Merion Mysteries, by Arthur Crabb

[DMoriarty]

Since it is Father's Day, I thought some of you might enjoy the following fictional story, set at one of gca.com's favorite clubs.  Although many of Arthur Crabb's stories are mysteries, this story is not.  The title of the thread is a play on the oft discussed 1949 article by Richard Francis, entitled Merion Memories.  Some of you might be able figure out the real mystery behind this story based on this rather obvious clue.

Happy Father's Day!

If the font is too small, the story can be read here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=WkZEAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA29&dq=%22old+man+ladd%22+crabb&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0VKDVbm3CsyuogSJwK6IAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=twopage&q&f=true

[GLawson]

Great story!

[DMoriarty]

What I enjoyed most about the story was the detailed description of how the golfers played the golf holes. In case anyone who read the article didn't figure it out, "Lanning Golf Club" was actually pseudonym for Merion East, and so the story gives some indication of how top club players played Merion, circa 1921.  Given the distance today's better players hit the ball it is eye opening.   

The other mystery is the author, "Arthur Crabb." "Crabb" wrote fiction (mostly mysteries) beginning in about 1917, and he published two novels, a thematic collection of mysteries, and (by one account) over a hundred short stories.  (I've read the three books and dozens of the stories, but haven't found 100.)  He was also a commentator on golf and (occasionally) football.  His comments on golf were often witty, or at least they were intended to be.  For example, here is his suggestion to Grantland Rice on how to handle the issue of when to concede putts:


For another example, in July 1921 "Crabb" sent the following rules question into American Golfer but the question was obviously just a setup to illustrate how the various options under the unplayable lie rule functioned:
GENTLEMEN:  Will you kindly give a decision on the following point? A is playing in a medal play competition. He drives from the tee, gets a wild hook on his ball, and ends up in an abandoned well, four feet in diameter and six feet deep. The poor fool has a hunch that he can play the ball out of the well, and in a moment of delirium takes a crack at it. Then he wakes up and wonders what he can do. He could stay in the well for a hundred years and never get out, yet the rules apparently give him no option but to keep on dropping in the well. Of course you understand the well is perfectly dry and no question of water enters the case. The rule says that "he shall play his next stroke as nearly as possible to the spot from which the ball was played". It is a cinch to keep on dropping the ball in the well in just about exactly the same spot from which it was originally played. I shall appreciate it very much, if you will let me know how to get the poor goof out of the well. - Arthur Crabb.

As for golf course architecture, he didn't have too much to say, but in May of 1935 he authored a strong critique of the use of water in an American Golfer article titled, "Water on the Golf Course: Outlining Some of the Objectionable Features in This Type of Hazard, Including Certain Rules Difficulties" which began:
FIRSTLY, it is very easy to just criticize; it is not so easy to criticize constructively. Secondly some of my so-called friends say that my idea of a golf course is a geometric figure, not an oil painting, that the esthetic, artistic and soulful qualities of a golf course have no appeal for me. They may be right, but I am obstinate enough to go on believing that, by and large, water on a golf course is a poor hazard.

What followed was a reasonable critique of the problems (rules and otherwise) that arise when water is used as a hazard in golf, and a pretty strong indictment of the use of water on the famous 11th hole at Merion:
The Eleventh Hole at Merion which has achieved considerable publicity is in my humble opinion a fundamentally bad hole. Replace the water with sand and I believe it would be a good hole, if not a great one.

As for "Crabb's" fiction, many of the stories are mysteries, or contain some element of mystery, but they also run the gamut from sappy romance to psychological profile, or both (such as in his novel Ben Thorpe, about a misogynist who ultimately falls for a young woman whom he had previously thought of as almost a sister.)  His mysteries were often promoted as American Sherlock Holmes stories, although I suppose this was (and is) pretty common when it came to promoting mysteries.

Golf and golf clubs are featured in many of his stories, and many featured recurring characters in and about "Alden" ( which was Philadelphia) and its prominent golf clubs.  According one account, the recurring characters are friends of the author, "pictured in the places they haunt." So the stories might give some insights as to the type of men and women that frequented these clubs at that time.

His mysteries often focused on misunderstandings and mistakes of perception, as described in this blurb from 1920:


But I am digressing. I had previously mentioned a "mystery" about the author.  Well, "Arthur Crabb" was actually Richard Francis, a long time USGA Rules expert and author of one of the seminal books on the Rules of golf (which incidentally, contains an appendix supposedly written by Arthur Crabb.)  Francis was also on Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee, which was charged with laying out and constructing the two courses at Merion.  Crabb's second book, Ghosts: A Samuel Lyle Mystery Story, was dedicated to Wilson.

If anyone is interested, I'll put together a list of links to some of his work.

[GLawson]

Yes, would be very interested in the list.  It's much more recent but have you ever read the J. Michael Veron books?  I live gold fiction.
Best,
Gordon

[GLawson]

Sorry, meant golf fiction:)

[DMoriarty]

Gordon,  I figured that is what you meant, although 'I live gold fiction' sounds more exciting. I'll confess that I am usually not a big fan of golf fiction, and have not read the Veron books or any of the others in that genre.  I do like the occasional mystery though, and I got interested in the Francis/Crabb stories while trying to better understand those who were involved in the creation at the East course, which I consider to be a bit of a mystery in and of itself.  Some of the stories I enjoyed, some not.

Also, as fair warning, I wouldn't really classify Crabb's writing "golf fiction." There are a few short stories like the one above where golf is a major focus, but in many of the stories golf is more of an aside or not mentioned at all.  When I put together the list I'll try try to remember a few which are more focused on golf and point them out, but it has been many years since I've read some of the stories so I am not sure I'll get them all.

[DMoriarty]

I have been informed that my offsite Stalker doesn't believe that "Arthur Crabb" was in fact Richard Francis, because Richard Francis (in Golf: It's Rules and Decisions (1937)) described a meeting and conversation between Francis and Crabb, and because Francis credits Crabb with the creation of the appendix (which reorganized the Rules.) Francis's insertion of Crabb into the Rules Book was whimsical and typical of Francis/Crabb. My Stalker, in his zeal to try and prove me wrong, has apparently become completely obtuse to the concept of artistic license.

Anyway, I doubt anyone cares, but for anyone who might doubt that "Arthur Crabb" was actually Richard Francis, there is ample evidence of the fact.  Rather than further bore you with that, I'll let Richard Francis himself settle the issue. Here is part of what Richard Francis submitted for the Harvard Class of 1902, Sixth Report, in 1922: "Publications: "Samuel Lyle," "Ghosts," and "Ben Thorpe," published by the Century Co.; about one hundred short stories in various and sundry magazines."

"Samuel Lyle " (1920), "Ghosts" (1921), and "Ben Thorpe" (1921), were all published by Century Co. under the pseudonym "Arthur Crabb."  The copyright renewal listings on these books read "by Arthur Crabb [pseud. of Richard S. Francis.]"

So "Arthur Crabb" was, in fact, a nom de plume of Richard Francis.   

I am still working on the list of stories that which are easily accessible and will post the list shortly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,
 
First it was Crump's cause of death, then Wilson's sailing date, and now this.
 
It may be too much for the Merionettes to take.
 
They must be apoplectic with your latest discovery.
 
I can see the typing of email blasts as I type.
 
I even received a call from one of them.
 
It's amazing, for guys who say that they never read GCA.com anymore, shortly after a reply is posted. their emails start to flow.
 
They must be psychic or is it psychotic.

[Jeff Fortson]

Great read!  I especially love the fact that in 1921 a golf fiction references the reinstatement of amateur status.

[MCirba]

David,

Thanks for sharing.  Cool find and interesting that Francis had a literary alter ego named Crabb and a wife nicknamed the Piratess.  Without too much psuedo-psychology it seems he may have been rigidly mathematic and rule-bound in real life and then let Crabb out to release his sensitive creative side.

[DMoriarty]

Without too much psuedo-psychology it seems he may have been rigidly mathematic and rule-bound in real life and then let Crabb out to release his sensitive creative side.

What makes you think Francis was "rigidly mathematic and rule-bound in real life?"  That is not my impression, nor is it my impression that he lacked for creativity or sensitivity in his real life either.

[MCirba]

David,

As time goes by and more is learned as facts are revealed I'm struck at how precisely accurate Richard Francis was when he wrote "Merion Memories" nearly forty years after events.  For instance, all those years later who but an engineer and surveyor would think to include the exact 130x190 dimensions of the land Merion ended up with after they "exchanged" land near the clubhouse that "did not fit in at all with any (presumably multiple) golf layout" for land they could use? 

Francis made clear that his brainstorm completed that particular course layout by making sure there was enough room to fit the last five holes north of the clubhouse.  Given that we know this plan required them to purchase 120 acres instead of the 117 acres they secured in Dec 1910 and mentioned again by Hugh Wilson in his first letter to Piper and Oakley in early 1911, it is also reasonable to assume that the exchange of land was not an even swap in terms of acreage between the parties, nor does Francis state that it was.

His friends seemed to see him as a bit of a rules and techno nerd based on the snippet you provided above where he wrote, "... Secondly some of my so-called friends say that my idea of a golf course is a geometric figure, not an oil painting, that the esthetic, artistic and soulful qualities of a golf course have no appeal for me. They may be right, but I am obstinate enough to go on believing that, by and large, water on a golf course is a poor hazard."

More later...

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I started this thread to discuss Richard Francis's fiction, not Mike Cirba's fiction.

If you want to try to, once again, spin the land swap to be more to your liking, would you please do me a favor and make your case on the other thread?  While you are there perhaps you could take a moment and answer my pending questions?

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Great read!  I especially love the fact that in 1921 a golf fiction references the reinstatement of amateur status.

Hi Jeff.  I thought the bit about the former caddies who had been reinstated was interesting as well, particularly the part about how two businessmen had been essentially acting as their benefactors.  To me it reads like an allusion to the whole Quimet and Sullivan scandal which had shook the golf world in 1916, when Quimet (and Sullivan) had lost their amateur status because of their involvement with a sporting goods interest.   Quimet and Sullivan were both reinstated in 1918.  (Quimet had cut his ties with the sporting goods interest and had been drafted into the armed services.)

History usually looks on that incident as Quimet having gotten a raw deal, but I am not so sure.  Surely his fame as a golfer profited the company and, indirectly, profited Quimet.  I also recall seeing an ad wherein the sporting goods company prominently featured Quimet.  (At the time, the sporting goods companies were something like the golf equipment companies of today, only not just specializing in golf. )

[DMoriarty]

Here is the 1914 advertisement I mentioned.  Hard for me to understand how this would be okay for an "amateur" who was working for Wright and Ditson.





(By the time Francis lost his amateur status, he had actually left Wright and Ditson and started his own company which also sold golf equipment, but the point remains.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,
 
I think the complicating matter may be the issue of "full time employment"
 
If an individual is a salaried, W-2 employee, I think that differs from being a pseudo employee or independent contractor (1099)
 
As a full time salaried, W-2 employee, I can't see how the USGA could revoke one's amateur status for appearing in advertisements for his full time employer.

[Jeff Fortson]

Great read!  I especially love the fact that in 1921 a golf fiction references the reinstatement of amateur status.

Hi Jeff.  I thought the bit about the former caddies who had been reinstated was interesting as well, particularly the part about how two businessmen had been essentially acting as their benefactors.  To me it reads like an allusion to the whole Quimet and Sullivan scandal which had shook the golf world in 1916, when Quimet (and Sullivan) had lost their amateur status because of their involvement with a sporting goods interest.   Quimet and Sullivan were both reinstated in 1918.  (Quimet had cut his ties with the sporting goods interest and had been drafted into the armed services.)

History usually looks on that incident as Quimet having gotten a raw deal, but I am not so sure.  Surely his fame as a golfer profited the company and, indirectly, profited Quimet.  I also recall seeing an ad wherein the sporting goods company prominently featured Quimet.  (At the time, the sporting goods companies were something like the golf equipment companies of today, only not just specializing in golf. )

Not to thread jack, but I've always found it interesting how many golfers can have such a hard line stance on the purity of amateurism.  So much so, that people like myself are pointed at as having tainted or unclean character for regaining my amateur status and competing.  Obviously, I am biased to the opposite opinion.  The story you shared and some of the things you have posted in regards to Ouimet are telling to me.  I think this puritanical line in the sand that many people believe in is more myth than truth.  I think evidence is quite squarely in the corner of the reality that the USGA and R&A never intended to have making a decision to turn pro be a life sentence.  Hopefully, sharing my thoughts doesn't take this thread off on a tangent.  Sorry if it does.

[MCirba]

David,

If there is something factually inaccurate in what I wrote please indicate what that might be, otherwise you're simply casting aspersions.   Thanks.

As regards the Ouimet issue, I would agree with Jeff and think the early "amateur" rules of golf were as much designed to maintain a class or caste system based on economic determinism as they were to protect the integrity of the game.

[David Kelly]

Sorry, meant golf fiction:)

Please give me some titles because I think 99% of golf fiction is lame.

I love Wodehouse's stuff and some novels that have golf as a background like Train by Pete Dexter or Brown's Requiem by James Ellroy but alot of what passes for golf fiction is either dumb, corny or both. 

[DMoriarty]

Not to thread jack, but I've always found it interesting how many golfers can have such a hard line stance on the purity of amateurism.  So much so, that people like myself are pointed at as having tainted or unclean character for regaining my amateur status and competing.  Obviously, I am biased to the opposite opinion.  The story you shared and some of the things you have posted in regards to Ouimet are telling to me.  I think this puritanical line in the sand that many people believe in is more myth than truth.  I think evidence is quite squarely in the corner of the reality that the USGA and R&A never intended to have making a decision to turn pro be a life sentence.  Hopefully, sharing my thoughts doesn't take this thread off on a tangent.  Sorry if it does.

It's no thread jack.  I was hoping the story would draw out some discussion on how they viewed such things at the time.  From my perspective it seems like there are two distinct issues

1. Reinstatement of Amateur Status.  I agree with you regarding reinstatement and have no problem whatsoever with the fact that Ouimet and Sullivan had their amateur status reinstated once they cut their ties with the equipment interests.  Nor do I have any issues with you or anyone else having your amateur status reinstated. (I think there are few here who have again become amateurs after having given professional golf a shot. Jim Sullivan, maybe?)  I don't view your status as "tainted" and don't really understand why anyone would view it that way.

2. Amateur Status.  For me, when I see arguably the most well-known young American golfer endorsing a product in a golf magazine advertisement featuring the product and his employer, it strongly suggests that the golfer was profiting financially from his reputation as a golfer, and perhaps more importantly in the eyes of at least some of those who opposed this sort of thing, the sporting goods company was also profiting off of his reputation in amateur golf.   

Keep in mind that at this time amateur golf was a much bigger deal in the United States than professional golf, and the golf business was aware of this.  So the businesses (mainly the sporting goods companies and the golf hotels and resorts) had a strong business incentive to figure out a way to associate the top Amateurs with their products.   Thus you have people like Quimet working for Wright and Ditson, a sporting goods interest with a very strong golf presence, and even appearing in ads for them.  I don't see how this is much different from professional golfers today signing sponsorship deals with equipment companies and other companies.  Wright and Ditson did not make Ouiment the face of their company because he was good at stocking shelves.  They made him the face of their company because doing so sold golf equipment.   (What is interesting in Ouimet's case is that he really didn't get into trouble until he himself started to profit more directly by putting his name on the door.)

Imagine that when Tiger Woods was still an Amateur, he had won the USOpen.  Imagine that he then he went to work for Nike supposedly as a club salesman, but that Nike paid for his golf expenses, gave him equipment and time to practice, arranged for his participation in tournaments, and even made him the face of their company through advertisements featuring him golfing.   Would it really be reasonable to think of Woods as an Amateur at this point?  I don't think so. Whether this is exactly analogous to the Oimet situation, I  don't know, but that fact that Ouimet was being featured in ads and endorsing products helps me understand why they stripped him of his status.
_____________________________________________________________

Mike,  I have repeatedly addressed the inaccuracies in your various theories, and will do so again, but not on this thread.  As I said, take it to the other thread and I'll address it again, and while you are there I'd appreciate it if you would please answer my pending questions.  Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David & Jeff,
 
I have a different opinion on RAS.
 
In competitions, would you not agree that an individual who has been a Golf Professional for the last 10 years, who would, upon simply announcing that he's forfeited his Professional status, regains his amateur status, have a huge competitive advantage over other individuals who were never Professionals, who worked at other occupations for the last ten years and played golf as an avocation ?
 
And, can we agree, that as a subset of golfers, those reinstated amateurs would gravitate toward amateur competitions ?
 
If you look at the quarterfinalists in the U.S.G.A. Mid-Amateur, from inception to current date, you'll see that it's been dominated by reinstated amateurs.
 
David,
 
Regarding your hypothetical where Tiger is employed by Nike.
If he's a full time salaried, W-2 employee I see no problem in structuring his compensation such that he receives whatever Nike chooses to provide him, since it will all be taxable, one way or another, just as if they gave him a car, country club dues/expenses or other benefits.
 
Remember too that architects were stripped of their amateur status back in those days.
 
Hence the environment was different.
 
Fast forward.
 
Arthur Rice, a former member of the U.S.G.A. Executive Committee held the belief that the college scholarship golfer was in violation of the rules of amateur status, since the value of a college education far exceeded the amateur/professional threshhold.
 
I think his belief helped create the Mid-Amateur since the U.S.G.A. Amateur was being dominated by the college scholarship golfer in the 70's.

[David Kelly]

What about former PGA Tour professionals who are fully vested in the PGA retirement plan regaining amateur status?

[Jeff Fortson]

David & Jeff,
 
I have a different opinion on RAS.
 
In competitions, would you not agree that an individual who has been a Golf Professional for the last 10 years, who would, upon simply announcing that he's forfeited his Professional status, regains his amateur status, have a huge competitive advantage over other individuals who were never Professionals, who worked at other occupations for the last ten years and played golf as an avocation ?
 
And, can we agree, that as a subset of golfers, those reinstated amateurs would gravitate toward amateur competitions ?
 
If you look at the quarterfinalists in the U.S.G.A. Mid-Amateur, from inception to current date, you'll see that it's been dominated by reinstated amateurs.
 

My response to your questions...


Question 1 - It depends on the circumstances of what kind of professional we are talking about.  Do you really think a club pro that plays once a month and maybe two section events a year over a ten year span has a distinct competitive advantage over a top level amateur?  I say no way.  On the other hand, for someone that played for a living that competed in dozens of events a year and practiced daily over ten years, probably yes.


Question 2 - Once again it depends.  I can name numerous players that didn't make it at playing at the professional level that hung it up totally.  Some I might see in a regional fourball event but not the individual competitions.  And then there are others that play a solid lineup of many events.  So, yes, there is a "subset" of those players that do play a heavy schedule of amateur events, but it is far from a majority.


Question 3 (not really a question you posed, but the statement about the US Mid-Am) - I haven't researched that claim enough to give a certain answer or agreement.  I'd suspect that there are at least a significant number of former pros that have made it to the quarterfinals of the US Mid Am. I'd only interject that most of those guys were never PGA Tour players, if any at all, and most were not playing pros for more than a couple years at most.




Pat, my point is that there seems to be a puritanical belief that if a player regains their amateur status, that they are somehow tainted and any accomplishment they achieve after reinstatement is somehow lessened by their having been a pro.  I disagree with this position, and admittedly I am biased as I am reinstated. So my ultimate answer to all of your questions and points is that those questions and points are somewhat irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Don't get me wrong, your points and questions have merit in regard to the criteria of granting one's amateur status back, but they don't relate to the question of whether regaining one's amateur status should be a Scarlet Letter. If there was a precedent set at the inception of this question of regaining amateur status over a century ago to not allow pros to regain it, it would have been set.  I think the evidence shows through the history of this topic that the USGA and R&A never shared this puritanical stance.  I think it's obvious they always intended the opposite.  They set rules and policies to make room for those that chose to abandon the professional life.  I think the game is healthier for it both economically and competitively.

[Jeff Fortson]

What about former PGA Tour professionals who are fully vested in the PGA retirement plan regaining amateur status?

I know the Dillard Pruitt-type argument, and it's valid.  There are rules and policies in place that with few exceptions wouldn't allow that type of player to regain their amateur status.  The question of where the line should be set is arguable and most have strong opinions about where that line should be.  Ultimately, I think that's a line for the USGA and R&A to determine for any given player. Those granted their status back shouldn't be scorned and vilified, IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

It has always struck me as indicative of the times that the USGA refused to make the simple and clear-cut distinction between someone who got paid for playing tournament golf and someone who didn't. My blue collar roots are showing when I suggest that they refused to make that distinction because they didn't want to make that distinction. Actually having to earn a living in any shape or form seemed enough justification for the USGA to exclude you from their amateur club, the domain of gentlemen don't you know who didn't have to make money by any means at all!. And now that I've said it, I might as well admit that I'm very glad Gene Sarazen and Walter Hagen came along a little while later and kicked everyone's asses. In fact, that may be the reason they reinstated Quimet i.e. they figured that this quasi-one-of-them was the best hope they had against the barbarians at the gate.