[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, it was your honest assessment of my opinons, and I can deal with that.

I didn't take it personally. I just took it as you being your typically unpleasant self.

BTW, I will ask again, just why are we supposed to believe without question (as you sometimes try to coerce us into accepting with your posting style) that your evalluation of, in this instance, where trees were planted is any more accurate than mine?   Its all speculation and both scenarios are plausible.  But don't worry, I won't badger you ten more times like you recently did to Mike Cirba on his question.  Unlike you, I know that would be rude.  I do understand that sometimes when I post in anger, its really a built up thing, and not particularly directly related to your last post.

I stand by my original theory that you really, really, need to take a pill, or maybe just let loose on the champagne tonight!  Enjoy the night and we can hit the reset button for 2011.  I will vent my sometimes misplaced anger at NHL refs tonight, I am sure, so you are off the hook from here on out!

[Jeff_Brauer]

ahh, I probably shouldn't keep this argument going, but I saw this post on the thread about qualified course raters from Scott Warren:

When my wife (then girlfriend) first landed a job at a big daily paper, one of her jobs was to visit some of the city's galleries each week and compile a column of the best exhibits with a bit of info about them, the work on show etc.

My mum was amazed when she found out.

"I didn't know you had a strong interest in art?" she said.

"I don't," my missus replied. "Well, I like it, but I have no particular knowledge about it."

"But I plan my gallery visits on the strength of what looks good in that column. I always thought it was written by an expert!"

"No, some of the other people who have done it said if they are really busy they just ring the gallery, they don't even go out to visit."

By this stage my mum's illusion was shattered! - some newcomer journo with no particular knowledge was advising a few hundred thousand readers every weekend which galleries they should see - pretty ridiculous, she thought.

I can't help but think the gossip columists of 1894 were delegated their positions in similar ways, but its just my opinion.  Feel free to disagree.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  I need neither a pill nor champagne. You are the one who rudely lashed out at me with no provocation, based upon what you describe as some sort of  vented up hostility that you cannot control.  Perhaps you should consider your own advice. 

And while you have you liquor cabinet and/or medicine cabinet opened, see if there is something in there that will stop you from putting words in my mouth.  I never asked you to believe anything "without question". Nor did I try to tell you were the trees were definitely planted.  Rather I explained why I thought your speculation about 30 ft. trees transplanted for a pending golf course in 1893 was, in my opinion, unsound.   You can take it or leave it, and of we both know which one you will choose.

And again, not all speciation is equal, especially when only one of us is speculating about what exactly happened with those trees.  I have no idea and dont care to guess.  Speculation depends upon one's support, or lack thereof.  I've no idea what those trees were for, but see little reason to connect them to the golf course.

Unless Scott Warren's wife is about 140 years old and used to work the golf beat in Boston, I don't get your point.  That is onless your point is that the information about Campbell laying out the course probably came directly ftom the club.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, at least you are civil this time in our last exchange of 2010, and I appreciate it.

Yes, not all speculation is equal, but again, I see no proof in your post that yours is better.  Like me, you admit it is based on seeing one article, and your own logic, based on whatever your experiences are.  No problem with that.  We really don't know where those trees went.

I think I explained my point about the newspapers.  If you choose to not make a leap of faith that newspapers don't often get things wrong because of their skill and motivation in reporting, then that is your perrogative.  I think most observers would see the connection, though.

My point was basically that this is outside documentation of Mike Cirba's claim that we cannot always expect that newspaper people are experts on what they are reporting on.  My other back up source is my own experiences in dealing with media and how accurate I think their stories about my projects are, and the young folks usually sent to cover things like that.  I also pointed out earlier that some of the other entries from the same columni Joe posted, where when he didn't really have the full facts, he (or she) went with what little was known and reported a charity event, leaving out a lot of details. 

Of course, we have no way of knowing if the articles proclaiming WC designed Myopia were presented with the same lack of care, or by a similarly unqualified person.  The only thing I can conclude from all of this is that I am not as certain of those contemporaneous accounts as you, and think most people would like to back those up with something more substantial, like the actual club records, which as Pat and I have been discussing, are not availalbe, which I understand is a frustration.

Actually, that has been my experience quite a bit.  As it happens, I read a news article today credting a golf course design that I really did to a tour pro, with absolutely no need to mention my contribution.  It sometimes seems as if the roles for how those courses (some of them) were designed are kind of reversed.  A few clubs, while they may have utilized services of CBM or Campbell in some limited way, just didn't see fit to credit them fully.  I gather that they did enough work on their own, and had big enough egos to view it that way.  When you find some real documentation that Campbell did something or another specifically, we would love to see it!

[Mike Cirba]

There was no "golf beat" writer in Boston in 1894;  there was only an anonymous high society gossip columnist who seemed to write the same thing in multiple papers, or else multiple writers who copied others gossip columns for their own publications.

If Campbell was celebrated, or even known among that high-falootin' set, why not even a mention of the impending assignment?

Frankly, I don't think this writer would have known anything about the game nor known Willie Campbell from Willie Wonka!  

That we are debating what we think this anonymous gossip columnist meant when they used the term "laid out" is really very funny if you stop to think that they likely hadn't the foggiest idea what that term meant in the slightest!  

Happy 2011 to all!

[Mike Cirba]

I would say that this article makes pretty clear that the golf liinks have already been "located", or "routed" if the writer can confidently state that play on the "entire course" will be able to be viewed from a high vantage point once the course is "laid out".

Frankly, I don't know how it could mean anything else if we assume the writer is speaking literally, which seems to be the rule here.




Jeff,

How long would it take for that type and size of "sod" to "take", to be playable?   About how long would it have taken for them to do this work across a nine-hole course?  

In other words, about how long prior to "go-live" would one need to have planned the holes for them to be reasonably playable given a supposed spring planting?

Would you think it a fair assumption that this validates the report of S. Dacre Bush that they used sod for Myopia, as well?

Tom MacWood,

Would you now say that this is the earliest use of sod on American golf courses you've seen?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Which is a more reliable source of information, an 1894 society page column reporting on the events of 1894 or someone today who claims to have had access to "board minutes", "chronicles", "some letters and diaries"? And the latter source is unable to document anything, has not shown any special knowledge beyond what we all read in the club history, and apparently there are no chronicles, letters and diaries mentioning the golf course according to the folks at Appleton Farms.

At what point do you begin to question your primary source's accuracy and credibility?

Is it possible he has misrepresented what he has seen?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Would you now say that this is the earliest use of sod on American golf courses you've seen?

One of the earliest, that is for sure. Wasn't there something about laying sod on the recent Shinnecock thread? I think that sod laying may predate Appleton by a year or two. The other interesting thing about the Appleton report, the course was apparently nine holes and not six holes as reported by Weeks, and supposedly confirmed by the diaries and letters TEP read.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Good morning and happy new year!

I think it confirms that Myopia used sod for greens and tees like Appleton did.  Whether they did them simultaneously in the spring of 1894 or Appleton did it first in fall of 1893, we have no way of knowing.  If Shinny used it a few years earlier, I actually find that whole idea quite amazing, but these guys did appear to want to get on with their golfing and obviously could afford the extra expense of sod.  We have to remember that this is a dozen years before NGLA and those guys had early troubles with their grass seeding and grow in.  I am just trying to get my head around the troubles those early guys had on the agronomy side.

I will have to admit I don't really know how long sod "would have taken." I do know that now, with modern growing techniques, it still takes 6-8 weeks until you play sodded fw, maybe less in the prime growing season.  Sodded greens are about the same but require specially grown sod and really fine laying techniques.

If planted before the growing season, it just sits there until it warms up.  So, we saw snow in April and reports of an early spring.  My guess is that either way (planted in April, May, or June) it wouldn't be ready until June, and even then, it was reported as rough in the case of Myopia (although we don't know if that was greens or through the greens)

It would seemingly be shorter time back then only because of lesser maintenance standards.    As far as timing to sod 10,000 SF (if similar to Appleton) I doubt the overall time would be much less than today, but it would depend on the crew, and where the sod was coming from.  Labor would be no more than a week, probably less, and delivery schedules via horse and wagon (vs semi loads of sod pallets) might be the key factor.  It seems as if may be cut from the same property, though. 

Net, net, I don't think we know when the sod was planted at Myopia.  They did note the course was rough early, suggesting that they may have played on newly laid sod, but it still seems to me like it would take a few weeks for the roots to knit in where you could walk on it without it shifting around.  I have seen native grass sod cut in big chunks and transplanted and they apparently never knew they were moved.  But, the edges weren't very even.  The hard part is to guess how low a quality putting surface they were willing to play on in those days.

TMac,

Good morning and happy new year to you as well.

All TePaul has really represented to us as fact, rather than opinion, is that he was given about an hour's access to the Myopia records and did see some documents suggesting that Weeks had those records at his disposal when writing the club history.  He has never had possession of the records so he obviously can't produce them to us.

As such, the only real debate is whether Weeks used those records accurately or missed large chunks of club history for some reason, such as Campbell being employed in some capacity.  I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on, but I have no reason to believe he lied about seeing the records, or seeing similarities in the accounts of those and the Weeks history in any way.  As I have said, I think seeing those actual records would most likely go a long way to solving some riddles here.

As to the gossip columns veracity, both Mike and I have posted some thoughts on why we shouldn't necessarily take those as gospel either.  We have no way of knowing they are wrong in this specific case, but there are about as many instances of gossip and newspaper columns being wrong as their are club records and even club histories, maybe more.

I don't want to speak for Mike, but all I think we all agree with your statements earlier that we need to use a composite of all documents to make the best possible judgement about club histories, are that it seems somewhat arbitrary to give newspaper article the benefit of the doubt, but not to do so for a club history that seemingly has relied on contemporaneous club records.  IMHO, even with the possible gaps that come from interpretation many years later, the club history shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as easily as some do.  Nor should we dismiss the newspaper accounts either. 

I think Mike and others have tried to develop theories presuming both are substantially right, rather than insist that it is an either/or proposition.  I for one have little problem with that.  At this point, it seems as logical an interpretation path as pounding the desk that either newspapers or club histories are the only sources we can rely on, don't you?

[Niall C]

Niall,

In college, I worked for a company that transplanted large trees in their landscaping.  It was risky even in 1976, so it had to be risky in 1893, and the article hints that the results were anything but assured.  That said I recall that they had done some historical research and concluded that large tree transplanting had a fairly long history and was attempted early.  It is just too enticing to estate landscapers to ignore, the idea of "instant effect" landscaping.

Jeff

I had a similar experience working for the local council Parks Dept when I was a student about 20 odd years ago. They kept a nursery for replanting but simply cut down any trees over a certain height which I'm sure was significantly less than the 30 feet talked about in the article. Irrespective of the size of the trees it is interesting to me that trees MIGHT have been planted on a course as early as this date. I'm not aware of anything similar being done in the UK.

Mike

I think you're post #1305 clearly shows how these old articles can be interpretated different ways. You state that the course must have already been routed because the article states that the entire course will be seen from a high vantage point once it has been laid out. From my perspective it would equally be possible to identify an area of land on which a course is to be laid out on and be able to say also that as all that land would be seen from the advantage point that therefore all the holes when routed would be able to be seen.

With regards to the meaning of "laid out" I strongly doubt that it had a defintive meaning back then and I've probably read as many of these old articles as anyone else. Newspaper articles can be useful but in my opinion a good degree of common sense and context is required in analysing them.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

Part of my job that summer was to go to established neighborhoods, company checkbook or cash in hand, and offer the lady of the house about $400 for a nice looking tree in their lawn.  If accepted, our company would bring the tree spade, dig out the tree, fill the hole with soil and sod it back in an afternoon.  I always wondered about what the husband thought when arriving home from work to see a huge tree gone, of if some didn't even notice.

While our work was in the summer and clients paid big bucks, traditionally, tree transplanting takes place in late fall or winter when they are domant for best results.  Early spring is second best, and it takes a lot of work to transplant large trees in summer, with a less than perfect success rate.  That article, noting they only knew they were successful the next spring, rang true to me. 

As to the interpretations, I agree.  There have been many definitions of laid out bandied here.  There have been examples posted of it being used different ways back then.  It was not that definitive back then, despite the claims of David M.  Even using his definition of laid out as to put on the ground what is designed (whether on plan earlier or routed in the field) it is possible that they walked the ground in March and planned the course while walking, but the actual laying out (final staking out and start of construction) had yet to begin when the artcle was published in May (or written earlier in May). 

I guess we shall never know!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba,

You both are attempting to move from a general observation about some newspaper accounts, to a specific claim about a particular article.    Because some newspaper accounts are flawed, then the "Campbell laid out the course" article must be flawed.   Such logic is unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.

And it doesn't matter if the articles were written by "cub reporters," gossip columnists, or anonymous staffers compiling information telegraphed to the course.   Compiling such simple factual information does not require a pulitzer prize in journalism.  That is why new reporters get such tasks; it is good practice compiling factual information.  As the Scott Warren piece indicates, such information often comes straight from the source (in his post museums, in our case the clubs) and therefor ought to be even easier to compile.

The account I have posted stands out for a number of reasons.  It contained detailed information on not only the course and tournament, but also some of what had gone on with its creation.   And everything in it which is verifiable proves accurate.  In short there is no reasonable justification for your continued dismissals of this article or the similar articles.

The disingenuousness of your analysis becomes even more apparent when one considers the hypocritical dismissal of this article while both of you are attempting to stretch the meaning of ambiguous articles, Cirba with the future location of the Myopia course and Brauer with the thirty foot transplanted trees on Appleton's course.

You guys are obviously just cherry-picking the source material, stretching whatever can be stretched if you think it might help your argument, and disingenuously dismissing everything else as unreliable. It is an approach that is pretty much guaranteed to distort the truth.  

When you find some real documentation that Campbell did something or another specifically, we would love to see it!

You have seen it, and repeatedly.    As contemporaneous accounts go, it doesn't get much better than a detailed newspaper account from the opening of the course, especially when the article contains plenty of information which obviously came from someone who knew what was ongoing at Myopia.    Really it is about as good as one gets.  And to think that other accounts contained the exact same information?   As historical analysis goes, it is a slam dunk.

Here it is again.  



What specifically is it about this article that makes you doubt its accuracy?   Aside from the fact that you don't like what it says?

Imagine the article was the same, except that it said that AM&G had laid out the course . . . Would you guys dismiss it or embrace it?   Honestly?

__________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Your representation about what TEPaul told us he had seen in the minutes is ridiculous.  He told us that all sorts of specific things were included in the minutes.  He even provided us supposedly specific details about things that Weeks could only speculate about!  What he told us seems to have been pure fiction.  Defending his behavior by misrepresenting it is as dishonest as his original representations.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning and Happy New Year. 

David, you are correct that we are making a general observation only to demonstrate the possibility of inaccuracy.  That said, I don't see a difference in the logic of "some newspaper accounts are flawed, so all should be questioned" and "some club histories are flawed, so all should be questioned."  In fact, since it seems to most of us that one of your and TMacs basic premises is that club histories are flawed, and you are on a mission to see which ones truly are (which, BTW I think is very valid) that you have an inherent bias in believing that club histories are inferior that permeates your thinking before you even start, if that makes sense.  As such,

* Your logic has to be at least questioned as unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.
* Most of us see no difference in us cherry picking material and you doing it. 

Its a very simple premise really, we are all seeing the same material, but attributing different levels of importance to it.  You have no monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here.  (Or at least you have provided no contemporary documents proving you have a monopoly.

We simply disagree on some key points.  And most of us have admitted that none of us really know and could be wrong.  If you could see fit to admit there was even a 1% chance that your interpretations could be wrong, I bet most of us would view you in a more favorable light.

I respectfully disagree about how easy it is for cub reporters to interpret the info gathered from the source to make it into a coherent piece.  I know this from personal experience, reading quotes of my own, and seeing articles based on press releases at grand openings that get a lot of facts wrong the VERY NEXT DAY. I cannot dismiss my own experience in formulating opinons on this. Nor should you!  Even 140 years apart, you cherry pick the parts that you find the same, and dismiss the ones that you find not fitting your scheme of things, same as me.

I  wasn't dishonest and I didn't defend TePaul's behavior in the last post, and frankly, my statement of what are the facts of his expericence and what his opinions presented here are spot on.  I quizzically ask how you can find wholesale disagreement with my actual words: I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on) I will say that I believe making this a battle about TePaul is a diversionary red herring on your part with no real impact on "the truth."  

And that said, I still think there has to be a reason Campbell wasn't apparently mentioned in club records as an employee, or for that matter, obviously not hired as back to design the revamped course a year later, even IF he had been hired originally for design work, and even though he was hired as club pro in 1896.  How can we debate a newspaper account ad infinitum, and barely take up some obvious facts that show his course design contributions (if any) weren't considered too highly by the contemporary club members not once, but 2-3 times?

Again, among a few other things,  the club record might explain some of it if available to us.

BTW, check your IM.

[DMoriarty]

David, you are correct that we are making a general observation only to demonstrate the possibility of inaccuracy.  That said, I don't see a difference in the logic of "some newspaper accounts are flawed, so all should be questioned" and "some club histories are flawed, so all should be questioned."

You are again misrepresenting my position.  I don't spend my time scouring club histories for mistakes, nor do I bother with them much at all.   If I did use them as a source (I generally do not) then each club history would stand or fall on its own merits, just like any other second hand source.  I would conclude them neither accurate nor false without knowing the basis for their claims.    The proof offered would be the key, not whether it was approved by the club.  

As it is, everyone I have ever read had significant flaws, but honestly they are of no real concern of mine one way or another.  I have very little interest in official club histories because they are rarely properly sourced and oftentimes provide very little support for their various claims. So I rely on my own research of the contemporaneous source material[/u].  

In fact, since it seems to most of us that one of your and TMacs basic premises is that club histories are flawed, and you are on a mission to see which ones truly are (which, BTW I think is very valid) that you have an inherent bias in believing that club histories are inferior that permeates your thinking before you even start, if that makes sense.

Nonsense.  TomM and I are just out there researching what interests us.   It is you guys who shove these club histories into our faces and demand we accept them as gospel.  They are rather irrelevant to me.    

As such,

* Your logic has to be at least questioned as unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.
* Most of us see no difference in us cherry picking material and you doing it.  

Nonsense and more Nonsense.  This is obviously some rhetorical game for you, and the truth secondary.  You think I disingenuously cherry pick so you think you can too?   Well I don't, or try very hard not to, because that would make figuring out the truth very difficult if not impossible.   That you think you are playing tit-for-tat shows that the truth is not your concern.

Its a very simple premise really, we are all seeing the same material, but attributing different levels of importance to it.  You have no monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here.  (Or at least you have provided no contemporary documents proving you have a monopoly.

Unfortunately I do seem to have a monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here, at least as between me and you two.   Not all logic is equal.   There is no "big tent theory" of historical analysis.   Your dismissal of that article is unfounded.  The article speaks directly to the issue at hand.    

We simply disagree on some key points.  And most of us have admitted that none of us really know and could be wrong.  If you could see fit to admit there was even a 1% chance that your interpretations could be wrong, I bet most of us would view you in a more favorable light.

More absolute nonsense.  My views are my best interpretation of the information currently available and subject to change as more information or better analysis presents itself.  So for there is no better information that these newspaper accounts and the alternative analysis being offered by you and Mike is hardly worth addressing.  

The most significant alternative which has presented itself (by relatively contemporaneous source material I brought forward) is that Parker and Bush played a greater role than has been acknowledged.  But you guys laughably ignore even this because it does not fit in with your preconceived conclusions.  

I respectfully disagree about how easy it is for cub reporters to interpret the info gathered from the source to make it into a coherent piece.  I know this from personal experience, reading quotes of my own, and seeing articles based on press releases at grand openings that get a lot of facts wrong the VERY NEXT DAY. I cannot dismiss my own experience in formulating opinons on this. Nor should you!  Even 140 years apart, you cherry pick the parts that you find the same, and dismiss the ones that you find not fitting your scheme of things, same as me.

Those columns were like bulletin boards.  The accuracy depended upon the knowledge of the person conveying the information.  In the case of the article above, that person was obviously very knowledgeable about was was ongoing at Myopia.  

I  wasn't dishonest and I didn't defend TePaul's behavior in the last post, and frankly, my statement of what are the facts of his expericence and what his opinions presented here are spot on.  I quizzically ask how you can find wholesale disagreement with my actual words: I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on) I will say that I believe making this a battle about TePaul is a diversionary red herring on your part with no real impact on "the truth."

 

I stand by what I said, but would rather not get into it all.    But if you try rehabilitate his credibility on these matters I will challenge you every time.  

And that said, I still think there has to be a reason Campbell wasn't apparently mentioned in club records as an employee, or for that matter, obviously not hired as back to design the revamped course a year later, even IF he had been hired originally for design work, and even though he was hired as club pro in 1896.  How can we debate a newspaper account ad infinitum, and barely take up some obvious facts that show his course design contributions (if any) weren't considered too highly by the contemporary club members not once, but 2-3 times?

You have no basis for writing any of this.  You don't have the "club records" and don't know what they said or didn't say.    You don't have any idea what club members thought of his design contributions or if they knew enough to even consider that sort of thing.  So don't pretend like you know what you don't know.   "Obvious facts" is rhetorical code for I am just pretending it is obvious because I have no support for what I am saying.

Again, among a few other things,  the club record might explain some of it if available to us.

It is doubtful.  Otherwise Weeks would have known about Campbell's involvement and  would not have had to speculate about what happened.  


[/quote]

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well you have proven that in 2011 that reasonable discussion with you on any topic will apparently be impossible.

Short version of your post is summarized in your words, Unfortunately I do seem to have a monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here".  As long as that is your standard operating position, its obvious that there will be no discussion, just arguing, as it is clear (sigh) that you are the type of person who will never die until he has the last word, whatever that word may be.

[DMoriarty]

I see why that would offend you Jeff,  but unfortunately, when it comes to you and Mike that statement is accurate and on point.

Your positions not only rely on faulty logic, they are obviously driven by your desired result and as opposed to any reasonable understanding of the source material.   There is no other way you guys could throw out the best indication we have of who laid out the course. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

It is fairly obvious that it will forever be a tit for tat argument here between us.  The only question left is whether its worth it.

Just for fun, and to discuss something different, why don't you address how the fact that Willie never got involved by any account on the long nine and expansion to 18 holes fits in with your theory that he was solely responsible for the original, rudimentary nine hole course. 

While you dissed me even mentioning it, I know you think you ought to be allowed to explore any area that interests you, and I should get the same right.  And, I  thought at one point even you conceded that Campbell didn't have much to do with those expansions, and Leeds did the work and should get the credit.

And is it really so unreasonable to think we ought to use all documents and events to interpret history rather than argue about whose interpretations of which are best?  I mean, that doesn't really sound unbiased to me.

[DMoriarty]

David,

It is fairly obvious that it will forever be a tit for tat argument here between us.  The only question left is whether its worth it.

It is only tit-for-tat for you.  I keep hoping you guys will be reasonable about the source material, but I will admit this desired outcome is really more a leap of faith on my part and nothing supported by the record thus far.

Just for fun, and to discuss something different, why don't you address how the fact that Willie never got involved by any account on the long nine and expansion to 18 holes fits in with your theory that he was solely responsible for the original, rudimentary nine hole course.

While you dissed me even mentioning it, I know you think you ought to be allowed to explore any area that interests you, and I should get the same right.  And, I  thought at one point even you conceded that Campbell didn't have much to do with those expansions, and Leeds did the work and should get the credit.

Explore any area you like, but dont pretend it is "fact." There is one report that suggests that the changes to make the long nine were in the works from the beginning, and if this was the case Leeds wasn't likely involved and Campbell may have been.  As for the rest, I don't know one way or another and have no interest in discussing your speculation.

And is it really so unreasonable to think we ought to use all documents and events to interpret history rather than argue about whose interpretations of which are best?  I mean, that doesn't really sound unbiased to me.

It is reasonable to use all the information available. It is extremely unreasonable and extremely biased to assume into existence information that is nonexistent or unavailable in an attempt to bolster your case.   That is what you are trying to do here.

ADDED:

It is also biased and unreasonable to assume that the best contemporaneous account we have of who laid out the course should be discounted, dismissed, and/or ignored based on the generality that not all newspaper articles are always exactly accurate.  Yet this is what you and Mike Cirba keep trying to do.

Again, if the article was the same but said that AM&G laid out the course would you be going to great lengths to assume it was incorrect?   If not, then what could the justification possibly be for you doing so with the article as is? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I think Mike and I, and even TePaul have been reasonable on this specific point.  We have all stated that those newspaper articles definitely suggest that Campbell was involved somehow, but not in enough detail to know exactly how. 

To answer your last question, if both the articles and the club record said AM&G and/or Willie Campbell designed the first course at Myopia there would be no debate.  But, the club records (as interpreted by Weeks, which is the best we have at the moment) say one thing and some newspaper articles say something else. 

You have generally praised Weeks at some times, but also totally dismissed his interpretation of club records at others.  While I hear and understand your contentions, I simply don't discount that he is all wrong either.  The all or nothing thing doesn't seem logical to me, and once again, we are not summarily dismissing the newspapers.

I believe there is a difference between "non existent information" and unavailable information, while it appears you consider them to be the same for your purposes.  I am wondering why you place so much importance on being right "for now", knowing that at any time, if unavailable information becomes available information, the game probably changes. 

We are all guilty of cherry picking and as speculation, even if you deny it.  No doubt when I see an article mentioning the Appleton golf course and tree planting, my mind goes in certain ways.  But, yours goes in other ways just as quickly. 

Too quickly, in fact, as your constant and instant refutations of others' contentions, seldom stopping to say "geez, maybe I ought to consider that?" says more about your mindset and reasoning ability than ours, suggesting you don't ever really stop to consider facts.  Intuition and logic tell us that of all the generally intelligent people on these threads couldn't be as constantly wrong as you say.  Yet, us being wrong 100% of the time is the one factor most of your historical analysis depends on, and is the one constant in most of these exchanges.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think Mike and I, and even TePaul have been reasonable on this specific point.  We have all stated that those newspaper articles definitely suggest that Campbell was involved somehow, but not in enough detail to know exactly how.  

The article says he "laid out" the course.  It is unreasonable and incredibly biased to reduce that to "Campell was involved somehow.". It is worse to suggest, as your friends have, that all he did was some menial manual labor.

To answer your last question, if both the articles and the club record said AM&G and/or Willie Campbell designed the first course at Myopia there would be no debate.  But, the club records (as interpreted by Weeks, which is the best we have at the moment) say one thing and some newspaper articles say something else.

You didn't answer my question.

Qut pretending that you know that what Weeks wrote was from he "club records.". There is no conflict among the source material.  On the one hand we have the article, and on he other hand we have nothing at all.  We know of NO contemporaneous source material contradicting this article.   And there is little chance such even exists, otherwise Weeks wouldn't have had to speculate, and he wouldn't have gotten details wrong!

You have generally praised Weeks at some times, but also totally dismissed his interpretation of club records at others.  While I hear and understand your contentions, I simply don't discount that he is all wrong either.  The all or nothing thing doesn't seem logical to me, and once again, we are not summarily dismissing the newspapers.

Nonsense. His interpretation was surely the best he could do based on what he had.  But I am little concerned with Weeks beyond the FACTS which back up his claim.   Whether you make the claim or Weeks makes the claim, the claim is only as good as the facts backing it up.  And here no one can come up with a single fact backing it up.  And the inaccuracies and speculation in the Weeks claims cast further doubt on their factual basis.

But bring forward facts which back up the claims and I will gladly consider them.

I believe there is a difference between "non existent information" and unavailable information, while it appears you consider them to be the same for your purposes.  I am wondering why you place so much importance on being right "for now", knowing that at any time, if unavailable information becomes available information, the game probably changes.

For the purposes of historical analysis, there is little difference.  As much as you like to, you cannot assume facts into existence by hope or good intentions.  

As for being "right for now" that is the best that historical analysis can ever hope for.  This is obviously something you guys refuse to understand.  When the ultimate goal is the truth then being proven wrong is a good thing, not a bad thing.

We are all guilty of cherry picking and as speculation, even if you deny it.  No doubt when I see an article mentioning the Appleton golf course and tree planting, my mind goes in certain ways.  But, yours goes in other ways just as quickly.

Only you stretched that article.  I dont know what the trees were for.

The record in this thread and elsewhere reflects that not all is equal when it comes to cherry picking, just as the record reflects that some of us are more likely to come up with ridiculous and biased interpretations than are others.

Too quickly, in fact, as your constant and instant refutations of others' contentions, seldom stopping to say "geez, maybe I ought to consider that?" says more about your mindset and reasoning ability than ours, suggesting you don't ever really stop to consider facts.  Intuition and logic tell us that of all the generally intelligent people on these threads couldn't be as constantly wrong as you say.  Yet, us being wrong 100% of the time is the one factor most of your historical analysis depends on, and is the one constant in most of these exchanges.

You think that because I am able to quickly deal with your speculation and assumptions, that this means I must be biased?  Interesting theory, but I can think of some more likely reasons which explain why I can so easily dispose of your claims.  But I too am surprised at how often you get things wrong, but what surprises me about both you and Mike is that no matter how many times you are wrong, you guys remain undaunted and never stop to reconsider your methodology, or even to consider that others might be better suited to this sort of thing.   From my perspective the recurring issue is that both of you guys let your agendas control your factual interpretation, Mike is more likely to take real facts and stretch his analysis so the facts are no longer recognizable.  while your analyses may be more sound, you are more likely to misremember and  misrepresent the facts or simpy assume facts into existence.  Indeed you are doing that regarding this very issue.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

What exactly is my agenda?

Hell, I could go on and rebut a lot of your points, admittedly not conclusively and surely without another rebuttal from you, but there is no point.  Hey, I have admitted you might be right, even if I just don't think we are using all the relevant information that will someday become available, somehow.  Not really my objective.  Maybe the debate will start up again when something new and signifigant comes along and we can be productive.

To be perfectly honest, sparring with you a bit today was more mentally interesting than watching football (as a big ten fan, what a disaster, other than my Illini a few nights ago) and I enjoy the back and forth.   As you know, I don't mind a spirited back and forth, but I really don't care to upset you or turn gca.com into a mud wrestling match. 

But, now its time to watch outdoor hockey!

[DMoriarty]

David,

What exactly is my agenda?

Agenda might not be the right word in your case.   I am referring to you having a preconceived belief in what happened  and misrepresenting or/and assuming facts in service of this.  Whether this is motivated by an overriding agenda is another question.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Oops, my edits did cross.

I believe I do know myself.  And I do recognize that at some level, being in the golf biz and parts of major organizations, that I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the existing records that exist over time.

I also know and have stated that I spar with some local Kennedy Conspiracy Theory guys around here, generally thinking they stretch things a bit to make their points.  And, I know they won't go away, and that from time to time, some long time historical thinking is overturned by those same kind of folks that question everything, even if some of the big stories - like Kennedy - never really get over turned.   Either way, I know I disagree with that kind of mindset in general.

So, net, net, I do view you and TMac in that preconcieved light based on my own personality type and some other things.  I believe I try to keep those things in proper perspective, and I do ask a lot of more theoretical/analytical questions as opposed to digging out facts, which you and TMac do better.  I don't reallly think my logic is as flawed as you portray it, but I can see why you argue that I have preconcieved beliefs, with some truth.  

I do like gca history, and I don't mind sparring, but in reality, I really don't think I have an agenda.  Sometimes, we have hurled a few barbs at each other, and so at times, it becomes personal, but most times it isn't, at least for me.  Its kind of like kids playing rough until some one gets hurt in many cases.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You just implied that TomM and I are akin to Kennedy conspiracy theorists, and to me that speaks volumes about your point of view on these issues, whether you call it an agenda or not.    I'd say that when it comes to historical analysis, TomM's and my respective batting averages are excellent when compared to conspiracy theorists and even better when compared to the usual participants in these conversations.  

I keep coming back to those reports that Campbell laid out the course as well as those articles that indicate the course was not laid out before mid-May.  I don't think there is any reasonable basis for dismissing or even discounting those articles.  And as long as you guys refuse to acknowledge that, it is very difficult for me to take your analyses seriously.

Likewise, it is impossible to take your analysis seriously when instead of producing support you just claim that there must be magical mystery documents out there somewhere. t support out there for your claims.   And you wonder why I accuse you of letting preconceived notions drive your understanding of the facts.

If these magical mystery facts exist then bring them forward.  I doubt they exist but I won't stop you from hunting ghosts.  Find the information and bring it forward and I will be glad to consider it.  That is the way historical analysis works.  

[Tom MacWood]

David
Don't waste your time arguing with JB. He has a casual interest in golf architecture, and based on his track record as an architect 'casual' may be an overstatement. He looks at these historical debates as more of a mental exercise than anything else; he really doesn't care one way or the other. This is a game to him. He has no interest in research which is the lipnus test in my view because research takes no great skill beyond desire and effort. If you don't have the desire or effort what really is the level of your interest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()