Tom Mac & Tom Paul,
Following this conversation (?) I believe that the two of you are spending a great deal of time searching the specifics of each other comments for points of disagreement rather than considering what the other has written on its face value, thereby missing important points.
Let me illustrate with the following exchange that took place on this page:
Tom Macwood answers a post of Tom Paul with, “No I don't think Crenshaw is an idiot, not do I think Crump was an idiot… Is it a good idea to begin construction on a golf course before completing a routing? Being of sound mind and surrounded by good people that doesn't sound like something Crump would do. Tilly described seven holes in his April article. You have the 7th finishing somewhere out on an adjacent property with no apparent way of getting home... Is it your opinion that Crump had finished routing at least a nine hole loop? And if this is the case, how would he get home from your 7th?”
Tom Paul responded by saying, “You do have a decent point there and we all talked about this a few years ago. Tillinghast described in the Golf Illustrated article in 1913 only the first seven holes, and #18, no more… However, in an article probably published years later he… described in detail the first four holes which had been completed entirely to Crump's own plans and personally directed building, and also the plan for the first nine holes and the tenth and eighteenth, all of which remained as Crump determined with the exception of the ninth…”
Tom Macwood then responds, “Apples and oranges. Your hypothetical scenario for the front nine - building seven holes without any apparent way home… I don't think anyone in their right mind would begin building a golf course or a nine hole loop without knowing how he was going to get home. That is a rediculous idea… To believe Crump only routed seven holes - with the seventh hole stopping on land outside the survey map of his property - before commencing construction is to believe Crump was an idiot. Crump was not idiot…
Tom Mac, whether Crump was an idiot or not, you did ask Tom Paul if Crump had designed the front nine in full and he showed Tilly’s article “The Genius of Pine Valley,” which he wrote for the May 1933 issue of Golf Illustrated how, “In March 1913, I published a full description of work already accomplished and described in detail the first four holes… and also the plan for the first nine holes and the tenth and the eighteenth all of which remained as George determined with the exception of the ninth…”
That is a pretty clear-cut answer that Crump HAD a “way home” at the end of the front nine loop. Why ignore Tilly’s factual statement? Even if your conclusion was correct, and based upon Tilly’s writing’s it doesn’t appear so, wouldn’t the converse also be true? Wouldn’t it be equally stupid to design the first and last hole of a nine-hole loop without knowing how he would get out and back to it? Yet that too is what Tilly wrote he did when in 1933 he mentions how Crump had planned “the tenth and the eighteenth.”
I freely admit never having stepped a single-toe on that wonderful golf course in New Jersey, but it is quite obvious even to me that Crump was unique man who was searching for the absolute best golf holes he could find and made changes as he went.
In addition to all of this, you both have quoted and then ignored how Tilly wrote in 1913, right after his description of the barely cleared seventh hole that, “The remaining holes are yet to be cleared, but the work will be pressed hard…”
What holes are these if not at least the 8th & 9th holes? Tilly definitely then did refer to all nine holes in that April 1913 article in the American Golfer.
Secondly, you are both misquoting. From the article(s) that you are referencing as proof of the other being wrong.
Tilly, writing as “Hazard” in the April 1913 issue of The American Golfer, announced the course and wrote about Pine Valley and Crump’s design. It is this article that you both appear to be quoting from, not from “Golf Illustrated article in 1913” or “April 1913 issue of Golf Illustrated” (both by Tom Paul) or the “March 1913 article” (Tom Macwood).
You are both accusing the other of inaccuracies and yet use your own while doing so.
Tom Paul, you mentioned that, “So there is some inconsistency in those two reports from Tillinghast. As for historical accuracy I'd tend to go with the wording of the article he wrote in April 1913 and not the one he may've written years later in the 1930s that was obviously his recollection of what he wrote years earlier.”
Why do you state this? I assume it is because you have assumed that the April 1913 article was the one he was referring to in his May 1933 recollection and the differences in hole descriptions in both. This assumption may very well be wrong.
Tilly wrote for several different journals and newspapers during those years, including for the Philadelphia newspapers. There are many instances where he had articles appear in Golf Illustrated and other journals at the same time. It is highly possible that the article he was referencing was not the American golfer article and that in the one he was speaking about he gave more information, and if it was an account for a Philadelphia newspaper, probably would have been written AFTER the American Golfer article which was probably written in late February (see my earlier posting that you quoted from), this would make sense.
Why do I believe there is another article by him on this same subject? For several reasons. First, he mentions in the 1933 article not just that he earlier mentioned the plan for the “first nine hole” but also for “the TENTH.” This is too specific a mention to just write off as a lapse in memory. Tilly kept, and this is a second reason, copies of everything he ever wrote and published in his personal files. I have this information from family members and it is also reflected in the contents of his personal library which he sold in 1939. It would have been quite easy for him to refer to the original article.
I think if you both better consider what the other is saying that it would be far less argumentative and far more of a discussion.