I presume its new and I am just discussing its possible implications to our debate here, and trying to do so in civil tones. I have no trouble with others offering different scenarios.
. . .
Either way, please explain to your friend David that he doesn't have to argue that I have disagreed with you when in reality, I have. He either doesn't have the mental capacity or social skills to accept that or doesn't read very well.
Jeff Brauer,
Please don't pretend you are trying to be civil if you are going to write this crap a few lines later. You placed the trees on the course, which is an unsupported assumption as far as I am concerned. Even if you did allow that they may have been seperate events, am I not allowed to question your preferred interpretation? Talk about "thin skin."
And you are the one misreading here, which is ironic given your rude comments posted above. I never doubted he transplanted trees somewhere on his 600+ acre farm. But I don't think your assumption that this was part of the golf course is justified. Who knows what the trees were for? This was 1893 and there were only a few golf courses in the entire country, and they were
very rudimentary. The transplant of 30 foot trees for a golf course as it was first being laid out (or even before) seems rather out of scale and character with the state of golf course design at this time. These were generally primitive affairs, and as you note transplanting trees of of that size was pretty sophisticated stuff even then.
Here is a recent photo of a portion of Appleton Farms. While I am not suggesting that these were the trees, this sort of application of trees seems much more likely to me.
- I never said you claimed they were golfing there before 1894. But others certainly claimed this, and this article refutes the claim, despite representations that it was based on the type of unverified and mystical contemporaneous source material. (Isn't this the very type of fantasy information that you have suggested should trump real information?)
- My "word parsing" was not only technically correct, it was substantively correct. The May article said he had a course laid out, not that he laid it out. That may well be an important substantive distinction. Your inability or unwillingness to even notice such distinctions is both technically and substantively sloppy.
- I don't know why Appleton wanted courses at the Country Club, his farm, and at Myopia, but I my guess is the same guy was responsible for the work done at all three in May of 1894. And his name wasn't Appleton.
- Don't put your speculations about the timing of things into my mouth.
__________________________________
Phillip,
The reason we know that "to lay out a tennis court" did not connote design is because there is nothing to "design" on a tennis court. What constituted a tennis court is specifically prescribed by the norms of the game. This wasn't the case with golf courses.
But, as the tennis court example shows, "to lay out" generally meant to place on the ground. The verb "to lay out" never meant only to design (for example on paper) but generally referred to the act of placing the course on the ground. And as you know, many of these early courses were "designed" as they were laid out on the ground. In fact with these very early professionals, it was commonplace for laying out a course and designing a course to be the same step. In these cases, they were said to have "laid out" the course.