Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick

[BCrosby]

Tom:

I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.

Agreed. It also brings more attention. Which is why historians are tempted to give it more weight than it deserves.

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.

TD/Bob
Most historians like unsubstaniated rumors? Most historians are not best selling authors. I'm not sure what you guys have been reading but that hasn't been my experience. Do you have any examples?

PS: I know some of the stuff that was left out about the MacKenzie book, dealing with the product of his time in Oz and personal info about Marion Hollins. I don't blame you, afterall they were nothing but rumors. So no worries about sending me on any new mission.

[Tony_Muldoon]

This thread has done that rare thing on here; it's become more interesting as it's developed.  Thanks to all of you for spending the time to set down your thoughts.

Tom:

I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.

Agreed. It also brings more attention. Which is why historians are tempted to give it more weight than it deserves.

Bob

Yes it sells books, but where an author has looked at the gossip and can state that's all it is, isn't that an important thing to add to a book examining the life (as opposed to the works)?  I admit I've read my share of biographies of creative people and I'd say people’s fascination with their lives and the desire to understand what drove them to e.g. compose 40 symphonies or marry and divorce 6 times etc. etc. is to contrast with their own situation. In my case 0 symphonies and a twentieth wedding anniversary next year.  There is a general fascination with creative people.

I can understand if Tom Doak doesn’t wish to be drawn further here. However it’s my understanding that the original genesis of the book “The Life and Works of Dr Mackenzie”, came from Dr Scott a man who never played golf.  Somehow he became fascinated with his subject because of the private highly unusual choices of a man whose work held no interest for him.  This was almost certainly based on rumours he’d heard, because he was too young and in the wrong place to have met most of the individuals concerned.  I will now speculate that it was more than just a rumour that caused him to collect facts about the life. It was that fascination with what makes ‘genius’ different?

I have many books on music.  The ones that are scholarly analysis of purely the works are beyond me and the ones that reprint the known facts on the life are boring.  Give me a little colour, help me understand and if there’s gossip it’s part of the job of the biographer to sift through it and examine it’s credence.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

Actually, Dr. Scott was a medical professor who heard so much about the great "Doctor MacKenzie" that he wondered if he was really a good doctor, since if he was, Dr. Scott couldn't imagine why he would throw that in to become a golf course designer.

After a bit of research he discovered that MacKenzie was in fact NOT a good doctor, or even much of a doctor at all ... his father was a doctor and Alister eventually finished med school and passed the exam, but his heart wasn't in it and his practice was modest at best.

My favorite line from Scott's manuscript (paraphrasing) was that MacKenzie probably lost a lot of patients who came into his office with various ailments and were told that "fresh air and exercise" through playing golf were the solution.

[BCrosby]

All -

These are hard questions. There are no easy answers.

To paraphrase a line from the now forgotten American poet Delmore Schwartz (the original line goes: "In dreams are born responsibilities")

 - with knowledge is born responsibilities.

Bob 

[Mark Bourgeois]

My comments are IMHO. Very nice arguments made here all around.  We need heroes and sometimes gossip is a lazy excuse for research.

But this talk of gossip, trivial and the personal: one man's trivia is another man's biography, I guess. I think detail adds authenticity and fleshes out the man; that stuff sometimes / often IS the life.  You know, like Lennon said: life is what happens while you're making plans. (The work on the other hand, stands alone.  Nothing anyone says or writes, with very, very few exceptions, is going to change the opinion of the work.)

Peter, nice post.  I agree on some, possibly most of what you've written.  It's down to the execution; I just think the best an author can do is reveal the life as completely as possible, contradictions and warts included, and leave it to the reader to make his judgments.

That said, the very act of creating a biography or history is selective and highly judgmental: what to leave in, what to leave out. Unless you're up for a 25-volume history.

We the reader do not need to be "protected" from this or that. IMHO 99 percent of hagiography does the subject a great disservice in rendering him literally inhuman. Not to mention it's dull: how many political autobiographies actually get read?

Ecce homo.  One doctor to another: "About the termination of pregnancy -- I want your opinion.  The father was syphilitic.  The mother tuberculous.  Of the children born the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was tuberculous.  What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the next pregnancy."
"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."

When I as a reader discover I have been given an incomplete (and therefore misleading) set of facts, I am reminded of that doctor asked to make a judgment without being given the whole story. 

Mark

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
Responsibility to who? I get the impression that you and some others believe that our primary responsiblity is protecting the reputations of these famous golf architects, even if it means ignoring or sweeping under the rug some of their personal indescresions, bad behavior, or human weaknesses. I also get the impression there are some who believe that golf clubs associated with these men are the custodians of their biographies. I would submit that situation has led to many mistakes over the years, and in many cases an incomplete story.

If our goal is to explore the lives of these individuals, IMO our responsibility is to tell an accurate, honest and complete story. Accurate in getting the facts straight, honest in giving proper perspective to those facts, and complete in not ignoring the less attractive or unfavorable sides of their lives.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tony
I agree with much of what you wrote. I think we are naturally curious about these talented people, and the more colorful the figure, the more curious we are, which goes back to what McCullough was saying about how he picks his subjects. Assuming all potential subjects have some extraordinary talent, he was drawn to those who were the most interesting, with some imperfections. Not only are these people more interesting to the reader, but more importantly interesting to him. He spends six or seven or eight years of his life researching and writing about these people, they'd better be interesting to him. With all due respect to William Flynn, that is why I'd rather read about Tom Simpson or Alister MacKenzie or Stanley Thompson than Flynn.

On the subject of gossip there is gossip and there is gossip. When the gossip has been out in the public for a while (and there quite a few of these floating around in golf), not only should the rumor not be ignored, IMO they must be addressed, explaining what it is known, what is not known, what is fact and what is fiction, and hopefully in the end giving insight into the rumor's likely falseness or truth.

On the other side, there is gossip you hear that is not generaly known, which you can not substantiate in any way. That kind of stuff I believe should be left alone.

When I was researching the A&C essay I got in contact with the couple who were living in Horace Hutchinson's old home adjacent to Ashdown Forest. The woman told me she had heard a rumor that he killed himself, that he jumped out a window in London. I had done considerable research on Hutchinson, and I knew he had suffered from poor health for several years, but there wasn't the slightest hint anywhere that he killed himself, so I didn't write about.

While I was researching the recent essay on 1890s golf architects I was going through old articles in an Edinburgh newspaper. I was looking for info on several Scots I was writing about. In the process I stumbled upon an article on Hutchinson's death - it was reported he jumped from the top of his home in London. This time I wrote about it. I don't believe I over-hyped it, and I deliberately did not include some of the more disturbing details. My goal was to present the events of his life in proper perspective, hopefully I accomplished that.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm still struggling with some of this, for two reasons:

1.  Much of a personal story is a matter of perspective.  Is your dad an alcoholic or does he hold his drink well?  If it's your story, what matters there is YOUR perspective and how it affected you as you grew up -- not the conclusion of an historian 75 years later.

2.  Much of the controversy here has been about how Crump or Hutchinson or someone else died.  There may be facts, and you may be able to find them out, but these are only illuminating about that person THROUGH PROJECTION.  Crump's death had nothing to do with how he lived his life -- it happened afterward, and at least part of it was based on a level of pain that nobody but George Crump could understand.  I don't see how that is relevant to his life, because he didn't necessarily have that pain in the rest of his life.

[Thomas MacWood]

TD
That would be something I would avoid all together. I'm not a physician, I'm not quailified to say who is and who isn't an alcoholic today much less then. That is one of the reasons I was uncomfortable when Phil diagnosed Tilly as bipolar in his biography. Even if you are a qualified physician how do you diagnose a person who has been dead for seventy years or more.

On the other hand if you have solid reports of excessive drinking and/or reports of eratic behavior due to drinking, I have no problem bringing it up. As an example I found reports that Ramsey Hunter was let go by St. Georges because he was "worse with drink." I have no idea if he was an alcoholic, but I do know his drinking had a effect on his career, and its a fact he died relatively young. The reader can decide if he had a condition or not.

Crump's suicide was the last action of his life. The events that proceded that final act and the final act are important to note IMO. The same is true for Hutchinson. To get a complete picture of their lives - the good parts and the painful and frustrating parts - you need to bring up how it ended.

[Ray Tennenbaum]

as someone who's worked with people who were close to Stanley Thompson, Ian Andrew chooses not to tell tales out of school.

authors and journalists haven't got that as an excuse.  we find things out about people, and then we decide what's worth disclosing, and what not.  it isn't easy, but to some degree it's automatic, because it has to be. 

it's very easy to rationalize omitting references to individuals' sins and peccadillos by reassuring yourself you are taking the high road. 

however -- and however sad it is to say -- in a larger sense, the biographer leaves out these details at great peril.  these days we consider that very few successes are achieved at no cost to an individual or those closest to him.  if a person's private life involved imposing suffering or hardship upon self or upon family & friends, even if it may only be the appearance of such hardships, then omitting such accounts amounts to whitewashing -- no matter how much you admire your subject. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom Doak, your first point -- an excellent one -- calls to mind a story about John Kennedy told by Lincoln historian David Herbert Donald.

The only time Donald met Kennedy was the day after a group of historians had tried to co-opt Kennedy into their scheme to rate all presidents.  One day later Kennedy still was steamed how casually the historians tagged his predecessors with a "below average," a few marked as outright "failures" and so forth.

With emotion Kennedy told Donald, "No one has a right to grade a President -- not even poor old James Buchanan -- who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions."

Clearly Kennedy's point was about the public, whereas yours is concerned with the private. Both your points deserve attention.

Just to be clear, we are talking about historical figures here.  Everyone alive and for that matter recently dead ought to be entitled to a fair measure of privacy, the right to be left alone, provided of course they don't cross that clear line which involves the sacrifice of the private for purposes of entertainment.  I would include athletes there, but even politicians deserve privacy, although sadly it appears a requirement today that our Presidents trundle out their families for display.  (But below the Pres-VP level, politicians still get a fair berth from reporters.  Certainly not a Kennedy / Roosevelt / Wilson-sized berth, but fairly reasonable.)

(Frankly I am amazed at how little respect younger generations -- geez, starting to sound old here! -- have for their privacy.  In this Internet age of global-access databases I have come to feel the same way about my privacy as I do about my reputation: more than something to be guarded, it's become another thing that must be managed.)

So I dunno, maybe it should work that way for long-dead people, too, with your level of privacy somehow a function of a caste-like system tied to how important and famous you were when alive.  Certainly that's what essentially we have today, for if you didn't do much when alive you're not likely to win a biographer now that you're dead!

Donald's one-volume history of Lincoln by the way I highly recommend.  To take the approach you recommend and which I agree with requires a lot of primary-source material and a willingness to ignore a lot of the secondary-source material, which nevertheless carries great risks.  Do you know when Lincoln's papers were made available to the public?  1947.  I find that amazing.  We may well know Lincoln better than did his constituents!

Here's a passage from his introduction that may relate to our discussion:

In focusing closely on Lincoln himself -- on what he knew, when he knew it, and why he made his decisions -- I have, I think, produced a portrait rather different from that in other biographies.  It is perhaps a bit more grainy than most, with more attention to his unquenchable ambition, to his brain-numbing labor in his law practice, to his tempestuous married life, and to his repeated defeats.  It suggests how often chance, or accident, played a determining role in shaping his life.  And it emphasizes his enormous capacity for growth, which enabled one of the least experienced and most poorly prepared men ever elected to high office to become the greatest American President.

There is a lot of private mixed in with the public there, but he lived up to Kennedy's ideal, and were any of us to rate a biography, that's about as much as we could hope from the researcher, don't you think?

Mark

[Tony_Muldoon]

I'm still struggling with some of this, for two reasons:


2.  Much of the controversy here has been about how Crump or Hutchinson or someone else died.  There may be facts, and you may be able to find them out, but these are only illuminating about that person THROUGH PROJECTION.  Crump's death had nothing to do with how he lived his life -- it happened afterward, and at least part of it was based on a level of pain that nobody but George Crump could understand.  I don't see how that is relevant to his life, because he didn't necessarily have that pain in the rest of his life.

What Tom MacWood's revelation about Crump changed was this. 

We are interested in Pine Valley as one of the supreme WORKs of Golf Course Architecture. Naturally we are therefore interested in how it came to be and the LIFE of  it’s dominant creator.

Old History.
Pine Valley was finished by others because Crump suddenly died from an infected tooth.

New History.
After giving his all to the project over several years, Crump took his own life at a time when the project was unfinished and still facing major difficulties.  Friends covered up this fact to protect his reputation and found the means to ensure his project was finished.

I think Tom did exactly what Peter asked for in an earlier post and left us to make up our own minds on what this all meant.  He handled the revelation in his essay sensitively.   I think the new information he discovered is now central to the Pine Valley story. The friends were probably right to draw a veil over what happened then and Tom was right to set the story straight many years later.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood7.html

Tom D, maybe like so much else on here it all comes down to a subjective point of view.  As I said above I’ve read many biographies of historical figures who have interested me in various fields.    Do you read many biographies or perhaps you more interested in the works?  This is not intended as some GCA slight, merely to understand better why we feel so differently about the role of the biographer.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

Thanks for that.  I had failed to consider that Crump took his own life while he was still working on Pine Valley, so it IS part of the story there.

As for my reading habits, I read almost exclusively nonfiction, including a fair number of biographies.  I guess I just don't have as big an appetite for the interpersonal stuff in biographies.  I am a private person by nature, and I don't like the thought that 50 or 75 years from now some genius might try to reconstruct my life without having talked to me about it -- but at the same time, it would be extremely uncomfortable for me to share every personal detail with a bunch of strangers, and I think I have a right to keep my private life private.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

I believe that very few people, including a number of close golf friends, actually knew that Crump took his own life at the time.

If anyone covered the facts, it seems more likely it was his family.   Certainly, in reading the writings of Tillinghast and others it seems that they were of the belief that he was taken from them unexpectedly.   

I expect Tom MacWood will disagree, but that's ok.   

[DMoriarty]

Tony,

I believe that very few people, including a number of close golf friends, actually knew that Crump took his own life at the time.

If anyone covered the facts, it seems more likely it was his family.   Certainly, in reading the writings of Tillinghast and others it seems that they were of the belief that he was taken from them unexpectedly.   

I expect Tom MacWood will disagree, but that's ok.   

Not sure on what basis you believe this.  How would one refer to a suicide other than "unexpected" or "sudden" or "tragic?"  You wouldn't expect them to write that he shot himself every time his name came up, would you?    Obviously, those who knew did not want to write about it in golf magazines and that is certainly understandable, but this makes it pretty difficult to draw conclusions about who knew about it and who did not.   

But ultimately I think it makes no difference whether it was his family or his friends or both who covered up the truth about his death.  It is part of the story of the creation of Pine Valley and at this point there is no compelling reason not to tell the full story.    While I understand and agree that digging dirt and gossip on the likes of Doak, Coore, or Fazio serves no legitimate academic purpose at this time, I do not know that this will be the case 100 years from now when someone else is trying to understand these men and this era of golf course design.   Are not some understandings of  Van Gogh's health problems and his relationship with his brother helpful to understanding his art?  How about Klimt's and Picasso's womanizing?  How about Egon Shiele's peculiar lifestyle habits?

I guess that to my mind, privacy concerns diminish with the passage of time.   So while it is understandable to me why those closest to Crump might have felt compelled to cover up the circumstances of his death, it is inconceivable that some today would of their own volition still go to such great length's to cover it up.  Hopefully, like Crump, some designers are creating lasting works of art that will still be worthy of study in 100 years, even though we don't yet have the critical time and distance from what is happening now to fully put it into historical perspective.  Unfortunately, by the time we do, it will be much more difficult to to put the pieces back together.  This is one of the many dilemmas of history.

Lastly, I find it very ironic that some here have no qualms about trying to falsely and maliciously trash the reputations of those living today in order to protect their legends of the long dead.  How about you Mike?

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps the answers are found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Grooming-Gossip-Evolution-Language-Dunbar/dp/0674363361

The basic premise of the book is:

"Why is it that among all the primates, only humans have language? According to Professor Robin Dunbar's new book, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, humans gossip because we don't groom each other. Dunbar builds his argument in a lively discussion that touches on such varied topics as the behavior of gelada baboons, Darwin's theory of evolution, computer-generated poetry, and the significance of brain size. He begins with the social organization of the great apes. These animals live in small groups and maintain social cohesion through almost constant grooming activities. Grooming is a way to forge alliances, establish hierarchy, offer comfort, or make apology. Once a population expands beyond a certain number, however, it becomes impossible for each member to maintain constant physical contact with every other member of the group. Considering the large groups in which human beings have found it necessary to live, Dunbar posits that we developed language as a substitute for physical intimacy."

Perhaps gossip is just a sub-concious mode thats been genetically selected in humans over tens of thousands of years to keep the social structure intact.  The process of spreading this information is just cause we can't groom each other anymore!!! 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac & Tom Doak,

I have been out of town for a week and wanted to respond to something.

Tom D, Tom Mac responded to your "discomfort" over the idea of a biographet using perosnl details, i.e. alcohol problems, or even a suicide such as Crump's in writing about someone. He wrote, "That would be something I would avoid all together. I'm not a physician, I'm not quailified to say who is and who isn't an alcoholic today much less then. That is one of the reasons I was uncomfortable when Phil diagnosed Tilly as bipolar in his biography. Even if you are a qualified physician how do you diagnose a person who has been dead for seventy years or more..."

Let me set the record straight on that. I did not "diagnose" nor did I write in my Tilly biography that Tilly suffered from Bipolar Disorder. You can read a number of my conclusions about his personal life in the chapter titled "A Look Back at a Life." Not a single time does it mention his being Bipolar.

That said, I have written this in both private and semi-public settings as I am also convinced that he dis suffer from BP and that there are very good reasons for believing so; still, this is not a "diagnosis." Among those who agree with this opinion is his grandson, Dr. Philip Brown Jr., retired from the Mayo Clinic as was his own father who was Tilly's son-in-law. In fact I discussed it with him during the first of several interviews I did with him for the book. His immediate response was that he "always wondered if maybe he had been."

Dr. Brown even went so far to say that he believed I was in the BEST position to make this judgment. This was and is because I have a son who has suffered with a very severe form of the Disorder for some 14 years now. In fact, I just now returned home after picking him up on his release froma psychiatric hospital, his 8th stay this year alone. It is this unique exposure to the illness, it's symptom's, manifestations and treatments, that led to Dr. Brown's comments. 

I have an essay that will soon be published that states all of that and far more, both outlining the reasons for it and how it affected both his life as a person and as an architect.

The reason for going into this subject, as well as others such as his "drinking" and "Disappearances" are because they have been reported on for many years even to the extent that they are used humorously by several members of GCA.com in many a comment. The problem is that these comments, and almost everything written and reported about his personal life over the years has been either incorrect, exagerated or taken way out of context.

Tom D., whether I am a good one or not, I do consider myself a very serious biographet and historian. I am fascinated by the things that make people tick and how they express their genius. This is because I lack it myself. Learning of personal details that can be an embarrassment to person or family and sharing them because they will "sell books" as someone else mentioned in this thread, is something I greatly detest. But if someone accomplishes a great deed or a series of grand successes in a chosen field, and their weakness or illness would stop almost anyone else, exploringf it becomes, not just an interesting sidelight, but a necessity to understanding the genius behind the person.

The light of history should magnify and only expose on rare occasions...

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

It seems to me that you are making far more of the potential bipolar disorder than I would, because you have a personal connection to it.

Then again, I am satisfied with accepting the man's genius WITHOUT having to explain it, and without trying to make his genius even more stunning than someone else's.

[Thomas MacWood]

Phil
I should have written you suggested he was bipolar in your featured interview at the time the book came out.

I'm no doctor, but couldn't there be a million reasons why he behaved the way he did?

From what I understand bipolar disorder is something relatively new, recently idenitified and recognized, and has a pretty broad net, and is still somewhat controversial. I'm not sure I understand what would be the purpose of diagnosing or suggesting a long gone historic figure may have sufferd from it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

You asked, "I'm no doctor, but couldn't there be a million reasons why he behaved the way he did?" No, not a million , but obviously more than one.

"From what I understand bipolar disorder is something relatively new, recently idenitified and recognized and has a pretty broad net..." That is incorrect. Bipolar Disorder has been diagnosed as such for many years by that title and even many more going back well into the 1800's as Manic Depression. It's "recent identification" as you put it, has to do with the better understanding that we now have as to the causes and symptom's that define it and the notoriety that has been created by a number within the media and how they have reported it. It is a very, very real disorder that manifest's itself mildly in some and extreme in others.

It "is still somewhat controversial." While I agree with this statement it demands the question of exactly WHY is it controversial? The bottom line reason is that mental illness of any type is considered a taboo subject and when it is brought to the forefront for people in general it is done so in avenues that quite often misrepresent it. For example, both Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, two illnesses that have many similarities of symptom's while also even more dissimilarities, are often portrayed in the movies and television shows as being what caused the "bad guy" to kill or hurt people. Whereas some mentally ill people have hurt innocent people, the overwhelmingly vast majority haven't and lead lives of quiet dignity.

"I'm not sure I understand what would be the purpose of diagnosing or suggesting a long gone historic figure may have sufferd from it." More than one person on here has asked that of you and your insistence upon bringing Crump's suicide to the fore, yet you defend it vigorously. Your statement gives the impression of inconsistency at the very least.

In Tilly's case there are far greater reasons for considering this possible illness and how it affected his life, but before going into that, i want to address Tom Doak's points.

Tom, you said, "It seems to me that you are making far more of the potential bipolar disorder than I would, because you have a personal connection to it."

I can completely understand why you think that. I readily admit that the idea of it was in  part caused by seeing the effect's of the illness upon my own family. But for the same reason that I am more sensitive to it's effects I am also far more able to recognize it in others where many would miss it. It is just as when some doctors misdiagnose a particular illness simply because they are almost never exposed to someone with it. A cough is not simply a cough, yet it can also just be that while in others it heralds, lung cancer or aids or tuberculosis or an alergy.

You also said that, "Then again, I am satisfied with accepting the man's genius WITHOUT having to explain it, and without trying to make his genius even more stunning than someone else's."

I don't feel that I am trying to make Tilly's genius "more stunning than someone else's," rather I am trying to understand it, especially in light of how he has been portrayed for many years.

How often has someone both on here and in print referred to Tilly's drinking? or used the term "flask architecture" in reference to him? Didn't even his own family (Dr. Brown himself) write of Tilly's disappearances from his family for days at a time and hint at severe problems as the cause and the using this to underline how astonishing his accomplishments actually were?

The reason that I brought to light my belief that he was Bipoalr, and it is a disorder that I readily admit can only be a supposition in his case and NEVER diagnosed since he is dead, was because I had come to learn that much of how he had been portrayed were both incorrect and misunderstood. Since these dark sides of his were out there in this fashion I believed that history demanded that someone tell the real causes and truth if possible. That is why I wrote it.

In a sense, haven't you felt compelled to act in the same fashion when being critical of what you saw as either design flaws or poor work when describing courses by other architects in your Confidential Guide? You certainly felt a need to expose these and took a great deal of heat from some for doing so.

Certainly saying that someone poorly design a golf course is in no way the same as stating that one believes another to be mentally ill, but that is not really what I did. I gave it as the reason behind a number of his actions, and as you'll see when it comes out, that includes and explains his approach to the game of golf and his interests in deeply exploring so many aspects involving it including golf course architecture...

[TEPaul]

Peter Pallotta:

Those first two paragraphs of your post #71 are so good. They got right to the heart of this entire general subject.

I see while I've been gone for a week the subject of some posts on this thread got back to Crump and his suicide, so don't blame me for bringing it up again.

Just some historic housekeeping on Crump's suicide:

1. Tom MacWood did not break the story that Crump may've committed suicide. That story has been known to me for over thirty years and consequently from those I heard it from it would seem the story has been around Pine Valley in one sub-rosa form or another probably from the day he took his own life.

2. What Tom MacWood did is PROVE Crump committed suicide by shooting himself. Tom MacWood did that simply by producing evidence of his death certificate which states he died of a gunshot wound to the head.

The public story of the cause of Crump's sudden death has always been that he died suddenly of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess.

Is it of any historical interest why that story of his sudden death due to poison to the brain from a tooth abscess was generated back then?

It probably is of historical interest. The fact is Crump's teeth were so bad at the time of his death it is not at all unreasonable to assume he may've shot himself for that reason alone (excruciating pain). It is directly documented that at the end of his life Crump frequently walked around Pine Valley with a small towel in his mouth his teeth were so problematic.

Crump had no children, and his young wife had predeceased him. His only real family was his mother who apparently had moved into his commodious house in Merchantville, N.J. (it seems Crump spent the vast majority of his last few years living at his cabin at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville).

It also seems apparent from an interview (1990) in a newspaper with George Govan (Crump's foreman's son who lived on Pine Valley with his family) that Crump shot himself at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville as his death certificate suggests).

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Crump's mother was probably the generator of the story that Crump died of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess (Crump's body was probably moved from Pine Valley to his home in Merchantville).

Those are the facts as I understand them. So, the question probably becomes why Pine Valley never looked into the rumor of Crump's suicide by a gun and attempted to prove it? In my  opinion, even with the rumor that he shot himself that's been around for decades they just didn't want to do that (prove he shot himself) out of respect for the man and his family and whatever their wishes were over eighty years ago.

Some on here have also said that this club or others around here may've concertedly covered up this reality and rumor (suicide) to protect Crump's reputation! If that's the case I would certainly ask----protect what reputation of Crump's? If they're suggesting this is to protect his reputation as an architect and the creator of Pine Valley, how he DIED clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what he did architecturally those years he worked practically daily at Pine Valley on the design and architecture and creation of the golf course. The collected material in and around Pine Valley explains that in detail.

The point is, if anyone at Pine Valley had ever actually wanted to PROVE that Crump committed suicide all they would have had to do is go to the township or the state recorder of death certificates and petition for Crump's death certificate essentially as Tom MacWood did. There is no question at all Pine Valley itself or anyone from that club could have done that more easily and more appropriately than Tom MacWood did.

The point is this entire affair of the proving that Crump shot himself doesn't have much to do with Pine Valley the club or Pine Valley the golf course and its architecture and who did what there. On the other hand, it probably does have something to do with some analysis of George Crump, the man!

George Crump, the man, is certainly interesting to me and always will be but proving he committed suicide was surely no agenda of mine and it apparently wasn't the agenda of Geoff Shackelford who I discussed this with about five years before Tom MacWood ever got involved.

In my opinion, Tom MacWood's agenda probably has something to do with his interest in people like Crump but I think his agenda has a bit more to do with promoting himself on here and elsewhere as a researcher. I've said it before, and I feel the same now as then that it's not really the proving of the nature of Crump's death I have a problem with, it's the way he went about it and the fact that he didn't have the decency to even speak with the club first. Maybe they would've tried to discourage him and maybe they wouldn't but the point is there is basically no way to stop him or anyone else from trying to prove it.

Tom MacWood has also said himself that in his opinion many of these clubs (and their friends) actively try to distort the true history of their architecture and their architects to protect and/or enhance their reputations or whatever. I do not believe that to be the case at all----certainly not with Pine Valley's George Crump or Merion's Hugh Wilson. I believe these men actually did what their clubs and their histories have given them credit for! Furthermore, the contemporaneous and direct records of these clubs basically prove what these histories say. To suggest otherwise, as some on here have done, is just not factually supportable, in my opinion. If suggesting otherwise is ever going to be more than just speculation and conjecture, some actual facts are going to have to be produced. To date there has been nothing like that in an architectural context.

[TEPaul]

I also spent four days at Myopia last week and I certainly did ask a number of those around who might know and none of them have any knowledge of Willie Campbell designing the original nine holes of Myopia before Herbert Leeds became involved. Myopia believes that club members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did that in 1894. There were also a couple of pretty fair writers at that tournament (both of which I spoke to about this), including writers on golf, not the least of which was John Updike.

So, Tom MacWood, despite some Boston Globe article from back then that you refuse to come up with, maybe the architectural history of that golf course is accurate. If you don't think so, you should try to produce something. I've produced on here the club's side of its history and if you want to disprove it you should produce something that can.

It also seem TCC believes its first holes were created by app. three members including Robert Bacon, the grandfather of the man I played in last week's Myopia tournament with. Pretty extraordinary guy, that Robert Bacon. Perhaps you should try to do some "independent research" on him! 

[TEPaul]

I realize speaking about Myopia, the golf course, is not exactly on subject of Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick but that golf course sure is unique. There are, by my count, up to nine or so holes on that course that are truly unique (at least in America). They definitely may not be everyone's cup of tea but they sure are unique. Perhaps the most accurate way to describe them is they are "of an era". It must have been something else to play them way back when, and it's something else to play them today, even if for very different reasons.

I know some on here will disagree, but, in my opinion, a pretty high greenspeed really does have its particular place in golf and architecture----eg with it the imagination requirement or level can be quite remarkable.

[DMoriarty]

Peter Pallotta:

Those first two paragraphs of your post #71 are so good. They got right to the heart of this entire general subject.

I see while I've been gone for a week the subject of some posts on this thread got back to Crump and his suicide, so don't blame me for bringing it up again.

Just some historic housekeeping on Crump's suicide:

1. Tom MacWood did not break the story that Crump may've committed suicide. That story has been known to me for over thirty years and consequently from those I heard it from it would seem the story has been around Pine Valley in one sub-rosa form or another probably from the day he took his own life.

2. What Tom MacWood did is PROVE Crump committed suicide by shooting himself. Tom MacWood did that simply by producing evidence of his death certificate which states he died of a gunshot wound to the head.

The public story of the cause of Crump's sudden death has always been that he died suddenly of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess.

Is it of any historical interest why that story of his sudden death due to poison to the brain from a tooth abscess was generated back then?

It probably is of historical interest. The fact is Crump's teeth were so bad at the time of his death it is not at all unreasonable to assume he may've shot himself for that reason alone (excruciating pain). It is directly documented that at the end of his life Crump frequently walked around Pine Valley with a small towel in his mouth his teeth were so problematic.

Crump had no children, and his young wife had predeceased him. His only real family was his mother who apparently had moved into his commodious house in Merchantville, N.J. (it seems Crump spent the vast majority of his last few years living at his cabin at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville).

It also seems apparent from an interview (1990) in a newspaper with George Govan (Crump's foreman's son who lived on Pine Valley with his family) that Crump shot himself at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville as his death certificate suggests).

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Crump's mother was probably the generator of the story that Crump died of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess (Crump's body was probably moved from Pine Valley to his home in Merchantville).

Those are the facts as I understand them. So, the question probably becomes why Pine Valley never looked into the rumor of Crump's suicide by a gun and attempted to prove it? In my  opinion, even with the rumor that he shot himself that's been around for decades they just didn't want to do that (prove he shot himself) out of respect for the man and his family and whatever their wishes were over eighty years ago.

Some on here have also said that this club or others around here may've concertedly covered up this reality and rumor (suicide) to protect Crump's reputation! If that's the case I would certainly ask----protect what reputation of Crump's? If they're suggesting this is to protect his reputation as an architect and the creator of Pine Valley, how he DIED clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what he did architecturally those years he worked practically daily at Pine Valley on the design and architecture and creation of the golf course. The collected material in and around Pine Valley explains that in detail.

The point is, if anyone at Pine Valley had ever actually wanted to PROVE that Crump committed suicide all they would have had to do is go to the township or the state recorder of death certificates and petition for Crump's death certificate essentially as Tom MacWood did. There is no question at all Pine Valley itself or anyone from that club could have done that more easily and more appropriately than Tom MacWood did.

The point is this entire affair of the proving that Crump shot himself doesn't have much to do with Pine Valley the club or Pine Valley the golf course and its architecture and who did what there. On the other hand, it probably does have something to do with some analysis of George Crump, the man!

George Crump, the man, is certainly interesting to me and always will be but proving he committed suicide was surely no agenda of mine and it apparently wasn't the agenda of Geoff Shackelford who I discussed this with about five years before Tom MacWood ever got involved.

In my opinion, Tom MacWood's agenda probably has something to do with his interest in people like Crump but I think his agenda has a bit more to do with promoting himself on here and elsewhere as a researcher. I've said it before, and I feel the same now as then that it's not really the proving of the nature of Crump's death I have a problem with, it's the way he went about it and the fact that he didn't have the decency to even speak with the club first. Maybe they would've tried to discourage him and maybe they wouldn't but the point is there is basically no way to stop him or anyone else from trying to prove it.

Tom MacWood has also said himself that in his opinion many of these clubs (and their friends) actively try to distort the true history of their architecture and their architects to protect and/or enhance their reputations or whatever. I do not believe that to be the case at all----certainly not with Pine Valley's George Crump or Merion's Hugh Wilson. I believe these men actually did what their clubs and their histories have given them credit for! Furthermore, the contemporaneous and direct records of these clubs basically prove what these histories say. To suggest otherwise, as some on here have done, is just not factually supportable, in my opinion. If suggesting otherwise is ever going to be more than just speculation and conjecture, some actual facts are going to have to be produced. To date there has been nothing like that in an architectural context.

I also spent four days at Myopia last week and I certainly did ask a number of those around who might know and none of them have any knowledge of Willie Campbell designing the original nine holes of Myopia before Herbert Leeds became involved. Myopia believes that club members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did that in 1894. There were also a couple of pretty fair writers at that tournament (both of which I spoke to about this), including writers on golf, not the least of which was John Updike.

So, Tom MacWood, despite some Boston Globe article from back then that you refuse to come up with, maybe the architectural history of that golf course is accurate. If you don't think so, you should try to produce something. I've produced on here the club's side of its history and if you want to disprove it you should produce something that can.

It also seem TCC believes its first holes were created by app. three members including Robert Bacon, the grandfather of the man I played in last week's Myopia tournament with. Pretty extraordinary guy, that Robert Bacon. Perhaps you should try to do some "independent research" on him! 

I was hoping that your break would do you some good.   Oh well, I guess not. 

You state that MacWood did not break the story of Crump's suicide??  Of course MacWood broke the story.

It makes no difference what you or someone  else could have done or should have known.  You did not do it.  Whatever you knew you concealed it.  MacWood brought the story to light, with proof.

 Are you so small a man that you cannot even give MacWood credit for this? 

Your pathetic and irrational ranting and raving against MacWood has got to stop.