?
TH
-
On that thread it would be fine. Repeatedly on multiple other threads is beyond the pale, IMHO.
This has nothing to do with humor and everything to do with respecting others' efforts, even if you disagree with them.
-
OK George, I get it.
But it's like I said as well: time and place for everything. And yes, a little does go a long way.
I just do get scared when censorship is called for. Oh, I am all for respecting others efforts even if one disagrees with them; that is fundamental courtesy.
I just don't see many transgressions of that happening here - not compared to other places on the internet, anyway. You ought to go to a college basketball discussion group some time... This place is positively monk-like compared to those.
Then again, I tend to stay out of all threads that feature the word "purist". Perhaps that explains my light attitude?
;)
-
George, whether they are witty rye little potshots attempting to point out flaws in someone's offered opinions with humor, or great essays of studious writing talent, the critique is essential in a intellectual discussion, IMHO. Yet, as you seem to point out, a potshot can sting, particularly if aimed at one who is not prepared for it.
I guess I might be one of those who recently was chastened for an attempt at a humorous potshot at a relatively new poster to this group, when he courageously put up a routing schematic of a school project. My potshot was not meant to be malicious in the least, yet another poster took offense. I hope I explained myself to the gentleman in a follow-up post.
Perhaps that is why netiqette has always warned those wishing to enter discussion groups that the "newbie" should read the discussion board for a while and try to get a sense of the personalities, before jumping into the fray. Obviously, I know you to be a very wise and thoughtful poster because I have been happily reading you thoughts for years. I wouldn't take offense to anything you say, because I know you to be a gentleman. That along the lines that Huck points out...
I think you have to admit that GCA is one of the real shining stars of the INternet in terms of long running and substantive on-going discussion of an artistically oriented and historical topic that can at times become very subtle and nuanced. We often see gentlemen (so rare the ladies have joined in) who are really similar in passion for the subject, get to steaming loggerheads over subtleties. That is intellectual discourse, IMO. That is how we learn.
The real mark of a serious gentleman or lady who wishes to advance the topic and body of knowledge is the one that can stand in the fire, subject their work or thoughts to scrutiny, and have enough confidence and commitment to suffer a few slings and arrows. Further, the one that can take someone elses potshots or reasoned criticism to heart and change their point of view indicates the true scholar of the subject.
It sort of reminds me of the recent advent in our modern age of grade inflation at the so-called hallowed halls of higher learning, as has been exposed at places like Harvard. Professors are reportedly loath to give anything below a B. Where are the John Houseman figures of this age? Do they all have to be Mr Novaks? (warning, time senstitive reference there... ;D ::) )
I think we long time posters here all have seen where an individual sometimes goes too far in relentless potshots. The trouble is, some of those gents that are notorious for relentless onsloughts of criticism and potshots, know their beans, and back up what they say. That is all we can hope for, rather than the blithering idiots that occasionally have wandered through here, fired up some boorish posts, and then left, thankfully. Some I believe were even IP banned by Ran, also thankfully. You know who they were...
I say, load em up, and fire away... just try to use an emoticon once in a while to show collegiality and respect to the group who collectively give us an audience and mission to advance the knowledge of the main topic, GCA. :)
-
Dick is right
There is crap written on this site (even by yours truly! :o) and it should be cryit down. Just one excedption--"Everybody Sucks up to Huckabees" ;)
-
I think it would be nice to see Huck limit himself to something like five posts a day...I'm just a little fed up with his constant yapping on about nothing.
-
JK - no chance my friend. And sorry, but you too have reached that "friend" status where very little you say can piss me off. Oh, I surely don't want to challenge you, because with your creativity I am sure you could find SOMETHING that does so. Just do realize you're gonna have to work harder than this.
TH
-
Be careful Huck, Barney might make you his cherry shot of the day on his blog! :o ;D
-
Be careful Huck, Barney might make you his cherry shot of the day on his blog! :o ;D
That's what I meant by saying I surely don't want to challenge him. ;D
-
RJ,
I'm just trying to give Huck some friendly advice, I think the guy has alot to contribute here but he often waters it down with his ongoing muckity muck to a point that everything he says resembles the ramblings of a twelve year old girl. It's pretty and everything but there just isn't anything to hold on to...
-
RJ,
I'm just trying to give Huck some friendly advice, I think the guy has alot to contribute here but he often waters it down with his ongoing muckity muck to a point that everything he says resembles the ramblings of a twelve year old girl. It's pretty and everything but there just isn't anything to hold on to...
JK:
And I appreciate the advice. I shall take it to heart. I am the first to admit I do tend to ramble. But I also believe my good outweighs my bad.
There's just no way in god's green earth I am going to be limited to five posts a day, on any day I am near a computer anyway. But take heart, weekends are nearly always Huckaby-free.
TH
-
Huck,
How about fifty posts a week....do you think you could work with that..
-
George is not asking for censorship. He is simply asking that we treat each other with respect. Moreover, I don't believe he is asking that we refrain from the good natured needling that inevitably arises when friends engage in argument over a long period of time. In my view, those who are unable to laugh at themselves are likely to be both boring and dangerous.
However, recently there have been a number of posts where the invective has risen well beyond the level of friendly kidding and has bordered on personal attacks. While none of us should take ourselves too seriously and overreact to such statements, by the same token we should all be cognizant that the success of the board depends on our ability to continue to talk to each other. This is not a call for censorship or political correctness. It is an appeal to something far more old fashioned; something we used to call good manners.
Before I begin to sound too much like a little old lady ( how's that for being politically incorrect?) let me add that personal attacks as a rule don't add anything to an argument. To the contrary they generally reflect frustration and detract from the message being delivered. In my days as a debater and in the courtroom I have welcomed such attacks because it usually means the other side has nothing important to say.
As for me, call me anything you like. I have a thick skin and I've probably heard it before.
-
GeorgeP:
Generally I agree with the things you say on here but perhaps not this time. If by potshots you're referring to the interchanges recently betwen the likes of myself and perhaps Wayne Morrison with Tom MacWood I don't agree about potshots. Sure it's been harsh at times but in my opinion that emanates for Tom MacWood's unwillingness or maybe inablity to defend the things he says on here, his own opinions but particularly one fact he presented that he had proof for.
That of course is Tom MacWood's statement of Crump's suicide. The story behind how he thinks he established that fact is a recent one that all in all could be termed nothing more than really messy at this point. Essentially the man he claimed to me told him he has proof of that has vociferously denied ever saying that to Tom MacWood. That may be a situation that never does have clear resolution, at least not on here.
But the primary reason I may've gotten a bit rough on here with Tom that caused others to worry about potshots is that Tom will not discuss on here why he thinks a Crump suicide rather than sudden death from poison from a tooth abscess has any significance whatsoever regarding the architecture of PV, who did what and whats been attributed to whom.
I think that unwllingness to respond effectively to an opinion or statement like that is the reason things have gotten a bit rough. This is not a personal attack on Tom though, only some tough questioning about his statement and his unwillingness or inabilty to answer questions about it.
By the way, we both have spoken to Ran about all this in the last few days, he's aware of it and as I hoped he would, Ran said go ahead and stick to tough questioning if you want to, because ultimately that's what he thinks GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is all about, and should be. That's what Ran Morrissett wants it to be and always has.
Tom MacWood apparently wants to tell a story about Crump, probably the manner in which he died and PVGC's creation evolution. I say let him do it---I encourage him to do it, I just told Ran that, and I hope he does a great job of it!
But if he doesn't it's my hope that I will be here to critique it because there's one thing I'm absolutely 100% sure of and that is that Tom MacWood does not know the creation evolution of PVGC anywhere near as well as I do and he never will unless he goes there for his first time and begins to understand that golf course IN PERSON as well as I do.
Sure he can use photographs from back then against today or any time but that will never remotely take the place of about 25 years of experience there. That's one of the most important and fundamental points I can make and I will continue to with anyone who thinks otherwise, including Tom MacWood.
I know someone like David Moriarty will probably chime in here and call the fact that I say constantly that MacWood has never been there is a personal potshot at MacWood.
It's nothing of the kind, and I feel the same way about his analysis of the Aronimink bunker project---it's a most important opinion of mine that I firmly believe is a virtual necessity if one wants to write a comprehensively accurate creation evolution story of any golf course.
If that's a potshot, then I've taken them, and I'll continue to with Ran Morrissett's encouragement!
-
JK:
I'll do that when you promise to make every one of your posts strictly about architecture, and unfailingly positive in tone.
Does the world really want that from either of us? Would that be a net positive? Sure as hell not, as I see it...
We all have our roles. Yours is to be an intelligent eccentric who hits at the heart of matters with laser-like precision. Mine is to be a nice guy who knows a little about the Bay Area but not much about other places, though has been around a little and is willing to comment when asked.
If this is so wrong, well... I don't really care. But I do understand the critique, and will be careful not to overwhelm with volume. But jeez, you have to believe me, there are SO many things I stay the hell out of as it is... don't begrudge me having fun with friends, and commenting on the few things in which I can add some knowledge.
TH
-
George is not asking for censorship. He is simply asking that we treat each other with respect. Moreover, I don't believe he is asking that we refrain from the good natured needling that inevitably arises when friends engage in argument over a long period of time. In my view, those who are unable to laugh at themselves are likely to be both boring and dangerous.
Shel - understood. I was just trying to point out that it's a very fine line, tough to determine... and we do continue to need people who can laugh at themselves.
But sage counsel and wisdom, once again.
TH
-
When I started work at Intel in 1978, they told us about a policy in the company called "Constructive Confrontation." This policy was one where you could disagree as strongly as you felt was needed as long as you did it in a way that was not offensive and that the confrontation was intended to move the discussion forward as opposed to simply being confrontive.
Here is a quote from an article in Fast Company about Intel's policy:
Intel takes ideas seriously too -- so much so that it subjects them to a trial by fire. The company even includes a segment on "constructive confrontation" in the training that it offers all new hires. The class teaches employees how to rip into one another's ideas without actually ripping into one another. "We have this common way to disagree, and that gives us speed," says Michael Fors, 37, a comanager of Intel University and an instructor for the course. "We don't spend time being defensive or taking things personally. We cut through all of that and get to the issues."
I think that this would be a useful concept here. Of course, teasing should still be acceptable.
-
Huck,
I'm just using you as an easy example to prove that potshots are necessary on this site. Everybody know you yap on and on at levels that drive most people crazy...and everybody knows that Geoffrey was right on certain levels that I do make a mockery of the study of Golf Course Architecture and should be banned from this most worthy site...just not everybody has the courage to stand up and say it. Sure, you're a yappy sack and I'm a jerk wad..and if thats good for golf, so be it..I just doubt it.
-
JK:
I am proud to serve as your easy example.
I just don't see any of what is said in here being good, or bad, for golf. The game will survive, or not, no matter what gets said in this forum.
In any case, Geoffrey was right that you make a mockery out of the study of golf course architecture - AT TIMES. But you make your contributions to such as well. If one was to say that I yap on at levels that drive people crazy, well he'd be right about that as well. But I believe I make my contributions also.
The bottom line though is that it always has been, and continues to be, my feeling that the study of golf course architecture NEEDS to be mocked from time to time... and yapping among friends also NEEDS to happen. Because good lord if all this gets taken too seriously, with no sense of humor and nothing but fights to the death, well I don't think that's good for golf either. Certainly the study of this is not even close than worth losing a friendship over.
But then again, I go back to the feeling that nothing that gets said in here is gonna matter a whole hell of a lot anyway.
So mock on. I shall yap on. Hopefully readers can separate the wheat from the chaff. If not, then lightening up is sage advice.
TH
-
Thank you, Shel. I am somewhat heartened to see that the person I consider the most thoughtful individual on the site seems to be the one person who understands what I'm trying to say.
Tom P -
I'll come right out and say it. I am really frustrated at what has been transpiring between you, Wayne and Tom. You three are flat out three of my favorite posters on the site. Not too many people know this, but when I first printed the t shirts, I sent out a select few unsolicited to posters that I really enjoyed. You and Tom were the first two to get them, after Ran, of course.
I get the fact that you three have serious disagreements. I especially get the fact that you are angered over Tom's comments re: Crump, and I believe your criticism of him in this issue is completely warranted.
What I don't get is this - this is the remark that prompted this thread:
I admire Geoff's willingness to say what he thinks and present it so well. Combined with an incredibly well thought out and well researched viewpoint; it is as good as it gets. He is a wonderful advocate for much of what we all believe in. And he's been there too, he knows it as well as anyone; an important ingredient that ought to be considered by Ohio armchair analysts.
Is it really necessary for Wayne to take a shot a Tom while complementing Geoff? In my opinion, no. Does it really add anything to the site? Again, IMO, no.
We all have different reasons for being here, we all have different motivations for saying what we say, posting what we post. We all have different methods for developing our ideas.
But does it really add anything to take a shot like this?Heck, I could understand it if it were JK, who seems to pride himself on getting a rise out of others.
But is it really necessary to keep on taking shots on any thread where there is a possibility of a shot? Maybe you guys feel it is, but I would guess that I'm not the only one out there who would apprecitate it if folks could at least limit the cheap shots to threads where people are actually disagreeing about something.
Dave M and I have had our share of disagreements, mostly over political things. But I don't feel the need to include a shot at his wacko :) views everytime I post.
Challenging someone's posts is not what I'm talking about.
Ribbing a friend is not what I'm talking about.
I'm not saying we all need to get along - I'm just tired of the ad hominem attacks (thanks for the words, Shel).
-
I love this website and DG (for my sins it is always the first thing I log into) and had assembled a heartfelt and exhaustive Post explaining why. At the last moment, I baulked and decided instead to allow greater men than I to illustrate:
"Cut to a quayside. John and Michael, dressed in tropical gear. John stands still while Michael dances up and down before him to the jolly music of Edward German. Michael holds two tiny fish and from time to time in the course of the dance he slaps John lightly, across the cheeks with them. The music ends; Michael stops dancing. John produces a huge great fish and swipes Michael with it. Michael falls off the quay into the water."
About as important and vital as 90% of discussion on Golf Course Architecture. QED.
FBD.
-
George:
Believe me, I understood your point straight from the start also.
But at first, you didn't want to name names.
Thus I took it in a different direction, which I do consider valid.
I also am proud of you for the good-natured dig at Dave M. See, I didn't think your take was that all stuff like that needs to be eliminated, but the careful way you phrased on this in your first post on this topic made me unsure.
TH
-
George,
I'm with you. When I first joined the group the artillery was pretty active. I love humor, but everyone knows when they've crossed the line.
What bugs me the most is when several members start a personal conversation on thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It's almost like a filibuster and the thread gets so far off track that it's lost. That shows a lot of disrespect to the poster.
Thanks for bringing it up.
-
Mark:
1. No, not everyone does know when they've crossed the line. Thus George's advice takes on added importance.
2. Sure threads do get off track, but not THAT often. So I guess this too does need to be watched, but again, a little of that is better than a rigid site where people are so afraid to say anything that it's nothing but dead serious discussion. I believe this is not what you meant, it is just worth pointing out that there are two sides to this. Anyway no one ever means this as disrespect to the poster, for sure. So your admonition is well taken. But a little lightness remains better than 100% heaviness.
3. Are you the Mark Brown going with me to Bandon in July - 1985 graduate of SCU? Because if you are and you haven't identified yourself to date, well... good one. ;)
TH
-
George Pazin,
A day without making fun of TEPaul is like a day without sunshine.
I prefer to bathe in the sunshine while raining on his parade ;D
-
Strangely, I find that those people who tend to agree with me are generally extremely well-mannered and thoughtful. Their insights are typically sharp and focused, reflecting a high level of intelligence. They seldom whine, and their motives and intentions are beyond reproach. There is also some consistency in their perspectives. Seldom do they take "potshots" at the actor, but typically talk plainly about the play. These folks also seem to have thicker skin and take much more flak. But that too is okay. We can take it.
-
How many other discussion sites have this periodic self correcting, group therapy session about every couple of months? I have been personally disappointed that Dr Katz does not make many appearances like the good old days of GCA.com. But, perhaps he is a practioner of the Rogerian method, whereby letting the patients ramble is more self illuminating and theraputic than too many interventions.
This thread, like many before it is that form of intorspective, self correcting therapy. I think that the comments, even the sarcasm, the bluster, the needling and the serious challenges to eachother's points of view or even admonshments to posting ethics are all part of the on-going life on the web. It does seem that one way or another, we finally get to the crux when things have gotten a little beyond the bounds, and we do seem to come back to a more centered or rational position.
The most stale and monotonous part of this entire on-going discussion from my point of view, is that we don't have enough of that sexy intellectual female input, that a few ladies ventured to offer, all too infrequently. Sometimes it is like and old musty lounge at a stodgy ivy league university fairy men's club around here... ( err not that I know much about that :-X)
George, is that too much of a potshot at the entire group of us? ::) ;D 8)
-
John,
Calling Huck's posting yapping is not called for, and I can assure you that most here DO NOT mind Tom's frequent posting.
One thing that I think would help with the potshots is for people to take the time to acknowledge valid points made by others.
-
Ed - thanks. But I think I get JK's point, and I take no offense. He's using me as an example of a larger point, as he says. And hell, even I'd say I do yap at times.
And hmmm... another thing I've been taken to task on is TOO MUCH "me too" acknowledgement of good points made by others. Obviously I think that needs to be done - it's courteous if nothing else - but can this be taken too far as well?
TH
-
No its not necessary, and it adds absolutely nothing to this site.
This feud between TE and myself can be traced back to my Philadelphia syndrom comment to him during a discusion about Macdonald/Whigham at Merion...many months ago. My point being that Philadelphia (and TE in particular) holds on very tightly to their legends. Any new information is met with violent disagreent. At that time he sent me a number of messages that I had crossed the line and from that point forward he would do everything in his power to disagree with me at every step (no matter the subject). My thought at the time was, thats your choice, I don't think you will be doing yourself or your reputation any good going that route, but so be it
Fast forward to December I sent him a private message trying to make the point that we are constantly discovering new information, which means our understanding of events must change and as a result history will constantly evolve. Call it revisionist history if you want, but history is constantly being revised (admittedly there are too many cases today were history is being incorrectly changed to help support a political or social agenda), especially the history of golf architecture which is a relatively new area of study....but these new discoveries don't necessarily take away from that persons accomplishments.
In this message I mention half a dozen or more examples: "does Macdonald and Whigham's advice takes away from Wilson's accomplishements (or Flynn's for that matter), the same with Colt and Crump. Tillinghast did compromise his design principles, does that wipe away his many accomplishments? Ross said some extremely insensative things to say from a religious point of view. Billy Bell may have been the equal, or possibly more talented than George Thomas. MacKenzie's 1930's minimalist approach was taken from Tom Simpson. Colt was criticized for taking a penal approach. Simpson had some serious personality flaws. Crump killed himself. History and analyzing history isn't about painting an unrealistic picture."
Well unfortunately he only read the last example, and it set him off. I was out of town that day, but I later found that my private message was all over the DG, and he was demanding that I answer for Crump's death. When I returned home late on a Friday I found about half dozen IMs demanding an answer, followed by a not so pleasant phone call...in which I was called a liar, a fraud and someone who invents information. This has been followed by a systematic attempt by TE and Wayne to discredit me. My attitude, in the words of the immortal Curious JJ: "Bring it on Bitch!!!"
If I am being criticized for claiming Crump killed himself on this website, someone has got their facts wrong. I mentioned it to TE in a private e-mail, he was the one that brought it into a public forum, not me. I have told him and everyone on this site I will discuss it in detail in the near future, but I want to do the right way, and right now I'm not ready. By the way I am not a liar and I don't invent information...fraud, now thats another story. :)
Their reaction has been the strongest case I could have ever made for existance of a Philadelphia syndrom.
-
"does Macdonald and Whigham's advice takes away from Wilson's accomplishements (or Flynn's for that matter)"
All I have ever said is that since we don't know what their "advice" was, and there is no indication that it was substantial in any way specific to the course, it is impossible for this to have any bearing whatsoever to anyone's accomplishments. Nothing can convince me otherwise. Unless you or any of us dig up some facts, you are merely speculating and that is a waste of time. In fact, your multitude of speculations seem a cause for concern as you do have a following of believers.
Tom and I started to look into the death of Crump a long time before you contacted him with your proof and your sources. I was not actively pursuing the matter for some time, I'm busy with other research at the moment. But we did make some phone calls early on. When you reported your discovery, we actively looked into it and our findings differed substantially from yours. It is a curious fact and will be sorted out at some point, maybe by you.
We think it is an interesting finding in of itself IF Crump killed himself due to unbearable pain from dental problems that went to his brain or from depression. But the most important factor in this you continuously avoid. We don't think such a finding has any bearing on anything to do with the historical record. You do.
I don't care anymore--its a waste of my time--but to set the record straight one last time, you proposed that Crump's death somehow was interpreted by the membership as giving his life to the club (odd since his life's work at that point was to continuously work on the course and he decided to leave it, however he died, unfinished) and thus sparked a systematic effort to glorify Crump at Colt's expense. This interpretation regardless of the cause of death is silly. If he committed suicide, his friends would have mourned his passing. If he died suddenly from natural causes as a result of a dental infection, his friends would have mourned him. What is the difference?
I agree that we should try to be more civil, but it does work both ways. Baiting and name calling from both sides of the fence has occurred. There is no Philadelphia Syndrome. This term is a result of an unsatisfactory reaction by you to some of us that dispute your interpretations.
-
"GeorgeP asked:
"Is it really necessary for Wayne to take a shot a Tom while complementing Geoff? In my opinion, no. Does it really add anything to the site? Again, IMO, no."
George:
I'm afraid it is. Look again at that quote of Wayne's you used. Wayne isn't personally criticizing Tom MacWood. He's simply criticizing a method of architectural analysis Tom MacWood often uses and that's criticizing some restorations projects and sometimes some specific detail of a restoration project when he's never even seen the golf course---before or since.
Wayne and I firmly believe that one cannot do that effectively--not Tom MacWood---not anybody!
It just doesn't work that way in reality. You really do have to go see what you're critiquing in architecture to do your critique justice. You can't do this stuff properly, no one can if you don't see it---there just aren't enough photographs of any golf course to do it that way.
That's why Wayne called Tom MacWood an 'armchair analyst'. It's pretty hard to sit in Columbus Ohio and criticize an Aronimink or a Merion East or particularly analyze the creation of a PVGC all in the Philly region if you've never laid eyes on any of them.
I'm very certain, George, you understand the importance of this. Wayne's not criticizing Tom MacW, he's criticizing the method he often uses. And we'll continue to do that.
I do have a very interesting subject for you, though, that I had a long conversation this morning with Ran about. I think I'll start a thread on it. I might call it the supreme irony.
It's about a Tom MacWood's ability to analyze PVGC for instance---a club he has zero connection to---never having seen the place and probably never knowing a member VS my ability to speak freely about all I know of the place. I have friends there, loads of them and they may not appreciate me getting into every detail of their golf course. I'll probably just ask permission of the one who I have the largest committment to that way as a friend. If he tells me to go for it on here I will, but if he tells me not to, I won't. I do have more of a responsibility to some of my friends at some of these courses than I do to architectural discussion on here.
So, if Tom MacWood does write an article on the creation of PVGC I may have to sit here and look at the mistakes he's making and not fully respond. That's frustrating because I know things about the place he never could know, never having been there.
That could be the supreme irony for me---and it would be frustrating as hell. Not the least of which the most important material he has came from me. I gave it to Paul Turner and I told him it was just for him. Obviously it all got to Tom MacWood and that was not my intention. In this way I've probably already violated the trust of some over there in me and I don't feel so good about that.
I'd much rather see Paul Turner write an article on PVGC creation than Tom MacWod because I feel he'd do a much better job of it than Tom MacWood. But maybe Paul is coaching him in every detail. At least Paul has been there a few times and I know he played it once.
So it could turn out to be the supreme irony for me---and frustrating.
-
Tom
I honestly wasn't aware that the Alison report was meant to go no further. (The Carr/Smith report is in the USGA library). Everyone was friendly towards eachother back then ::) And Tom was writing an article on CH Alison.
Anyway, I really do believe it's best if all the info is available to anyone who is interested. Rather than keeping it all secret.
-
I certainly understand the need to criticise someone's methods. What frustrated me about that particular instance was that it seemed like an inappropriate time, in a completely separate thread. It's hard enough dealing with these issues without seeing them pop up in semirelated threads. Unfortunately, people are already using this thread on other threads to suggest that we should avoid harsh criticism, which is definitely not my intent. I would just like to see it confined to the issues at hand on those particular threads.
I guess I've said my piece. As my partner says to his son, "Let your conscience by your guide."
:)
-
I guess I've said my piece. As my partner says to his son, "Let your conscience by your guide."
:)
Your partner is Jiminy Cricket? Man you do travel in high circles, George.
Sorry, needed to be said. I'll delete this if you ask.
;D
-
As one who recently pushed this topic (and appreciates Mr. Daley's multiple responses), and as someone pretty new to this site, a few competing thoughts:
1. The value of this site is unfetterred opinions. I don't have any involvement or training in the industry. I simply enjoy the game. Most other sources of information I have seen on the topic consist primarily of meaningless marketing hype and occassionally thoughtless bashing. I appreciate informed viewpoints whether positive or negative. I would never want to see that aspect of this site compromised.
2. Probably more important than unfettered opinions is that this site is fun. As I constantly say to any caddie unfortunate enough to have my bag, "Good thing we are not trying to cure cancer here!" I don't want to see that aspect of the site compromised.
3. Humour is tough on an internet posting. With so many readers, and the lack of typical cues with live spoken humour, it is difficult to fully devine the intent of the poster. So if you are going to do it, make it good.
4. I think it is tough to lay out any general rules other than ask people to keep in mind the very public nature of communications on this site, the potential impact of stinging comments and to think a bit about whether commentary advances the reasons you participate.
This post sounds like my mother. Take it for what it is worth.
-
"I honestly wasn't aware that the Alison report was meant to go no further."
Paul:
I can certainly understand that. I thought I told you but maybe I didn't or wasn't that clear about it. I think the Alison report and all that final work is fascinating but don't forget, Crump had been dead for three years when that happened. Probably the most significant item of all for all kinds of reasons are those "remembrances"! To truly understand the significance of those reports one really does have to know that golf course intimately. And that would be virtually impossible for Tom MacWood to do never having been there.
I'm sure you do feel all this information should come out. I do too Paul but the one thing none of us should EVER forget is it does not belong to us---it belongs to Pine Valley! Perhaps you take that lightly, I don't know, and I'm totally certain Tom MacWood would never give something like that a second thought. But I take that seriously---on principle more than anything else.
There seems to be a switch in direction with Tom MacWood on Crump and PV anyway. Ran tells me that he's now decided to point out that the membership actually should've glorified Crump for what he did there. As you well know the two of you have been telling me all along that the club set out to glorify Crump simply to minimize Colt's part. That's certainly what Tom MacWood told me many times and even mentioned on here briefly. Now apparently he's going to maintain that they should have glorified Crump perhaps for his part in the architecture but maybe more so for shooting himself and basically laying his dead body on PVGC or some such thing. I think this is how he thinks he's going to tie in this suicide thing. In my opinion that's perhaps the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard and if he says that I'm gonna just howl with laughter. It didn't matter a whit HOW he died---the fact is he just died suddenly in January 1918---they were shocked as hell no matter what the reason for his death was, his financial contribution to the construction of the course was gone, he was gone, they sure had all loved the man and there are tons of architects and others who've testified all over the place to what he did there in the years after Colt left. And if this is the assumptions and conclusion Tom MacWood is going to make I just can't wait to hear how he'll rationalize how all his friends and the club got together to drum up this phony story (according to Tom MacWood) that he died of poison from a tooth abscess. What about our letter from Hugh Wilson to Piper just days after Crump died mentioning poison to the brain. I guess Tom MacW thinks Wilson was in on this big cover-up too. Tom MacWood thinks there's some big "Philadelphia School of Architecture" conspiracy thing about something anyway. I'm sure some have seen him mantion that on here to me. So, it'll be an interesting article--I can't wait.
So I don't know, maybe what I've been telling you two about that glorification/minimization thing and what the membership has always felt about Colt's part has never been anything like minimization, is starting to sink in. Everyone I ever knew there thought Colt designed or at least routed the course before the Shelley and Finegan books. They all seemed proud of that---they all thought Colt was a great architect. Nobody I ever knew there seemed to have been aware of some of the indications about who may've done what between them that're in Thomas and Hunter's books. And then Tillinghast's words are great for descriptions that create timelines of who did what.
Frankly very few people even understand the significant distinction between a routing and the "designing up" phase. I wonder if a Tom MacWood is even aware of what that means in the case of PVGC!
There's plenty on this post alone to help you on your article Tom. If I can be of any help please don't hestitate to call! ;)
-
George,
In my mind, I've been pretty reserved about this and not made any personal attacks. Attacks against methodology and analysis, yes however not personal--or I hope not in any case.
But it sure is an interesting juxtaposition to present Geoff Shackelford's initmate familiarity with a course and restoration that he is critiquing with that of Tom MacWood who is not intimately familiar with much of what he comments on. This is why I thought it was an appropriate time to bring the subject up.
Honestly, there's a lot more crap that goes on with this website far more egregious than my comment which sparked this thread. I really thought it had to do with other back and forths and was surprised that you singled out mine. Your welcome to your opinion and I'm sorry you found fault. I'm not at all sorry about what I said or where I said it.
-
"As you well know the two of you have been telling me all along that the club set out to glorify Crump simply to minimize Colt's part."
I don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort. What I have written is that the official face of the club glorifies Crump which then minimizes other's input.
And yes, given that the Carr/Smith report is in the USGA, I think it's OK to reveal what's in there.
-
George
Tom H is on about Mr. Cricket, nonsense, you are a blueshead! Sonny Boy gets to shift about in his grave.
Ciao
Sean
-
"And yes, given that the Carr/Smith report is in the USGA, I think it's OK to reveal what's in there."
Paul:
Wow, I forgot that and I was just looking at it the other day up there. If that's there maybe I don't need to be concerned about any of what I have being private. If they gave most of that to the USGA I take that as public information. Maybe I really can say all that I know on here.
"I don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort."
Oh, you certainly have and Tom MacWood most certainly has to me!
"What I have written is that the official face of the club glorifies Crump which then minimizes other's input."
Have you now? "The official face of Pine Valley"??? Well, I've been done there a lot of years and known a lot of members over the years and I've never been aware there was a "official face of Pine Valley". I'll have to ask the mayor about that. He's been there over forty years. I wonder if he's heard of the "official face of Pine Valley".
They are quite private about their affairs Paul, but that's not the same thing as an "official face of Pine Valley".
Don't you think perhaps you fella are getting a tad over-dramatic here? In this case it would probably be helpful to know people there rather than just reading about them in old magazines and newspapers. ;)
-
Wayne
You've got to be kidding me. You haven't attacked me? Go back and read all your attacks on my ability to evaluate...no details mind you, just my ability to analyze is completely faulty. I've written a number of essays that are right here on this site, I don't recall you ever pointing out where I went wrong in my conclusions and why.
Not to mention your attempt to discredit me on this site regarding my original Crump source--which I regretfully gave you. You were all too eager to anounce on GCA that my source claimed that he never spoke to me, told you Crump didn't die in said town, and claimed they didn't have any record of his manner of his death.
From what I understand this same source is now saying he did die in said town and does admit they do have the record. I don't recall you posting that information on here to clear the record. Thank God I don't have rely upon this source anymore. After you & TE got through with him, he's as paranoid as you two.
TE
You are extremely paranoid. Why don't you wait until you read it before go off the deep end. If you liked by Arts & Crafts essay and the Alison piece, I'm sure you'll like this one as well.
-
Wayne -
Unfortunately that illustrates one of the real shortcomings of this site and the internet at large - I probably read more negativity into the comment than you intended. And it wasn't so much that single comment as the fact that it seems as though every third thread on this site has devolved into bickering when someone makes a comment pulling in stuff from another thread that caused that comment to strike me wrong. As I said to Tom, you are one of my favorite posters and indeed pretty much always conduct yourself admirably.
Maybe I was just falling prey to Dick Daley's theory of GCA introspection and self flagellation.
-
Outside observer: "oh look there's an alternate fairway on the 17th designed by CH Alison"
Official face of PVGC: "you never saw it"
What am I suppose to think, eh?
-
TE
If you recall I said to you Crump deserves enormous credit. Unfortunately IMO Colt has been religated to a bit player--they throw him the bone of the 5th. Because we say Colt (and Alison) historically has never been given an honest appraisal doesn't mean we feel Crump's roll should be diminished. Its not a zero sum game.
-
Do the chiefs at PVGC want to know the truth about how their course was designed? Or would they be happier having Crump as sole designer and live in ignorance?
-
"TE
If you recall I said to you Crump deserves enormous credit. Unfortunately IMO Colt has been religated to a bit player--they throw him the bone of the 5th. Because we say Colt historically has never been given an honest appraisal doesn't mean we feel Crump's roll should be diminished. Its not a zero sum game."
Tom:
You seem to change your course faster than a tacking sailboat. What I distinctly recall you telling me is Crump's part was purposely glorified by PVGC and starting right at his death because the club did not want Colt's part to be known as you and Paul Turner think it should be. Paul's put that on this website a number of times.
-
Tom
I don't buy that (neither did Pam Emory).
If the club always thought that Colt did course, why didn't it ever come out!
-
No Tom, I am not kidding you. I never called you paranoid, afflicted with any kind of syndrome, a liar or anything else. I said your ability to analyze is questionable. You have done good work--your essays in the In My Opinion section and ability to gather information, your proximity to Mike Hurdzan's materials being a great factor. I'm sure I've mentioned these things before. I don't recall personalizing anything having to do with you. I have criticized your conclusions and for this you lump me into a Philadelphia Syndrome. That is about as nonsensical as your analysis gets at times.
And please, give up this weak matter of discrediting you and your source. Your source is a public official. We attempted to contact him before we knew you had. We followed up with that after your pronouncement of proof--should we have just taken you on your word? As you are surely aware, peer review and corroboration are part of the research process. This should apply to you just like everyone else. By the way, the same source now says he did die in Merchantville but that he was unaware of that when he spoke to us previously and to you. I don't know what to make of it and frankly I'm starting not to care....that isn't paranoia it is MacWood induced ennui.
George,
Thank you, I appreciate your response.
Paul,
Now what makes you think PVGC doesn't want to know the truth? That is nonsense. What makes you say they or anyone else thinks or wishes to think that Crump is the sole designer and wish to be ignorant? This is an odd evaluation.
-
It isn't nonsense. I'll put it another way. Does the club want to know the truth and have it made public?
-
If anyone goes to PVGC the strong impression left is that Crump is the sole designer: just look at the scorecard for starters.
-
"It isn't nonsense. I'll put it another way. Does the club want to know the truth and have it made public?"
Paul:
I'm glad you did put it that way. Have you ever spoken with anyone down there about that? Or have you too just relied on some old articles and assumed as much, like Tom MacWood?
Well....the answer is I think they'll be more than happy to get the truth as best as it can be known today and I also have a strong hunch it's not going to be coming from Tom MacWood.
Will they make it public? I don't know, that's their choice. Do you think every private golf club in American including Pine Valley should feel a responsibilty to make the story of their creation public? If you do then perhaps PVGC is one of them!
-
As the #1 course in the world, then yes, I think they should make it public.
Or I'll do it for them!
-
The scorecard at Sewell's Point has Donald Ross as the architect. He never touched that property; he built a second golf course that is NLE. The existing one is and always was Flynn. There are a lot of misrepresentations in attribution.
Of course, Sewell's Point is not nearly on the same level as Pine Valley. None of the scorecards I have from PVGC have anybody's name on it. I guess there are new ones now with some of the changes, but I cannot locate mine. If there was one architect on the scorecard, who should it be Crump or Colt? If there are two names on the scorecard, surely it should be Crump and Colt. But aren't you then minimizing the efforts of Alison, Tillinghast, Maxwell, Wilsons and Flynn?
Crump's vision, money, network of friends, time and energy exceeds all of the above by a huge magnitude. His design efforts eclipse all of the above, probably put together. What's wrong with having just his name, if that is the case?
I just saw that the course guide does say "Designed by George Arthur Crump." Aren't there bigger windmills to tilt than this?
-
" just look at the scorecard for starters."
I realize you think they should put Colt on their scorecard. Do you think they should put Govan, Tillinghast, Travis, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Alison, Maxwell, Fazio on that scorecard too and if not why not? Wayne just found out yesterday that Max Behr apparently belonged in 1916 too! ;) Why don't they just throw him on the scorecard too?
-
I don't mind how many are credited on the scorecard (if they actually designed something).
Crump's design input does not eclipse Colt's and Alison's.
-
"Crump's design input does not eclipse Colt's and Alison's."
Paul Turner, I am really amazed at you. Anyone out there reading these threads---that is simply a preposterous statement to make and not even remotely close to the truth, certainly regarding Alison.
-
Tom
Read it as Colt&Alison.
Might have only visited the club twice (one to play), but I think I have a good, reasonably detailed picture of the course in my mind.
-
Regarding the greens.
I agree probably the detail is Crump or Crump+others.
I am pretty certain Colt would have staked out the greens; it was how he worked.
-
I'm happy to see this thread hijacked.
Re: Pine Valley -
I think the most prudent way to proceed would be for each side to say what would convince him that the other side is correct. If you think Crump deserves credit, explain what it would take to convince you Colt deserves equal billing. And vice versa.
-
Paul:
Without those greens you can't be saying things like even Colt together with Alison did more. You can just guess that but what's that?
Colt always staked out greens and that's why you think the greens may be Colt? Paul, you really do have to get a bit more into the detail of PVGC's itself as a very unique creation and not go around making assumptions like that at PV. May be Colt did stake out greens at courses he designed and built but the obvious fact you're forgetting and not considering is Harry Colt surely never had a client even remotely like George Crump and what he did on that golf course.
-
Tom
The greens are important, but given the land at PV, the routing is the most important element.
It's a reasonable assumption that Colt staked out the general shape and size of the greens. He wrote of his method prior to 1913 and staking out greens was part of this. I certainly don't believe he just drew the plans and left nothing in the ground!
I am not asserting that Colt defined the detailed interior contours, although I'm certain he would have discussed this with Crump.
The general size and shapes and how these fitted with the natural terrain.
-
It is almost impossible to be certain about what was collaboration and what isn't apart from what was done prior to Colt's arrival. And even then we are relying on Tillie's few paragraphs...not detailed plans.
From the plans only. I'm pretty sure that Colt did 15 (minus island tee), 16 and 17. Of course there could be collaboration on all of these holes. But I suspect Colt was the main hand here, since Crump's plan for the back 9 was very different and frankly not good. We know of Colt's ability in 1913, we don't know much about Crump's.
At some point you have to make some assumptions and educated guesses as to who did what. But just make it clear that this is what they are.
-
"At some point you have to make some assumptions and educated guesses as to who did what. But just make it clear that this is what they are."
Paul:
Absolutely we do and I think you and I should. As far as Tom MacWood's concerned why don't you talk to him, I'm not that interested in that at this point. I think you're about six steps ahead and around the corner from him on that now! Matter of fact why don't you just ask him if you can write that paper on PV he wants to write--I think it would be a lot more accurate and surely a lot easier to do.
"We know of Colt's ability in 1913, we don't know much about Crump's."
Paul:
You know as well as I do one simply can't look at the long term creation of PV that way. It's just a non-specific sort of pat statement that means little particularly since we have all this information now and we know that Crump spend years out there. You two just don't seem to understand the significance of that and maybe you never will. Geoff does I believe because he did it himself! We'll never have all the details documented and in those areas we'll probably just have to say we'll never really know and that it could be either of them or both of them together.
-
Tom
If we don't know what's collaboration then we have to go with what people wrote at the time. Those that were closest to the project. We shouldn't just assume everything is collaboration during May/June 1913. Carr and others certainly state it wasn't.
I think the stick routing of the back 9 by Crump is very revealing. I do not see a master router at work there, I see an amateur. The quantum leap to Colt's blue routing plan is striking.
-
TE
You've got a vivid imagination. :)
The $10,000 figure came from Jos. Baker, not Bole. Interesting you mention Seaview, that site at Absecon was one Crump considered.
-
That's right Tom, it was his buddy Baker not Bole who reported that 10 grand in his eighties! My typing mistake. Interesting there about Abescom. I sure never knew that! Do you think maybe he should have picked that one up instead of Sumner? What do you know about Crump and Baker?
-
"TE
You've got a vivid imagination."
What I have Tom, is the facts. Just read what Paul and I have written today and you'll have a pretty good foundation to start writing your article on Crump and Pine Valley! ;)
If there's something you can't figure out just call Paul and if he doesn't know it he can always check with me and pass it on back to you!
-
George,
If you didn't take potshots at each other, how would I be able to tell how much you loved each other . . . ? ;)
And this thread demonstrates exactly what I love about y'all. It started out with a mild reprimand on being kinder and gentler, and ended up with several of you taking potshots at each other. Watch out! Your remarkably strong feelings are showing.
Which, of course, is why I'm always lurking about. Not only is the content illuminating and thought provoking, but you manage to educate in the most entertaining way imaginable. I'm taking lessons for my Music History course. :-*
-
Darva D:
Don't be such a stranger!
-
"What do you know about Crump and Baker?"
I really don't know that much about their relationship. Baker was born in SC, but lived most of his life Penn. He was one seven children, his mother died when he was a boy. His father was an Inspector.
He was a merchant, and a bachelor. He was not one of the better golfers in Philly, but obviously was an avid golfer. He and Crump toured Europe together in 1910. I believe he built the first house at PV after Colt and Govan. I've seen him referred to as Colonel Baker on occasion, but it doesn't appear that he was ever in the military. He was 86 when he wrote down his recollections.
-
"If I am being criticized for claiming Crump killed himself on this website, someone has got their facts wrong. I mentioned it to TE in a private e-mail, he was the one that brought it into a public forum, not me. I have told him and everyone on this site I will discuss it in detail in the near future, but I want to do the right way, and right now I'm not ready. By the way I am not a liar and I don't invent information...fraud, now thats another story.
Their reaction has been the strongest case I could have ever made for existance of a Philadelphia syndrom."
Tom MacWood:
Sorry you take all this so personally, particularly the Crump suicide thing. You got your chronicle wrong though. I didn't put your IM message on here about Crump's suicide first, you wrote on this website that Crump's suicide was a fact. I asked you on here if you could prove that, you refused to do that and so we basically just called information for Merchantville NJ, got the same guy you spoke to (who is the one they give you to ask about Crump's death) and for some reason (you obviously think he's part of the Crump, "Philadelphia Syndrome", too) he denied telling you what you told me he said to you about Crump's death.
You can float this big conspiracy theory about PV glorifying Crump and dissing Colt but in my opinion, Tom, you're just making yourself look more foolish everyday! But at this point that's now your problem, not mine.
You've called Merchantville again and talked to a councilman, but I'm not going to even bother to call him and check anything---just write your article on Crump's suicide, PV or even a day in the life of an expert researcher/writer trying to do his thing under duress from a bunch of maniacs in Philadelphia---I encourage it.
But, as always, you're going to have to defend the things you say. There will be questions and I hope you can learn how to answer them maturely instead of trying to divert our queries behind one of your lines of "ducks"!
Obviously you must know by now that on here you can't exactly just make statements and think they'll be taken as gospel because you think you're a great researcher/writer. You'd got to take responsiblity for what you say on here---you can't just say things and hide or respond to our queries to prove what you say by asking us one question after another. Questions to you will be simple and to the point. You should learn how to answer them!
And that IS the way Ran Morrissett wants it. He told me that again yesterday.
-
Tom MacW:
That's interesting stuff about Col Baker but I don't know who on here is interested in his family tree or what his mother's maiden name was. But we are interested in knowing his relationship to George Crump particularly as it relates to the creation of PVGC.
For your information he was one who hunted with Crump and very likely in and around what became PV. More importantly he was the man who went to Europe with Crump when he studed architecture before buying and building PV. And he did build that cottage at Crump's insistence that sits off to the left of #9 fairway---the one my old buddy Mayor Ott has lived in for the last three decades! Have you seen it? The mayor has a great collection of all the old Dallin aerials of PV in that Baker cottage and he really knows that golf course, having lived there for three decades. When I see him in few days I'll ask him what his part has been in this "Philadedphia conspiracy syndrome" of yours! The Mayor is probably sitting in that house right now reading this stuff of yours with amusement! ;)
-
TE
You are mistaken. My IM to you (which I quoted on page 1 or 2 of this thread) was December 16 at 11:51. Followed by two short responses to you at 12:17 and 12:40. By 1:00 I was on my way to Detroit and didn't return until late on the 17th.
On the 17th you posted our conversation on the Internet demanding answers, perhaps because i wasn't responding to your numerous IMs demanding that I reveal my information...I couldn't respond, I was out of town.
That evening you called me at my home demanding I reveal my information, which I did generally, which was followed by you screaming that I was a liar, a fraud and a fabricator...and that you would reveal me as such on GCA. :)
Here is the thread which ignited the controversy and your post revealing my private message on the 17th:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6839;start=175
-
I started out trying to read this thread seriously but, as with too many others on this Web site, quickly got lost in all sorts of personal accusations, agendas, and territorial boundary wars. Soon my eyes glazed over and I found myself thinking what a waste of good brain power on such a tiny topic.
With a little bit of class and manners, the same kind that are supposed to rule in golf, this issue could have been nicely put to bed in about 12 posts. But instead, it has run on too long and too intensely over too little, a reminder of one of those pathetic golf committee meetings where a discussion about which benches to buy ends up taking four hours and everyone makes do with liquids rather than solids for dinner.
-
Aah give the man a cigar!
-
Brad
I agree with you. I should have never weighed in...no doubt this thread would have just faded away like all the other attacks on my reputation.
-
Brad:
I agree with you too---I should never have weighed in either. I'll just wait and let the man produce his article and if it's full of odd or wrong conclusions then I'll go after it---and then maybe we will get the record straight!
-
Tom:
You know I'd never write a IM to you unless it was responding off the DG to something you wrote on it. In this case it was your statement on the DG that Crump committed suicide. It's been a rumor for years, but you didn't say that--you said he committed suicide, I asked you on the DG if you could prove it, you said you could.
At that point I got on the IM and asked how you could prove it, you said because it was the truth, I asked you how you could prove it was the truth, you said because it was fact. I asked you how you could prove it was a fact, and you said because it was the truth.
At that point I called you on the phone, we had that heated discussion and you told me you'd called Merchantville NJ, The man you'd talked to was the very same man I'd called and left a message with before either of us began disussing this on the IM but after you said on the DG you could prove Crump blew his brains out.
But as Brad said, the manner of his death is a small issue. We think so too but if you feel like making it into an article that has interesting ramifications about the club's attitude towards Crump or Colt then I encourage that. I'll be most interested to read it and of course remark on it or refute it. And I hope you don't it personally.
-
The manner of Crump's death is not a small issue.
It's a huge scoop/story.
-
Someone needs to explain to me why the manner of Crump's death matters.
If he did commit suicide, do people on here think it is some sort of stain on his character? That it reflects badly on him? That it ex-communicates him from some higher ring in the architectural firmament?
I view it as an interesting, but minor historical footnote. All this fuss mystifies me.
Bob
-
Bob:
You've got some fine questions there, and they need to be asked at this point by someone like you. Wayne and I sure aren't getting any answers! I've asked them of Tom MacWood about a hundred times and so has Wayne but as you well know he won't answer us. Now it's about his "ducks" being slightly out of line or some other horse-sh..., or the latest is he just wants more time to write this article properly---and that's definitely understandable! ;) The truth about this issue now, in my opinion, is Tom MacWood has obviously completetly committed himself to this story about being able to PROVE that Crump committed suicide.
But that rumor of the suicide has been around for years--I heard about it 30 years ago.
Paul Turner just said it's a huge scoop/story! In my opinion, it would be but only if Tom MacWood or someone can actually prove that Crump did committ suicide. Nobody has bothered to try to do that all these years that I know of.
GeoffShac told me years ago that he thought Crump committed suicide. When I asked him recently why he felt that way he said because he thought he read the mention of it by Peter Dobereinner in an article he found some time ago in the Ralph Miller Library in LA. He said he felt Dobereinner was a very creditable source and so there must be something to it.
Having heard that Crump suicide rumor decades ago the obvious question was why. Most answered because they felt Crump may have become depressed or perhaps he drank and also became depressed. Some like TommyN said recently he felt or he's heard Crump was broke. I heard that too years ago but have never seen any indication of it. That probably wouldn't be very difficult to run down.
I talked to one of my friends at PV about that yesterday and he said he'd heard that rumor of depression or whatnot but just considered it a unproven story at this point. Crump was apparently a most beloved man with a huge personable but rather laid back personality. One can see from everything written about him before and after his death that appeared the case. One must assume that a man who was capable of collecting all those famous golfers and architects around him for basically no cost had to be pretty special somehow. Crump was apparently known to give people exceptional credit for things they recommended to him during PV's creation even things he never did in the end, although he clearly acted as if he considered them such as Travis's very public mention that Crump had agreed to let him create a reverse routing and sequence on the course. He appears to have been so accomodating that way.
I've often wondered if it is reasonable to assume that he used that tactic to some degree as a way of promoting interest in the course since being apparently not being egotistical and not a proprietary person about the course he may've understood that was a great way to promote it. And anyone who reads the records of others during his long-term creation of the course can see he was massively admired towards the end compared obviously to when he started. He knew he was a rank amateur in the beginning but it was clearly all his dream----the whole damn thing---the entire idea of it and clearly he wanted to do it his way. He owned the place too. And Crump obviously did have a nice jesting sense of humor.
And he did it his way in the end just as Carr and Smith and Tilly said. One needs to appreciate how much he was there between 1912 and 1918---first appaently in a tent and then his cottage by the 5th. It does seem sort of excessive, driven, maybe even weird and that may be why some wonder if he was mentally OK in the end. He didn't live there all the time, he did have a huge expensive house in Merchantville NJ. Just the other day I spoke with a member whose grandfather bought Crump's house after Crump died.
But nothing I've ever heard of points to depression or alchoholism or anything like that. He was an ebullient man---there's a cute story about him on the street in front of his house the day before he died. But suicides are odd--sometimes there's absolutely no indication of it happening and sometimes no know reason why afterwords.
Obviously Tom MacWood thinks it would be a big scoop or story if he could prove his suicide. Certainly Paul Turner does. If Tom MacWood can prove it then obvoiusly anyone could have at any time all these years. All they'd have had to do is call Merchantville NJ. The particulars of his death are right there logged in an old log book!!! No one did that clearly because they didn't see the point of it! Tom MacWood actually told me that he's able to do this because he's such a good researcher. He actually told Wayne and me that if we wanted to look into this that Wayne should do it because I'm not capable of getting that information out of a person like that. Tom actually told us that! ;)
What would the point of it be? Well, MacWood and Turner are on this agenda of Colt as we well know now. At first they said that Crump's suicide caused the club to go into a defensive mode of some kind and that effected the club's perception of what Colt did there. It minimized it, in fact, as Crump became glorified, presumably for what he did there. But why the club would glorify him because he blew his brains out rather than died suddenly of poison to the brain is beyond me---beyond us. I guess Tom will try to make the case that since he actually killed himself and sort of laid his body on a bier of PVGC they all felt guilty or sorry they didn't protect him or something like that.
Does that make any sense to you BoB? It sure doesn't to me or Wayne or anyone I know at PVGC.
Tom MacWood told me he told that man in Merchantville he was a expert researcher/writer and that's the reason the man told him he had proof about Crump's death although it was illegal to be telling him that. I guess Tom thinks he charmed that info out of him.
Now the man tells a different version of what he knows to us and he claims he has no idea why this man in Ohio is telling us he said such a thing. Of course Tom claims the man is obviously nervous that he said something illegal like that and is just covering his tracks with us or continuing to perpetuate this massive decades long glorification of Crump or something like that.
Tom MacWood was very upset with me for violating a confidence in his source and that I could injure the man. I told Tom that the man ran the township offices and part of his job was to answer a question like this. I merely dialed information and got him. It had nothing to do with finding out about him from Tom MacWood.
So, I don't know! Some think that Tom MacWood is basically just trying to make a name for himself as an expert researcher/writer. Just today I saw an email from him where he continues to get on us for personally attacking him. We just told him there's nothing personal here at all---we're just maintaining our right to say on here that he and his information is wrong if we think it is.
But let him write the article and we can see what he says. A few days ago he wrote that he might "angle" this article to have the theme of an expert researcher/writer doing his expert resarching and writing, how he does it and how in this case how he had to do it under duress! What was his duress? I guess he'll say it was me and Wayne personally attacking him while all we're trying to do is get him to answer our questions about the things he's said on here and to us.
I don't really know what the hell he thinks he's doing with an article but let's wait and see. Maybe he wants to write an article on the actual creation of PVGC and who did what.
If he wants to do that I practically gave him the entire blueprint of it yesterday but I took a lot of it off this morning. I hope he read it! ;)
-
That is it! We need to call in a cold case file expert. I assume you gents have reviewed the death certificates, since that is elementary, and of course I also assume that in those days the D.C. opr autopsy (if done) might be very inaccurate or incomplete. I really don't know if he had a regular physician and if there would be medical records available, or by what means one could try to go after them.
CSI Merchantville, thrilling episodes of forensic science mixed with golf course architecture and private club intrique, coming next season. Starring Tom Selleck Paul, and Tom Columbo MacWood as two competing golf architecture forensic pathologists with guest appearances from Tommy LuLing Naccarato, old Chinese ME detective from L.A. who cracked the case on the bad Merlot that ruined the Good Dr.s liver, and Wayne Morrison, the meticulous Major Domo and executor of the sprawling mainline estate in Philly where the forensic architeture pathologists live and play.
Crump... was it suicide, a bad tooth ache in his heel, or murrrderrr? Who will crack the case... of champaign when the truth is revealed.
Have you guys contacted Geraldo? What secrets and treasure lie in Crump's hidden NJ underground vault. Was he an agent of the Women's Christian Temperance Movement, and confederate of Billy Sundae. Did he take so long to complete his golf project because he was opposed to the use of a hip pocket flask and never had enough inspirational design moments, because he was too sober?
We love you all fellows, but this is becoming an epic series that can only wind up on reality TV.... ;D ::) 8)
-
"Obviously Tom MacWood thinks it would be a big scoop or story if he could prove his suicide. Certainly Paul Turner does. If Tom MacWood can prove it then obvoiusly any of us could have at any time all these years. No one did clearly because they didn't see the point of it!"
Yes Tom, maybe they didn't. But you clearly do. There's lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely.
"What would the point of it be? Well, MacWood and Turner are on this agenda of Colt as we well know now. At first they said that Crump's suicide caused the club to go into defensive mode of some kind and that effected the club's perception of what Colt did there."
I think you're getting a bit paranoid here!
PS
I have a pic of Crump in drag.
-
"Yes Tom, maybe they didn't. But you clearly do."
You know Paul, I really don't, and I never have. I've known of that rumor for thirty years. If I was clearly interested then why do you suppose I never even thought of looking into the cause of Crump's death before? It's because I don't see the point of it!!! An as we've both told you a number of times neither of us see the point of it---not to PV, the way they look at Crump and Colt, none of it!!
So why are we doing it now?? Since you're asking, I'll tell you the whole truth, and I apologize to Tom MacWood but we checked on it because he did try to prove it--maybe the only one who ever has and we felt like checking ourselves to see if his claim that he HAD PROVED it (as he claimed) should be considered true! That's why we did it. And then this whole recent story of Tom's claim that the guy in Merchantville told him one thing and us another. So now it's an issue and I'm sure we'll all find out soon if Crump did or didn't commit suicide.
But that's just a part of it. The other part that might interest this website in some way is---who cares at this point? Or does it have some significance to the way the club and the world percieve Crump and Colt now due to this suicide? None of us brought any of this up! Tom MacWood did! As of now he seems to be tacking around like a small sailboat and obviously he's reading all this so who knows what he'll do next? I guess we'll just have to wait and see because he sure as shootin' ain't discussing with us what he should do about this article. Only four people knew about this article that Tom must view as a potential scoop/story and perhaps one that ties into this whole thing you guys claim about PV.
A little quirk of fate just happened to make who those four were who were sworn to secrecy about this article fall into my hands!! They were Ran, TommyN, and GeoffShac. I've had a series of rather unfortunate conversations with TommyN about this---I asked a few days ago that perhaps he and Tom MacWood might consider having a conference call with me. I talked to Ran about this at length yesterday, and we came to what I consider to be a great resolution which is let it happen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com if it's an interesting story. Despite the protestations of some on here over personal attacks it probably has become and interesting story---probably one akin to ten train wrecks! As for GeoffShac, I guess I've mentioned it to him briefly recently but I doubt he cares at all. He probably just thinks it's another one of the labrynthian discussions on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com
So why are we pursuing it? As I've said a number of times because I don't believe the way you two look at PVGC is remotely true or not for the reasons you propose and I'm only trying to point that out on here. The other reason, and I'm sure everyone knows it by now is we suspect a few of the things Tom MacWood said he proved but refuses to tell us how despite being asked---just may not be true. If they are true (Crump's suicide) then fine---big deal---and then let him go on and try to prove to our satisfaction and that of others what the hell the signifnicance of it is to what we talk about on here---golf architecture. We didn't look to prove Crump's suicide---Tom MacWood did that all by himself!
"There's lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely."
Oh yeah, then why don't you let us in on what you think all the big secrets are? I'm sure they feel like they're under a magnifying glass right now.
And who's trying to put them there Paul?
So go ahead Paul, tell us all---what is all this 'lots about PVGC that hasn't been looked at very closely'?
-
"I think you're getting a bit paranoid here!"
Ok, Paul, I recognize that's become you and Tom MacWood's standard line with me but why not just tell me and us all what it is exactly that you think I'm getting paranoid about?
Would it be the truth???
What truth would that be? Would it have something to do with English architect Harry Colt??
Please tell me!
-
Tom
You can't agree that the story is a huge scoop and then state that there's no point to it.
And you know that the evolution of the course hasn't been looked at carefully.
-
George -
If you're still checking in on this thread, would you be so kind as to rename it "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death"
Thanks.
-
Speaking as a relatively disinterested party - never played there, not likely to be invited anytime soon :) - I can't see where it really matters. I also can't see how anything motivationally-speaking could be established unless he left a note. Even if he did, it could be any number of reasons. The other night I was so sleep deprived from dealing with my 11 month old son who refuses to sleep that I was thankful that I didn't have a gun - he never would have been in danger, but I might have.
-
George -
If you're still checking in on this thread, would you be so kind as to rename it "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death"
Thanks.
:)
As I said earlier, I am glad to see this thread hijacked - it's now more interesting than the original premise, and everyone is playing relatively nice. Nothing wrong with heated discussion, as long as everyone maintains some level of respect for the others' efforts.
-
Actually, the thread should be renamed "Is it Really Necessary to Hijack Yet Another Thread With Yet Another Debate About the True Nature of George Crump's Death by people having nothing better to do than repeat themselves ad infinitum and ad nauseum"
-
George, have you tried Numzit? Just a little pinch between the cheek and gums... ;) ;D
Believe it or not George, those long nights of holding a feverish teething child are the best of times. Funny, how 20+ years from now you will remember those nights fondly and with pride, and your son won't have a clue... and wonder why you worry about him so much, even if he is all grown up. ::) 8)
PS: is it possible for the intial poster to re-hijack his own hijacked thread? But, shirley I digress... ;D
-
Blimey, no one is forcing anyone to read it!
At least it has some relevance to GCA and we know George (and Ran) don't mind.
-
"Blimey, no one is forcing anyone to read it!"
Paul:
You're dead right about that. How about this--let's you and me just discuss this Crump suicide thing and the details of the creation of PVGC between Crump and Colt and the others on either the IM or probably better yet by email. If Golfclubatlasers aren't interesting in this stuff to the extent they appear not to be to just stop reading it or they just don't want this stuff on this website lets do it by email. I can't talk to Tom MacWood about this anymore but I can to you.
How about it? Shall we go to email?
-
Wow! Ms. Campbell can lurk on my site 24/7. Taking potshots and all, I've been particularly naughty here lately!
-
Dick D.
Just to let you know that at least somebody is reading your posts! Great stuff, Officer Daley (ret.)!
-
;D I'm afraid to ask what the (ret.) really means...perhaps my school IEP ::)
I couldn't solve this case with Crumps last note in one hand and TEPaul's flask filled in the other...
-
I'd prefer the Crump v Colt debate be carried out in public - I find it quite fascinating. Anyone who doesn't is free to ignore it.
Dick -
I've tried everything imaginable, but the good news is that twice in the last 5 days Jason has slept through the night, so maybe I'll be less sleep deprived shortly. I've actually kept track of how many mornings I've awakened refreshed in the last year plus - since I injured my knee, then had surgery, then added to the family - and I'm now up to a grand total of 5.
And I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.
-
Sure, Tom, no problem.
Although George does want it to remain here.
Does anyone feel this is all in bad taste, eventhough it's almost a century ago?
-
RJ:
I'm sorry about hijacking this thread with all this garbage about Poor George's death and the creation of PVGC. I won't do it any more on this thread then.
Back to the topic of this thread it is for me:
"Re; Is it really necessary to take potshot shots at others...."
Well, I'd say normally no except when clearly done humorously but in the case of a guy like Tom MacWood depending on the things he claims on here to have proof about and then fails to respond or discuss questions about what he says....
...yeah I think it's necessary. Matter of fact I believe it's more than necessary, I believe it's virtually mandatory! :)
Would you care to discuss it? ;)
-
George; it probably seems like forever but in no time you'll be up waiting for him to come in and losing sleep again. Its all worth it.
-
RJ:
I'm sorry about hijacking this thread with all this garbage about Poor George's death and the creation of PVGC. I won't do it any more on this thread then.
Back to the topic of this thread it is for me:
"Re; Is it really necessary to take potshot shots at others...."
Well, I'd say normally no except when clearly done humorously but in the case of a guy like Tom MacWood depending on the things he claims on here to have proof about and then fails to respond or discuss questions about what he says....
...yeah I think it's necessary. Matter of fact I believe it's more than necessary, I believe it's virtually mandatory! :)
Would you care to discuss it? ;)
Tom, your first statement of not doing it anymore is somewhat in contradiction to the last paragraphs...it seems to me. ;D
For you guys to take this hijacking to some dark corner and discuss it amongst yourselves would be like stopping the film projector the last 10 minutes of "Psycho" or some such interuption. You don't think we all sat around here all day in our PJ's reading this thing to now not see a big finish, did you? :o
-
“Sure, Tom, no problem.”
Well, we always do have email. If our brethren get incensed over our discussion then we’ll take it there
”Although George does want it to remain here”
There’s almost nothing I wouldn’t do for George!
“Tom
You can't agree that the story is a huge scoop and then state that there's no point to it.”
Paul:
My answer to that I have wriitten but I think I'll take that one to email to you since it's a complete chronicle on my part of this entire situation with the publicly appointed official wth Tom and us from beginning until now. Since the contributors on here think that kind of thing is taking potshots I'll just email it privately to you, since perhaps you may even be helping him with this article.
-
RJ:
I'd love to accomodate you pal but some seem to want to read it and some say they don't think it should be on here don't want it on here etc. Unfortunately it's impossible to do it both ways. ;)
-
Tom
I'm not helping anyone with any article.
-
"Tom
I'm not helping anyone with any article."
Well, you welsher, you! I thought you told me you'd help me write the totally detailed hole by hole creation of PV! OK, I'll do it myself then! But I'll hand it to you and stand there while you read it. I wanted you to check it out so I feel comfortable that I'm not giving more credit this time to Harry Colt than he really deserves!
Paul:
I'm sorry I made a big mistake back there when I said there were four people that were sworn to secrecy about this Crump death/PVGC article by Tom MacWood. I only listed three of them. You were the fourth I forgot to mention. Sorry about that---I guess that must mean I'm a really unexpert researcher/writer!
-
Currently ;D
PS
I have a nice portrait of HSC, if I gave a copy to PVGC do you think they would display it prominently next to George? I don't think I can blow it up quite as large as that huge painting of Crump though!
-
Tom:
And you're the guy who's been screaming about personal attacks? Just amazing.
I'll go get a photo done of me that way. It'd be fun. But you have to promise me you'll use it and you'll have to also promise me you won't cry personal attack all over the Internet when I take your article apart if it's not truthful. Actually now that you've decided to imply on here that I'm a constant drunk would you also like me to cut and past those IMs on here between you and you know who?
Matter of fact, why don't you put a photo of yourself in that article, since no one seems to know what you look like. I've never known anyone on here who knows where the Ivory tower is in Ohio and obviously you don't get out much.
Paul:
That's a great idea. As you know I'll be there on Friday and if you can't blow something up of Harry big enough I might just ask them if they'd consider naming the new dormitory house Harry S. Colt House. You know something, Paul, that just might be doable. I think I'll quietly ask. But let me ask you something---if I could pull that off would you and MacWood still say that you're convinced that the club has this "official face" to glorify Crump and minimize Colt? :)
-
I find 99.95 of the posts on here to be respectful and courteous. The people who are no so, tend to be ignored and go away. I find this site to be a wonderful gift to us all. Sometimes John K gets snow fever and lets his fingers get carried away.
-
TE
Sorry, I slipped.
Go ahead and post all my IM's to Tommy. I just checked them, I think there are about 8 or 9 all together. They are riviting...people will be on the edge of their seat. :)
If there looking for any dirt slinging...they'll be greatly disapointed.
-
"TE
Sorry, I slipped."
Tom:
No problem. Apology accepted, Thank you. I thought it was pretty funny actually but I doubt you did. The thought of a photo of me passed out next to a toilet with a keyboard is sort of bizarre but sure doesn't have anything to do with Crump's suicide, PV, Crum or, Colt's part there or golf architecture. But it might have something to do with architectural aesthetic or concept---we do have some pretty creative people on this site. Saying the things I have about you, though, has everything to do with all those issues, however, and not anything personal that I can tell.
"Go ahead and post all my IM's to Tommy. I just checked them, I think there are about 8 or 9 all together. They are riviting...people will be on the edge of their seat."
Yes, there are about that many. I emailed them to both of you with a note that we should have a conference call. Did you get the email? I don't think I'll post them here though, certainly not now. I doubt anyone on here would be on the edge of their seats over those IMs. I think they'd more likely feel about the same way I do about them.
"If there looking for any dirt slinging...they'll be greatly disapointed."
Well, they may not be disappointed in the lack of dirt slinging--I think they'd be just plan be disappointed by what they said.
-
TE
Nope. I never got your e-mail.
-
This game of intellectual ping-pong is evidently amusing enough to lure the soon-to-be Mrs. Redhead-Dicknozian out of retirement.
I've only skimmed the posts as the kids are curled up on the couch getting ready for bed, but I think we need a definitive answer to whether Crump off'd himself, or was murdered by Colt, hoping to get credit for the work . . . . . ah, maybe not.
But no more far fetched than my contention that Cypress Point was routed by Raynor and Mackenzie simply jiggered a few things around and asked Hunter to cover his tracks . . . . . no Tom (Doak) or Geoff, I am not interested in this debate. I am right and you are both delusional.
Certainly, when the original plans are uncovered, my suspicion will be confirmed.
Brad,
Petty arguments? Hahahahahahahahaha . . . sound a bit uncomfortably like the faculty at most universities?*
I'll let Dedee (a.k.a. Darva) argue this one.
-
Gib, the standard line at university faculties is that the arguments are so heated because the stakes are so small. That was one small reason I left teaching, only to find out that the arguments are in many ways worse at private golf clubs and on Discussion Groups where the ostensible object of engagement is a sport that's supposed to be fun. I've never had to deal with so many egomanics intent on taking the joy out of something they love - makes me think they are rather miserable wretches inside, almost as bad as frustrated academics.
-
Gib, the standard line at university faculties is that the arguments are so heated because the stakes are so small.
We "academics" are nothing compared to the fellows on the green committee arguing over whether or not the dead branches on a dying and ugly tree (that was planted by some misguided bird, out having a morning constitutional between hunting for worms, decades after the architect finished the project) can be trimmed without destroying "the architect's intentions . . . :-*