Great opportunities and Ross

[TEPaul]

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

Me too but I think I probably know what and where to put my faith in where the facts lie. You said earlier that Macdonald's account of all this was 'sanitized'. I'd very much like to know PRECISELY why you're saying that!

"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:"

That information certainly doesn't paralyze me, quite the opposite in fact--it just made me laugh that you didn't even know that Havemeyer had been dead for ten years as you were the one who quoted the article.

"A) That the R&A extended in the invitation to Macdonald."

No Tom, you haven't got that exactly right yet! The R&A Rules Committee did not extend an invitation to Macdonald to become a representative to their committee. The R&A Rules Committee was authorized to INVITE the USGA to APPOINT a representative from the USGA to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee. The USGA appointed and confirrmed Macdonald as their representative to the R&A Rules Committee. So how in the hell Travis thought there was something "UnAmerican" about that is beyond me and was obviously beyond Macdonald too!

"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."

Yes, apparently the USGA (USGA President Daniel Chauncey at that time) was pleased with the idea of a USGA representative on the R&A Rule of Golf Committee to help revise the rules of golf after the obvious fact that United States golfers were beginning to demand that the USGA begin to start thinking about writing their own rules apart from those of the R&A's---again a possibliity that was complete anathema to Macdonald and his constant hope of UNITY. By the way, when was it again that Travis said Macdonald's appointment was UnAmerican? Or what was it exactly that you think Travis felt was UnAmerican? Was it perhaps that he thought Macdonald wanted to ban the Schnectedy---something Macdonald never wanted to do and something that apparently never happened here?

[Brad Klein]

Tom MacWood,

Ross died on April 26, 1948. They got a memorial article ready on him in quick enough time for inclusion in the May 1948 issue of Golfdom? Must have been quite the rush job. Since the number of courses allegedly done by Mr. Ross that you refer to in the article is 50-100% too high, I have questions as to the credibility of the (other) information contained in the article.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

While books by an author, about the author or related topics, are in the author's own hand, and provide invalueable insight, they may not necessarily repesent the entire story, or an independent point of view.

Autobiograhies tend to be kinder then non-approved biographies, and there's a reason for that.

Conversely, when a supposedly independent reporter writes a story or attempts to capture a snippet of history, it doesn't mean that the reporter got it right.  The absence of valueable facts and circumstances, together with the reporter's preconceived ideas may taint the veracity of his report.

Having lived a short span of history as an adult, I've seen too many examples of revisionist history to accept one account as the gospel, irrespective of the source.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
I have the utmost confidence in Herb Graffis and Golfdom...he was a well respected journalist. His mamouth book on the PGA is one of the most thorough well-researched golf related books I've ever come across. I can not think of a logical rational why he would fabircate the info regarding Ross not knowing the precise number of courses, and he was planning to figure it out while preparing his memoirs.

The NY Times had a similar excellent column on Ross the day after he died. Golf World was another with nice long essay right after his death. NY Times and Golf World both claimed Ross designed over 600 courses.

It makes sense that Golfdom would have had newly acquired inside information due to the fact the North & South Am was conducted prior to Ross's death. It was covered in the same issue.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, all I know is that Ross was a reluctant writer and a pretty mediocre one. I don't believe for a second he had formulated any plans to write his memoirs - other than the kind of wistful thinking we all have. Had he any firms plans, he would have undertaken them over the precious decade when he had little to do - by 1945-46 he was traveling and designing modestly again. But by 1948, whatever he might have said to Graffis, Ross was slowing down dramatically, having barely dragged himself to that initial ASGCA meeting he was photographed at in Dec. 1947. The last reported site visit I believe he made was in the previous Nov. (1947) to Raleigh CC. So he was basically slowing down, and hardly ready to undertake a writing project.

That NYTimes "column" was in fact an obituary and contained the same standard mythic number of 600+ courses.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
The Times (London) 9/24/1907
"What promises to be the most important business meeting held in several years by the Royal & Ancient Club the governing body of golf, will be take place this evening in the club-house at St.Andrews…The chief interest is in the motion of which Mr. Horace Hutchinson has given notice:--'The the rules of golf committee be authorized to invite the USGA to appoint a representative as a member of the committee.' Hitherto the rules committee has consisted solely of members of the R&A Club, and the proposal to grant to the United States a voice in the framing of the rules has provoked considerable discussion."

The Times 9/25/1907
"America is not yet to have a representative on the rules of golf committee. At the business meeting of the Royal & Ancient Club, held in the club-house at St.Andrews, last night, the motion standing in the name of Mr. Horace Hutchinson 'that the rules of golf committee be authorized to invite the USGA to appoint a representative as a member of the committee' was withdrawn."

The Times 9/27/1907
"It transpired at St.Andrews, yesterday, that the rules of golf committee has agreed to invite Mr. C B Macdonald, an ex-president of the USGA and a member of the R&A Club, to become a member of the rules of golf committee. Thus the body will continue to consist solely of members of the R&A Club, and America will, if the invitation be accepted, have a representative on the committee, although he will be appointed by the present controlling body, and not by the United States Association."

Nothing yet to report from the Cleveland Picayune and Spitoon.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
Why would Graffis fabricate the story?

The article says he would be working on his memoirs, it doesn't say anything about him actually writing it...maybe that is why Graffis was aware of it.

There were a number of articles with 600+ number. There was an interview of Ross in the National Golf Review in the 30's that gave the same figure.

[Brad Klein]

Nobody said anything about Graffis "fabricating" his story. My point is simply that there's no evidence Ross intended to or actually was working on his memoirs. Maybe Ross mentioned it casually or wistfully, maybe he even said it, maybe Graffis assumed it was so, I don't know. All I know is that it doesn't pan out in terms of what Ross generally was doing then. It's possible to be wrong without making things up.

[TEPaul]

"That NYTimes "column" was in fact an obituary and contained the same standard mythic number of 600+ courses."

I hope you all realize that NY Times obituaries on famous people are often basically "written" in some cases many years before that person dies!

[T_MacWood]

TE
What I said was "...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."

Macdonald's account is, in many ways, a self serving account, major parts of the story, like the heated exchange between Travis & Macdonald, are not included in his book. His inaccurate recollection of how he was appoinited (and by whom), the snub of the USGA & secretary Watson, the level of acromony over the entire issue and the criticism that Macdonald personally was subjected to (either from guilt of association or skepticism that he was an innocent bystander) are either not covered or not given much weight.

You are given the impression that there was a movement to completely break from the R&A....no one I'm aware of was pushing for this at that time...the bigger concern was a break between the East and West in the US. There is no mention that it wasn't just an American issue with the ruling....there was criticism on both sides of the Atlantic. No mention of the contrversial Travis article on his 1904 victory. The fact that Travis's postion prevailed is not covered in his book. Like I said it is only about half the story.

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald's account is, in many ways, a self serving account, major parts of the story, like the heated exchange between Travis & Macdonald, are not included in his book. His inaccurate recollection of how he was appoinited (and by whom), the snub of the USGA & secretary Watson, the level of acromony over the entire issue and the criticism that Macdonald personally was subjected to (either from guilt of association or skepticism that he was an innocent bystander) are either not covered or not given much weight.

You are given the impression that there was a movement to completely break from the R&A....no one I'm aware of was pushing for this at that time...the bigger concern was a break between the East and West in the US. There is no mention that it wasn't just an American issue with the ruling....there was criticism on both sides of the Atlantic. No mention of the contrversial Travis article on his 1904 victory. The fact that Travis's postion prevailed is not covered in his book. Like I said it is only about half the story."

Tom MacWood:

I'm glad to finally know this is the way you view this situation! I will keep posting these remarks of yours above because they really do show me you may have very little capabiltiy of viewing history accurately---even when that history may be voluminously documented before you!

Why in the world do you ASSUME that Macdonald is inaccurate? Why do you assume the R&A or the USGA was inaccurate? Is it because you came upon some articles by Travis and in the London Times that don't exactly square with his or their presentation of what went on, or better yet your own presentation of what went on?

Did it ever occur to you those organizations and Macdonald may have felt they had more important things to do and to consider than arguing with Walter Travis and newspaper accounts? Apparently that has never occured to you and is another perfect example, in my opinion, why you are not very adept at properly viewing or understanding history!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps C.B. Macdonald just may've known a bit more about the circumstances of his own appointment to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee than the London Times or Walter Travis did? I guess not! Did it ever occur to you that they (Macdonald, the R&A and USGA) may've known more about the details of this Schnectedy issue than Travis or the London Times did since it was they (Macdonald, the R&A and USGA) who were directly dealing with it and the details of it---and not Travis and the London TImes? I guess not!

Let me give you just one more example of how and why you should more carefully weigh whatall you read and take as fact from these articles in newspapers and magazines.

Macdonald was probably amused to know (if he even bothered to read it) that the London Times made him an ex-president of the USGA---a position he never held!! You're probably going to tell me AGAIN that that error is just small potatoes and I'm being hysterical as you did when I pointed out that Havemeyer had been dead for ten years despite a Times newspaper account YOU PRODUCED reporting him as alive and well and congratulatory of Macdonald and his new postion on the R&A Rules committee! Those things are just little trivialities in reporting and little trivialities of fact, right? Yeah right Tom!

Are you even beginning to get a little bit of the flavor of what may've been going on back then? Is is even beginning to dawn on you why Macdonald may not have thought much of a self-serving ass like Walter Travis perhaps was being about this Schnectedy issue! Do you really suppose Macdonald and members of the R&A and USGA felt it necessary to create an entire non-existent story with no foundation at all just so they could counter or bury an account by Walter Travis?? Is it beginning to occur to you what UNITY within the rules of golf between the R&A and the USGA really meant to C.B Macdonald and those two organizations? If not, I will say again---you are not a very adept observer of history, in my opinion!

[T_MacWood]

TE
It appears to me that The Times article (and Hutchison's Country Life article) is a simple straighforward report of what transpired at the R&A's autumn meeting (an extraordinary chain of events if you ask me), The Times and Hutchinson both claim the R&A appointed him. It doesn't get much clearer.

Have you uncovered any evidence where the USGA claimed they appointed him (other than Macdonald's book)...if you have where could we find it?
 
You are half right, The Times report is different than Macdonald's version in his book. It is not different than the version given in the NY Times that contains Macdonald's comments on his appointment. It is not different than Hutchinson's version in Country Life. In addition American Golfer (Travis) also made a huge point of the details of the appointment during the mallet-putter discusion....Macdonald was obviously aware of this version and he never corrected it....and he corrected Travis more than once, so obviously he did feel it was important to argue with Travis. The fact is both men were advocates for two different courses of action, and they both felt their cause was important.

If there was only one contradictory source it would be a little easier to swallow your belief that Macdonald is accurate in the book, a case of he said she said. Unfortunately you have four sources (NY Times, The Times, Country Life and American Golfer) all contradicting his version. (I wouldn't focus too much on the Macdonald-USGA president comment, it is an innocent mistake in my view, and is a very minor point in that extraordinary report).

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What I've been trying to point out here is this entire issue of which the Schnectedy putter issue was, in reality, probably a very small part (despite its complete overplaying in the press and with people like Travis) was a huge issue in golf, most particularly to those men who were part of those two organizations--the R&A and the USGA.

For some reason, you don't seem to realize or understand that. The over-riding issue, of course, was UNITY, and the continued maintenance of unity within the rules of golf between the R&A and USGA that all rules world-wide by unified and remain that way!! That was Macdonald's constant concern in his positions within those organizations---without that unity he felt golf would devolve into a series of many different games here and there and everywhere, and you seem to be trying to make the case that he was using that to cover something up here---such as the realities of this Schnectedy putter issue. To me that is simply a massive lack of understanding or misunderstanding on your part.

The way Macdonald appears to have handled that larger issue within those two organizations (all supported by the voluminous correspondence witihin those two organizations he supplied in his book) is probably one that was truly masterful. Some today look at Macdonald and his legacy and think of a man who was simply opinionated and curmudgeonly, and he probably was that---but the manner in which he appears to have masterminded compromise to effect a most important outcome---UNITY within the Rules of Golf---and it's continuance between the R&A and USGA is something we all should definitely better understand, in my opinion.

When you write this on here;

"Travis was dubious of Macdonald's account, calling it "pecularly interesting" and pointing out an omision or two in his report. He went on to emphasize that Macdonald was not representing the USGA
(he was member of St.Andrews--which was requirement--and appointed by St.andrews)..implying he was not looking out for the best interests of the American golfer....he called this anonomily "quite un-American". He suggested the USGA appoint someone to represent them with the R&A."

Just tell me what YOU THINK was "quite un-American" about what Macdonald was trying to do. Just tell me what you think Travis meant by that remark for starters and then perhaps you will begin to see what this entire time and issue was really all about! And you also may begin to see better what the real problems were between Macdonald and Walter Travis. The Schnectedy putter issue, in reality, in my opinion, was probably nothing much more than a mosquito on the back of an elephant about to run amok despite what people like Travis and the London and New York Times had to say about it!

Unity within the rules of golf was being beset upon by a series of little issues, probably completely blown out of proportion like the Schnectedy putter due to national pride on both sides of the Atlantic.

The truth is it very well may have been Macdonald who was largely responsible for saving the day. Is this a man who needed to get into a petty pissing contest in the press or otherwise with some mosquito like Walter Travis?

I, for one, don't think so!

You say your interest in all this is strictly golf architecture and nothing more. In my opinion then, that's about all you should stick to here!

[T_MacWood]

TE
There were two huge issues that came out of the USGA annual meeting of 1911 as a result of the Schenectady issue.

One was that the USGA would exert their independence when it came to the rules of golf and American interests.

Do you know what the second large issue that came out of the meeting? I'll give you a hint...you won't find it in the Macdonald book. And UNITY ain't exactly the correct answer.

”Did it ever occur to you those organizations and Macdonald may have felt they had more important things to do and to consider than arguing with Walter Travis and newspaper accounts?”

Macdonald did argue with Travis…he sent a letter to American Golfer correcting Travis and putting forth his own argument. He was also interviewed for an article in the NY Times thats sole purpose was to contradict and criticize Travis, I don’t have it in front of me, If I recall correctly the byline was ‘Macdonald criticizes Travis’ or something like that.

”Did it ever occur to you that perhaps C.B. Macdonald just may've known a bit more about the circumstances of his own appointment to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee than the London Times or Walter Travis did?”

He should of known the circumstances of his appointment. As well Hutchinson should have known the circumstances, since he was a member of the committee, he was the one who suggested the USGA appoint a representative and he was one the one who wrote in Country Life after the fact that the R&A ultimately was the body that appointed him.

“Did it ever occur to you that they (Macdonald, the R&A and USGA) may've known more about the details of this Schenectedy issue than Travis or the London Times did since it was they (Macdonald, the R&A and USGA) who were directly dealing with it and the details of it---and not Travis and the London Times?”

Did it ever occur to you that they (Hutchinson, Macdonald, Travis, USGA, R&A, NY Times, The Times, Country Life, American Golfer) all claimed the same thing in 1907…that the R&A appointed him.

Your theories are almost always very interesting, but unfortunately there is scant documentation or evidence to back them up.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

What is going on with you? Macdonald said the USGA appointed and confirmed him to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee and others said the R&A appointed him? Apparently people such as Travis were trying to make an issue out of his appointment to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee as something "UN-American"?

For Christ sake, Tom, JUST TELL ME why YOU THINK that was an issue here? What the hell is UN-American about that, particularly since the London and/or NY Times said that Havemeyer, the USGA President (who conincindentally had been dead for ten years) was happy about that appointment!

What do you think was going on here with Travis to say Macdonald's appointment was UN-American? What did Travis want here? Did he want the USGA to write entirely separate rules of golf for the game in America. Did he want the USGA to insist that the Schnectedy putter be legal. Well, guess what Tom MacWood, that's precisely what Macdonald was trying to do and did do in American and WITHOUT completely rupturing the USGA's relationship with the R&A.

Was there anything Un-American about that or anything that needed to be covered up?

You tell me and stop this shit about your four separate sources against Macdonald.

You just tell me what was it that you think C.B Macdonald thought he needed to cover up here!

[T_MacWood]

TE
There is plenty of evidence that contradicts his version of the appointment. Have you found any independent evidence that confirms his version? What is it?

I'm tired of agruing and re-arguing with you. You appear to be grasping for straws and swerving off on tangents. If you have any new evidence present it, if not lets spare the group and agree to disagree.

[T_MacWood]

By the way I didn't say Macdonald was un-American. I simple reported what Travis said about the manner in which committee members were chosen to the R&A Rules of Golf Committee.

"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."

He used the circumstance of the appointment to help bolster his position....that the USGA should not ban the Schenectady based on the R&A ruling. His view was that there were circumstances when American interests out weighed following the R&A's dictates. Macdonald's arguement was that the USGA should accept the R&A's ruling, but interpret it in a way that legalized the Schenectady.  They chose to go with Travis's arguement.

I have no idea why Macdonald later claimed he was appointed by the USGA. It appears Macdonald was trying to paint a mostly positive picture of the chaim of event and his actions (who can blame him), perhaps being a USGA appointment (as opposed to an R&A appointee) was more consistent with that positive picture.

My goal has never been to discover who was right or wrong on the Schenectady issue, my goal was only to uncover the details of the feud and what effect it may have had on the history of golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

You know what you're doing Tom MacW? You're rehashing and rerunning one of the most unfortunate and potentially dangerous events and times in the history of early American golf or golf in general and trying to cast it in the unfortunate light it was back then. And all because you've found some old articles that you think have uncovered something!? Those articles completely misconstrued and blew out of proportion a relatively miniscule event (the Schnectedy issue) . Multiple accounts of inaccuracies certainly don’t outweigh the facts in my book but clearly they do in yours! Your attempts to pass off many of those inaccuracies as trivial is laughable---actually pathetic really.

What would you think if the New York or London Times was attempting to report on something USGA President Fred Ridley had just done or said and they reported it was Buzz Taylor (who’d been the USGA President ten years before) who was the one who said it (particularly if Buzz was DEAD!   ? Would you think that it was sloppy and potentially misinformed reporting? I certainly would and some member of the present board of the USGA, as Macdonald was at the time of that London Times article you produced as the truth and the light, would probably be so flabbergasted as to roar with laughter. I'm sure Macdonald probably did exactly that if and when he read those articles you produced as so informative! And you think anyone at all should put more stock in the accuracy of  NY Times or London Times articles like that than those who actually directly had to do with the issue? If you do think so, which it appears you do, then Pat Mucci is completely right about you----you're a great example of the adage “a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing!”

At the very least, it would certainly seem you have the answer to your Macdonald/Travis question on here as to why they didn’t get along! If you can’t see that, then I have no idea what to say next, because again, it’s great you find some of this stuff---just try not to interpret what it really meant!

Can you deny that this entire Schnectedy putter issue was basically one that involved the pride of two nations over golf and golfers of that time run amok? When that completely unproductive occurrence threatened to rupture the relationship of the world’s two golf organizational bodies and split the rules of the game into perhaps numerous iterations can you at least begin to see what the important issue may have been to the likes of a man such as Macdonald?

If you can't I really do feel for you. But who knows perhaps you think a completely separate American game with separate rules is the way to go, even today. Do you think that's what Travis was suggesting back then with his "Un-American" remark about Macdonald's appointment and if not what the hell do you think he was suggesting----let's hear it!

[TEPaul]

"My goal has never been to discover who was right or wrong on the Schenectady issue, my goal was only to uncover the details of the feud and what effect it may have had on the history of golf architecture."

I understand that and now, in my opinion, you have your answer! The details of that feud revolved around Travis's attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill (the Schnectedy putter issue) and to thereby tremendously exaccerbate a problem (lack of unity within the Rules of the game of golf) that Macdonald viewed as potentially incredibly damaging to the future of golf!

If you don't that was the essence of and the details involved in their feud then what do you think they were? Let's hear it!

[T_MacWood]

TE
See my post above.

It is was such a miniscule event that the President of the United States weighed in on it.

If I were in your position, I'd focus on those two innocent mistakes too. The fact remains the major thrust of those articles is not altered by those two minor errors.

Again very interesting theories (and insults) you put forth there, unfortunately again no concrete research/documentation to support your ideas.

Get back to us when you uncover anything new....anything at all.

[TEPaul]

"He used the circumstance of the appointment to help bolster his position....that the USGA should not ban the Schenectady based on the R&A ruling. His view was that there were circumstances when American interests out weighed following the R&A's dictates. Macdonald's arguement was that the USGA should accept the R&A's ruling, but interpret it in a way that legalized the Schenectady.  They chose to go with Travis's arguement."

Tom MacW:

What the hell are you talking about? What was Travis's argument you think they went with? They went with Macdonald's entire recommendation which in effect accepted the R&A's Rules (thereby avoiding a potential total rift with the R&A's Rules of Golf) but used Section 10 of the USGA's by-laws (Macdonald's compromise) to avoid banning the Schnectedy in America! Do you have any idea what Section 10 was? Have you ever even heard of it? Probably not.

That entire resolution in Chicago in 1911 allowed Macdonald to finally say;

"To-day here in America, no one worries about the Schnectedy putter, no one worries about the centre-shafted clubs, and it does appear that the ruling bodies in golf have been making a mountain out of a mole hill. Although the Western Golf Association repeatedly pounded at the door of the USGA Committee to change their rules in golf, and their constitution (that supported that the game should be played the same way as under the R&A's rules), thanks to able leadership in the USGA through their presidents, golf today is played practically the same way as it is in Scotland.

One reason why I am writing this so fully is that I do hope I shall carry this doctrine----UNIFICATION---into every man's club and have them take it to heart. My readers probably will recall in my first chapter at that time I was leaving St Andrews, I made the note,

"Would that I could hand on unimpaired the great game as it was my good fortune to know it."

Because of Macdonald's efforts and his compromise, his hope came true and is still true today and probably always will be!

[TEPaul]

"It is was such a miniscule event that the President of the United States weighed in on it."

Tom MacWood, you really are an idiot not to understand what went on here. I never said the Schnectedy putter issue was a miniscule event. What I said is it was not important to the larger and more fundamental issue at that time!!! That fundamental issue was maintaining UNIFICATION within the Rules of Golf world-wide--just as Macdonald always maintained!

Yes, The President of the United States did get involved in the Schnectedy issue! But why? Because the press on both sides of the Atlantic, including Walter Travis (the articles from all you nicely produced on here) were fanning the flames of national pride on both sides of the Atlantic BIGTIME---and for what end? So the entire USA including the USGA could tell the R&A and Europe to take their f...ing rules of golf and take a hike? Or to stand up to the R&A or Europe and defend Travis and his putter from the insults he felt were inflicted on him in 1904 (seven years before) at Sandwich?

What were these people trying to say and do? What result were they trying to effect by all this Schnectedy brouhaha that Macdonald always said was completely unimportant to the larger issue before golf around the world? What was such a big deal to golf about that putter? Nothing!!

But who stood firm and calm and effected the compromise through this tempest in a teapot that saw golf through to a resolution that kept the putter from being banned in America and at the same time preserved unity within the world of golf?

Charles Blair f....ing MACDONALD DID!

I just don't see why you can't understand this. This isn't rocket science here. What you're trying to do here is rerun a huge tempest that never amounted to a hill of beans for golf in the first place although it certainly could have if Macdonald had not helped calm the waters on both sides of the Atlantic!

And what was Travis doing---other than accusing the R&A of being an oligarchical club that wasn't representative of others and Macdonald of being part of it and being responsible for the USGA caving in like a bunch of pathetic wimps!? That was never the case---just as Macdonald always reported!

For your information the R&A continued to be that single club until Jan 1 2004 that represented and administered the rules of golf in the rest of the world. Was there anything wrong with that? And thankfully, in large part due to Macdonald's effort back then, the USGA went along with unification, which actually was improved in the early 1950s.

I just can't see where you think you're going here except to rerun an unfortunate incident and make it seem to be far more central to golf and it's amateur administrative organizations than it ever really was. Yes it was a huge event in the press but it had nothing much to do with anything except rampant national pride and and maybe the hurt feelings of a few who weren't particularly central to anything to do with golf administration at that time!

If it really is just architecture you're interested in here, AGAIN, I think even you should now be able to see the details of why Macdonald and Travis probably had a major rift at that very time!!

Other than that what are you after here? If it was the details of why they had that rift I think I've more than shown you what they were and why!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Macdonald's address to the USGA delegation, "Now , Gentleman, that we want is to get together on the best most feasible basis with St.Andrews and let the note of this meeting be 'Unification'. I believe it will be best accomplished if you will adopt their clause and then take the matter up with the R&A Golf Club. You will never regret it. I am perfectly confident they will meet any suggestions made by the United States GC with deliberate consideration and courtesy. Therefore, Gentlemen, if I am right why change anything? Section 10 of the USGA covers it all. The USGA to my knowledge has never retrograded, never done a foolish thing, and for my part I am perfectly willing to let the matter rest in their hands."

NY Times 1/17/1907
"Not only did the delegates decline to accept the St.Andrews ruling barring centre-shafted clubs, but they amended the by-laws of the association, which now requires us to play according to the St.Andrews rules. In other words, if St.Andrews should amend the rules in any particular in the future, the change would not apply in this country. No rules will hereafter obtain in this country unless affirmatively adopted here."

American Golfer
"The action taken at the meeting of the USGA simply means, in brief, that while mallet-headed clubs are barred both by St.Andrews and the USGA, the latter body legalizes putters of the Schenectady type, whereas the R&A does not. In other words, we do not regard a Schenectady as a mallet. All this accomplished by the revision of Section 10 of the By-Laws of the USGA, the plan suggested by The American Golfer last month. ….It will be noted that Section 10 as amended provides that no changes in the 1908 Code, as have been or may hereafter be made by St.Andrews, will be accepted by the Executive Committee of the USGA unless, in their judgment, such changes may seem wise."

USGA ruling:
"Resolved, That Section X of the By-Laws of this association be, and the same are, hereby amended to read the follows:
The competition shall be played in accordance to the rules of golf as approved by the R&A Golf Club of St.Andrews, Scotland, September, 1908, with such amendments and interpretations only as may have been or may be hereafter adopted by the USGA, together with such local rules as are in force and published on the green over which the competition are played."

Section X formerly read that the competition shall be played in accordance to the rules of golf as approved by the R&A Golf Club of St.Andrews, Scotland, except otherwise by USGA or local interpretation.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

What's the purpose of that last post? I've seen all that for years and completely understand it all and what it means but the question is do you? That so-called "compromise" was either effected by Macdonald or at least certainly always supported by him so what's the issue here----that's what I keep asking you over and over again? Is there any way there'll be an answer in our future?

[T_MacWood]

TE
As I have explained before, the difference in Travis and Macdonald's position is this: Macdonald believed the USGA rules as written gave them the ability interpret R&A ammendments as needed...he argued there was no need to change the by-laws. Travis believed that it was rediculous to accept that the center shafted clubs were illegal (the september amendment made by the R&A, with very specific language) and still interpret the center-shafted Schenectady legal. He believed the USGA should go back to the mutually agreed upon rules of 1908 and then independently rule upon each subsequent amendment -- deciding to adopt or not to adopt each subsequent amendment. The USGA ultimately went with Travis's idea.