next »

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for editing and deleting certain material from your original post above.  I think it was a wise move.

If you re-read one of my posts above, you'll know that I don't have a copy of this 'new' Findlay article in my possession.  At some point I will, and I'll post the contents soon thereafter.

Do you know in which paper(s) the Breezy articles appeared?

Have you posted all your articles on early Philadelphia golf?   If not, I'd appreciate seeing them.   As you know, unlike many of the contributors to this conversation, I am a long ways from Philadelphia so I don't have immediate firsthand access to the source material. 

[Joe Bausch]

Thanks for editing and deleting certain material from your original post above.  I think it was a wise move.

If you re-read one of my posts above, you'll know that I don't have a copy of this 'new' Findlay article in my possession.  At some point I will, and I'll post the contents soon thereafter.

Do you know in which paper(s) the Breezy articles appeared?

Yes.

Have you posted all your articles on early Philadelphia golf?   If not, I'd appreciate seeing them.   As you know, unlike many of the contributors to this conversation, I am a long ways from Philadelphia so I don't have immediate firsthand access to the source material.

I've never counted how many articles I have on early Philadelphia golf.  It is certainly in the hundreds, if not more than a thousand by now.  Hence, I have barely posted much of my collection at all.

[DMoriarty]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

[Mike_Cirba]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

David,

That's really not fair.

Joe has posted/shared everything he's found of relevance to the matters we've been discussing/debating over the past months, and has also posted a whole host of other articles of interest to those of us interested in the early history of PHilly golf, including virtually ALL of the wonderful stuff on Cobb's Creek.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from him here?

[Joe Bausch]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

I don't know why you took them down David.  I saved them.

[DMoriarty]

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

I don't know why you took them down David.  I saved them.

Feel free to repost them if you like.   

After I posted, I reread your posts and thought that perhaps I was misreading you and that I was not sure I was being entirely fair to you, so I edited my comments.   Pretty quickly after I posted, I think.   

 I am tired of the games with the source material, and was disappointed to see you engaging in them, but then thought I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is what I was thinking in the edited portion last night . . .

You know that I know that my Public Ledger attribution may not have been correct, and that the reason is the way the articles were placed in the Sayres scrapbook.    You know that I also tried to help you figure out where the article came from, if not the Ledger article.

So your suggestion to me that I recheck my source wasn't conveying any real information, but was more about playing games with the documents, wasn't it?   Seems like I know and you don't to me.    Otherwise, what was the point.   Same goes for your latest non-answer answer to my question about the attribution.   

When I get the chance, I'll change the attribution in the essay to "Joe Bausch says it is not Public Ledger, and knows where it is from, and it is important to him that I know this, but he not saying where the publication is from."     Does that work for you? 

You have indicated to me repeatedly that you were not going to play these games, and were not going to take sides, and what you found was equally available to everyone.    Yet here you are, apparently playing them.

As I've said a number of times on the public board and off, your contribution here has been terrific.  As Tom MacWood has pointed out, through your posts we've learned more about Philadelphia Golf than the other supposed researchers have taught us in about 8 years.   

But as you used to know, this isn't about who-can-find-what, it is about figuring out what happened.  It is sad if you are losing site of this. 

. . . .Maybe I should have left my comments last night . . .

David,

That's really not fair.

Joe has posted/shared everything he's found of relevance to the matters we've been discussing/debating over the past months, and has also posted a whole host of other articles of interest to those of us interested in the early history of PHilly golf, including virtually ALL of the wonderful stuff on Cobb's Creek.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from him here?

I think his contribution has been terrific.   He's been the most valuable contributor by far, with the possible exception of Tom MacWood.   He is one of the reasons I came back to gca.com.

But what you write above is not really square, is it?   You've referenced a number of articles of his before he has posted them, and implored him to post this or that.    Wayne Morrison touts that Joe has helped him gather a substantial library of information, and has made a point of repeatedly saying that I will never see that info.

Don't get me wrong.  I have no entitlement to Joe's hard work.  I know how difficult and time consuming this type of research can be, and if he wants to feel proprietary about it, that is his business.

But I do want to make sure we all know the score.   
-- If Joe wants to play the role of neutral fact-finder, then that it is terrific, but there is no place for games.   
-- If he wants to be just another Philly partisan or if he wants to serve them, then that is his choice as well.   But if that is the case we should all look at his information a bit differently, and assume we are only seeing what serves his interests.

So what'll it be, Joe? 

_______________________________

Again, Joe,  Do you still need a copy of that scrapbook page or not? 

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

I don't recall the emails regarding the scorecards indicating the routing progressions in the 1913 and 1915 articles.  I sure would like to see them.
Thanks,
Wayne

Weeks before I uncovered that Evening Bulletin article above that suggests at opening in 1912 the routing of Merion East was the same as it is now, I was just curious if early Philadelphia Inky articles where occasionally scorecards are given could shed any light.  And I think they do.

Here was the first in my investgation, where in July of 1913 the scorecard for the Philadelphia Open participant Jack McDermott was given.  His scores on the 3rd and 4th holes (3 and 6) suggests to me the routing in 1913 was the same as it is currently. 



Ok, then I knew the routing for the 1916 Amateur was different, but when did it likely change.  Back to finding some newspaper scores.  Here is one from June of 1915 for the women's Eastern Championship.  Many hole by hole scores are posted and it seems clear to me the routing has now changed.



Hence, a good guess would be the routing changed sometime in 1914.