Letter, primary sources from White Bear historian strongly suggest Ross design!

[TEPaul]

"I don't want to rehash the Merion debate, but how is this any different from what was being argued about that course?"


David Stamm:

That is a very good question and an even better point!

I don't think there is much difference. It sort of boils down to some matter of degree, don't you think?

Bob Crosby was here with me in Philadelphia for the entire Walker Cup weekend and he mentioned regarding those Merion threads that he stopped even reading them because it seemed to him the entire thing between the Macdonald/Whigam VERSUS the Wilson and Committee contingents was in historic realiity probably just a matter of some small degree.

Those of us who appeared to defend Wilson and his Committee never denied that Macdonald and Whigam offered Merion and the Wilson Committee some help and advice in 1910 and 1911 before the course was built (that has always been part of Merion's presented history); we only objected to the suggestion and contention that Wilson and his committee were too much the novices to have been able to route and design that course themselves as the history and administrative records of that club significantly explain and indicate.

Those records never said that Macdonald/Whigam did nothing (they thanked them profusely for their help and advice on three occasions over ten months). But those records also say Wilson and his Committee were the architects of Merion East and of the Committee Hugh Wilson was in the main the man responsible and that is why they list him as the course's original architect and always have.

This suggestion and contention on here that Macdonald (or Barker   ) was the router and designer of Merion East or even the driving force behind Merion East is just not the case and is historically unsupportable. That's all the apparent defenders on here of Merion or Hugh Wilson have ever said on these threads (even if the other contingent claimed otherwise). They tried to imply we or Merion or its history were dismissing or minimizing what Macdonald/Whigam did for Merion back then. That as well, never was the case---never!

I think the thing to do with any of these kinds of subjects is to just get some good information on here, then we can all consider it, analyze it and offer our opinions on what it might all means specifically or generally. Is there any real point in trying to go beyond that?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sorry Jay, the 'argument ' is not senseless. I refer you to the title of this thread, that even the club historian cannot make anything stronger than a suggestion. He's provided good info in his letter and others with good info have been disputing, adding, or rectifying what he wrote. Some, like MacWood, have been digging up new info, others are just using what's already been found to 'prove' they are correct and MacWood is not.

I would suspect that if the good Dr. was exchanging info with MacWood, or anyone else who had dug up something useful, then they would probably get to the truth instead of the ego-driven BS that's been served up so far.

[Jay Flemma]

Let's not re-hash the Merion thread here, please.  But let's also not just willy-nilly throw around unsupported allegations that someone didn't design a course because some ancient list omitted it.

Dr. Mammel will respond soon.

I agree with Dick that I hope he'll become a member some time soon, because i have no desire to waste good writing/lawyering time squabbling.  i have work to do, and this childish "I trust his opinion over his" garbage wastes time.

[Tom MacWood]

Yes they have.  The evidence presented by Dr. Mammel is FAR more compelling than MacWoods unsupported surmises.

Just because Tom Doak says he doesn't think the course knows for sure doesn't make him right.  The club seems fairly certain, despite what Tom says.

Jay
What evidence are you referring to that is far more compeling?

[Jim_Kennedy]

I received a fascinating letter from Dr. Mark Mammel, the club historian for White Bear Yacht Club.  It seems the nine holes laid out by Willie Watson are a "lost nine" and that suspicions - and adamancy - that he designed what exists today are ill-founded and should be laid to rest.  It seems pretty clear that Willie Watson did NOT design White Bear.

I agree that we should seek the truth, but we shouldn't go around claiming that such and such a course is designed by so-and-so and not so-and-so without proof.

Tom Paul brings up a great point...this is not some court case where you can throw up whatever you find against the wall and hope it sticks.  We should not re-write club histories without PROOF.


All of the above are your posts Jay, you have done exactly what you are now condemning.

[Jason Topp]

Whoever posted that I have not done any work on this is right.  I'm just going off of the posts in this thread and the other thread, including re-reading MacWood's documents which seem to be the closest things identified so far that are reliable sources of information. 

From those documents, it looks like any debate is at the very margins of degree.  It is pretty clear Watson and Ross had some input into the course, although it is possible Ross' input was very limited.  MacWood concludes from the description in the 1925 article and Ross' failure to list the course as his design that the course is a Watson design.  The club and the Donald Ross Society point to attributes of the course as well as later written histories to conclude this as a Ross course. 

I have no idea who is correct.  Absent a smoking gun somewhere, I doubt the issue could ever be resolved.

I am interested, however, in whether it matters.  I am not sure.

To many clubs it matters because of the extra prestige of being a Ross course.   Courses designed by big names get bonus points in prestige and rankings.  Thus, there is incentive to interpret history in a light more favorable to being a Ross design.

By contrast, I find MacWood's effort to give lesser known architects that did outstanding work their due admirable. 

[DMoriarty]

David,
Very little, but it was either you or Sweeney  

I would've picked Sweeney.

DS,  You are just another victim of East Coast bias.

 That being said, clearly whatever Ross did it was relatively minor based on the fact the course is little changed since 1915, the magazine article and pamphlet both describe his contribution as advice, and Ross never listed the course.

I don't want to rehash the Merion debate, but how is this any different from what was being argued about that course?

I don't think that TM is concluding that Ross' advice was of minor consequence simply because it was called "advice."   Rather, TM's is examining the timing, among other things.  A 1915 surveyor's map shows the state of the course then, and according to Dr. Mammel, changes made after this date were relatively minor.  So if Ross' advice came after 1915 (and TM makes a compelling argument that this is the case) then any changes pursuant to that advice were relatively minor.    

No such issue of timing exists in the Merion situation.  In fact Merion brought in M&W in to advise beginning before the even decided to purchase the lan (6 months before Wilson was appointed) and continued to seek out his advice until after M&W selected the final layout plan and the board approved their plan.

________________________________________________________________

Jay, you and others seem determined to conclude that this was a Ross course no matter what the facts.    Otherwise, why do you ignore the 1925 description and history written by the Commodore of the Club?   It seems to be by far the best evidence of which I am aware.   What am I missing?

Isn't the only suggestion of any early involvement by Ross a story about him having lunch in the summer of 1910 with a few members and discussing the possible creation of a nine hole course?     And given the Ross was apparently out of the country at the time (and the club apparently already had a nine-hole course,) haven't serious doubts been raised about the accuracy of this account?

I can't imagine what the reaction from Philly would have been if my only evidence of CBM's involvement at Merion was an uncorroborated and factually suspect story about CBM having lunch with a few members of Merion and discussing the possibility of Merion creating a golf course (especially if it supposedly happened at a time CBM was out of the country!)

________________________________________________________________

The club and the Donald Ross Society point to attributes of the course as well as later written histories to conclude this as a Ross course.  

Jason,  Didn't the club and the Ross Society simply point to Tom Doak as their expert and claim that Tom Doak said the course had attributes of a Ross course?    Turns out that this was a misunderstanding, and that Doak actually thinks that the course looked like nothing he had ever seen by Ross, and that someone else other than Ross (or Watson) built the greens.

As for the the conclusions of later written histories, they are only as good as their source, and unfortunately oftentimes the source is just another second hand history.  

This stuff is all very incestuous.   Once information gets out there (wrong or right) it ends up everywhere even if from a single source.   For example if you go to the website of any Flynn course chances are you will see almost the exact same brief biography of Flynn, with maybe a few changes to reflect his contribution to the course in question.    Do the multiple reports of the same brief biography prove that the information is correct?   Probably not.   The reality is that all the information likely came from the same source and should stand or fall with the accuracy of that source.

Unfortunately, many claiming to be interested in accurate histories seem more like PR guys than historians.   They have a vested interest in a certain result, and low and behold, that is the result they always come up with.   

[Jay Flemma]

Here is Dr. Mammel's response:


"I was a history major in college, and this discussion reminds me why it fascinated me then and still does today! 

First, I'd like to acknowledge Tom Doak's comments. I don't want to misquote him, and we at WBYC are perfectly happy that he agrees with us about our wild and crazy track, no matter who actually did the original work. 

As has been noted, there are always lots of fingerprints on every old golf course.  Especially in the '50s and '60s, when it seems that all things old were suspect and progress was king, our course (like others) had a number of changes made by head-strong greens chairs which we have struggled to put right over the last 15 years or so. Just a few reactions to the comments. 

First, I'd like to address Tom MacWood's thoughts - or flame?  I think my speculation actually does make sense.  I make the case that Ross was involved in 1910 because the contemporaneous record from a now-deceased member said he was here in 1910. The fact that it was recorded in the 1961 history does not detract from its veracity.  I speculated that Watson laid out a course plan before that date. The 1912 date came into play because that is when the first 9 holes officially opened for play. Again, the "unsatisfactory" comment about Watson's layout is pure speculation, based on the possibility that the Ordway family met Ross in Pinehurst before 1910 and that LP Ordway, one of the club's leading members and past Commodore, wanted Ross to take another look at the Watson plan.  I continue to look for documentation of this theory. The Ordway family was involved in the founding of what is now the 3M Corporation, were educated in the east, and well-connected socially throughout the country. So this is not as much of a stretch as it may seem.

Why did it take 2 years to complete the first 9, why another 3 years for the second, etc- who knows? Money? The growth of the game? The Open at Minikahda in 1913? 

Regarding Watson in 1906-1910: I'll have to wait until I get home where I have some books! I'm stealing some time at work to write these comments so can't respond to that one. It's clear to me, though, that Mr MacWood has access to great source material!

Re Mr Daley's questions about Don Herfort's work: he is perceptive in asking about the 3M connection. We have a long history of 3M executives at the Yacht Club, and most 3M CEOs have been members (though not the current CEO, George Buckley). Most of the changes Herfort made have been redone based on recommendations from Renaissance Golf, thanks Tom.

Last thought for now- hey, I am not bothered that Watson was one of the key players in the development of golf at WBYC.  I believe, however, the well-documented history of Ross's involvement with golf in Minnesota supports the conclusions of many that he was also important in the genesis of our course.  None of it changes what we have, nor the fact that current layout- at least as far as the length of the holes, the position of the greens and tees, and the general contours of the land- is very much like what is shown on the 1915 survey map."

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Mammel,

Regarding the date of the pamphlet, it is unlikely that it was created before 1918, or possibly late 1917, at the earliest.

On July 19, 1917 the Duluth News Tribune reported that the legendary Minnesota golfer with the great name, Harry Legg, set the competitive record at the White Bear course, shooting 69.   The paper went on to note that, "Tom Vardon, White Bear professional, is the only other golfer who has equaled this score.  Vardon turned in 69 twice last year, but not in competition."

So, if the article is to be believed, as of mid July 1917 Hagen had not yet tied the record and the pamphlet must have come after this date.

I hope this helps clear things up.

[Niall C]

It seems to me that there isn't one person who is disagreeing with Tom MacWood who has put any effort into finding out what Tom has, save Mark Mammel.

Flemma has done nothing on his own, McDade has done nothing, Stamm has done nothing, Lyon (by his own admission) has only done 'preliminary' research(read what he says he did, he isn't kidding about its being preliminary), Warren has done next to nothing, Topp has done next to nothing, Carlton has done nothing, etc..

There probably isn't one guy listed that has spent any time at the Tuft's Archives doing any research at all about Ross or WBYC, or poured over as much print as can be found in other archival sources.

You fellas hardly have a leg to stand on. 

Jim,

Like David S I wonder what I have done to be dragged into this particular fight. When I read your comment above I actually had to trawl through this thread and the last thread to see what I had said on WBYC, and what it was in particular that I said that disagreed with Tommy Mac. Having done that I can tell you the answer is nothing. I have made no comment until now on this thread while on the other thread I made a general comment in response to RJ Daley on newspaper articles and the involvement on various designers on any one course. I then had a short exchange on that subject with Tom D. If anything my general comments could be interpreted as supporting Tom's view on WBYC.

Now I know Tom Mac generates a lot of heat on this site and a lot of the time he tends to be swimming against the tide as far as most peoples opinions are concerned. For that reason alone he doesn't need someone on the sidelines trying to pick a fight for him, he is well capable of defending himself. For the record I have found that on matters like Merion I have found some of reasoning and conclusions suspect or indeed plain wrong but thats not to say that I don't accept or agree with some of his other opinions. On something like WBYC I am happy to read what he and others have to say because its a course I know nothing about. That shouldn't stop me from entering into the discussion if there is something which I think I can add that might be worthwhile.

So Jim, my advice to you is just let the discussion flow rather than trying to pick the sides, and then we might all learn something from what Tom and Mark (and others) have to say.

Niall  

[Jay Flemma]

Mr. Mammel,

Regarding the date of the pamphlet, it is unlikely that it was created before 1918, or possibly late 1917, at the earliest.

On July 19, 1917 the Duluth News Tribune reported that the legendary Minnesota golfer with the great name, Harry Legg, set the competitive record at the White Bear course, shooting 69.   The paper went on to note that, "Tom Vardon, White Bear professional, is the only other golfer who has equaled this score.  Vardon turned in 69 twice last year, but not in competition."

So, if the article is to be believed, as of mid July 1917 Hagen had not yet tied the record and the pamphlet must have come after this date.

I hope this helps clear things up.

It's DOCTOR Mammel, David.

[DMoriarty]

I hope the good Doctor will forgive me for my egregious oversight.

Jay,

Since I know now that you are reading my posts, perhaps you can explain your justification for discounting the 1925 description and history of the club written by the Commodore of the Club, and also the Club pamphlet apparently written sometime between mid-1917 and 1920.    While they acknowledge contributions by Tom Vardon and Ross, both credit Watson with the course design.

[Jay Flemma]

Sorry, David.  Too busy at work to chase your tail for you.  Aren't you supposed to be working???  I have two jobs to do.  Dr. Mammel answered your question.  So ask him when he responds to your last, that is if he hasn't answered it already and you just don't like the answer.

Is "gee, I might be wrong about this" even in your vocabulary? or how about "let it go?"

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall Carlton,

Don't get your knickers all twisted in a knot, it's not really about you..

I'm not on a sideline picking a fight. As an interested observer I was not impressed with those who once again try to put down research that doesn't fit into the story they are creating. It so happens that the guy with the goods is MacWood, but had it been you or anyone else I would be saying the same thing. Nowhere did I tell anyone to shut up, just put up, and the only one doing that is Dr. Mammel.
 
 

[DMoriarty]

 Jay,

I too have better things to do than pester you for an answer to what I believe was very straightforward and simple question, but I'm curious.  Now that you've refused to answer I grow curiouser and curiouser.

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but making claims then refusing to back them up seems to be a pattern for you.  If you are really too busy to let the facts get in the way of your assertions, the least you could do is hold off on the assertions until you have more time.  Or perhaps you could gather and consider the supporting facts even before you make your assertion? 

You dismissed the 1925 description and history of the club by implying that it was an inherently unreliable newspaper article.   Even on its face, it most definitely was not.    Why don't the pamphlet and this early club history settle this issue, at least absent more compelling information?   Neither is ambiguous about who designed the course.

Look forward to your answer when you get the time. 

And Jay, while we are talking about backing up our claims . . . You claim that Dr. Mammel answered my question.   I must have missed that.  Could you point it out for me?   
_________________________________________________________________


Doctor Mammel, if you can find the time, I do have a question about the source material . . .

In the other thread a number of posters picked up on the portion of the Links article stating that the 1961 club history contained a passage from a diary.  I presume that the article is referring to this passage, quoted by you in your letter:

"On a Sunday noon, the summer of 1910, she [Mrs. John G. Ordway] was lunching at the home of her father-in-law, Lucius P. Ordway, at Dellwood.  Among the guests besides herself were William Mitchell, Henry Schurmeier, and Donald Ross, a very well-known golf course architect.  These gentlemen were discussing plans for a nine-hole course for the White Bear Yacht Club."

As I am sure you know, this does not read like diary entry.  Indeed you don't describe it as such but rather describe it as from part of the section of the history written about women's golf.   The author of that section is apparently telling a story about the early formation of the club, but it is not at all clear that the author has any direct knowledge of what happened.

If you don't mind me asking, what was the source of the information contained in the passage about the lunch meeting?

Thanks. 

[Jay Flemma]

No, David.  I am a busy man.  I don't have time to waste playing law school hypothetical with you and disproving wild theories.  I deal in facts. Sorry, David, but I have two jobs and you are a Doubting Thomas that can't admit when he's wrong, and I don't have time to waste on you.  I have clients to service and articles to write.  I get paid by them, not by you or GCA.com.  My time is my most valuable asset and you waste it.

I'll submit Dr. Mammel's responses, but I don't find yours and Tom's work convincing on this issue.  I find the evidence of the club about Ross compelling and credible than your wild surmises and agendas.  Try me again on some other golf course.  Perhaps Merion (to some extent, but not completely).

[DMoriarty]

I get it Jay.  You are a busy man.  Writing articles.  Servicing clients.  I don't want to interfere with that.

But what I don't get is that you always seem to have time to post, just never with or about facts.  

In less words than your post above you could have answered my question.  In less time than it took you to craft your insults, we could have been past this.  

-Fact is, some time between mid-1917 and 1920 White Bear knew who designed their course and said so in the pamphlet.  Willie Watson.
-Fact is, in 1925 White Bear knew who designed their course.  The Commodore said so.  Willie Watson.
-Question is, why not take the Club (mid-1917 - 1920) and the Commodore (1925) at their words, at least absent more compelling evidence?

I find the evidence of the club about Ross compelling and credible than your wild surmises and agendas.  Try me again on some other golf course.  Perhaps Merion (to some extent, but not completely).

You find the evidence about Ross compelling and credible?  Then either I am missing something or your judgment is beyond questionable.  What am I missing?

How about anyone else?   Tom MacWood's theory makes a lot of sense to me.   Why would anyone ignore these early club documents?

[Tom MacWood]

Last thought for now- hey, I am not bothered that Watson was one of the key players in the development of golf at WBYC.

Mark
I agree, there is no reason to be ashamed of a Watson connection. He was a very accomplished architect in his own right. Many on GCA have been singing the praises of Belvedere for years; from what I understand Orinda in the East Bay and Ft. Washington in Fresno are still very good courses; and the President's Cup is being played at Harding Park, which is another Watson design, although I'm not certain what is left after the recent redesign. Here are three articles from the period in question that gives a good idea of Watson's stature and reputation. The first if from the British magazine Golf Monthly (1912); the second is from American Golfer (12/1913) and the last if from The Golfer (6/1914).

By the way the plans referred to in the first article are the plans of famous holes which appear in Aleck Bauer's book 'Hazards'. They were originally featured in Golf Monthly.

[TEPaul]

?

[DMoriarty]

Dr. Mammen,

According to the old magazine articles, Hagen (listed as Oakland Hills) played your club in late July 1918, along with Jock Hutchinson (Glen View) and against Tom Vardon and Jack Burke of Town and Country.     Hutchinson reportedly shot a course record 67, breaking the record of 69 by Vardon and Hagen.  So Hagen's record round was before this date.  

So if the articles are correct the pamphlet was created between July of 1917 and July 1918,

Hope this helps.  

[Tom MacWood]

So how does Ross find his way into this story?  We know he was at the lake in 1910, meeting with interested members at the Ordway home, regarding the first 9 holes. What little we know comes from the first club history published in 1961 by Dr. Carl Drake.  In a chapter by Margaret MacLaren on women's golf, she tells the following story:

"On a Sunday noon, the summer of 1910, she [Mrs. John G. Ordway] was lunching at the home of her father-in-law, Lucius P. Ordway, at Dellwood.  Among the guests besides herself were William Mitchell, Henry Schurmeier, and Donald Ross, a very well-known golf course architect.  These gentlemen were discussing plans for a nine-hole course for the White Bear Yacht Club."

Was Watson there as well?  No record.  Did the Yacht Club provide Ross’ entree into the Twin Cities?  The timing fits. 

The timing does not fit as I explained in my previous post.

I make the case that Ross was involved in 1910 because the contemporaneous record from a now-deceased member said he was here in 1910. The fact that it was recorded in the 1961 history does not detract from its veracity.

I agree the fact that it was recorded in 1961 does not necessarily detract from its veracity. What detracts from its veracity is the fact that Ross was in the UK the summer of 1910. Here is the documentation. He and his family traveled from NY to Glasgow on May 28, 1910 arriving June 5. He competed in the Open later in June. He went back via Liverpool on 9/3/1910, arriving in Boston of 9/13/1910.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Excuse me for asking but is it really impossible for you to imagine that Ross may've been in the midwest before May 23, 1910 or after Sept. 3, 1910?

OR, is it completely provable that Ross spent the entire time between May 23, 1910 and Sept, 3, 1910 abroad? I am not saying he didn't; I'm only asking if you can prove it as you seem to be suggesting on here?

[Jay Flemma]

Dr. Mammen,

  

It's Dr. MAMMEL! - the second time you can't get his name right in one day!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Are you suggesting the report that he was at White Bear the summer of 1910 is wrong?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Are you suggesting the report that he was at White Bear the summer of 1910 is wrong?"

Tom:

Not at all, I'm not suggesting anything; I'm merely asking you a pretty simple question or two  -------eg "Excuse me for asking but is it really impossible for you to imagine that Ross may've been in the midwest before May 23, 1910 or after Sept. 3, 1910?"

OR------eg "Is it completely provable that Ross spent the entire time between May 23, 1910 and Sept, 3, 1910 abroad? I am not saying he didn't; I'm only asking if you can prove it as you seem to be suggesting on here? "