News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #125 on: May 21, 2004, 12:30:42 AM »
TE
I'll give you my take on the differences between the Travis & Macdonald's position in due time....unfortuenately I don't have time to do it justice right now. As far as being impossible to deal with...I will acknowledge I don't have the patience I once had. I expect more than I once did.

The point about the Travis & Macdonald's exchange is not which man's position is stronger. As I said before I have no idea what is true. The R&A worked in secret.....we will never know what transpired.

My point is there was an obvious clash...there was a distrust or dispute simmering between the two men. Which goes back to the original questions: did this clash have anything to do with Travis not working on LI, and could their clash have effected Ross & LI.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 12:32:01 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #126 on: May 21, 2004, 12:53:08 AM »
"TE
I'll give you my take on the differences between the Travis & Macdonald's position in due time.....

Tom;

I appreciate that. Just try and do it at some point for the sake of this discussion.

"The point about the Travis & Macdonald's exchange is not which man's position is stronger. As I said before I have no idea what is true. The R&A worked in secret.....we will never know what transpired."

They worked in secret did they? Why on earth do you think that? What can you possibly point to the supports that?

"My point is there was an obvious clash...there was a distrust or dispute simmering between the two men. Which goes back to the original questions: did this clash have anything to do with Travis not (working on Long Island)."

It certainly does appear they had a clash and it very well may have had a good deal to do with Macdonald riddening himself of Travis at NGLA and perhaps even blocking him on Long Island on architectural projects. It does appear from Macdonald's book that he did not respect some of Travis's opinions on the resolution of the Schnectedy putter situation and perhaps other things, and it does appear ultimately Macdonald may not have liked Travis and vice versa.

Our job is to try to determine why and also ultimately how it all played out and who seemed to have handled that situation best as it influenced and reflected on the future.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 12:56:04 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #127 on: May 21, 2004, 06:58:09 AM »
I should have said they worked in private...same difference.

From what I understand the R&A is a private club, and the self appointed rules of golf committee was an instrument of the club. I don't believe you can just walk off the street into the R&A and certainly not into one of their quarterly rules of golf meetings. I have never discovered a press report where the correspondant was reporting what he observed at the meeting. As far as I know they were not open to the public. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 I do not believe the minutes from these meeting are in the public domain either....perhaps you know how to get access to them. What we know of what occured in these meetings is what the individual committee members tell us occured.

"Our job is to try to determine why and also ultimately how it all played out and who seemed to have handled that situation best as it influenced and reflected on the future."

Maybe thats your job, I'm not sure thats my job. What I try to do is share what I have discovered, and perhaps my opinion, and let each individual make up their own mind as to what may have happened. In the case there are far too many unkowns for anyone to definetively determine what happened. (Like why Travis & Macdonald had a parting of the ways at NGLA)

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #128 on: May 21, 2004, 09:14:25 AM »
"From what I understand the R&A is a private club, and the self appointed rules of golf committee was an instrument of the club. I don't believe you can just walk off the street into the R&A and certainly not into one of their quarterly rules of golf meetings. I have never discovered a press report where the correspondant was reporting what he observed at the meeting. As far as I know they were not open to the public. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Tom:

The R&A that is the USGA's counterpart in the rest of the world has been made up since its inception of representative members exclusively of the private club of the R&A and essentially was one and the same until Jan 1 2004 when it became a separate "not for profit" entity as the USGA is.

"I do not believe the minutes from these meeting are in the public domain either....perhaps you know how to get access to them."

I don't know if the minutes of the R&A or USGA are in the public domain but I doubt they're classified. If someone wanted to see them I don't know you should assume that would not be possible.

"What we know of what occured in these meetings is what the individual committee members tell us occured."

In this particular case involving the Schnectedy putter and the banning by the R&A of various equipment in 1911 you however are not correct about us not knowing what occured in the decision making that led to those decisions. And that's precisely why I value that information within Macdonald's book as so valuable. Macdonald did not just make available to us his ACCOUNT of what happened he made available to us the actual letters between himself and various members of that committee (including Burn) which was the only way they were able to communicate with each other over that particular matter. That, in fact, IS the record and it's even more valuable to me than minutes would be. Those correspondences between those men is virtually the same thing as watching them communicate with each other. Macdonald was not in Europe when the statement that led to the banning by the R&A of the Schnectedy was drafted by the R&A Rules Committee (on which Macdonald was a USGA representative) so their communication was by letter correspondence and Macdonald made that available to us in his book. SInce the book was written around 1928 I very much doubt Travis or any of the newspaper or magazine articles you depend on for information had available to them any of that correspondence. You may not understand the significance of this to this discussion but I believe I do.


"What I try to do is share what I have discovered, and perhaps my opinion, and let each individual make up their own mind as to what may have happened. In the case there are far too many unkowns for anyone to definetively determine what happened. (Like why Travis & Macdonald had a parting of the ways at NGLA)."

What have you shared exactly other than to say you found something in a number of newspapers and magazines? I'd like to know what those articles are so I could look at them. What I'm trying to share here is Macdonald's offering of this correspondence that was the communication between the men that lead to these decisions. Do you have Macdonald's book and when did you read those parts that contain this correspondence? What I've done here is outline fairly specifically what those correspondences said. If necessary I may try to scan it and reproduce it on here. But many of those one here have Macdonald and Labbance's books and can look at them for themselves regarding this issue.

Maybe you think you've found something that's more than Labbance or C.B. Macdonald knew but somehow I seriously doubt that.

When one puts together all this nothing definite is found as to why Travis may have been cut out of projects in Long Island by Macdonald but it's fairly easy to see at what time Macdonald grew to not like or appreciate Travis.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 09:25:56 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #129 on: May 21, 2004, 09:39:36 AM »
TE
All in due time...if you can't wait there is nothing stopping you from looking for the information yourself (I gave you a list of publications).

It is my understanding that the USGA was an association of clubs, with democratically elected representatives. And that the R&A was a private club.

I have not found the R&A's Rules of Golf Committee minutes published anywhere...I would love to read the argument Macdonald made (or didn't make) regarding the mallet putter in the September 1910 meeting. Or if the committee discussed the possible ramifications in America of banning the Schenectady. Or what the members may have said about Travis's article in March of 1910 (if anything). Or if any of the committee members expressed bad blood regarding Travis. Or the individual members positions pro and con regarding Willie Park's crooked neck putter. I don't believe you will find those conversations in Macdonald's book.

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #130 on: May 21, 2004, 09:56:21 AM »
"I don't believe you will find those conversations in Macdonald's book."

Regarding the banning of various types of equipment such as the "Croquet mallet" style putter (the question asked by Nga Motu Club in New Zealand in 1908) that eventually came to include the Schnectedy putter, you certainly will find those conversations in Macdonald's book by letter correspondence which happened to be how communication between various Rules committee members was conducted.

Something tells me you haven't read those sections of Macdonald's book and this is why you are saying the things you are on this thread. If you read those sections I think even you will have a different outlook on this issue.

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #131 on: May 21, 2004, 10:53:57 AM »
TE
I've read quite a bit about the subject -- including Macdonald's book and a letter he wrote to Travis in November 1910 explaining the situation.

It was, as I said before, an interesting epoch....with as many questions as answers.

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #132 on: May 22, 2004, 02:33:56 PM »
1896- Travis first picks up the game of golf at age of 34.

1900,1901,1903- Travis wins the US Amateur.

1902- Travis travel to Mohawk GC with his friend Dev Emmet where he is introduced to the Schenectady putter….he begins using it.

1902-03- Macdonald, Travis and Windeler appointed by the USGA to interpret (and revise if necessary) the rules of golf…to be presented in a report (1903).

1903- Oxford & Cambridge golfing society (led by John Low) tours the US. Hosted by Travis and his friends on a number of stops including GCGC & Ekwanok. The O&C were undefeated except one match at Nassau where Travis sank a long putt on the final hole to defeat Low and win the match.

1904- Travis wins the British Amateur at Sandwich despite what he considers poor treatment. On the other side the British were not thrilled with Travis's behavior. He putts like a fiend and the Schenectady becomes famous.

1907- Travis is involved in the early stages of planning the NGLA (at some point in the next few years he exits…exactly when and under what circumstance is unknown).

1907- At the suggestion of Horace Hutchinson, Macdonald, the first American, is invited to join the rules of golf committee (starting in 1908). The USGA gives it their blessing.

1908- With game's growth exploding, the R&A decides it is time to revisit and clarify the rules of golf. The USGA gives Macdonald a carefully prepared draft to be considered. Some are incorporated; others are not. The finished product is generally praised on both sides of the Atlantic. For the first time an equipment provision is included. "The rules…committee intimates that it will not sanction any substantial departure from the traditional and accepted form and make of golf clubs which, in its opinion, consist of a plain shaft and a head which does not contain any mechanical contrivance, such as a springs."

1908- The USGA adopts the R&A's new code of rules.

1908- Travis founds the American Golfer magazine.

1909- The Nga Motu Club in NZ asks the R&A if a small croquet mallet is permissible to putt with. The answer: "A croquet mallet is not a golf club and is not admissible."

March 1910- American Golfer publishes an 18-page essay written by Travis on his British Am victory in 1904. In it he details the shoddy treatment that he and his friends encountered…in particular he sites the unkind treatment received from many of the O&C society members they had generously hosted the previous year. A speech given by Travis's friend Simeon Ford on their return to the states is also included in the article. Included in the speech are insulting comments about Horace Hutchinson.
There was a very negative reaction to the article in the UK (to say the least).

April 1910- The Pickerington Club requests the R&A clarify the croquet mallet question (why? I guess it must have been a burning issue….the flood of croquet mallets on the links).

(continued)

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #133 on: May 22, 2004, 02:34:28 PM »
May 1910- The captain of the R&A rules committee--Burn--rules that all mallet-headed putters are illegal and submits a motion that they be empowered to write wording into the rules that specifically states these clubs are a "substantial departure"…it is seconded by Ted Blackwell (ironically the man defeated by Travis in the finals of the '04 Am). Another member motions the Schenectady be exempt, seconded by another, then voted down.

Macdonald did not attend the May meeting. He later said in a letter to Travis that he had no idea that the Schenectady would be included in the mallet issue. His ignorance is a little unbelievable. The Times (London) wrote after the May decision that it was not unexpected the mallet and Schenectady would be victims of the committee. In fact the more shocking development was fate of the 'goose-necked' putter…due to an ambiguous statement the R&A made about shafts. Also in London Henry Leach wrote that it was common knowledge the rules committee "were hot on the track of certain mallet-headed putters…and meant to abolish them if they could."

May 18, 1910- Secretary Watson of the USGA cables Burn of the R&A asking if the Schenectady is barred (he had read it in a newspaper…they had not been informed the issue was being considered). Burn responded that it had been barred. (Travis would continually emphasize that no definitive action had been taken in May, only the authorization of a new clause on form and make…specific wording that would be added to the rules at their September meeting).


Spring and Summer 1910- In the months following the May ruling there was strong condemnation in the US and UK. The main complaint being that it was completely unnecessary and illogical--and that it threatened to create fraction between the US and Britain for no good reason. Those opposed included: Hilton, Darwin, A.Mitchell, Herd, W.Park, Behr, R.Garner, Perrin, Egan, Travers, Fownes, Tillinghast, Sargent, Vardon, Duncan, A.Campbell, A.Ross, W.Anderson, J.Foulis, Golf Illustrated-UK (Garden Smith), Golfing-UK, American Golfer, The Times and the NY Times. Those in support included Blackwell, Burn, Low, Hutchinson, Taylor, Braid. Macdonald was silent.

July 1910- In the American Golfer Travis writes an article entitled 'Mallet-Headed Putters' with quotes of support from a long list of important golf figures. It is also pointed out that the club can still be used in golf competitions in the US (but not in Britain).

September 1910- The R&A meets and adds specific wording that bars center-shafted clubs. They also clarify the wording on Willie Park's famous 'goose-necked' putters, which makes it legal.

November 1910- Travis writes that the R&A had made an egregious blunder. And that the issue is now in the hands of the USGA. He says that in his opinion the USGA has little choice…they had just a few months earlier ruled the Schenectady was legal, when it was believed barred on the other side, an about face could not be done without "stultifying itself". He addressed the idea (proposed by Macdonald) that the USGA could "save its face" by adopting the R&A ruling, but 'interpret' it to permit the Schenectady. It was Travis's view that this was a ridiculous idea…that rules on mallet clubs were now so specific. And he asked what would happen if the US's interpretation was questioned before the R&A (the 'final court of appeal')…how could they possibly rule other than the Schenectady was in direct contravention of the rules? He also emphasizes the USGA was treated with scant courtesy…never being notified of the matter (or the decision).

December 1910- A letter (dated from November) to Travis from Macdonald is printed in the American Golfer…response to Travis's November article. He corrected Travis, he did know the mallet issue was being addressed at the May meeting (Travis had said the USGA and its surrogate CB was unaware), but that he had no idea the Schenectady would be affected. CB said the Schenectady and goose-neck had been 'accepted' form and make of golf club for ten years, though "neither is traditional". {his opinion that the clubs were not traditional is interesting}

He said that he had written to all the committee members in June, expressing his view that they had made a mistake barring the Schenectady….he also reiterated his surprise with the decision. He shared that HG Hutchinson had told him he had never considered the 1908 rules in light of the Schenectady, but upon reflection there was no other decision to remain consistent, Macdonald said he was of the same opinion himself.

Travis wrote a brief follow-up…he pointed out the May ruling was not what killed the Schenectady, but the September meeting when the specific words were added. He wrote that Macdonald was not appointed by the USGA and was not an official of the USGA…although representing them. He was a member of the R&A and was appointed by the R&A. He called the situation un-American….and suggested the USGA "be permitted to elect their own delegate! Not that it really matters much, his influence being so inconsequential"

December 1910- USGA will address the club issue at their annual meeting in January.

January 1911- In the American Golfer Travis writes an article 'Nearing Crisis' analyzing a circular Macdonald wrote at the request of the USGA, giving a 'history of fact' (this is in Macdonald's book). Travis again reiterates Macdonald is in no sense a representative of the USGA. Travis writes that for the first time we are given the reasons (chain of events) for the ruling….the NZ croquet question and the ambiguous question from the Pickering Club, Travis says "And that is all!"

He questions why Macdonald fails to mention the USGA was kept completely in the dark and that secretary Watson had to wire the R&A asking for an explanation after reading about it the newspaper. And that the May decision was only an opinion…not a definitive decision. He is again critical of Macdonald's advice that the USGA accept the R&A's new rule, but interpret it to legalize the Schenectady. Travis suggests the USGA go back to the 1908 rules and then scrutinize each new amendment as they come…to see if they make sense in America. There is also a letter from President Taft giving his support for the Schenectady.

January 8, 1911- In the NY Times Macdonald criticizes Travis. He claims Travis has been giving a false impression not only on the mallet-headed putter, but other points as well. "It is extraordinary that one so expert at the game as Mr. Travis, and who is also the editor of a strictly golfing paper, should make such erroneous statements. An important point which he refuses to recognize is that only the clause on the form and make of golf clubs has been authorized by the Royal and Ancient Golf club in general meeting. Nothing that the Rules of Golf Committee can do makes a rule unless it is approved by the R&A Golf Club….[the golf club ruling] has not been approved in general meeting, consequently, as Capt.Burns states in his letter, we are a t liberty to interpret the clause to our own satisfaction."

January 9 & 13, 1911- Two NY Times editorials, the first giving Pres. Taft's view of the Schenectady and the second critical of the R&A; stating the US needs to look out for its best interests.

January 14, 1911- Leighton Calkins attending the USGA meeting 'fires the last shot of the campaign' in the NY Times. "There is a very amusing paragraph in the second Macdonald circular letter, which has not been commented upon. Referring to statements which have been made to the effect that a Schenectady putter or centre-shafted putter is an American idea or invention. Mr. Macdonald allows his loyalty to St.Andrews (which we will admit and sincerely admire) to draw him into a damaging admission, so far as St.Andrews itself is concerned." Macdonald relates that in the 1870's a similar putter was used by a famous golfer named Hodge and also AF MacFie used a similar putter twenty years before. "So it seems the center-shafted clubs were in use nearly forty years ago! Yet St.Andrews now bars them because they are not of a 'traditional form and make'".

January 15, 1911- The USGA meeting convenes. Travis writes "Mr. Charles B. Macdonald was afforded an opportunity to read a paper on golf and conditions both at St. Andrews, where he played in the somewhat "archaic days" of 1872, and in this country did much to arouse the sentiment of the audience in his plea for maintaining the most pleasant relations with the Royal and Ancient. He urged unification and standardization of rules as his keynotes and was respectfully given close attention." The USGA decides to go back to the 1908 rules which legalized the Schenectady. It is nearly unanimous…the most prominent delegate siding with the R&A is John Ward, who is ironically representing GCGC, he is also a good friend of CB Macdonald. The USGA would later add a clause that specifically legalizes the center shafted golf club.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 10:30:38 AM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2004, 02:38:49 PM »
Who was wrong or right during the Schenectady saga is difficult to say....but what is not difficult to conclude is the seriously bad blood between Travis and Macdonald...which may have spilled out into the architectural arena.

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #135 on: May 23, 2004, 12:02:49 AM »
Tom MacW:

In my opinion, it is not hard to say who was right or wrong in the chronology of events you outlined in your last two posts. It's probably not to say that Travis was wrong exactly, merely quite seriously misinformed of the exact facts and the chronology of events. A reading of pages 158 to 169 in Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf" will prove by the contemporaneous correspondence between Macdonald and Burns and various others from the R&A and USGA exactly what went on. You are wrong to say that Macdonald was silent on this issue and that correspondence will prove he was not.

You are also wrong to say that Macdonald was appointed to the R&A Rules Committee only by the R&A and Travis is wrong to suggest that that appointment which was confirmed and approved by the USGA as their representative on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee was in some way "Un-American".

Here is a description of how Macdonald was appointed as the USGA REPRESENTATIVE to the R&A Rules Committee probably in the summer of 1907 as a general rift between the USGA and the R&A seemed to be impending due to general dissatisfaction with the R&A rules of golf within the USA (particularly the Western Golf Association) .

"The letter went on asking the opinion of the Royal and Ancient as to what course of action the USGA should take, saying it did not believe in any drastic or radical legislation. It stated the belief that the time had come for a revision of the rules and implied in the letter that they would like to confer in such a revision with the Royal and Ancient. To this letter Captain Burn replied in a most conciliatory tone, and at the Royal and Ancient's September meeting a revision of the rules was decided upon., when Horace Hutchinson introduced the resolution that the golf committee on rules be authorized to invite the USGA TO APPOINT a representative member of the Rules of Golf Committee (R&A). The resolution was adopted, and being a member of the Royal and Ancient, I was appointed on the committee and confirmed by the USGA, and through me the USGA voiced their wishes."

What's Un-American about that? Travis appears to have been seriously misinformed and perhaps of the mind that the USGA should break away from UNIFICATION with the R&A and create their own rules for the game of golf. This is the very thing Macdonald always opposed---a split between the R&A and USGA, and thankfully due to Macdonald's own efforts on a compromise with the Schnectedy putter, the USGA was able to adopt the R&A's ruling on the form and make of clubs while at the same time avail themselves of the compromise Macdonald created allowing "interpretation" by the USGA making it possible that the Schnectedy was never banned in the US while it was by the R&A for 41 years until it was finally unbanned by them.

Macdonald's compromise allowed the USGA to accept the Schnectedy putter as legal while at the same time avoiding a complete split on the Rules of Golf with the R&A.

It appears Travis was still trying to make an issue of the Schnectedy putter being banned approximately seven years after his British Amateur win in 1904 perhaps in some way as a retaliation against him. Macdonald said the banning by the R&A had nothing whatsoever to do with Travis and his use of a Schnectedy putter in 1904 at the British Amateur. It looks like Macdonald and the record of correspondence he provided between the R&A and the USGA was right about that.

It is not of much wonder to me why Macdonald in and around this time was probably getting seriously pissed off with and at Walter Travis!  
« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 12:09:52 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #136 on: May 23, 2004, 08:26:35 AM »
TE
While arguing his position Travis often made the point that Macdonald was appointed by the R&A and not the USGA, and that he was not an official of the USGA. Although he corrected Travis on several other points, Macdonald didn't correct that one.

 "It may not be inappropriate to here explain the relationship which Mr.Macdonald occupies as a representative of the USGA on the rules committee. The latter body is composed entirely of members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. In short, it is not at all a representative organization, drawn from various clubs in different sections, such as the USGA for instance, but a self appointed oligarchy pure and simple. Mr.Macdonald was not appointed by the USGA St.Andrews attends to that; the USGA can only humbly acquiesce when St.Andrews arrogates to itself the sole appointive power….and no one is eligible who is not a member of that club."
~~Walter Travis

NY Times (9/1907) :
 "I am informed by the Secretary of the R&A Society of golfers of St.Andrews that CB Macdonald, the prominent American golfer and former champion, who is a member of the premier British Club, has been invited to become a member of the rules of golf committee.

CB Macdonald, when seen yesterday at Garden City GC, said that he had not yet been informed of the action of the famous club, but that he was a member of the organization and would be glad to serve it in any capacity. He said that he would be abroad next Summer, and that the meeting of the rules of golf committee would be held in May. He could very readily attend its sessions and give American golfers the benefit of his services as their representative. He had talked with President Havemeyer of the USGA, who appeared to regard the appointment as very happy selection, and believe that golfers throughout the US would be well pleased to feel that American views would have personal expression before the legislative committee."

Country Life (1907) :
"I am very glad to be able to say that I received a letter from one who is high and influential in the councils of the American golfers to the effect that in his opinion those golfers will consider the appointment of Mr. CB Macdonald to the rules of golf committee as a graceful acknowledgment of their right to let their voice be heard in deliberations on the rules and also as providing a ready means for communication of their ideas. It is, of course, no more than a personal opinion which he is thus stating, but it is an unusually well-informed and judicious opinion. After all, why should the Americans fail to be well pleased? There is every reason to believe they should be pleased, and we may hope that further talk of an American code of rules will be deferred indefinitely."
~~ Horace Hutchinson


IMO it is wise to look at as many sources as possible. I also believe it is beneficial to search for sources as close to the date of the action as possible. When reviewing material do you ever consider (or find) that some authors may have a self-serving perspective?

When looking into the issue of Macdonald and Travis's personal relationship (which was the purpose of this exercise), and how that relationship may have spilled into their architectural careers, I don't believe it is imperative to discover which man was right or wrong...although we do know Travis's position prevailed. There are far too many unknowns to make that judgment IMO.

What is important, in my view, is the fact that there was some serious bad blood between these two men. Even if you believe Macdonald position was the correct one, you cannot ignore the fact that the entire incident had to be extraordinarily painful for him. Being part of a decision that was lambasted at home, having his views attacked in the media and ultimately having the body he helped to found (USGA) refuse to accept the dictates of the body he was now part of (R&A).
« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 08:47:27 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #137 on: May 23, 2004, 09:02:08 AM »
Tom MacW:

Regarding your post #138, I'm very glad to see you offer those other sources and opinions and me offer Macdonald's. It probably isn't completely essential for us to decide here and now who was right or wrong but there certainly is nothing wrong with offering our own opinions on it after multiple sources are offered.

Some on here may think all this is nit picking but I disagree and I know you do as well. I think this type of back and forth between at least the two of us is what Golfclubatlas.com can be and I think that's a very good thing.

There's no question at all that the Schnectedy putter incident both in 1904 and again in 1911 and just perceeding that day was a very big issue in golf (a President of the United States probably wouldn't have offered his own opinion on a completely trivial golf point!). Obviously national pride (both ways) was a big issue here although perhaps one that should not have occured if a real understanding of what those two organizations were trying to do was completely understood!!

The following quote that I already offered above should serve to clarify Macdonald’s appointment and position on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee and how that came to happen and to be approved by the USGA!

“To this letter Captain Burn replied in a most conciliatory tone, and at the Royal and Ancient's September meeting a revision of the rules was decided upon., when Horace Hutchinson introduced the resolution that the golf committee on rules be authorized to invite the USGA TO APPOINT a representative member of the Rules of Golf Committee (R&A). The resolution was adopted, and being a member of the Royal and Ancient, I was appointed on the committee and confirmed by the USGA, and through me the USGA voiced their wishes."

You should see that Macdonald was appointed to that committee by the R&A AND his appointment was CONFIRMED and approved by USGA! It very much followed the recommendation on that appointment that Macdonald (and others) understood came from Horace Hutchinson. Presumably this meant if the USGA did not agree to CONFIRM that appointment Macdonal would not have served on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee for the purpose of helping to ensure unity in the rules of golf between the R&A and the USGA! The fact he just happened to be a member of the R&A and the USGA just made his selection a logical one---as he himself (and apparently Hutchinson) said!

Apparently, Travis did not completely understand that and you may not either. Apparently some newspapers and magazines did not understand it as well. It appears Travis and some others were attempting a number of years later to make this Schnectedy issue look like it was in retaliation against Travis although Macdonald and those on those two organizations who were actually considering the situation and the reasons for their decisions on this situation did not feel that way at all. This is perhaps why Macdonald eventually included the actual decision making correspondence (the actual letter writing that effected the decisions) in his book.

In my opinion, what that in effect did is clear up the Schnedtedy putter issue record. What those men on those two organizations were primarily interested in doing is averting a complete rift and schism between the R&A and the USGA----the very thing that was always utmost in Macdonald’s mind. Because of his part in this entire issue that is exactly what happened----a schism was AVERTED! The brouhaha that led to this attempt to avert a rules schism occured in 1907 and has nothing to do with Walter Travis or his Schnectedy putter.

Maybe Travis didn’t fully understand that for some personal reason and maybe he didn’t even want to see a schism averted---maybe he wanted to see the two organizations part ways on the rules of golf! And that is probably exactly why he and Macdonald parted ways and were no longer friendly towards each other!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 09:17:32 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #138 on: May 23, 2004, 09:26:07 AM »
"Apparently some newspapers and magazines did not understand it as well."

Seeing that the sources for the newspaper and magazine articles were CB Macdonald (the invitee) and Horace Hutchinson (the inviter) it is difficult to reasonably come to that conclusion.

The letters included in Madonald's book and his explanation of the R&A's actions were part of the circular that was given to the USGA representatives prior to their decision not to recongize the R&A ruling; legalizing the Schenectady in the US (the vote was 48 to 6).

There are a lot of maybe's in your last paragraph.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 10:28:29 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #139 on: May 23, 2004, 10:39:58 AM »
"NY Times (9/1907) :
"I am informed by the Secretary of the R&A Society of golfers of St.Andrews that CB Macdonald, the prominent American golfer and former champion, who is a member of the premier British Club, has been invited to become a member of the rules of golf committee.

CB Macdonald, when seen yesterday at Garden City GC, said that he had not yet been informed of the action of the famous club, but that he was a member of the organization and would be glad to serve it in any capacity. He said that he would be abroad next Summer, and that the meeting of the rules of golf committee would be held in May. He could very readily attend its sessions and give American golfers the benefit of his services as their representative. He had talked with President Havemeyer of the USGA, who appeared to regard the appointment as very happy selection, and believe that golfers throughout the US would be well pleased to feel that American views would have personal expression before the legislative committee."


Tom MacW:

I'm from New York and I grew up with the NY Times and I do respect that newspaper but if the above is actually a quote you took from the NY Times in 1907 this is a very good example of just how inaccurate indirect information and reporting can be compared to the actual correspondence I'm offering and how you should simply not depend on some of these newspapers and magazines for the exact facts.

It's nice to know that USGA President Havemeyer was so happy in 1907 that Macdonald had been recommended to serve as the USGA's representative on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee. That would've been a neat trick indeed since Theodore Havemeyer died in May 1897!!

Aren’t you the one who mentions how important accurate chronological reporting is?

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #140 on: May 23, 2004, 10:44:47 AM »
"There are a lot of maybe's in your last paragraph."

Tom MacW:

Possibly there are some "maybes" in my last paragraph in post #139, as that paragraph includes some of my own opinions but there are some plain errors and obvious inaccuracies of the facts of those days in your post #138!

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #141 on: May 23, 2004, 01:40:04 PM »
TE
Perhaps CB had performed a séance. :)


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #142 on: May 23, 2004, 07:39:11 PM »
TEPaul,

Tom MacWood:

It's nice to know that USGA President Havemeyer was so happy in 1907 that Macdonald had been recommended to serve as the USGA's representative on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee. That would've been a neat trick indeed since Theodore Havemeyer died in May 1897!!

Aren’t you the one who mentions how important accurate chronological reporting is?

TEPaul,

This is why it's so important to have multiple, confirming sources.

Alll too often, articles are presented as the Gospel, when in fact they are grossly inaccurate, as in your example above.

I think it's even more imperative to obtain multiple, confirming sources when the author is involved in the "issue"

Revisionist history didn't start in Russia, and lives, long after the revolution.

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #143 on: May 23, 2004, 08:45:44 PM »
Tom MacW:

I think you should definitely keep all the material coming you have or can find from Travis and any other source from that time involving the Schnectedy and the R&A/USGA organizational and rules negotiatons. That was a really important time in setting the stage for the future of amateur golf as it relates to those two organizations and Macdonald's part in it and his basic theme of unity, as well as basically being opposed to ball and equipment standardization. it's important to know and to understand the details and the facts and it appears from some of the discussion on this thread alone there's still far too much misunderstanding of what really was going on during those important years.

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #144 on: May 24, 2004, 06:04:56 AM »
Pat
I agree...a perfect example being if you rely upon Macdoanld's book to learn the Schnectady story...you would miss more than half the story...you would get a very sanitized impression of what really occured, especially regarding the feud, Macdonald vs Travis.

I believe I have a much better impression of the story than I previously did due to the multiple sources, hopefully everyone does too. Definitely the way to go IMO.

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #145 on: May 24, 2004, 06:09:42 AM »
Getting back to Ross and LI...when he died it was revealed he was planning to write his memoir that summer...if he had lived a bit longer perhaps this mystery would have been solved.

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #146 on: May 24, 2004, 07:05:44 AM »
Is there any mention of Ross or any courses he designed/built in CBM's book or letters?  
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #147 on: May 24, 2004, 07:18:11 AM »
Tom MacWood,

Ross had plans to write a book? Would be very interested to see the evidence for that. His own manuscript, mainly from 1916-1920, sat unfinished for 30 years at his death and wasn't published until 1996. Neither his daughter, Lillian, nor anyone else in his family ever mentioned that to me during many hours of interviews, and they knew him and his documentrary word extremely well. Upon his death, Ross had instructed his secretary, Eric Nelson, to burn the office documents, and most of them were lost, but in all of the letters, telegrams and notebooks that remain (thanks to everyone else savingg stuff and there being more than Nelson could burn) there's no evidence that he ever intended to write anything.

Ross was doing very little from 1933 on, and he had enormous amounts of free time during the subsequent fifteen years oif his life until his death in April 1948. I find it highly unlikely that with all of that free time (Depression, World War) he would have waited until the mid-1940s to write, by which time his health had already slowed him down measurably.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2004, 02:57:47 PM by Brad Klein »

TEPaul

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #148 on: May 24, 2004, 08:13:34 AM »
"Getting back to Ross and LI...when he died it was revealed he was planning to write his memoir that summer...

Brad:

Join the club! God knows where Tom MacWood comes up with some of the stuff he maintains on here but I'm sure he'll produce some newspaper article (probably by golf writer Horace J. Duffus of the Cleveland Picayune and Spitoon) he swears will prove Ross was planning to write his memoirs after he died in the summer of 1948. Tom has already mentioned a NY Times article that reported that USGA President Havemeyer was happy Macdonald was appointed to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee in 1907 a full ten years after Havemeyer died in 1897. Tom MacW explained that glitch by a seance and a smiley! Maybe Tom MacW believes in the after-life as now he has Ross planning to write his memoirs after he died! Probably not a bad idea actually since generally there's not all that much to do after you die!   ;)

T_MacWood

Re:Great opportunities and Ross
« Reply #149 on: May 24, 2004, 12:10:47 PM »
Brad
It was in the May 1948 Golfdom in a well written memorial to Ross after his death.

"Ross was said to have designed between 600 and 800 courses in the United States and other contries. A few weeks prior to his death he was not certain of the exact number but intended to go through his records to determine the precise count and assemble other material for his memoirs which he planned to work on late this summer."

E-mail me your mailing address and I'll send you a copy.

TE
I'm not prejudice...I'll look for information anywhere, be it the Cleveland Picayune and Spitoon or the NY Times.

You shouldn't allow Macdonald's slip of the tongue or the columnist's slip of the pen paralyze you. The information Macdonald relays in that article is not materially altered by the error:
A) That the R&A extended in the invitation to Macdonald
B) that the USGA would be pleased by a Macdonald appointment from the R&A  
Which is consistent with Hutchinson's comments at that time and consistent with Travis's understanding in 1910.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back