Who deserves credit for Essex County?

[DMoriarty]

SBendelow,

The two NYTimes articles are about Essex County in New Jersey.  Haven't checked the Chicago article.

Bendelow was apparently the professional at Essex County New Jersey in 1895, then "Alec Findlay took charge of it about 1896."

This may explain what happened with history book of  the Essex County in Mass.

[Brad Tufts]

Goes to show that Mr. Caner was going on what he believed was good info, but in this instance was incorrect.

I will double check the Ross-hiring timeline when I get back to Boston after the Dixie Cup!

I have no problem attributing early iterations of the original Essex 9 to Willie Campbell or his advice, or some input into the early 18 hole layout originating from the head professional.

The bottom line for me on all of this is that the course is 100% Ross held true by a long stewarship by Skip Wogan, and good greenskeeping a greens committee work thereafter.

The current Essex configuration with the improvements made for the Curtis Cup is the best I've ever seen it (first time I played it was summer 1994 or 95).

[TEPaul]

"I have no problem attributing early iterations of the original Essex 9 to Willie Campbell or his advice, or some input into the early 18 hole layout originating from the head professional."


On the strength of what, Brad? The first thing I would do is check the accuracy of some of the dates of the newspaper articles posted on here (not the copy dates but the Internet attributed dates) and then check on when Campbell first arrived in America.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I believe we can add Essex County to the list of cases where you've been on the wrong side of the argument, but of course my analysis is still suspect. Here is a link to a thread on Myopia & Willie Campbell, here you'll find the answers to all your questions regarding dates and such thanks to the research of others.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40810.0/

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I believe we can add Essex County to the list of cases where you've been on the wrong side of the argument, but of course my analysis is still suspect. Here is a link to a thread on Myopia & Willie Campbell, here you'll find the answers to all your questions regarding dates and such thanks to the research of others."


Tom MacWood:

Thanks but you may've noticed I was on that thread and I pointed out to you what the administrative records of Myopia at that early time said about who laid out that original nine holes in 1894, as well as who did the rest from 1896 on. In my opinion, and in Myopia's opinion today, those contemporaneous club administrative club records trump your newspaper accounts every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Your problem is you seem to always ONLY depend on indirect newspaper accounts and such for any and all your research or information. You should try going right to the source someday---the club-----but I think I understand why you never have and apparently why, at this point, you realize you can't so you don't even bother to try. Since you realize you don't or can't your rationalization for some years on here has been that it's counterproductive getting to know anything directly from any club. You seem to believe that all golf clubs ever do is engage in legend creation and hyperbole about their architectural histories and their architects.

What a joke that is to any historian at any time who's worth a damn.

[Joe Bausch]

Looks like Joseph Lloyd was the professional in 1895 and he made some tweaks to the layout.

[Tom MacWood]

David
I've copied the Bendelow article from the Chicago Tribune.

Joe
Thanks for the info. Joe Lloyd must have been interesting man, splitting his time between France and Boston. By the time he left around 1910 he had to be considered one of the top professionals in America. I believe he won the 1897 US Open.

Brad
I don't have an exact date for Ross taking over at Essex; the last time I have found his name attached to Oakley was early 1910. He spent the summer of 1910 in the UK for the purpose of studying golf architecture, so he would not have been around when Hutchinson and Macdonald visited. My guess is he took over at Essex in late 1910 or early 1911 though he would have spent some of that time period at Pinehurst, presumably.

Here is a link to article from April 1911 in American Golfer which reports Ross has been redesigning the course based on the recommendation of experts. Perhaps those experts were Hutchinson & Macdonald, or maybe this is where Travis, Dunn and/or Leeds were involved too.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag61m.pdf

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Thanks but you may've noticed I was on that thread and I pointed out to you what the administrative records of Myopia at that early time said about who laid out that original nine holes in 1894, as well as who did the rest from 1896 on. In my opinion, and in Myopia's opinion today, those contemporaneous club administrative club records trump your newspaper accounts every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Your problem is you seem to always ONLY depend on indirect newspaper accounts and such for any and all your research or information. You should try going right to the source someday---the club-----but I think I understand why you never have and apparently why, at this point, you realize you can't so you don't even bother to try. Since you realize you don't or can't your rationalization for some years on here has been that it's counterproductive getting to know anything directly from any club. You seem to believe that all golf clubs ever do is engage in legend creation and hyperbole about their architectural histories and their architects.

What a joke that is to any historian at any time who's worth a damn.

TEP
Your contemporaneous club records (aka Myopia Hunt Club History) were pretty much debunked by the time that thread was over. If there is one thing that has become apparent in the last year or so, Club histories should be viewed with a certain amount of healthy suspicion (see Merion, PVGC, Myopia, SFGC, Quaker Ridge, White Bear YC, Essex County, etc).

[TEPaul]

"If there is one thing that has become apparent in the last year or so, Club histories should be viewed with a certain amount of healthy suspicion (see Merion, PVGC, Myopia, SFGC, Quaker Ridge, White Bear YC, Essex County, etc)."


Tom MacWood:

Of course some club histories are suspect to all kinds of degrees and that certainly hasn't just become apparent in the last year or so or by you. For instance, some years ago Wayne Morrison and I proved Flynn designed Kittansett rather than who the club seemed to think---Frederick Hood. Concord CC thought they were originally a Ross course but we proved they were also originally a Flynn. How did we do that? By finding all his drawings in a barn in Bucks County that had not been seen in fifty five years and establishing a relationship with those clubs and showing them his drawings for the original design of both golf courses. Now both clubs call their courses Flynn designs.

This kind of thing happens all the time to varying degrees. I can't speak for SFGC, Quaker Ridge, White Bear YC or Essex County because I've never thoroughly researched those courses or established any relationship with those clubs but I certainly have with Merion, PVGC and Myopia and the fact is what you have said on here about their designs and their architects is simply incorrect and historically inaccurate and we have proven that too unless someone wants to assume that entire boards of directors and their committees sit there with each other and just make up complete lies about what they are in the process of doing when they are creating their golf courses. You might subscribe that that kind of conspiracy theory and nonsense, and apparently you still do with Merion, PVGC and Myopia, but noone else with any logic or commonsense does.
 

[Tom MacWood]

For instance, some years ago Wayne Morrison and I proved Flynn designed Kittansett rather than who the club seemed to think---Frederick Hood. Concord CC thought they were originally a Ross course but we proved they were also originally a Flynn. How did we do that? By finding all his drawings in a barn in Bucks County that had not been seen in fifty five years...

TEP
Please tell us more about your find in the barn.

[TEPaul]

It's all in the back pages of this website. You're an expert on this website's search feature, or so you said.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I was under the impression others found the plans in the barn and allowed you to borrow them. Now the story is you and Wayne found them? What were you and Wayne doing together in the barn?

[TEPaul]

"I was under the impression....."


Unfortunately, it has long ago been proven that the preface above when used by you is almost without fail followed by consistent inaccuracies.

[Tom MacWood]

Through the kindness of David Gordon and Mike Hurdzon, Tom Paul and I have been able to study the William Flynn collection of drawings that was in the Gordons' barn for nearly 70 years at great length.  

TEP
Who actually owned the plans when you were given permission to use them? Whatever the case your Kittansett and Concord discoveries should be congratulated, its too bad you completely missed the boat on Heartwellville. Were you aware C&W listed Kittansett as a Flynn design? Tell us more about Concord, I've never heard of it?

[Brad Tufts]

"I have no problem attributing early iterations of the original Essex 9 to Willie Campbell or his advice, or some input into the early 18 hole layout originating from the head professional."


On the strength of what, Brad? The first thing I would do is check the accuracy of some of the dates of the newspaper articles posted on here (not the copy dates but the Internet attributed dates) and then check on when Campbell first arrived in America.

I do find the discussion interesting, but I refuse to get personal over whether Willie Campbell designed or had influence in a 9-hole layout that existed for one year, or for a few years only before a new 18 in 1900.  If someone has info that says Campbell designed the original 9 (that was around for a VERY short time) than that adds to the discussion whether true or not.  It really doesn't change anything.  I don't have access to the articles sited, or info that proves when Campbell came to America....nor have a heavy interest in personally finding it at the moment.  I will leave that to those that have the time or wherewithal to do so.

Today's golf course was designed by Ross.

p.s.  I do not belong to Essex, but I am fortunate to play there several times a year.  They have some truly great people and a great golf course!

[Brad Tufts]

David
I've copied the Bendelow article from the Chicago Tribune.

Joe
Thanks for the info. Joe Lloyd must have been interesting man, splitting his time between France and Boston. By the time he left around 1910 he had to be considered one of the top professionals in America. I believe he won the 1897 US Open.

Brad
I don't have an exact date for Ross taking over at Essex; the last time I have found his name attached to Oakley was early 1910. He spent the summer of 1910 in the UK for the purpose of studying golf architecture, so he would not have been around when Hutchinson and Macdonald visited. My guess is he took over at Essex in late 1910 or early 1911 though he would have spent some of that time period at Pinehurst, presumably.

Here is a link to article from April 1911 in American Golfer which reports Ross has been redesigning the course based on the recommendation of experts. Perhaps those experts were Hutchinson & Macdonald, or maybe this is where Travis, Dunn and/or Leeds were involved too.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag61m.pdf

In that linked article, it says that the ECC greens committee, at the advice of experts, has decided to make changes, resulting in their engagement of Ross in making improvements.  It does not say "Ross redesigns the course on the recommendation of experts."  I think it is irresponsible to say that H & Mac made recommendations that would be followed by ECC based on one brief visit.  Also irresponsible would be throwing Travis, Dunn or Leeds back into the mix when their potential (and unproven) advice would be related to the 1900 first 18 holes, NOT the Ross 18 being built 1910-1917.

No matter what is thrown against the wall in this discussion, there are a number or things that cannot be thrown on their head.

Also, although the old cited articles are interesting and add to the discussion, they are no more accurate than any other source.  In my knowledge of journalistic history, these old articles did not necessarily follow fact-checking procedures of today, and were often based upon hearsay originating from one figure in the local golf scene.  My point is that if the ECC historian (a club member who one would think is a solid source) can make an error, then MANY of these fishier newspaper or "golf-gossip rag" writers are much more likely to be sometimes reporting only rumor.  Information is only as good as its source, so every citation must be taken with the appropriate grain of salt.

[Tom MacWood]

"The dates were changed to suit the golf committee of the Essex County Club, which is making many improvements to the links, the result of many experts and which are being carried out under the supervision of Donald J. Ross..." American Golfer 5/1911

Brad
Where do you read 'resulting in the engagement of Ross'? The sentence says the golf committee is making improvements the result of many experts. Why is it irresponsible to suggest perhaps those experts were Hutchinson and Macdonald? Wasn't Hutchinson, who was traveling with Macdonald, the most outspoken and famous critic of the course at the time? If not Hutchinson & Macdonald who do you think the many experts could be? By the way the club historian was the person who speculated about Travis, Dunn, & Leeds. I have found nothing to suggest they were ever involved, so you can scratch them if you'd like.

Are you saying American Golfer and the Boston Globe were gossip rags? What makes you say that, do you have some specific examples that would lead you to that conclusion?

 
In the month prior to the quote above American Golfer wrote:
"Perhaps it was at the Essex County Club, of Manchester that Mr. Hutchinson received the impression that the teeing ground placed so that a hill had to be carried were the tendency on American golf courses. As is well known, the original nine holes at the Essex County Club did not call for any hill climbing, but in order to get eighteen holes hilly country had to be used. The Essex County Club's course will be changed this season and some of the hill climbing will be avoided while one the new holes will rank with the best anywhere. the construction work will be superintended by Donald J. Ross, which means that it will be in the hand of the most experienced professional of golf courses in the country. But the Essex County Club as it is today has only three blind shots to the greens while from the teeing grounds five of the drives are blind. The Country Club's course at Brookline was spoken highly of by Mr. Hutchinson, but he thought that it was too short with not a sufficient number of holes calling for a full second shot to the green, not an alarming proportion. The Country Club's golf committee has plans for remedying Mr. Hutchinson's criticism in regard to the length of the course."

Do you think it is coincidence that Hutchinson criticized the blind shots and few months later the hill climbing is being removed? Didn't you tell us the club history said: "During this transition time, Horace Hutchinson visited with C. B. MacDonald to play the course, and remarked that the transitions were 'all the makings of a good thing.' H & M visited in the summer of 1910 and those changes were not implemented until the following year, and Ross was out of the country at the time of their visit. What do you make of that?

[Tom MacWood]

Regarding the reliability of club histories vs contemporaneous sources I'll take the contemporaneous sources for obvious reasons. Just based on the limited excerpts you have given us that history has a number of glaring mistakes and/or omissions.

[TEPaul]

"Regarding the reliability of club histories vs contemporaneous sources I'll take the contemporaneous sources for obvious reasons. Just based on the limited excerpts you have given us that history has a number of glaring mistakes and/or omissions."


Tom MacWood:

For reliablity I'll take contemporaneous sources over after-the-fact and later club histories any time too. But of contemporaneous sources I'll take contemporaneous sources from the administrative arms of golf clubs themselves such as contemporaneous committee and board meeting minutes (that is when they actually exist because they just don't with all clubs) rather than indirect contemporaneous newspaper reporting (which seems to be all you ever depend on apparently because that's all you have access to).

What you call the limited excerpts I've given you has nothing to do with the reliability of a course's architectural history. As I've said many times before if you or anyone else wants to see a club's contemporaneous administrative records you pretty much have to ask the club for their permission and then establish a working relationship with them. And that can and does involve what they want to make public to people such as you (for various and good reasons some private clubs simply aren't interested in making their private material available to people with a track record like yours).

For whatever the reasons, you just don't seem to do that and apparently because you're just not able to. Consequently, it seriously effects your analyses and in the case of Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia's early architectural history you've pretty much always been wrong. Just continuing to say you're right on here definitely does not make it the case.  

If anyone really wants to do a complete historical architectural analysis of a golf course they just have to look at everything and not less than half of it as you do with apparently every golf course and golf club you talk about on here.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Without doubt club records are valuable too, but they are normally only one piece of the puzzle. Club records rarely tell the full story from a golf architectural perspective, which is why newspaper and magazine reports are so valuable, and those looking at those club records must have at the very least a basic understanding of golf architecture history, preferably a thorough understanding, otherwise the result is what you find in the histories of PVGC, Merion and Myopia and their the numerous errors of fact and errors of omission. The other requirement is an open mind, and many of the histories are written by club members with very strong preconceived ideas and inclinations.

[TEPaul]

"Club records rarely tell the full story from a golf architectural perspective, which is why newspaper and magazine reports are so valuable, and those looking at those club records must have at the very least a basic understanding of golf architecture history, preferably a thorough understanding, otherwise the result is what you find in the histories of PVGC, Merion and Myopia and their the numerous errors of fact and errors of omission."


Tom MacWood:

You keep talking about and referring to club histories. Obviously you're referring to club history BOOKS! I agree with you that club history books do have historic mistakes of fact in them (I've found some mistakes in most every club history book I've ever closely analyzed even including Merion's, Pine Valley's and Myopia's) and they are almost always far far short on all the available FACTS in a course's and club's architectural history. The latter is apparently what you call 'omissions.' Over the years I've tried to explain to you why that is generally the case with almost all club history BOOKS but it seems to go right over your head each time.

I am not talking about club history books as an ultimate source of understanding and documenting a course's architectural history; I'm talking about a comprehensive architectural evolution analysis or report---from beginning until "to date." That was something just about every club never did with their golf course and its architectural evolution and history. That is something of a recent phenomenon. I did one for my club over ten years ago and I thought it was the first one ever done on a course but now I find out Oak Hill did one as early as the late 1980s. If any other course did one as comprehensively as those two I am not aware of it at this time.

In the last 3-4 years I did another really comprehensive architectural evlolution analysis and report from beginning until to date for The Creek Club in Long Island with the constant help of that club's really dedicated historian. And I'm prepared to do a really comprehensive one for Pine Valley GC. One has also now been done for Merion East (and most of Flynn's other courses) by Wayne Morrison.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,

What the hell is wrong with you?    Why do you have to pollute every single interesting historical thread with your delusions of what happened in arguments gone past?   You've obviously got nothing to add about Essex, so why clog up the thread with your same old garbage?  Is it impossible for you to even let one of these threads go without ruining it with a bunch of irrelevant crap?

No need to respond.  My questions were rhetorical, and the best response for everyone if would be if you just sat this one out.

[TEPaul]

"No need to respond."


That's for sure.

[Tom MacWood]

David
Its my fault too, I should know better and ignore him. He clearly had nothing to add to this thread other than trying to sabotage it.

Here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe 9/9/1900 when the second eighteen was officially opened:

[Tom MacWood]

Here are three articles from 1910. The first is from the Boston Globe, and the next two are from American Golfer. It would appear George Willett and Harrison Caner were significant forces.