[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?

[Eric Pevoto]

Perhaps, in all that you've read, you could offer something that might indicate Tilly wasn't the primary architect of Shawnee.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't think there is any doubt he was the primary builder.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Tilly is the sole designer of both the original Shawnee CC which opened in May of 1911 and the redesigned and re-routed course which was finished in 1913 and the sole designer of numerous improvements and redesigns all the way through the 1930s.

For someone who claims to have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" you seem to have missed all of the articles where TILLY HIMSELF stated that "I" not "WE" not "Myself & Worthington" but ALWAYS "I" designed, laid out, built and a number of other different ways to say that HE WAS THE SOLE DESIGNER.

Now if YOU have any proof otherwise show it and call the man himself a LIAR because THAT is what you are saying. You are saying that each and every time that Tilly took SOLO credit for designing Shawnee that he was LYING.

That is a hell of a claim for one who, despite his own claim to have "read quite a bit on the subject" has NEVER GONE TO SHAWNEE or even ASKED THEM for access to their records so that he could make a TRUE research effort.

You know that I have been hired by Shawnee to write a 100-year anniversary book about the history of the INN, the Golf Course and the impact of it on the entire region.

You know that I have been given complete, total, unfettered and unrestricted access to EVERYTHING in their records and files and have even personally visited and gone through EVERY SINGLE page, document, photograph pertaining to Shawnee, Tillinghast, Worthington and the Worthington businesses in the archive at the Monroe County Historical Society where they are kept.

YOU know that I have interviewed the current owners and the entire family involved and all the employees available. I have also interviewed Fred Warings (Shawnee's past owner and the man who purchased it from the Worthington's) daughter and son. What you don't know is that I have also visited and examined the documents in the Fred Waring archives at Penn State University where all of his archives from Shawnee are kept. I have interviewed his personal secretary who worked with him for nearly 40 yeas.

In EVERYTHING that I have seen there is not a single shred of evidence that CC Worthington who YOU described as being "highly Experienced" in golf course architecture, design and building and therefor MUST have been involved in the design on the other thread, or ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN TILLY was involved in the design, layout and construction oversight of Shawnee.

You know you were asked to produce the proof of this on the other thread and you DIDN'T! This is a charade for other purposes and you know it.

You DEMANDED on the other thread that I produce documents and proofs beyond what Tilly himself wrote that are part of the Shawnee records. I REFUSED to do so as they have been given to me for confidential research purposes and I do NOT have their permission to publish anything until AFTER the book is released next year and then only after they give me permission to do so.

You are simply too arrogant to accept that the owners of a Golf Club, property, etc... might simply believe that their PRIVATE documents are just that... PRIVATE and should be left that way.

I have twice now suggested that you call Shawnee and speak with Rob Howell the general manager and ask him for permission to research. It is his to grant and I've never said anything to him about you in this or any other regard so don't think for a moment that I have any desire to prevent it.

You claim to be a seeker of "truth" but you offer nothing more than that you have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" as PROOF and in doing so call a man a liar.

This is absurd in the extreme and I will have nothing to say or do with this thread ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

Wasn't CC involved with the facilities aspect, the Inn, and not the golf course ?

[Ian Larson]

Having read anything that Tilly wrote out there myself and being friends of the current ownership since I worked down the street at Great Bear G & CC I felt this was absurd as well. So I ask the same thing..the question isn't to give proof of Tillys solo involvement, it's to give one single shrewd of evidence that anyone else was involved. Which I highly doubt can be done.

[TEPaul]

"Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"



Tom MacWood:

That's just another good example of your gratuitous bullshit on this website. Do not include my name on the subject of Shawnee. I've never been there and I know very little about the details of the golf course and its architectural history.

All I ever said on this subject is I think it is so typical of you when you responded to Phil's remark about Tillinghast being inexperienced when he did Shawnee by saying that CC Worthington was experienced. Phil wasn't talking about Worthington, he was talking about Tillinghast. It appears you are now trying to suggest that Worthington designed the golf course and not Tillinghast.

Eric Pevoto asked you a very simple and straightforward question and as is so usual with you on here you neglected to answer it. Why is that? This is the reason everyone on here seems to think trying to discuss anything with you is futile.



Phil Young:

Apparently you are now beginning to personally experience what it is really like trying to deal with Moriarty and MacWood on the subject of Merion!! MacWood's MO on this subject is exactly the same as the two of them on the subject of Merion. And with MacWood the same was true with Myopia and North Shore and a number of others on this website.

What I've always had such a hard time understanding is why it took some on this website so long to recognize his ridiculous MO on here and start to really say something about it. Better late than never, I guess, but in my opinion some of you were definitely not too quick on the uptake! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Eric,

You obviously haven't been following along here, as that is not the way this game works!  TMac provides things from time to time from his collection, but more often, he doesn't, while whining when others don't provide him to access to their stuff.

TMac,

Some have complained about your various lists being too long.  I have an idea for a shorter list you could provide - how about a list of courses from the pre-Golden Age that you believe are correctly attributed as to design!

Seriously, I certainly understand the desire to drill down and know just how things happened in those days, like how much Owners influenced the design, how the process differed from today when the whole notion of designing courses in America was still being formed, etc.  It is quite possible that in a complicated process, there are usually some unsung heros who should get more credit than perhaps previously given, either for an individual feature, or for inspiration, etc.  As an example, the guys who built MacKenzie's bunkers obviously helped create his legend, but he is still the gca of record.  A few years ago, though, one of his bunker builders got in the CA Golf Hall of Fame, so more recognition of all involved is certainly the trend.

I am just not sure we will ever know from records provided and the best we can hope for is nuggets of deeper info, and not revelations that the attribution should be changed.  I presume people in those days were probably 99% correct in their recordings of what happened.  If they wanted to credit Tillie for Shawnee, there is probably a good reason for it, even if others made contributions of some kind.

I may not be clear in my thoughts, but I wonder if a thread title that simplfies in black and white a question about design attribution, for a thread that is really trying to find out deeper, more complex roles and attributions is simply not one that can't help but start an argument, whether intentionally or not?

[TEPaul]

Thank you Shivas!

[Tom_Doak]

I just do not understand the point of starting a thread like this.  For any project, there is more than one person involved in bringing it to fruition.  You could start a similar thread about any course I have worked on -- even High Pointe, where I built all 18 greens myself -- and find other people such as Tom Mead who was the construction superintendent, or Gil Hanse who was a summer intern, or Ken Anderson who ran a bulldozer there some of the time, or even my brother who helped out for the summer, and claim that their role was much more significant than they've been given credit for.  But surely, I am the real designer of High Pointe, as much as any other architect was on any of their projects, and probably more than most.

You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
I use your Stonewall (old) as the poster child for this type of question.  Surely, Stonewall is not a Fazio design, yet some of the routing may have been inherited from him.   Nobody would ever suggest Stonewall (old) was co-designed by Fazio (well, maybe Tom MacWood's unborn great grandchildren will in 2065 )

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,  TomM is of course not calling anyone a liar, and particularly not AWT.   Reasonable minds can disagree on interpretations of various documents, and like the rest of us Phil has proven to be far from infallible when it comes to fully understanding what happened a century ago.    

I don't understand why Phil refuses to actually set out and explain the facts supporting his conclusion rather than repeatedly stating his conclusion and lecturing us on what he considers his own expertise on the subject.   Having documents is not nearly as important as understanding them.  As Tom Doak said it is always more complicated than just saying that one person did absolutely everything yet that seems to be what Phil is saying.  In this regard, I'd also like to see TomMac set out and explain the facts he is relying on to reach his conclusion as well, because I don't understand the basis for his conclusion either.

But it is absolute nonsense for Phil to accuse TomM of calling AWT or anyone else a liar just because they have different interpretations of what happened.    And you know better than to play along.   For example, Phil's version of what happened with the Amateur issue is very different than my understanding of what happened.   Am I calling him a liar for pointing out where we disagree?  Of course not.  
_________________________________

Tom Doak,

I think I understand what you are saying, but to me you make a very good case for threads addressing these issues. There is often more to the  story than is commonly known and while I agree that we shouldn't pretend anyone's role is more significant than the person has been given credit for, we also shouldn't pretend that the person who gets all the credit was a complete one man show either.   That is part of why I think these arguments over who gets credit are largely political and pointless rather than historical and productive.   It is much more productive to try and tell the whole story than posture to protect or disparage anyone involved.  

So to the extent that this thread is just too guys posturing, I agree that the thread is pointless. Phil's posturing about his level of expertise get us no closer to knowing the whole story.  Nor does TomMac's challenging that expertise.   Both should make their case, but with facts and analysis, not posturing or emotional accusations.   If they'd come forward and actually discuss what happened at Shawnee, it could be pretty interesting thread.

Plus, I can't figure out why Phil wouldn't welcome an opportunity to have his conclusions on Shawnee challenged.   I would think he would want to be sure he has it right, rather than just lecturing us on his perception of the level of his own expertise.    

____________________________

Dan Herrman, if some of the routing was inherited from Fazio then that is an important part of the that course's history and lineage, so I hope that even in 2069 anyone truly interested in Stonewall's history would be interested in bringing that information forward, rather than becoming indignant at the very thought anyone other than Doak might have some responsibility for some aspect of the course -- whether it be good or bad.    Hopefully there is a record of what was left over and what was changed, so they won't have to argue about it decades later.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Tilly is the sole designer of both the original Shawnee CC which opened in May of 1911 and the redesigned and re-routed course which was finished in 1913 and the sole designer of numerous improvements and redesigns all the way through the 1930s.

For someone who claims to have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" you seem to have missed all of the articles where TILLY HIMSELF stated that "I" not "WE" not "Myself & Worthington" but ALWAYS "I" designed, laid out, built and a number of other different ways to say that HE WAS THE SOLE DESIGNER.

Phil-the-author
Which specific articles are you referring to?

[Ian Larson]

Moriarty if this threads intent was to discover who may have been on site assisting the design, routing, construction and grow-in then fine I'd agree with you. But as I read the title and the first post I interpreted it as another Merion thread with questioning if Tilly was even the true designer. It struck me as Macwood wanting to be provocative and stir the pot. Not to initiate discussion as to who else was on site and who did what. If what is being insinuated is true then let's stop talking and actually throw some hard evidence on the table to prove so. If Macwood or yourself don't do so then you're wasting everyones time.

[Tom MacWood]

I just do not understand the point of starting a thread like this.  For any project, there is more than one person involved in bringing it to fruition.  You could start a similar thread about any course I have worked on -- even High Pointe, where I built all 18 greens myself -- and find other people such as Tom Mead who was the construction superintendent, or Gil Hanse who was a summer intern, or Ken Anderson who ran a bulldozer there some of the time, or even my brother who helped out for the summer, and claim that their role was much more significant than they've been given credit for.  But surely, I am the real designer of High Pointe, as much as any other architect was on any of their projects, and probably more than most.

You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. 

TD
I could care less who designed High Pointe, or any of your courses. If you aren't interested in who did what at Shawnee find another thread.

[PThomas]

another one of these "who designed course X threads" that suggest that the architect of record is not the one, without offering any proof that he wasnt?

I hope Ran starts deleting these

[TEPaul]

Jeff, TomD, Dan, Ian, Shivas et al;

This kind of thread by Tom MacWood goes back a long, long way-----as far as I can see when he began a thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" That one is in the back pages somewhere and it's the very same MO as this one.

That one was started in Feb. 2003---SEVEN and a HALF years ago---and I firmly believe it began this entire ongoing adverserial contention about the architectural history of Merion East and the endless contention on his part and Moriarty's that Wilson was not as responsible for the architecture of that course as the club has always given him credit for and that their history book is essentially a work of fiction and their historian is 'the poster boy of unethical archivists.'

From that one all these others by MacWood have kept this MO going---eg Pine Valley, Myopia, North Shore, Shawnee etc, etc, etc!

The demands are always the same too---neither of these guys answers anyone's questions honestly and they demand that others prove their negative scenarios false while all the time demanding that others with access to these clubs turn over all their research even though these two have never even bothered to go to any of these clubs to do their own research!

At this point, I'm delighted to see that practically everyone involved in any of these threads has finally seen through their charade and begun to call them out on it.

[Tom MacWood]

Shivas,  TomM is of course not calling anyone a liar

Yes he is.  At a bare minimum, he's calling Phil a liar.  He didn't just say it once.  He said it twice.  Or are you going to give me a what "is is" argument about the difference between bluffing and lying?

Shivas
Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post.

[Tom MacWood]

another one of these "who designed course X threads" that suggest that the architect of record is not the one, without offering any proof that he wasnt?

I hope Ran starts deleting these

If you aren't interested in history there are plenty of other threads in which can particpate. Questions of attribution have been part of this site from the very beginning, and there have been a number of impressive discoveries made over the years, despite the fact they make you uncomfortable. Golf architecture is a relatively new discipline, and documenting its history is obvioulsy even newer. We have only scratched the surface of documenting golf architecture history so your request should keep Ran very busy.

[Ian Larson]

Macwood you started up the thread. You challenged. Put your money where your mouth is and prove him wrong all by yourself with all the content you've extensively dug through. Who cares what he has. You obviously have the holy Grail to Shawnee so let's see it. Phil is not obligated whatsoever to show his cards. And I don't think he's even hiding anything, Tillys story is pretty much all out there. ESPECIALLY with Shawnee. Just put your money where your mouth is for once...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

If these threads were actually inclusive, as in "who else was involved?", as per your example, I see nothing at all wrong with that, yet Phil had his ass handed to him for daring to ask that question about NGLA.

Instead, however, in virtually every case these threads have taken an exclusionary, adversarial, either/or approach, where the historically acknowledged architect is torn down to make room for the usurper to the throne.

I think more of the former and none of the latter would serve all of our historical knowledge needs very well.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be."


Tom MacWood:

If you're going to demand what you have of Phil Young then and some of us on other courses and subjects why don't you produce what you say you have from all your digging? You've been asked this a number of times on here and you just keep avoiding it. With all that is there any reason at all you cannot understand why most all of us think you are hypocritical?

[Tom MacWood]

Macwood you started up the thread. You challenged. Put your money where your mouth is and prove him wrong all by yourself with all the content you've extensively dug through. Who cares what he has. You obviously have the holy Grail to Shawnee so let's see it. Phil is not obligated whatsoever to show his cards. And I don't think he's even hiding anything, Tillys story is pretty much all out there. ESPECIALLY with Shawnee. Just put your money where your mouth is for once...

Ian
I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, which is why I started this thread. If I knew who designed Shawnee the thread would have a different title. And what is the deal with referring to people by their last name?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You seemingly have some idea of who did what at Shawnee from your exhaustive reading.  I know you would possbily be in for a beat down if you interpreted something in a way someone didn't like, but it would seem sharing your findings in their original form wouldn't be out of line, would it?

Or, was your digging only turning up bones?

[Chris_Blakely]

You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. 

Really, I would have thought you would have been above saying this, whether it be starting a new thread or dropping it as a suposed afterthought at the end of one of your posts!

Chris

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()