[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

You may try to kid us that you look at facts objectively without bias or agenda, but I bet if you are really honest with yourself you wouldn't buy such a transparent load of hooey.

Why not just be honest about it?  It would make productive dialogue so much easier.

[Tom MacWood]

Bias or agenda? You're funny. This coming from a guy who had a black, Irishman by the name of Hugh Wilson traveling to Europe (with his wife and 6 children) by way of Argentina, and who for a long period could not mention the name Barker without also mentioning Tom Dunn and "itinerants." At the time I thought we should rename him Herbert "The Gypsy" Barker.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I much prefer Herbert "Midnight Train To Georgia" Barker, thanks.  

My bias is simple.  I believe most history is accurate, at least on the macro level, even if specific facts can be mistaken and/or misinterpreted over time.

I much prefer to not posthumously attempt to rip away a person's life achievements and reputation based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and twisting of words and facts in an attempt to present a plausible, but historically unsupported revisionist view.

That's my bias, Tom.  Call me a soggy sentimentalist, but I don't believe one should attempt to change history through mere conjecture or tinker with a person' achievements and reputation without absolute certifiable proof.

Obviously, your biases and agenda are coming at these questions from a much different perspective.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac and Mike,

C'mon, to be fair, we all have some bias.  We have all speculated and made mistakes in so doing, in lieu of a complete historic record that required reading, rather than interpreting.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Yes, we all have biases and predispositions; that's my point.

Instead TMac would have us believe he's looking at this from a cold, clinical, completely objective viewpoint which is ridiculous.

No one that passionate and almost obsessively taken with his subject could be that detached and unmotivated by personal emotion.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You have some nerve calling Tom MacWood out for supposedly insulting Phil.  Take a look at Phil's recent posts.  For that matter, take a look at your own.  Driven by righteous indignation and zealoutry, you guys are out of control and have been for some time now.

As for "biases" driving our conclusions, our respective track records speak loudly on that issue, and in this regard you insult the very concept of sound historical analysis when you mention Tom MacWood in the same breath as Cirba (or you, for that matter.)  Look at your respective records.  The differences are as pronounced as fact versus fiction.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Have a nice day yourself. 

There's only one person here who has provided factual evidence over the past several years and that would be me.

Others can make up their own minds on the meaning of that factual evidence without you and/or Tom interpreting it for them, which you don't seem to understand. 

That's ok...if you two want to spend time speculating that Worthington was involved with the design of shawnee without a shred of evidence or factual historical information just to irritate Phil Young, then I guess that's what you guys will choose to do but it says a lot, frankly.

[Mike Cirba]

when I mentioned that I'm the only one providing new factual evidence the past few years, I'm of course speaking of the Merion issue.  I'd also be remiss to not mention that much of what I presented came from the incredible research work of Joe Bausch.

[TEPaul]

"For those who may care. I will not have anything to do with Tom Macwood for his constant slandering of me. As such I have just resigned from the site. I wish all well."


Phil:

I care! Do NOT reseign from GOLFCLUBALTAS.com.

I know Moriarty and MacWood annoy you on here; they seem to be intent on annoying everyone. Just ignore them. If you think MacWood called you a liar and you asked for an apology and he just continues to beat around the bush the way he has, just ignore the guy. Same with Moriarty. Both of them have called people on here liars, creeps, drunks, the historian of Merion the poster boy of unethical archivists----you name it and if they are asked to apologize they just rationalize it by saying if THEY think there was a good reason to say those things about people on here then apparently it's OK. That's what MacWood told you today on this thread.

Just ignore people like that in the future. It makes no difference at all if they say they are only interested in facts or truth or the accurate history of architecture etc. They can say that if they want to, they can say whatever they want to, but their words on here certainly say otherwise and big-time. Those two are only on here to annoy people, they have been trying to do that to some of us for years and it's obvious; there is no question of it. The reason why they do that is another matter and they are only hurting themselves and their own reputations in that stupid charade even if they apparently don't see it or refuse to admit it.

Just ignore those two. Truth and facts and an accurate presentation of architectural history is the last thing they want and their words on here to you and a fairly large number of us are proof positive of that.

Don't resign from this website, Philip!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I'm with TePaul on this one.  I have been told that if you resign, you can't come back.  So, just in case you want to, just lay in the bushes for a while. Putting up with argumentative A$#(*&#% is part of the whole, uh, "charm" of this place!

BTW, I agree with your last few posts.  TMac has as of yet produced exactly zero documents to back up his theory that makes up this thread.  That kind of "logic" is an insult to all of us here.  And, he defends himself by speculating, calling you dumb and a liar (well, a bluffer for TMac's defenders).

I merely pointed out that it was possible that Worthington could have thown out an idea or two, since he was there.  That is about all we can speculate on.  The other thing about these attribution threads is that we sometimes miss the obvious.  TMac may say that at that time Worthington was more experienced, so he HAD to have designed the golf course.  However, that ignores what transpired in reality - Tillie gets credit in all magazine articles, Tillie goes on to become famous GCA and Worthington disappears, etc.  To argue that Tillie couldn't have designed the course because of lack of experience ignores all of that.

Again, if TMac is arguing that Worthington has some input, I can agree that speculation would say that of course he may have.  But, while logical, its all speculation.  I haven't seen TMac admit any of that.  And yet, we all get called out for our supposed lack of historical accumen.  Things that make you go hmmm.

[Dan Herrmann]

Phil,
Please do not resign.  You're a key resource here - and a helluva nice guy!

Illegitimi non carborundum!!!!

[David Amarnek]

Philip,
I would concur with all those who are requesting that you do not resign.  I truly enjoy your contribution to this site.
I had a single issue with MacWood (re. a Merion thread quite some time ago) and chose to not engage him in the future and have happily done that.  Tom Paul is spot on with his recommendation that you just refuse to have any further communication with him, no matter how tempted you are to do so. I believe that is the best way to marginalize him.
It's just not productive in any event.
DLA

[Phil_the_Author]

To all who have encouraged me to stay, I thank you. I have left it up to Ran to decide and I trust his judgement. As he hasn't removed me I've decided to post something that some may find interesting. It is the only known (at least that I can find) map of the Caldeno Golf Links built and supposedly designed by Worthington.

What fascinates me are the names of the various places on the map, particularly "Diana's Bath." Who it was named for and why in a tiny community that has three churches, a post office, a train station, a news stand and at least 11 hotels must be one heck of a fascinating story. Interesting looking course with only six holes barely shown, wouldn't you agree?

[Mike Cirba]

This should help settle the question of whether Worthington would entrust his new course to an inexperienced, rank amateur in 1910, courtesy of the Tillinghast Association;

http://library.constantcontact.com/doc208/1101825906573/doc/jtxAN3IT3ZOMCfWO.pdf

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

If you go back to the first page of this thread in my post #31 you'll find portions of that document displayed and referred to. You'll also find reference to the Tillinghast Association website where we've had that displayed and downlodable for several months and you'll also see it included in last February's issue of Tillinghast Illustrated where a brief course evolution history was published.

With that in mind, the next issue which has been long-delayed due to technical issue will be put up next week. I guarantee there will be some interesting discussions generated by it! 

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

Thank you.  Will the next issue include your research findings for SFGC?

[Phil_the_Author]

 

[RSLivingston_III]

To those that are interested, Lawn mowers were first introduced in the 1830s. There is a collector of them in the UK. I would copy and post his article that was published in the British Golf Collector magazine, but I want to respect copyrights.
The first use of a mower on a golf course in the US is probably at Oakhurst in the 1870-80's when they would borrow the mowers from The Greenbrier.
I wanted to make sure it was clear that Worthington wasn't the first mowers for golf.

[Phil_the_Author]

Ralph,

That is certainly true. Worthington's innovations came in two areas. First the gang-mowers which he incented for horse-drawn use in 1904 where he simply ganged up a series of hand mowers. Then, in 1919, he created the first tractor driven gang mower. It had metal wheels with appendages welded onto them that would allow for aerating of the turf as it drove.

[RSLivingston_III]

I wish I could reproduce that article for people to read. It is very interesting. He had most all of them restored for use and only knew of one that he was missing which, of course, was the oldest he was able to find during his research.

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

So why would Worthington hire an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?

I thought by that time no one with any sense was doing that sort of thing? 

[Tom MacWood]

This should help settle the question of whether Worthington would entrust his new course to an inexperienced, rank amateur in 1910, courtesy of the Tillinghast Association;

http://library.constantcontact.com/doc208/1101825906573/doc/jtxAN3IT3ZOMCfWO.pdf

Mike
That article was posted on this thread pages ago, and I don't think it precludes Worthington from assisting Tilly. Remember Worthington was with Tilly in 1909 when he first inspected the property (not mentioned in this particular article).

Also, Tilly later referred to himself as the Dean of American golf architects because he laid out his first course in the pink-jacketed nineties.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

The article doesn't preclude CB Macdonald from contributing either, but there is no evidence to say he did, is there?   I have not seen a reference anywhere that Worthington was involved.

You seem to put  a lot of stock in someone's experience designing "tin can" courses, as Worthington did on his own property prior, and as Tillinghast did a dozen years before with some friends in Frankford.  

That task essentially meant that in a big meadow they cut some holes and put tin cans  in the pasture and crudely played around.   Do you seriously consider that golf course architecture?

Here's what Tillighast said about his prior "experience";

"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”

I find it odd that you find this to be prior experience, and yet summarily dismiss the prior experience of men like Dr. Toulmin, who was one of the men who laid out a real golf course at Belmont, or Rodman Griscom, who news accounts in 1900 stated had golf course design and construction experience, presumably on his daddy's farm with the first Merion course expansion.

Those men were all supposed raw, inexperienced design amateurs by 1910, yet Tillinghast's 3 cans in a field a dozen years prior is real design experience?    

Your biases are showing, Tom.   So why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Do not be surprised that your article or whatever did not convince Tom MacWood. Do not forget that he is the man, nay the self-proclaimed 'expert researcher' , who seems to actually believe that HH Barker routed and designed Merion East in December 1910 simply because he found some train schedule that had him traveling between New York and Georgia at that time. After that, why anyone on this website takes anything Tom MacWood says is completely beyond me as I'm quite sure it is completely beyond you!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

The article doesn't preclude CB Macdonald from contributing either, but there is no evidence to say he did, is there?   I have not seen a reference anywhere that Worthington was involved.

You seem to put  a lot of stock in someone's experience designing "tin can" courses, as Worthington did on his own property prior, and as Tillinghast did a dozen years before with some friends in Frankford.  

That task essentially meant that in a big meadow they cut some holes and put tin cans  in the pasture and crudely played around.   Do you seriously consider that golf course architecture?

Here's what Tillighast said about his prior "experience";

"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”

I find it odd that you find this to be prior experience, and yet summarily dismiss the prior experience of men like Dr. Toulmin, who was one of the men who laid out a real golf course at Belmont, or Rodman Griscom, who news accounts in 1900 stated had golf course design and construction experience, presumably on his daddy's farm with the first Merion course expansion.

Those men were all supposed raw, inexperienced design amateurs by 1910, yet Tillinghast's 3 cans in a field a dozen years prior is real design experience?    

Your biases are showing, Tom.   So why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?

Mike
I don't believe CB Macdonald had any connection to Shawnee or the Delaware Water Gap region.

CC Worthington was involved in the first two courses in the area, designing them both. His Shawnee project would be the third course in those parts. He also designed the Buckwood Hotel, which is a pretty extraordinary situation when you think of it. The only similar situation I can think of in golf architecture history is B. Hall Blyth at Muirfield. And you cannot ignore CC's inventions dealing with Worthington Mower Co. My impression is Worthington was a fairly creative and hands-on fellow. Under the circumstance I think it would have been possible for him not to be involved.

I take it you believe Tilly was involved in some misinformation or embellishment when he referred to himself as the Dean of American golf architects.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()