[Thomas MacWood]

But basically, my interest and deal is to find historical accuracy. I'll take a general overview that's historically accurate over a research laden essay that isn't historically accurate any day of the week.

Usually, historic accuracy and research go hand in hand. Have you discovered another method?

[TEPaul]

"Usually, historic accuracy and research go hand in hand. Have you discovered another method?"


Not at all, to me research is really huge---the basis of all analytical reasoning and determination, in fact. Sometimes it seems like you think you're the only one who does it or does it well, which frankly, Tom MacWood, most everyone on this website who means anything really does see through at this point.

No, I believe in-depth research is great, it's essential but in fact it only serves another and higher purpose---eg the analysis of what it really means in an historical context.

As I've said a lot over the years I do think you are an excellent raw researcher and I admire you for that facility even if I do understand what most all of your research resource is. Mike Hurzdan and his collections and personal resource asset is something and he's been great with us.

I just don't think you do that well at the next and more important and basically ultimate step---and as you know that's how to deduce the meaning of research material. I don't blame you for that as I don't think you get around enough to even have a chance to do that well---I don't think anyone could the way you do it.

You can't take an in-depth analysis of a Merion or Aronimink or a Pine Valley all that far, which you've tried to do, Tom, unless you really can get involved with it and its ethos which means not just going there but taking the time necessary to really catch the essence of it all. It would be like me trying to understand Mackenzie's Ohio State work without ever going there. I can't do that---no one can.

You know, Tom, we've talked about this for years, if you want to understand the likes of Merion, Aronimink, Pine Valley etc, you pretty much have to go there and certainly a whole lot more than once. The fact is you haven't done that and it will always show.

For me, I'm still trying to understand this healthland thing and its historical significance. I have been to some of those courses but never with this kind of purpose I have now and I know if I'm ever going to understand the healthlands I'm going to have to put in the time there. I don't know whether I will do that but I hope I can, as I think that kind of thing is essentially. No one can truly understand these things without doing that and certainly not you no matter how much you avoid discussing or even considering that important point on here.

Book learning (your article and newspaper kind of research) can only take anyone so far---and I know you understand that. To really understand some of these things you have to pretty much live it right there with the subject. Your contribution to Moriarty's essay on Merion with H.H Barker (at least he gave you the credit for that contribution) is a perfect example. Few were aware of that and it's no wonder---eg some really in-depth research into everything else that happened at that time proves it meant just about zero to the actual subject of the essay which was the actual creation of Merion.

But don't worry I know you'll just come back with a once sentence deflective question as an answer , as that's all you've ever done on here. But that doesn't work--it never has and it never will and the best I can hope for with you is that you do know that even if you may never be willing to admit it.
 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Lets try to stay on track, and not get into these extraneous issues. I believe this thread is focusing on the most recent essay.

Do you have a problem or problems with its historical accuracy beyond the fact that you prefer the simplicity of C&W?   Please elaborate.

[TEPaul]

"Do you have a problem or problems with its historical accuracy beyond the fact that you prefer the simplicity of C&W?   Please elaborate."

I have elaborated. If you don't feel like reading what I've had to say on this very post then that's not my problem. I sure don't want to waste the time with you again I do and so many others do on these kinds of thread with a Moriarty. He keeps asking many of us to elaborate too, and define and whatever else he can think of to deflect and blah, blah, blah, and even all that after mentioning on here he doesn't even have the time or interest to read what some of us write.

Who needs that kind of crap on these discussion threads? Too many are seeing through it now and almost all of us understand it's just a waste of time.

I think the both of you know that if you want to get anywhere on here you pretty much have to learn how to engage on here and stop farting around with the kind of non-responsive responses you two have become somewhat infamous for. 

Also, do us all a favor and just cut the shit about mentioning to me AGAIN the simplicity of C&W as if that's all I've ever read. You've mentioned that same thing about twenty times over the year and it's getting really old. The fact is if you ever managed to do 1/10 of the research those two guys did for golf architecture somebody might actually say you should be proud of yourself.
 
 
 

[DMoriarty]

I sure don't want to waste the time with you again I do and so many others do on these kinds of thread with a Moriarty. He keeps asking many of us to elaborate too, and define and whatever else he can think of to deflect and blah, blah, blah, and even all that after mentioning on here he doesn't even have the time or interest to read what some of us write.

Since you brought me into this, I'd like to clarify. 

I have said that I am not interested in reading long posts with vague notions or unsupported suppositions.  Nor am I interested in reading insults.  If you actually have relevant analysis that hasn't been presented repeatedly before, and if you are willing to back up it up with the source material, then I am all ears.

Here is an example from immediately above:

"Usually, historic accuracy and research go hand in hand. Have you discovered another method?"

Not at all, to me research is really huge---the basis of all analytical reasoning and determination, in fact. Sometimes it seems like you think you're the only one who does it or does it well, which frankly, Tom MacWood, most everyone on this website who means anything really does see through at this point.

No, I believe in-depth research is great, it's essential but in fact it only serves another and higher purpose---eg the analysis of what it really means in an historical context.

As I've said a lot over the years I do think you are an excellent raw researcher and I admire you for that facility even if I do understand what most all of your research resource is. Mike Hurzdan and his collections and personal resource asset is something and he's been great with us.

I just don't think you do that well at the next and more important and basically ultimate step---and as you know that's how to deduce the meaning of research material. I don't blame you for that as I don't think you get around enough to even have a chance to do that well---I don't think anyone could the way you do it.

You can't take an in-depth analysis of a Merion or Aronimink or a Pine Valley all that far, which you've tried to do, Tom, unless you really can get involved with it and its ethos which means not just going there but taking the time necessary to really catch the essence of it all. It would be like me trying to understand Mackenzie's Ohio State work without ever going there. I can't do that---no one can.

You know, Tom, we've talked about this for years, if you want to understand the likes of Merion, Aronimink, Pine Valley etc, you pretty much have to go there and certainly a whole lot more than once. The fact is you haven't done that and it will always show.

For me, I'm still trying to understand this healthland thing and its historical significance. I have been to some of those courses but never with this kind of purpose I have now and I know if I'm ever going to understand the healthlands I'm going to have to put in the time there. I don't know whether I will do that but I hope I can, as I think that kind of thing is essentially. No one can truly understand these things without doing that and certainly not you no matter how much you avoid discussing or even considering that important point on here.

Book learning (your article and newspaper kind of research) can only take anyone so far---and I know you understand that. To really understand some of these things you have to pretty much live it right there with the subject. Your contribution to Moriarty's essay on Merion with H.H Barker (at least he gave you the credit for that contribution) is a perfect example. Few were aware of that and it's no wonder---eg some really in-depth research into everything else that happened at that time proves it meant just about zero to the actual subject of the essay which was the actual creation of Merion.

But don't worry I know you'll just come back with a once sentence deflective question as an answer , as that's all you've ever done on here. But that doesn't work--it never has and it never will and the best I can hope for with you is that you do know that even if you may never be willing to admit it.
 

Your main purposes seem to be to criticize Tom MacWood's analytical abilities and to insist that he needs to spend more time on modern courses to understand what they were like over 100 years ago, and that he needs to live with the subject.  You have said this repeatedly over the years.  We know that you believe this.  It adds nothing new to the conversation.

Also, it does not speak at all to whether or not Tom MacWood's essay is accurate.   Yet you conclude the post by claiming that Tom's essay is "factually incorrect any day of the week." 

It seems like you have just decided that it is factually inaccurate without every really checking or considering whether or not it is.  How do you know it is "factually inaccurate any day of the week?"

What specifically is factually incorrect, and what is your basis for saying so?

The answers to these questions do not require you to even address his procedural approach to the material.  All you have to do is back up your claim.  What specifically is factually inaccurate?   What specifically is your factual basis for saying so? 

Thanks in advance for your answers. 

[Rich Goodale]

This thread brings up a lot of interesting questions.  Most interesting to me (at least today) is what acutally happened in the 1885-1905 period.  Tom Macwood seems to be implying that nothing really happened inland before Park's Sunningdale, buit the reconrd seems top indicate otherwise.

As I've said many times on this DG, Burntisland, designed and built by Park Jr. in 1896 was and still (very little changes over the past 100+ years) is a very good heathland/upland/meadowland course.  Park Jr. also designed inland/heathland courses such as Duddingston, Murrayfield, Torwoodlee, and Chiselhurst (which was a heathland/parkland site within Tony M's listing of railway children).

Also, Old Tom Morris, built good courses on inland/heathland sites prior to  1900 at places such as:  Alyth, Callender, Killermont, Ladybank, Lanark, Burgess, and Stirling.

Yes, all of these these courses were modified over time, some dramatically, but to say that the "art" of designing and bulding (could I even say "laying out"?) of inland golf courses was only discovered in the 20th century in England is a bridge too far, academically speaking.

Rich

[Thomas MacWood]

Rich
I don't believe the essay implies inland golf was a complete wasteland during that period. I highlight Worlington, Ashdown Forest, New Zealand, Myopia, Woking, Mitcham Common, Broadstone, Berkhamsted and mention Ganton. And I am sure there others deserving mention that I missed.

Also I hope I didn't overhype Sunningdale. It was a breakthrough course because of its scale - it was a very big course - and the fact that the side site was so difficult, but it was not the picture of perfection some would have you believe.

The title of the essay was beyond OTM so obviously those courses were left out. I believe Killermont was after Sunningdale, and Royal Burgess was Peter Lees and MacKenzie Ross.

Did Tom Dunn design Chiselhurst?

Burntisland is a mystery. I had heard you talk about it being built in 1896 but I was unable to confirm that start date. In fact the earliest reports I found of golf being played at the Doddhead site was 1899. There was also numerous reports of the course being improved in the early 1900s. What have you been able to find?

From what I understand it is very close to the sea, do you consider it parkland, downland, seaside or some combination?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I was a member at Burnstisland in 2002-4 , and have played there many times.  Their club history, which I think I have quoted to you before, says that they moved from the Burntisland Links (still very extant and golf-friendly) in 1891 to Dodhead (a heathland/upland/meadowland) piece of ground 200-300  feet or so above sea level) and about a half mild inland from the Firth of Forth.  A very primitive links (6 holes) was bult there in 1892, but in 1896 they brough in WPJr. to redo it, which he did, finishing in 1896.  WPJr. recommended 15 holes, but OTM advised that 18 was requried.  So, basically the course existing today was built, and while constricted, shows serious genius in its routing.  This is one of the reasons why I have always been very sceptical of the "Willie Park Jr. didn't know nothing until he moved to London" theory.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

"What specifically is factually incorrect, and what is your basis for saying so?

The answers to these questions do not require you to even address his procedural approach to the material.  All you have to do is back up your claim.  What specifically is factually inaccurate?   What specifically is your factual basis for saying so?"


David Moriarty:

I don't feel the need to waste time parsing the meaning of terms with you---eg historicially inaccurate, historically accurate etc, I'm pretty sure everyone on here understands what that means.

My point is if I, or anyone else, feels that some accounts of an era seem to be more historically accurate than an account of someone like Tom MacWood I am merely asking him to back up his account with historically accurate facts to try to refute something I see as historically accurate. He rarely ever does that. His almost unfailing response is to not try to answer any question directly but to just respond by asking another question. To me that pretty much connotes he probably just doesn't have any answers for the questions he's asked and I think that's important to know vis-a-vis what he writes in an essay. If you haven't noticed that (his constant question responses) just read some of his posts but maybe you don't even have the time or interest to do that either.   

[Sean_A]

"What specifically is factually incorrect, and what is your basis for saying so?

The answers to these questions do not require you to even address his procedural approach to the material.  All you have to do is back up your claim.  What specifically is factually inaccurate?   What specifically is your factual basis for saying so?"


David Moriarty:

I don't feel the need to waste time parsing the meaning of terms with you---eg historicially inaccurate, historically accurate etc, I'm pretty sure everyone on here understands what that means.

My point is if I, or anyone else, feels that some accounts of an era seem to be more historically accurate than an account of someone like Tom MacWood I am merely asking him to back up his account with historically accurate facts to try to refute something I see as historically accurate. He rarely ever does that. His almost unfailing response is to not try to answer any question directly but to just respond by asking another question. To me that pretty much connotes he probably just doesn't have any answers for the questions he's asked and I think that's important to know vis-a-vis what he writes in an essay. If you haven't noticed that (his constant question responses) just read some of his posts but maybe you don't even have the time or interest to do that either.   

Tom P

The ironic thing here is that the C&W version (and I don't believe anybody refutes it - they are just trying to flush the idea out more fully) doesn't seem to have much factual evidence other than what Tommy Mac has provided.  C&W certainly don't prove their point, they merely provide a plausible theory.  I spose C&W have the advantage of being one of the first to get their ideas spread.  Its sort of like OTM.  He is given credit for loads more than what is actually now in the ground.  However, it shouldn't matter much to his rep because the guy did create some great stuff not only designwise, but in how to tend greens and win championships.  In some ways he is still the face of golf - or at least one of the faces. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"The ironic thing here is that the C&W version (and I don't believe anybody refutes it - they are just trying to flush the idea out more fully) doesn't seem to have much factual evidence other than what Tommy Mac has provided.  C&W certainly don't prove their point, they merely provide a plausible theory.  I spose C&W have the advantage of being one of the first to get their ideas spread."


Sean:

I think that is all very true. What I like about C&W is just that to me they make such a plausible point (or theory or whatever one wants to call it). I'm not exactly sure that I can see what factual evidence Tom MacWood has provided that proves C&W's point or refutes it. Frankly, I'm not even sure I can see what Tom MacWood's point really is other than there always needs to be more research. I certainly don't think that is informing us of anything we haven't known for years.

But I think you sense what I'm trying to get to the bottom of with this particular interesting era, as it seems a contributor such as Peter Pallotta is too. One of the other things that sort of disturbs me on here is we also have one on here who seems to want to treat this discussion group and its threads and post like some court of law. I'm not sure that's even remotely necessary. To me this is a place of opinions and in the end of the day they're either plausible or they're not.

[DMoriarty]

"What specifically is factually incorrect, and what is your basis for saying so?

The answers to these questions do not require you to even address his procedural approach to the material.  All you have to do is back up your claim.  What specifically is factually inaccurate?   What specifically is your factual basis for saying so?"


David Moriarty:

I don't feel the need to waste time parsing the meaning of terms with you---eg historicially inaccurate, historically accurate etc, I'm pretty sure everyone on here understands what that means.

My point is if I, or anyone else, feels that some accounts of an era seem to be more historically accurate than an account of someone like Tom MacWood I am merely asking him to back up his account with historically accurate facts to try to refute something I see as historically accurate. He rarely ever does that. His almost unfailing response is to not try to answer any question directly but to just respond by asking another question. To me that pretty much connotes he probably just doesn't have any answers for the questions he's asked and I think that's important to know vis-a-vis what he writes in an essay. If you haven't noticed that (his constant question responses) just read some of his posts but maybe you don't even have the time or interest to do that either.   

I'm afraid I don't understand.  Again, it seems like you have just declared that TomM's IMO must be factually inaccurate and/or otherwise defective because you generally object to Tom MacWood's  approach to research and analysis.

But maybe I am wrong.   If so, then perhaps you could point out what specifically is factually inaccurate, and provide your basis for saying so?

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Just read post #30 and if that's too long or too uninteresting to you just forget about any of this. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom

I was a member at Burnstisland in 2002-4 , and have played there many times.  Their club history, which I think I have quoted to you before, says that they moved from the Burntisland Links (still very extant and golf-friendly) in 1891 to Dodhead (a heathland/upland/meadowland) piece of ground 200-300  feet or so above sea level) and about a half mild inland from the Firth of Forth.  A very primitive links (6 holes) was bult there in 1892, but in 1896 they brough in WPJr. to redo it, which he did, finishing in 1896.  WPJr. recommended 15 holes, but OTM advised that 18 was requried.  So, basically the course existing today was built, and while constricted, shows serious genius in its routing.  This is one of the reasons why I have always been very sceptical of the "Willie Park Jr. didn't know nothing until he moved to London" theory.

Cheers

Rich

I have a couple of the club histories. There is reference to the old Bents course being overcrowded. They mention the purchase of the Dodhead property in 1896, which I was able to confirm in The Scotsman. The club history then quotes from a 'local newspaper' article which mentions WPII involvement in the design of an 18 hole course. The source and the date of the article appears to be unkown. The history says possibly 1896 and it may have come from the Leith Observer. I found that a little odd. There is nothing to confirm this account in the Scotsman or Golf illustrated.

1897 the club was advertising the rent of the Dodhead property for grazing. There is no mention of the course in 1898. In 1899 is the first mention of golf being played at Dodhead, that I could find (AM Ross and Angus MacDonald were there to check out the new course). There was no mention of WPII. From what I understand the old course was kept open during this period and perhaps beyond. In early 1900's there are a couple references to the pro/greenkeeper Drurie making improvements to the Dodhead course. He was given a lot of credit, not only for the improved condition but also bunkering the course - in fact he may be the unsung hero in all of this.

I have no doubt WPII was involved at some point, the question is when and what.

[Thomas MacWood]

David Moriarty:

Just read post #30 and if that's too long or too uninteresting to you just forget about any of this. 

David
Don't worry about it. TE is free to criticize the essay, and free to provide as much or as little documentation to support his position as he sees fit.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I was a member at Burnstisland in 2002-4 , and have played there many times.  Their club history, which I think I have quoted to you before, says that they moved from the Burntisland Links (still very extant and golf-friendly) in 1891 to Dodhead (a heathland/upland/meadowland) piece of ground 200-300  feet or so above sea level) and about a half mild inland from the Firth of Forth.  A very primitive links (6 holes) was bult there in 1892, but in 1896 they brough in WPJr. to redo it, which he did, finishing in 1896.  WPJr. recommended 15 holes, but OTM advised that 18 was requried.  So, basically the course existing today was built, and while constricted, shows serious genius in its routing.  This is one of the reasons why I have always been very sceptical of the "Willie Park Jr. didn't know nothing until he moved to London" theory.

Cheers

Rich

I have a couple of the club histories. There is reference to the old Bents course being overcrowded. They mention the purchase of the Dodhead property in 1896, which I was able to confirm in The Scotsman. The club history then quotes from a 'local newspaper' article which mentions WPII involvement in the design of an 18 hole course. The source and the date of the article appears to be unkown. The history says possibly 1896 and it may have come from the Leith Observer. I found that a little odd. There is nothing to confirm this account in the Scotsman or Golf illustrated.

1897 the club was advertising the rent of the Dodhead property for grazing. There is no mention of the course in 1898. In 1899 is the first mention of golf being played at Dodhead, that I could find (AM Ross and Angus MacDonald were there to check out the new course). There was no mention of WPII. From what I understand the old course was kept open during this period and perhaps beyond. In early 1900's there are a couple references to the pro/greenkeeper Drurie making improvements to the Dodhead course. He was given a lot of credit, not only for the improved condition but also bunkering the course - in fact he may be the unsung hero in all of this.

I have no doubt WPII was involved at some point, the question is when and what.

Thanks, Tom

The BGHC Centenary states that there was a special meeting of BGC on May 18, 1891, at which it was agreed to purchase the High Bents, Dodhead property.  It goes on to describe how the course evolved from first 6 rudimentary holes and then to 18, after Old Tom MOrris and then WP jr. had inspected the property.  There is a picture of the official opening at the Dodshead course dated 1892.  There is a newspaper article copied describing the completed course dated 1896, which you have obviously seen.  The fact that this was not confirmed by the Scotsman or Golf Observer is interesting but not necessarily relevant.  There were a lot of happenings that did not get reported in journals like that in those days.  The fact that they were letting out the land for grazing is hardly remarkable.  Just think of Royal North Devon or Brora in 2008.

I know a number of the people at the club, including past Captains (of both BGC and BGHC who contributred to the club histories and will ask them about this when I get the chance.  The first such chance might be tomorrow morning when I am paired in an Open competition with a venerable previous Club Champion.  I'll let you know what I find out.

Cheers for now.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"The fact that this was not confirmed by the Scotsman or Golf Observer is interesting but not necessarily relevant."

Richard the Doubter:

Are you suggesting you are not one of those people who think if something wasn't reported in a newspaper it could not have possibly happened??

That is pretty Goll-Danged shocking! What kind of researcher are you anyway? Obviously not one of those "expert" ones we have on here.

[Thomas MacWood]

Rich
I have the centenary booklet and the other 200 year history.

One of the books claims the 15 hole course was the first course, prior to High Bents, which was on common land.

The only mention of OTM I've found in the history books is that he was brought in to inspect in 1894 the Dodhead property for its suitability. I believe he did design the original 1891 course.

From what I understand the old High Bents course was only 16 acres of the Dodhead farm. Its easy why they would be interested in the entire property, which I believe was about 80 acres. I agree the grazing of sheep is not all that unusual but it does describe the land that will grazed upon: 40 acres Hay Foggage, 16 acres young grass (uncropped), 18 acres Old Pasture, and several acres uncultivated wasteland. Would that last section be the heathland?

You did not find it odd that the club history was not certain when and where that quote came from?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

The original Burntisland course was first played in the 18th century (hence the 1793 date for the foudning of BGC--9th oldest golf club in the world).  Even Old Tom Morris wasn't old enough to have designed that course.  Golf magazine was obviously wrong.  The "High Bents" course is Dodhead.  Trust me.  As for the old course, I drive by it several times a week, and if they could have fitted 15 holes on there (even allowing for land which was taken by the railroad), it would have been a pitch and putt.  It is really cool linksland, however, and one can only dream....

As for the current (Dodhead) course, it is mostly raised beach (raised about 200 feet above sea level with steep cliffs down to the sea (Firth of Forth), with the linklike grasses mostly nearer the sea end (South) and the more meadow like grasses mostly to the north (particularly holes 1-3 and 18.  Nobody in their right mind would call it a seaside course.

Your book research obvsiusly conflicts with what I see on the ground adn know of the people who wrote the club histories.  I'll let you know when I find out anything interesting, be it in my favor or yours.

Cheers

Rich

[Thomas MacWood]

Rich
Regarding OTM, I wrote the original 1891 course not the original course on the commons.

Six holes and 16 acres is pretty tight too. From what I understand the wee folk have always been attracted to Burntisland.

That description did not come from a book, it came from advertisement for 'Grazings to Let' by the Burntisland Golf Company at Dodhead to be lodged with Alex. M'Intosh, Solicitor, Burntisland.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
Regarding OTM, I wrote the original 1891 course not the original course on the commons.

Six holes and 16 acres is pretty tight too. From what I understand the wee folk have always been attracted to Burntisland.

That description did not come from a book, it came from advertisement for 'Grazings to Let' by the Burntisland Golf Company at Dodhead to be lodged with Alex. M'Intosh, Solicitor, Burntisland.

Tom

Old Tom wasn't born when the course that existed in 1891 was built (c. 1793).  Comprende?

There is no doubt that a primitive 6 hole course was built after 1891 and before WP Jr. (and OTM) came on the scene.  The real issue is when the current course was designed and built and by whom.  I'll stick by the 1896/Willie Park Jr. story until you give me some compelling evidence otherwise (and no, seed advertisements will just not do....).

Cheers

Rich

[Thomas MacWood]

Rich
I think you are confused. A new golf course was laid out in 1891 - later referred to as the old High Bents course. Golf magazine reported the new course in its 6/5/1891 issue, and mentioned the course was only six holes.

You are correct the current 18 hole course was made sometime in the mid to late 90s, 1896 -1899.

Perhaps WPII was involved in 1896, or some other time - the jury is out.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

You are the one who is confused.  The "High Bents" course was on Dodhead--just a primitive 6 holes on the same property where 18 mostly WP Jr. holes exist today.  If you knew the goegraphy, you would understand that.  No evidence that I know of that OTM was involved in the 1891 primitive effort.  He was better than that.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Come on boys, we will need to have PROOF beyond any reasonable doubt which one of you is CONFUSED and we will need that proof by suppertime or both of you must go to your rooms without supper!

[Rich Goodale]

I've already had supper, Tom.  It's 9pm over here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()