Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Thomas MacWood on July 22, 2008, 11:03:38 PM
-
"Dev" Emmet designed the course FKA "The Women's National"!! That just totally figures! That more than proves that that little fairy person "Dev" Emmet was the world's greatest architectural producer of feminine or even homosexual architecture! The course was obviously only intended for weak little women and gay men! I doubt even Marion Hollins, the strapping lesbian US Amateur Champion who could hit the ball a country mile was in the slightest bit challenged by her own golf course--Glen Head G.C. or formerly known as the "Women's National G & CC" (the G & CC part of that club stood for "golf and Cat Club" but very few remember that now!).
It wouldn't surprise me if Marion, the brains and inspiration behind "Long Island Women's National G & CC" was so disappointed in the lack of challenge of the effeminate architecture of that course that that was the very reason she hied on out to California and got Seth Raynor (who died on her) and then Alister MacKenzie (another real man) to build CPC on which she was responsible for the creation of the famous 16th hole with its massive carry, which, by the way, she proved to everyone was possible by busting a shot from the long tee positon to the green's present postion.
TE has always been fond of exploring the personal picadillos of these famous golf architects, from CB's Hen House to Tilly's Flask architecture to Emmet's gay designs (by the way I don't believe Emmet was gay). I personally believe it is important to explore the backgrounds and personalities, and some cases demons, of these men. Historians certainly don't steer clear of exploring good and bad characteristics when trying to discover what made famous figures tick. The editing of MacKenzie's politically incorrectness in SOSA got me thinking. Why should golf architects be immune, isn't it important to get an accurate and complete picture of these historical figures. What made these figures the architects they would become?
Myopia Hunt's Herbert Leeds is an interesting example. The left side of his face scarred by grotesque mark. Not dispirited he travelled the world, graduated from Harvard, excelled in athletics, became a world class competitive sailor, and prehaps the best amateur golfer of Boston in the 1890s (along with Qunicy Adams Shaw who was another interesting character and future golf architect).
Leeds also never married, and was involved in some interesting living arrangements. James Parker was also a lifelong bachelor. Neither man worked during their lives - they lived off hefty trusts. They shared an apartment for twenty odd years at the Somerset Club, a prestigious men's club on Beacon Hill. Perhaps a turn of the century Odd Couple. That situation changed before 1920, Parker was out and a younger man moved in with Leeds, Robert Barlow. Barlow was a lifelong batchelor also, and the athletic director of a Boston prep school. They were living compainions at the time of Leed's death.
Is a golf architect's personal background and lifestyle fair game?
-
Tom:
Why should it be? What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all? Whose business is it but mine? And why would that equation change once I've passed on?
-
Why should golf architects be immune from total exploration?
-
Immune, I don't know about, but maybe exempt.
Are we really public figures to the point that the libel laws are different for us? (If so then I can go back to writing The Confidential Guide, I guess.) I thought most people had the right to privacy up to some point where they made themselves public figures in the media, and I don't know that doing your job as a golf course architect qualifies you in that respect.
Are historians immune from total exploration?
-
I don't think golf architects are really public figures. The only public figures are ex-players. Certainly, Mr. Doak or Mr. Coore can have dinner undisturbed. Consequently, I'm not sure it's every appropriate to speculate on the personal lifestyles of a golf architect.
But, when the work of an artist reaches critical mass, it's only natural to study the background of said artist to see the source of his or her creative vision.
-
TD
Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings, George Crump's suicide, and Stanford White's affair with Evelyn Nesbit, how can you tell an accurate history without delving into these subjects?
-
"Is a golf architect's persanal backgroung and lifesytle fair game?"
I don't see why not, particularly ones who are now in the realm of history and whose lives seemed to diverge from the run-of-the-mill, like Leeds, Crump, Wilson, Macdonald, Thomas, Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Behr, Crane, Simpson, Hunter, Muirhead, Dick Wilson et al.
It sure has occured to me that golf course architecture has had more than a usual collection of "characters", probably "oddballs" and certainly more than a normal amount of "tragic" figures.
People who spend time or their lives in some form of ART are probably more prone to these kinds of things than most and honestly they fascinated me----their idiosyncracies, odd personalities and sometimes ultra strong wills and opinions.
By the way, to clear the record for about the fifth time, I have no idea if Devereaux Emmet was gay. Mentioning that and his gay architecture was just an on-going joke that some over-wrought critics like Moriarty took huge umbrage at. The only reason I ever said that about Emmet was because of that hilarious photo of him known as the "cat in the hat". In his white suit and hat he looked like a spitting image of some former day Tom Wolffe! ;)
Herbert Leeds was a well-known confirmed bachelor, and he was also well known for being an utra mysogynist. Back when I was growing up it seems most thought homosexuals generally hated women, didn't want anything to do with them or to even be around them (my how times have changed! ;) ). With Herbert Leeds' this was reportedly the case.
Was Leeds a homosexual? Probably but I've never heard anyone state that as a fact. It seems like those who revere him for his architecture or whatever would just as soon avoid the subject altogether.
I welcome you trying to figure out what made Leeds tick, MacWood. Matter of fact from the way I've seen you deduce things in the past it should be pretty interesting and probably pretty funny to see what strange tangent you'll launch off on and then claimed you proved.
Unfortunately, before you launch off on Herbert Leeds I really think you should back up your claim that Willie Campbell designed the first nine holes of Myopia. Something tells me this thread is just another one of your diversions to avoid backing up what you claimed about Campbell and Myopia, and probably because you know you can't.
"Is a golf architect's persanal backgroung and lifesytle fair game?"
Tom MacWood, you know you really are a terrible writer and an even worse speller. You misspell words constantly in your posts but that misspelling above sort of fascinates me. Do you think there's something vaguely Freudian in your spelling of personal as pers-anal in this particular thread? ::)
-
Tom Doak (not Macwood),
You ask, "Why should it be? What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all? Whose business is it but mine? And why would that equation change once I've passed on?"
Wouldn't you say that your travels studying golf courses as a young man be one of the "less auspicious details" of your own personal life? Yet, wasn't the result of that time, the things you observed and learned, at least partly responsible, if not the major inspiration, for the development of your own golf course architectural design philosophies?
I believe I once mentioned to you in private that I already consider you an historical figure in golf course architecture. I am of the school of thought that golf course architectural design is a true art form for it inspires and challenges and the game that is played on the canvasses of the sport provides joy, misery and affects every human emotion. If that isn't an art form then art doesn't exist.
As such your work will be long studied as you did with so many others before you. Part of that study will be an attempt to 'get into your mind' so to speak, and in order to do so one has to get to know 'you the person' in order to know 'you the designer.'
The passion of Van Gogh's troubled existence is brought to life and examined through each of his canvasses. One might enjoy them even if they have no idea of what he endured when alive, but these are never inspired as those who do know are.
This concept of "Historical Figurage" puts that figure in an awkward position. Do they accept it? If so, how does that acceptance limit them in their day-to-day lives? The spotlight of fame, even in as obscure an art form as the field of golf course designing, is bright and revealing.
Like it or not, your life will be examined long after you're gone and by people such as yourself who also has examined many personal aspects of the course designers that you admire... It comes with the territory called greatness...
-
"Why should it be? What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all?"
TomD:
What the less auspicious details of your own personal life have to do with your design work is what Tom MacWood wants to "research" ;) and determine. I wager inside of a week he will have conclusively PROVED what the less auspicious details of your life have to do with your design work. :-[
Since he wants to look into people's lives maybe I should start a thread looking into what it is in Tom MacWood's life that makes him tick, although "tick" might not be the best operative word.
-
TE
I don't believe in whitewashing these men's backgrounds and personalities, and I hope the same will be true when the USGA profiles these men. The influences and background of the creative genius has always been of interest to historians. For example what was about Van Gogh's background or make up that contributed to him becoming a great artist.
The questions we have with Leeds, first of all was he a great designer, and if he was, what were and who were his influences. How did he get to that point.
Bob Labbance wrote an interesting article on Leeds several years ago. According to the article at Brookline Leeds went from beginner to scratch golfer in a very short period under the tutelage of Willie Campbell. As we know not only was Campbell a great golfer, during his short life in the States he was also a prolific architect. In addition to his influence on Leeds the golfer, was he an influence on Leeds the would be golf architect?
In 1896 both Leeds and Campbell went from Brookline to Myopia, was that just a coincedence? Leeds is credited with laying out the second nine at Myopia in 1898. Was his mentor involved?
TE you wrote:
Was Leeds a homosexual? Probably but I've never heard anyone state that as a fact. It seems like those who revere him for his architecture or whatever would just as soon avoid the subject altogether.
I don't think we should ignore the subject. Over the years you have often touched on the drinking of Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Thompson and others; the hen house Macdonald set up at the NGLA; your knowledge and understanding of Crump's suicide; Emmet's gay architecture, etc. Why should we treat Leeds any differently?
Leeds lived at the Sometest Club with James Parker (and later with Robert Barlow) for years. By the way Parker was also he prominent figure at Myopia. They weren't the only men co-habitating at the Club. In the 1890's and 1900s, the Somerset men's club was known as one of the centers of Bohemian attitudes in Boston. Did that Bohemian attitude contribute to Leeds interest in design? We know Leeds was great lover of boating and yachting, what were his other interests?
What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia - it appears to me it was 1899 or 1900. What is interesting to note, in the national golf guide of 1901 he is listed as the architect of Myopia. Campbell who died in 1900 is completely written out of the picture, and 1901 was prior to most of Leeds major bunkering projects.
Leeds made several trips to the UK. Where did he go? And what did he borrow from, if any thing? Did changes to Myopia coincide with these trips?
There are many unanswered questions.
-
Private stuff about famous architects is always interesting. Private stuff about anyone who is famous is always interesting. For that reason there will always be people looking into it, fair or not. It's a fact of life.
I am, however, very skeptical about assuming there is a causal link between the private and the public. Things aren't that simple.
For example, Thomas Jefferson seems to have been a fairly sleazy guy in private. But it is not very clear to me what, if any, bearing that had on how he drafted the DofI or how he conducted himself as president or whatever.
Dick Wilson's tragic drinking problem is another good example. It cost him some jobs, he was a mess. But the relevance of that to his design style escapes me.
There is a People Magazine type fascination with the private. It's irresistible. But that stuff oughtn't be given much weight by good historians. It's probative value is dubious. It's the public record that really matters. It's also the public record that is, at the end of the day, almost always much, much more interesting.
Bob
-
Bob,
You observed that, "I am, however, very skeptical about assuming there is a causal link between the private and the public. Things aren't that simple."
The history of golf course architecture is filled with examples of private being the causal link to the public. let me give you an example. Tilly and Shawnee.
Most on here know that this was Tilly's first design but how many can say WHY it? Some might know that Tilly and Worthington were friends, even good ones, but how many know that Worthington himself had designed at least one nine-hole course and could easily have decided to do so at Shawnee and his Buckwood Inn? That raises the question of 'Why Tilly?' to a new level.
Tilly and Worthington were more than merely good friends, they and their families had for many years vacationed together in the area where the Buckwood Inn and Shawnee would be built. The Tillinghast family even has photographs of them, taken by Tilly, together during these.
During these vacations Worthington's idea to build a resort in the area crystalized and having a golf club as part of it was viewed as more than just a convenient necessity, it was the lynchpin to the project.
So again, with so much money being agmbled on the venture and having done a golf course design in his own background, one now really must wonder 'Why Tilly?' a man who had never designed a course before this.
It is quite obvious that it was "the private" that made "the public" decision to choose Tilly as the designer a reality. In fact it was "the private" that also enabled Tilly to talk Worthington into "the public" decision to have the course host an Open tournament with enough prize money to immediately attract the best players to compete, both Americans and others from across the ocean.
One can easily wonder how different Tilly's career may have been without the immediate success of Shawnee. Would we have his great championship creations located all around the country if he hadn't been given this opportunity by his close friend?
Sometimes things are that simple...
-
Bob
When I was writing my essay on Crump you urged me to drop any reference to his suicide. IMO you can not tell an honest and accurate account of his life without delving into his suicide, and what led up to it. The story of PV is incomplete if you do not discuss what inspired Crump, his trials and tribulations, and how he ultimately met his demise.
What is the purpose of history. Isn't for future generations to learn from past mistakes and successes. Or do you believe the role of history is to tell a completely anticeptic story, and to prop up these historical figures. IMO you won't learn anything from that approach. We should explore good and bad and grey, so we can get a complete picture.
-
Immune, I don't know about, but maybe exempt.
Are we really public figures to the point that the libel laws are different for us? (If so then I can go back to writing The Confidential Guide, I guess.) I thought most people had the right to privacy up to some point where they made themselves public figures in the media, and I don't know that doing your job as a golf course architect qualifies you in that respect.
Are historians immune from total exploration?
Tom and Tom,
Just a quick check on Google reveals:
"Tom Doak" = 80,000 results on Google
"Tom MacWood" = 1370 results on Google
"Michael Sweeney" = 430,000 results on Google, but it would be hard to find me between the Bassoonist and the baseball player!
-
""Michael Sweeney" = 430,000 results on Google, but it would be hard to find me between the Bassoonist and the baseball player!"
Well there goes my trivia question , "Name the only baseball & bassoon playing golf course architecture junkie in the world!"
I guess that also means you're not a piano restorer, owner of packetattack.com, wote the book Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) or rank 80th on the Midas List?
Bummer... I was so impressed by you for quite a while now... ;D
-
"Tom MacWood" = 1370 results on Google
...and 1366 of those hits can be traced to TE Paul.
-
The trouble is, creative genius isn't like you and me.
Yes, Machiavelli argued that he could see the Prince better from his lowly position, just as he could gauge the height and majesty of a mountain better from the valley below it than from its summit.
But that was just clever marketing. It isn't true.
It would take a historian of genius to interest me in an exploration of the private-public relationship in the lives of creative geniuses. Anything short of that and what you tend to get is bad history and bad psychoanalysis.
Don't get me wrong. I few years ago I would've been in complete agreement (with Philip's first post). Part of me still is. But to use an example, recently I've found that, while I can listen to Mozart's Clarinet Concerto with pleasure and interest because I know roughly when and in what circumstances he wrote it, I get the fullest possible enjoyment out of -- and the most complete participation in -- the music itself only when I empty my mind of all of that background noise and truly and simply listen.
Two different experiences, both gratifying in their ways. But it seems to me that if I truly value Mozart's music above all else (and not my ideas about it or my speculations about his life and times), then I should try my best to simply listen.
Or in golf course architecture terms, to simply look and walk and play the golf courses themselves.
Peter
But this won't stop me from speculating about Max Behr's ideological beliefs.
-
Peter,
As empty as you can make your mind and quietly sit there listening to Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, though for me it's his Marriage of Figaro, you don't ever, even just occasionally, ask yourself, "How did he ever create siomething so beautiful?" before going back to the silence of the music?
It is the asking of that question, "How?", that necessitates the next one, "Why?", followed by "What made him so different?"...
Wanting to understand that whichmakes others different fromyourself is natural and as much the purview of the historian as it is any social scientist. I find that the attempt to learn the answers to "How?", "Why?" and "What?" greatly increases my joy and respect for the creation and makes me better for not having sat there and simply listening without asking.
It is the same for golf course architecture. Be honest, haven't you ever wished that you could sit with tom Doak for an afternoon and simply try to "pick his brain?" so to speak, to understand how he and his team have been able to create the wonderful works of golf architecture art that they have?
That is what leads inspires the historian to look and those interested in history to read what has been written...
-
Philip - a really good post.
The short answer is yes. For me it's mostly the Benny Goodman small groups; and I've read all I could about Mr. Goodman, and flatter myself that I understand him and his music (and the relationship between the two) better than most, even better than the experts. And for me it would be Ben Crenshaw, and I'd like to sit on a bench at Sand Hill with him and smoke through a pack of cigarettes together as I try to understand what he's really trying to do with his golf courses, and why.
But the longer answer is that the questions you (and I) tend to ask, e.g. "How" and "Why" and "What made him so different" are from a different realm of the mind/spirit than the experience of actually listening to a searing clarinet solo or of actually hitting a fade against the wind as you try to land a ball short of an undulating green. I would say certainly no worse a realm or no less valuable a realm, but a different one; a different lens through which to explore the work of the creative geniuses we admire.
And there's the rub -- the attempt (by many I believe, including me when I was writing television biographies of famous people) to bring those two different realms/lenses together and, for the sake of a powerful narrative arc, to try to pretend that they aren't different is what often leads to both a poor critical analysis of the work itself and a poor history of the genius himself.
Now it might work in the opposite way, i.e. the bringing together of the two lenses might make better both the critical analysis and the history -- but I'm not sure I've often seen that happen
Peter
-
I'm just about all 'People' magazined out. All the personal stuff does tweak my curosity from time to time, but that is about it.
As to GCA, I don't think you can look at the architecture and tell whether the GCA was a tortured soul, someone trust worthy and beloved, or a twisted maniac.
By the way, Palmetto GC was initially 'laid out' by Herbert Leeds and Stanford White designed the clubhouse. Go figure.
-
John Stiles,
Oh...I think I've played courses where I could clearly identify the architect as a "twisted maniac", but that's probably because it takes one to know one. ;)
-
Tom:
Great post, you are onto something. It took others to point out to Nicklaus that a majority of his greens favored a high soft right-hand fade.
The lives and personalities of all artists are reflected in their work, whether they want to admit it or not. Often times it takes decades for that to come to life, only once their work is viewed in its entirety. The problem with architects, however, is so much of the actual creation is left up to subordinates that it is hard to tell what is theirs and what is just an underlings interpretation of what the architect desires, which is probably revealing in its own right.
And what a wonderful homophobic diatribe from TE; I never saw that before. Michael Savage would be proud.
Anthony
-
It would take a historian of genius to interest me in an exploration of the private-public relationship in the lives of creative geniuses. Anything short of that and what you tend to get is bad history and bad psychoanalysis.
Peter
Creative geniuses are human beings. Historical figures are human beings. The best historical accounts do not avoid or ignore their private lives. Historians understand exploring the private life is intregal to understanding the public life. And you don't have to be a genius or a psycoanalyst to uncover who, what, when, where and why. Based upon your flowery response it seems you believe recording the history of these men and trying make sense of it is a futile process. Thankfully your view has not been a popular one over the last few millenium, otherwise we would know nothin about nobody.
-
Tom
I don't know how you came to that conclusion from reading my two posts.
I admire very much the dedicated and careful work of true historians, and the passion (and love for a subject) that engenders that work.
I'm not sure how well done much of that work has been (not very, IMO), and thus how true the pictures of the great historical figures are.
Your own defence of 'historical revisionism' from a few weeks ago suggests that you feel the same way.
My language was flowery, but not self-serving.
Peter
-
In a theoretical sense, I don't see how anyone can be exempt from a critical examination of his private life - the only real question is whether anyone else (or any sort of critical mass) would be interested in learning the rest of the story.
I feel pretty certain even my parents couldn't get through a biography of me. And I'm not certain anyone who knew all the details could still develop of an accurate picture of me, at least as I see myself.
But, hey, maybe that's the point.
The biggest danger is that almost all people tend to develop final opinions very quickly and are sadly reluctant to ever revisit them.
-
There really does need to be a zone of privacy and some real out of bounds. The more prominent individuals on this site will propably not participate if their entire existance is open for view or exploitation.
In any creative field, you can not figure out what motivates the most inner workings of a persons heart, soul and mind.
Let's concentrate on the context and results over time.
-
Peter
I apologize if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you would rather listen to Mozart than read a historical account of his life, and that only a genius historian could interest you in the exploration of the private-public relationship in his life or the lives of creative geniuses like Mozart (its my impression most historians, genius and non-genius, explore the private-public relationship of their subjects...maybe thats why IYO most biographic histories are not very well done, afterall there aren't too many historian/geniuses). And then as I understand it you said anything short of the genius historian's skill tends to produce bad history and bad psychoanalysis (huh? Your standards appear to be very high, obviously much higher than mine, perhaps it takes a genius to know a genius).
And then you went to say you enjoy Mozart best with a blank mind, apparently implying that someone interested golf architecture history may find it difficult to enjoy a round on a course designed by a historic golf architect. On further review you may not been trying to make that point at all, or any point as it relates to exploring the private-public lives of Leeds and other golf architects. Just that enjoy listening to Mozart with a blank mind. Sorry. Never mind.
-
There really does need to be a zone of privacy and some real out of bounds. The more prominent individuals on this site will propably not participate if their entire existance is open for view or exploitation.
In any creative field, you can not figure out what motivates the most inner workings of a persons heart, soul and mind.
Let's concentrate on the context and results over time.
Carl
We are discussing historic figures who are mostly dead.
Thats true, you don't know what is a persons heart or soul, but what does that have to do with documenting the facts surrounding the private life of a historic figure, and how it effected their career?
Would you rather we ignore the murder of Frank Lloyd Wright's wife? Afterall we have no idea what was in his heart after the event, but we do know how his career evolved afterward, both bad and good. In order to get a complete picture you must explore both private and public.
-
It seems the disagreement here really is about the place and value of biography. I am sure we agree no historical biography can be written without offering a rich exploration of the life.
The Herculean task of the biographer is to recover the person, as a human being, from history. To put the flesh and bones back on him so that he may walk among us.
Why should the biographer set this as his goal? Because words and acts without the life do not make a man. We are reduced to a recounting of the "accomplishments" of a machine.
A plaster saint.
Adding the life to the work gives us a deeper appreciation for the work, that a human being did this.
Flaws don't weaken the man they make the man.
Pick your favorite figure from history and ask yourself why they are your favorite. Very likely it is their work that earned your respect but their humanity that earned your love.
Mark
-
"TE
I don't believe in whitewashing these men's backgrounds and personalities, and I hope the same will be true when the USGA profiles these men. The influences and background of the creative genius has always been of interest to historians. For example what was about Van Gogh's background or make up that contributed to him becoming a great artist.
The questions we have with Leeds, first of all was he a great designer, and if he was, what were and who were his influences. How did he get to that point.
Bob Labbance wrote an interesting article on Leeds several years ago. According to the article at Brookline Leeds went from beginner to scratch golfer in a very short period under the tutelage of Willie Campbell. As we know not only was Campbell a great golfer, during his short life in the States he was also a prolific architect. In addition to his influence on Leeds the golfer, was he an influence on Leeds the would be golf architect?
In 1896 both Leeds and Campbell went from Brookline to Myopia, was that just a coincedence? Leeds is credited with laying out the second nine at Myopia in 1898. Was his mentor involved?"
Tom MacWood:
I don't believe in whitewashing these men's personalities and backgrounds either. I may even be more interested in the personalities and backgrounds of some of these men than you are and for a whole lot of reasons! ;)
You seem to want to concentrate on a few things about Leeds in your thread here;
1. What or who influenced him in what he came to be as a very good golfer and architect?
2. Was he a homosexual?
Personally, and for this particular website, I think #1 holds great interest but I rather doubt #2 does. ;) For #2 perhaps you should contribute your research expertise to a gay website that analyzes the lives of creative men in the general world of art or architecture who were gay, and how their homosexuality in some way influenced their art and creativeness.
When it comes to Willie Campbell’s connection to Leeds and Leeds learning to play the game and his learning golf architecture from Willie Campbell (you are automatically suggesting Campbell was Leeds' "Mentor" in these two things! :) Can any of us automatically ASSUME THAT?), I’d love to see something from somewhere that documents that a little better--Bob Labbance's article notwithstanding. I don’t know that we can automatically ASSUME that Willie Campbell was the one who taught Leeds golf and architecture simply because they were at TCC or even Myopia or simply because Tom MacWood automatically ASSUMES so! ;) Are you even sure Leeds learned golf quickly at TCC? How do you know he didn't learn it earlier? (the following post might shed more light on that! Edward Weeks, former Myopia historian says Leeds was self-taught).
I’d also like to see some solid documentation that Campbell was at Myopia as it looks to me like Myopia's archives and history do not mention that, although that history book mentions Robert White and the others who were there in that capacity through the years. On the other hand, maybe Myopia's archives does include that and Edwards Weeks just neglected to include it in the Myopia Centennial history book. If Campbell was indeed there, I certainly think it should be reflected in Myopia’s record.
But let me pose a question to you and see if perhaps we might agree on its relevance, since you and I seem to agree on just about nothing----eg let’s ASSUME that Willie Campbell did in fact teach Leeds how to play golf and let’s also ASSUME Willie Campbell taught him architecture, and let’s also assume, as you appear to be trying to imply on here, that Leeds was a homosexual. OK, so far? Are you still with me?? I only ask because you don't seem very good at reading or understanding some things, particularly the posts of people you would obviously rather avoid the questions of. ;)
Do you think it’s safe to ASSUME (or perhaps even CONCLUDE, at this point) that Willie Campbell was also a homosexual? Well, never mind about that for now. Let's not assume that right now. Let's say he may not have been; do you think it’s safe to ALSO ASSUME that Herbert Leeds took up golf and architecture with the vengeance he clearly did because he was like, you know, kind of, sort of really hot for Willie Campbell?? I mean has your comprehensive “independent” research ;) established that Willie was like really cute in sort of a Scottish rural linksland way to an American middle-aged homosexual? Has your expert “independent” research ;) determined yet if Willie Campbell had like a real nice ass or something that just totally turned on homosexual Herbie Leeds?
If you haven’t even gotten that far yet on a thread subject like this one I’d say you’re not much of a researcher and you probably shouldn't have posted this thread at this point. There are simply too many unanswered questions! :-\
-
What a lame turn this thread has taken.
-
Michael Dugger:
Posting a thread to basically imply that Myopia's Herbert Leeds was a homosexual was pretty lame to start with, don't you think? Or can you seriously connect homosexuality to golf course architecture somehow? ;)
When I made some posts about Devereaux Emmet and his gay architecture I was just joking and the only reason I mentioned it was because of that famous photo of Emmet in the white suit and funny hat where he looked like Tom Wolffe. I have no idea if Emmet was gay, nor do I care. Even if he was I can't imagine what that had to do with his golf courses.
-
Michael Dugger:
Posting a thread to basically imply that Myopia's Herbert Leeds was a homosexual was pretty lame to start with, don't you think? Or can you seriously connect homosexuality to golf course architecture somehow? ;)
When I made some posts about Devereaux Emmet and his gay architecture I was just joking and the only reason I mentioned it was because of that famous photo of Emmet in the white suit and funny hat where he looked like Tom Wolffe. I have no idea if Emmet was gay, nor do I care. Even if he was I can't imagine what that had to do with his golf courses.
Yer barking up the entire wrong tree, Mr. Paul.
The unfortunate turn this thread has taken is YOU becoming involved in it. All you do anymore is go around undermining and sniping Macwood.
Oddly, it seems to me the only person who has a problem with T Mac is yourself. :-\
-
It seems the disagreement here really is about the place and value of biography. I am sure we agree no historical biography can be written without offering a rich exploration of the life.
The Herculean task of the biographer is to recover the person, as a human being, from history. To put the flesh and bones back on him so that he may walk among us.
Why should the biographer set this as his goal? Because words and acts without the life do not make a man. We are reduced to a recounting of the "accomplishments" of a machine.
A plaster saint.
Adding the life to the work gives us a deeper appreciation for the work, that a human being did this.
Flaws don't weaken the man they make the man.
Pick your favorite figure from history and ask yourself why they are your favorite. Very likely it is their work that earned your respect but their humanity that earned your love.
Mark
Mark
I agree. I saw an interview with David McCullough a few months ago and there were a couple of things he said that stood out to me.
First, in choosing his subjects they must be interesting, human beings with human weaknesses, an entirely virtuous person is of no interest to him.
Second, he said historians often don't thoroughly explore the connectiveness of their subjects to other individuals and other influences - be they parents, siblings, friends, associates, rivals, lovers, etc. That there is no such thing as the self-made man.
Both of these ideas I think relate to Leeds. Leeds appears to be an interesting subject on many levels. And very little is known about his influences, and IMO those influences need to be explored further.
-
Well Michael, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's not my opinion, and it's not the opinion of a number of others on here. I think Tom MacWood needs constant monitoring and watching and questioning of the things he proposes, implies and seems to try to conclude on this website. In my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of a number of others, he is not exactly benefical to an accurate recording of golf architecture's history and that concerns some people. He's a bit more benefical than this David Moriarty but that isn't saying anything.
So, yes, I guess I will continue to question him if I think it's warranted. Discussions on here are not exactly just consensus directed you know. There will be and should be differences of opinion. If you don't like that, I'm sorry about that---too bad for you.
By the way, aren't you the same guy who once got all bent out of shape a few years ago because I questioned and criticized something Tom Doak did or said on here? I think that was you, and if so, where are you coming from exactly? ;)
"Oddly, it seems to me the only person who has a problem with T Mac is yourself. :-\"
No, unfortunately that's not even close.
-
Tom MacWood:
I like that post #33 of yours. However, I would caution you against just assuming and stating on here that very little is known about Herbert Leeds and his personality, life and background. It would be more accurate for you to say, at this point, that very little may be known about him by you. Fortunately, that doesn't happen to be the case with some others.
You do have a very odd way of just constantly assuming that if not much is known about some subject you become interested BY YOU, that it must automatically mean not much is known about the subject at all by anyone. In the case of Leeds that isn't so.
The fact is you don't know much of anything about the history of Myopia and the people involved with it through the years. Obviously you've never even seen the club's history book or its records or probably even the club and course itself. That alone is an enormous gap in your understanding of Leeds or Myopia. The same thing was, and still is, the case with you and Merion---eg there is a ton about it you've never known, and still don't.
The other thing that both alarms and pretty much disgusts me is your recommendation on here a few days ago that I or the club should just throw out Leeds' diary and all that has been referred to from it with the club's records and history book and start all over again with the architectural history of the course.
Why is that Tom MacWood? Is it because YOU have now become interested in Myopia and Leeds and you think only YOU can tell it's story accurately? This isn't any differrent from how things started with Merion over five years ago----eg you find some article somewhere and you think you've made some great discovery noone knows about. The hilarious thing with Merion is its had those articles for probaby close to a century and the record and history of the club reflects that. Your problem is you wouldn't know that.
Man, I've heard of arrogance, self-possession and egoism, but that attitude of yours that the accurate architectural and personal histories of all these famous American courses and clubs are just waitng to be discovered by you pretty much takes the proverbial cake.
-
Tom, Mark et al,
I want to use the word 'context' in its broadest possible definition (beyond site, environmental and topography) to include:
1. professional biography
2. what other professionals in the same field are doing at about the same time ... are there definable trends??? or counter trends??? does this project represent a departure from previous work? if so, were the circumstances internally or externally stimulated??
3. $$$ (yes, form does follow financing)
4. technical options
5. client contraints and client pre-occupations
6. capablities of associates and workers
7. time
8. anymore some of you can think of
Imo, the personal life of FLW must be separated from the professional / creative because I have a sneaky suspicion that he was a hopeless ego-maniacal jerk.
-
Philip -
I don't think your Tilly example is very relevant. Virtually all design commissions are based on personal relationships. Think Jones and MacKenzie, Tufts and Ross, and so on. That's not what I'm talking about.
Tom MacW -
The issue is delving into truly private matters (sex, health, depression, immediate family, suicides, drinking) and pretending you are doing so because it has some relevance to the person's artistic/public works.
I would humbly suggest that (a) people are unable to describe plausible causal links between the private with the public, and (b) the real reason they like to expose this stuff is for the easy headlines.
Like anyone else, I find that stuff fascinating. But no one should pretend he is digging it up because it gives any new insights into PVGC or the Clarinet Concerto or whatever.
In the end, it's biographical trivia. And for that reason care should be taken to balance the pain it might inflict with the little good it might do.
For example, what if Tom Doak is hiding some really juicy private matters? (I would like to think that's true.;D) What would we learn that's new about his architecture by disclosing them? OTOH, how much pain might that disclosure inflict on TD and his family?
Sometimes the balancing might come out differently. But that balancing is important to work through carefully. That's all I'm saying.
Bob
-
Bob
Crumps's suicide has no relevance to the story of his life? Good one. You don't see a plausible connection between his public life, trying (and failing) trying (and failing) to construct PV with his death? Should I have repeated the old story that he died from a tooth-ache?
The only reason I introduced Crump's suicide was for sensationalism? You believe I sensationalized his death for headlines? It sounds like you don't have much confidence in me.
Crump's death is just biographical trivia....it was not connected to public life, nor did it have an affect on the future events at PV? Leeds long time male companion being the president of Myopia Hunt is just biographical trivia...their relationship had no bearing on Leeds ability to affect Myopia's architecture? Wright's affair with his clients wife, their marriage and her subsequent murder is just biograpical trivia....those events didn't have profound effect on his career.
Like I said you appear to be from anticeptic school of history documenting. Not only will you not learn much going that route, you'll often get the story wrong.
-
Now here is a bit of potentially interesting info when it comes to what may've influenced Herbert Leeds (made him tick) early on in golf and perhaps even golf architecture and may be a direct influence or even direct and accurate attribution on the first holes of Myopia in 1894 before Leeds belonged to the club or became involved in Myopia's architecture. These were the same original holes MacWood has been claiming Willie Campbell designed.
The Myopia centennial history book attributes the laying out of the original nine holes of Myopia (not exactly the very same so-called "Long Nine" that Leeds was responsible for improving and on which the 1898 U.S. Open was played) but the very first holes which had some greens and such that were not in the same place as some of their landforms have them today.
Myopia's history book attributes the laying out and design of those early rudimentary holes to three men who were members of Myopia. They are:
1. R.M (Bud) Appleton, the recently elected "Master of the Fox Hounds" at Myopia (don't forget for many years previous to golf at Myopia Hunt Club, the club was a polo and hunting club. Still today it's a golf club and polo club).
2. A man by the name (in the history book) of "Squire" Merrill.
3. A third man named A.P. Gardner.
To preface the history book slightly, the author, Edward Weeks (not exactly a slouch in writing as he was the Editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine), tells us that the first few rudimentary golf courses to appear in Boston in the early 1890s weren't even clubs---they were created on some of the big estates of some of those Boston Brahmans.
What were those early "estate" courses that Weeks says preceded the courses at the clubs by a few years and what did he have to say about them? Here it is from the Myopia centennial history book:
"In the early 1890s golf made its debut in New England, and importation which could best be afforded by the well-to-do. Newport fashioned the first course of nine holes and the first open championship in America was held there in 1895 with eleven entries---ten professionals and a single amateur. In Massachusetts, the game was played informally on private estates as early as 1892. At Appleton Farm in Ipswich, six holes were laid out for the entertainment of the family and guests, and Colonel Francis Appleton recalled that sheep cropped the fairways and were kept off the putting green by low wire netting such as enclosed a croquet lawn. At Moraine Farm on the shore of Whenham Lake, the Phillips family maintained a number of holes, as did the Hunnewells in Wellesley on their picturesque acres bordering the Charles River.
Four Massachusetts courses emerged within a few months of each other and at an unbelievably low cost. Two were close to the sea: the Prides Golf Course (1893) consisting of nine flat, short holes, (long since abandoned), and Essex County Club (1893) at Manchester, six holes, very much more difficult. Further inland were the six holes of The Country Club, laid out in 1893 at a cost of fifty dollars and soon increased to nine holes, and the nine holes of the Myopia Hunt Club (1894). At both The Country Club and Myopia there was opposition, not to say derision, from the horse lovers: at Clyde Park idiots intent “on chasing a Quinine pill around a cow pasture,” as Finley Peter Dunne put it, were warned not to foul up the race course; at Hamilton (Myopia) they were not to interfere with the Hunt!
It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.
Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:
“At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.”
That is the architectural attribution of the first nine holes of Myopia Hunt Club directly out of the club records including some of the words and recordings of the very people there at the club at that time. This is contemporaneous. And because it’s direct and contemporaneous, I sure do know I do not want to see somebody on here like Tom MacWood suggest it is all hyperbole or lies and should be thrown out (as he said about Leeds’ own diary) so the club can start again and revise their early architectural history about 115 years later because HE ;) has recently become interested Willie Campbell or even in the club and it primary architect, Herbert Leeds. The way he is coming at Myopia right now is the very same way he came at Merion and us over five years ago on this trumped up claim that Macdonald had been minimized by Merion and continues to be by some of us in Philadelphia. It was garbage then and it’s garbage now.
If the info on Willie Campbell designing the original nine rather than those three Myopia members as the club's history says, is real and valid (assuming the nature and origin of your Boston Globe information), I'm sure the club would love to know about it, Tom MacWood. If you want credit for providing the information, I have no problem at all with that. But as seems always the case as you try to prove this you also will be attempting, once again, with another major American golf course to prove those there at the club and from the club were lying somehow about what they recorded they did. Don't you think this tack of yours is getting just a bit tiresome and more than a little illogical and unbelievable?? ;)
By the way, Tom MacWood, who do you think the Appleton Farm was mentioned above that had one of the first golf courses in Massachusetts even before the clubs? It was A.M. Appleton's, the very same man from Myopia who became the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia in 1894 and who Myopia's history says laid out their first nine hole course with two member/friends 2-3 years later. Who do you think layed out the six hole course on the Appleton Farm, Willie Campbell? He hadn't come to America at that point but I'm sure you will avoid or dismiss that fact somehow! Maybe the time has come for you and David Moriarty to realize and understand that these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" back then who their clubs claim designed those early course really did do it themselves and they did not exactly have to depend on some "expert" that you constantly try to find to do it for them.
An historical point of trivia----"Appleton Farm" in Ipswich, Massachussets is considered to be the oldest farm in America still under the control of the same original family!
-
TE
Here are some unanswered questions surrounding Leeds and Myopia that perhaps you could shed some light on.
What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia's golf course, and what does the club history say about James Parker?
We know Leeds was very active in yachting and enjoyed sports in general, what were his other interests?
Leeds made several trips to the UK. Where did he go? Did his changes at Myopia coincide with these trips?
What do you know about Robert White's background and his association with Myopia?
-
TE
In 1894 The Country Club, Essex County and Myopia Hunt were all closely associated. It makes perfect sense that the first two would engage a world class expert on golf architecture (and arguably the best golfer in the world) to lay out their courses, while Myopia would instead turn to the master of the hounds.
Do you think the powers-that-be at Myopia were idiots...they had gone to the dogs?
-
TE
You've made serveral references to Leed's lost scrapbook, in your last post you called it a diary. Was it a scrapbook or diary? It would seem to me those are two different animals. Do you know anyone who has seen it?
-
"TE
In 1894 The Country Club, Essex County and Myopia Hunt were all closely associated. It makes perfect sense that the first two would engage a world class expert on golf architecture (and arguably the best golfer in the world) to lay out their courses, while Myopia would instead turn to the master of the hounds."
Tom:
I know that, Believe me. I don't need you to point that out to me. I went to school there for years and a ton of those people from those clubs are my friends from way back and now. Those clubs still are remarkably close in this way, and interestingly its basically a lot of the same old names that go back for generations. I hestitate to mention this to you or on here because when I do you seem to automatically want to mock me for my own live and times and the people and places I've always known. Again, I don't need you to point these things out to you as I've known them all probably before you were even born. Maybe you forget sometimes, I'm not exactly young anymore. ;)
On another note, in my opinion, you have just got to stop throwing around some of the statements you have on here recently as if they are accurate and factual such as H.H. Barker and Willie Campbell were considered to be world class experts on golf course architecture. That just was not the case back then at that time. To understand that better you are just going to have to develop a much better understanding of that time and those people, as well as golf and architecture. It was a very different time than the time most of your sensibilities seem to exist in. ;)
-
"TE
You've made serveral references to Leed's lost scrapbook, in your last post you called it a diary. Was it a scrapbook or diary? It would seem to me those are two different animals. Do you know anyone who has seen it?"
Tom:
Sure I do, a lot of them. It was used by Weeks for his 1975 centennial history book. There may be up to 50 people still there who saw it and were aware of it was and said. It was basically an account by Leeds of his years at Myopia and with the golf course. I'll ask around this week. The guy I play with was familiar with it--he's one of the club's historians. Again, you probably forget how old my friends and I are. I graduated from St. Mark's School up there in 1963 after spending six years there. A ton of the people you read about connected with those clubs back then when they were created are the very same families I went to school with---eg Appleton, Gardner, Bacon, Winthrop, Weld, Hall, Merrill, Hunnewell etc.
To be honest, I've never understood why you don't value my experiences and connections with some of these clubs and the generational people involved in and with them rather than basically trying to mock me constantly whenever I mention them. I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think they know some clubs and courses better than people who have been around them all their lives and the people involved them them, particularly when someone (you in this case) has never even been to these places.
This is just amazing to me.
I'm actually beginning to wonder if perhaps this is all about jealousy on your part and this is just your strange way of expressing it. It does not have to be this way, Tom.
But just always know I will never let some of your speculations and conjecture about some of these places ride on here when I know damn well they are just not true.
-
To be honest, I've never understood why you don't value my experiences and connections with some of these clubs and the generational people involved in and with them rather than basically trying to mock me constantly whenever I mention them. I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think they know some clubs and courses better than people who have been around them all their lives and the people involved them them, particularly when someone (you in this case) has never even been to these places.
Uh, maybe it's because you are a jerk towards him all the time?
Just a thought :-\
Bury the hatchet, TE. Deep breath....ahhh, let it go.
Your problem with Macwood is a personal one, methinks, and every single word you spout in his direction is a rude one. I wouldn't want to "work" with you either if you treated me like that.......
-
"TE
In 1894 The Country Club, Essex County and Myopia Hunt were all closely associated. It makes perfect sense that the first two would engage a world class expert on golf architecture (and arguably the best golfer in the world) to lay out their courses, while Myopia would instead turn to the master of the hounds."
Tom:
I know that, Believe me. I don't need you to point that out to me. I went to school there for years and a ton of those people from those clubs are my friends from way back and now. Those clubs still are remarkably close in this way, and interestingly its basically a lot of the same old names that go back for generations. I hestitate to mention this to you or on here because when I do you seem to automatically want to mock me for my own live and times and the people and places I've always known. Again, I don't need you to point these things out to you as I've known them all probably before you were even born. Maybe you forget sometimes, I'm not exactly young anymore. ;)
On another note, in my opinion, you have just got to stop throwing around some of the statements you have on here recently as if they are accurate and factual such as H.H. Barker and Willie Campbell were considered to be world class experts on golf course architecture. That just was not the case back then at that time. To understand that better you are just going to have to develop a much better understanding of that time and those people, as well as golf and architecture. It was a very different time than the time most of your sensibilities seem to exist in. ;)
TE
While your personal history in Boston is fascinating it really doesn't help us determine what happened in the 1890s. Campbell designed the first nine at Ranfurly Castle in 1889. In 1891 he laid out Machirie on Islay, utillizing dramatic dunes. That same year he designed Cowal, Rothesay and Kilmacolm in western Scotland, and in 1893 the first nine at Seascale. He was an accomplished architect in 1894 when he came over; you would be hard pressed to name someone in the States with better resume. To give you idea how big a deal it was, his arrival was reported nationally. It was quite a coup having him come to Boston. Myopia, Essex County and Brookline were obviously thrilled to have his services at their disposal, and they took advantage.
-
"TE
You've made serveral references to Leed's lost scrapbook, in your last post you called it a diary. Was it a scrapbook or diary? It would seem to me those are two different animals. Do you know anyone who has seen it?"
Tom:
Sure I do, a lot of them. It was used by Weeks for his 1975 centennial history book. There may be up to 50 people still there who saw it and were aware of it was and said. It was basically an account by Leeds of his years at Myopia and with the golf course. I'll ask around this week. The guy I play with was familiar with it--he's one of the club's historians. Again, you probably forget how old my friends and I are. I graduated from St. Mark's School up there in 1963 after spending six years there. A ton of the people you read about connected with those clubs back then when they were created are the very same families I went to school with---eg Appleton, Gardner, Bacon, Winthrop, Weld, Hall, Merrill, Hunnewell etc.
To be honest, I've never understood why you don't value my experiences and connections with some of these clubs and the generational people involved in and with them rather than basically trying to mock me constantly whenever I mention them. I just can't understand how anyone could possibly think they know some clubs and courses better than people who have been around them all their lives and the people involved them them, particularly when someone (you in this case) has never even been to these places.
This is just amazing to me.
I'm actually beginning to wonder if perhaps this is all about jealousy on your part and this is just your strange way of expressing it. It does not have to be this way, Tom.
But just always know I will never let some of your speculations and conjecture about some of these places ride on here when I know damn well they are just not true.
TE
Does Weeks refer to it as a scrapbook or a diary?
-
"TE
Does Weeks refer to it as a scrapbook or a diary?"
It's essentially referred to as a chronicle of Herbert Leeds' life and times with approximately 30 years of involvment with the course and club. I don't believe it's a candidate for something that should be scraped as you suggested the other day, so somebody from somewhere else (YOU) can have the opportunity to reinterpret the club's architectural history on some Internet website. Apparently that's the way you see it which seriously undermines the entire credibility of this website, in my opinion, if this website, its administrators and participants don't actively disabuse you of that preposterous notion.
-
It's essentially referred to as a chronicle of Herbert Leeds' life and times with approximately 30 years of involvment with the course and club. I don't believe it's a candidate for something that should be scraped as you suggested the other day, so somebody from somewhere else (YOU) can have the opportunity to reinterpret the club's architectural history on some Internet website. Apparently that's the way you see it which seriously undermines the entire credibility of this website, in my opinion, if this website, its administrators and participants don't actively disabuse you of that preposterous notion.
TE
I'm not sure why you've been hesitant to answer the question, but I got my answer in Bob Labbance's article, Weeks referred to it as a 'scrapbook'.
What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia's golf course, and what does the club history say about James Parker?
-
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little. I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.
Tom MacWood, I am surely in disagreement with David McCullough ... if there were an entirely virtuous person it would CERTAINLY be of interest, because in reality I think it is extremely rare if not downright impossible. But I don't think that, say, the details of Ben Crenshaw's divorce have much to do with his opinions on golf architecture, and thankfully no one here is rude enough to speculate about them ... in fact golf writers and sportswriters have historically tended to give athletes' personal lives a pass, and I don't think we have really missed too much of value in that omission.
-
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little. I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.
Tom MacWood, I am surely in disagreement with David McCullough ... if there were an entirely virtuous person it would CERTAINLY be of interest, because in reality I think it is extremely rare if not downright impossible. But I don't think that, say, the details of Ben Crenshaw's divorce have much to do with his opinions on golf architecture, and thankfully no one here is rude enough to speculate about them ... in fact golf writers and sportswriters have historically tended to give athletes' personal lives a pass, and I don't think we have really missed too much of value in that omission.
Are you saying that MacKenzie's colorful life had absolutely no bearing on your decision to write about him? Did you delve into his private life?
-
"What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia's golf course, and what does the club history say about James Parker?"
Tom Macwood:
I already told you that on here. You really must be incapable of reading and understanding. God help you if you chew gum at the same time.
Maybe what you should do for starters if you really are interested in an objective perspective of Myopia Hunt Club and the history of its course and architecture is get yourself a copy of the club's history book and read the fucking thing first before you dismiss it all on here and try to come across as knowing something of the history of the golf course's architecture. You incredibly arrogant ass, yesterday you stated on here you wouldn't think of doing a thing for me to help Myopia with its history and yet you keeping asking me question after question after question about it. Why don't you study the club's own history and their history book first and then go there and get to know the place, the course, it's history, and the history of its membership, including Leeds, instead of leaning on me to provide everything for you?
-
TE
No matter, its pretty obvious to you and to everyone else your club history is not very useful. In 1898 James Parker was head of the green committee, perhaps not as prestigious as master of the hounds, but important none the less.
-
"TE
No matter, its pretty obvious to you and to everyone else your club history is not very useful. In 1898 James Parker was head of the green committee, perhaps not as prestigious as master of the hounds, but important none the less."
Yes, Parker is mentioned in Myopia's history. The head of the green committee in 1898 for the purposes of your interest of who laid out the golf course in 1894 probably isn't quite as important. ;)
R.M Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner layed out the golf course in 1894 according to the Myopia history book and you have offered absolutely zero to refute it. And something tells me you can't. I think everyone reading this thread can certainly see you won't. I wonder why that is? ;)
I've provided my source---Myopia's own records. You pretty much need to provide your source if you actually have one. It would be completely ludicrous if you are asking this website to take your word for it----a man who has never even been to that club and knows virtually nothing about it or is architectural history or its architect.
-
Tom MacWood:
Speaking of fair game and delving into peopls's private lives do you think it's fair game to delve into the details of your private life, and if not why not? ;)
As far as I can tell almost no one from this website has ever seen you. Why is that? Please tell me you aren't some other personality on here of David Moriarty. That would be the cruelest of all jokes, I can assure you! ;)
-
So Woody Allen goes and starts up a relationship with the adopted daughter of his girlfriend. Hard for me to perceive that as anything but reprehensible. And when I hear about it, I can't help but think of Allen's movie "Manhattan." I liked it when I first saw it, but now I can't help but see it as a kind of justification of what was going on in his personal life, and I don't even want to watch the movie any more.
What's interesting to me here is that I would never say that the truth shouldn't have come out regarding that situation, and the fact that my opinion of the guy has been greatly lessened is ultimately irrelevant.
At the same time, gca isn't show business, and golf has a much more gentlemanly history than show business (and yes, being a "gentleman in some ways implies the hiding of certain things.....like one's bony knees, for example). Also, the direct relationship between Allen's life and his movie that I mentioned above is unlikely to occur in golf course architecture.
So for me, when it comes to golf courses and their history, I'm interested in who was involved, I'm interested in how the courses came to be how they are, and what changes they underwent over the years, and I'm really interested in studying what exists on the ground today. The personal lives of the folks who designed them? Well, to the degree that it might materially affect their design (courses they'd seen, people they worked with, their background in golf as a player, etc.), I'm interested. Past that, not so much.
Perhaps one of my many failings.
As regards Mr. Leeds - Tom Macwood, have you read the Myopia history that Tom Paul has mentioned? If not, why not? It's fair to ask if TP has read the newspaper accounts you mention as well, and perhaps the USGA Archives should contain that kind of material as well as histories derived from the clubs themselves (even if they disagree - history isn't always neat and tidy, and there's often no consensus, even on very well documented events). If one's truly curious about learning the history of a club, how can one afford to ignore any part of the historical record?
-
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little. I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.
For me this is the key distinction right here. Gossip versus biography. A tough line to draw, but an important one. Look at the way various personal details (true or false) have been dealt with on here by different posters.
A good example of biography would be MacWood's piece on Crump. The only thing despicable and reprehensible about it was what Paul and Morrison put him through in the process. I have no problem with accurate and balanced biography about those long dead.
A good example of nasty pointless gossip would be the caricatures of Emmet, Whigham, and MacDonald. They are not only largely false and unsupported, they are also wielded rhetorically to create a false impression of the man and his work. Sadly people fall for it on here all the time, and base their opinions of the men on the false and misleading gossip.
Another issue on here is that many seem to have more respect for the long dead than they do the living.
-
Kirk
I have read it, but its been a few years.
TE
Do you think Leeds and Parkers relationship was a factor in Leeds eventually being given carte blanche with the golf course?
-
Tom MacWood:
Actually my work on the MacKenzie book was a very interesting dilemma.
As you know I had co-authors: Dr. Scott who had done quite a bit of research into Dr. MacKenzie's personal life and background as well as what courses he had worked on, but who did not know a lot about golf course architecture, and Ray Haddock who is Dr. MacKenzie's step-grandson and has a keen interest in seeing only the good side of the story written. So right there, there was plenty of potential conflict in what went to print.
I was friendly with the publisher Mr. Lewis, and he originally asked me just to write about Dr. MacKenzie's courses and what made them special. I would have been happy to keep my role to that except for two problems. First, if the "biography" part was separate from the "golf architecture" part, the book might have been very dry and in two different voices, and it would have been hard to organize. Second, Mr. Lewis was not happy with Dr. Scott's prose and wanted me to integrate the two pieces but essentially rewrite that part of it, which was a tough assignment. And, in the process, I was left to think about what of the personal details should be in or out.
Sadly, I've got to get on the road this morning, so I will leave the cliffhanger story there for right now, but will follow up tonight or this weekend on the sordid gossip about Dr. MacKenzie and his circle of friends ...
-
TD
Yours was a complicated situation no doubt but I think you did the right thing including personal info about his divroce and estrangement from some of his family. After all his brother for many years was his right hand man, and MacKenzie did end up relocating half way across the world.
I'd actually like to know more about Mackenzie the man.
-
Steve Martin did a comedy bit on this subject in his act, circa 1976 or so....the punch line was "So what if I have this thing on my weeny?"
-
"Kirk
I have read it, but its been a few years."
I would submit on here that is probably not true. If it were one wonders why I'm constantly asked questions by Tom MacWood about what it says.
No, Kirk, I have not seen the supposed articles on Willie Campbell designing Myopia or even that he was the professional there for a time in the early 1890s. But I'm going up there this weekend and I'll ask around if any of the people from the club interested in its history have heard that. That Tom MacWood seems to be insinuating that Mr Edward Weeks' account of who laid out the original nine holes in 1894 is a lie appears to me just more of the same things he insinuates with other courses (and this including the fact I doubt Tom MacWood is even aware of Mr. Weeks' Myopia history book account).
I think the extent of Tom MacWood's understanding of the architectural history of Myopia is some article he found somewhere. It was the same thing he did with Merion---eg an old article or two got his attention, and that was about all he knew of Merion's history. I think the guy just tends to find these things about courses and then tends to make a federal case out of it to promote himself as a researcher. It's not much more than that, in my opinion. Clubs may be interested in those kinds of old tidbits but I doubt any clubs will be interested in revising their architectural histories over things like that just because someone like MacWood who knows nothing else about the club or course thinks they should. But if Campbell designed Myopia's first nine I would like to see what the evidence is. As usual Tom MacWood is hedging or avoiding producing anything actual. I produced the applicable part of Week's history book but MacWood likely won't produce anything about what he's insinuating. It does lead one to wonder if there is anything. This has gotten to be a pattern with him.
"TE
Do you think Leeds and Parkers relationship was a factor in Leeds eventually being given carte blanche with the golf course?"
Wow, what an interesting question. When I mentioned Emmet's "Gay" architecture I was only trying to be humorous. Do you mean to tell me you think Myopia ACTUALLY may be the world's only example of "Gay" architecture?? That is totally fascinating, Tom MacWood. Why don't you do some expert "independent" research on that and post your essay about it on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? ;)
-
TE
I think people are getting tired of your gay jokes and homophobia. They were never funny to begin with and your repeating them over and over again is frankly disturbing. I would expect more from a grade-schooler, and I doubt the Myopia Hunt C finds your mocking of Leeds too funny.
If you don't want to explore the interworkings of Myopia in 1898, thats fine with me. Lets move on to Leeds redesign of the course.
Leeds made several trips to the UK. Do you have any idea where he went? Did his changes at Myopia coincide with these trips?
-
Tom MacWood:
Are you kidding me? You're the one who started a thread on Leeds and homosexuality, not me!
I'll be back in a week, and I'll look into these threads then. However, I am really failing to see why I should continue to educate YOU on the architectural history of Myopia. Why don't you do it yourself? Oh sorry, I forgot, obviously you can't. You need me for that.
See you in a week. Get to it fella! Have you got a pair of binoculars strong enough to see Myopia from your Ivory Tower in Ohio? ???
-
I'd actually like to know more about Mackenzie the man.
See, that's interesting to me, Tom. The reality is that we often lose sight of the humanity of historical figures. While it's harder to pin down the essence of these people, it's certainly a valuable exercise. It almost feels like those giants of the past came into life fully formed, as we know them now, and never developed or changed or dealt with all the petty things that we all do, and knowing about that can expand our knowledge of both the person in question and the time in which they developed and lived. My only complaint on that front is that we tend, I think, to devote too much time and too much weight to elements of scandal or "AHA" moments, and lose sight of the broader picture. That was where I was going with my earlier comments.
So consider for a moment the possibility that, while other clubs brought in professional architects, Myopia utilized Herbert Leeds. Isn't that just as potentially illuminating a fact about the man as who he spent his private time with and why?
-
TE
This thread was created because you went off the deep regrading Leeds, Willie Campbell and Myopia. You started and generated this Myopia discusion (and for that you should be credited). I didn't want the Mass thread hijacked so I continued the line of discusion on a seperate thread. On that thread I questioned the accuracy and authenticity of the supposed Leeds scrapbook (which is missing), and generally the accuracy of the Myopia history, including the omissions of Campbell and personal relationship between two of the club's leading figures, Leeds & Parker. There has been a lot of new and good info generated from your line of questions, thanks to you we have taken an renewed (and overdue I might add) look at Myopia's history.
Regarding my question about the trips abroad, I already know the answer, and you obviously don't know the answer. I was hoping to emphasize that point. For some reason the club history only mentions the 1902 trip. Why would an authenic scrapbook or diary not mention his other trips, and not mention where he went? It makes me wonder.
-
Tom,
I know way too much about the personal life of Stanley Thompson - much which I will never share. I have accounts from drivers and family that remove the rosey view of designing with a drink in hand. I won't share them because I can't see the point. I think they would distract people from what does matter - which is the art - so why tell that part of the story.
I understand the desire of everyone to find out what makes a person tick - but occasionally we overstep what is nessasary. We need to restore the line between important information and gossip. Not everything is important.
-
Tom Paul,
I think Dev Emmet looked very nice in his white suit. I had a white polyester suit just like that back in the 70's. It caught on fire when I crossed a room with really deep shag carpet. It's a good thing my room mate was quick with a fire extinguisher.
-
Tom Mac:
I did include a bit of detail about Dr. MacKenzie's divorce, because it was pertinent to why he started traveling overseas and wound up in America, and also to his estrangement from his brother and Alwoodley Golf Club. The first time I was at Alwoodley, back in 1982, they pretty much pretended not to know that Dr. MacKenzie had been involved with the place ... still fallout from the divorce 50 years later!
However, I had no interest in trying to puzzle together any more details than that. There are 3 sides to every divorce story and I didn't think anyone's 50-year-hindsight explanation would really add to the picture of the Doctor. (As Ian notes, a lot of these guys were borderline alcoholics -- I have no idea about MacKenzie himself other than knowing he drank -- but do we really need to go back and apply AA lessons to the history of golf architecture?) It may add to someone's idea of his "personality" but to me it just allows someone to paint a stereotype over the top of the man. It's just the same as an architect applying a stereotype of MacKenzie's design style to a restoration instead of actually looking at the pictures, isn't it?
-
TD
On the other hand MacKenzie definitnely has a identifiable style, which seemed to transfer from continent to continent, and from design associate to design associate. Identifiable but not necessarily easy to replicate.
I'm not that interested in who said what during a divorce but if there was a patern of personal behavior that was repeated often, and is well documented, I think we should know about it, good or bad. The same is true for Thompson, or Travis or Macdonald. Today we are given these pictures of the happy go lucky alchoholic. The drinking is looked upon as charming, and a factor in their success. Is that an accurate picture? I doubt it. Thats a common stereotype in the annals of golf architecture.
IMO there is no good reason to protect these icons that we tend to over romaniticize (which IMO contributes to many of the mistakes in antribution over the years). Obviously their remarkable accomplishments should be emphasized, but their good, bad, grey actions privately are part of who they are as men. You don't need to over empahisize or sensationalize that part, keep it in perspective, but it shouldn't be ignored either. IMO you can not separate their background, influences and private life from their successful public life.
-
... The Herculean task of the biographer is to recover the person, as a human being, from history. To put the flesh and bones back on him so that he may walk among us.
Why should the biographer set this as his goal? Because words and acts without the life do not make a man. We are reduced to a recounting of the "accomplishments" of a machine.
A plaster saint.
Adding the life to the work gives us a deeper appreciation for the work, that a human being did this...."
Mark - I've been thinking about this post of yours for a while.
I'm all for historians uncovering or discovering the personal facts of a subject's life (although I'd hope that they'd focused on getting the public "words and acts" down first, and as comprehesively as possible). What I question is the almost automatic next step that historians tend to make, i.e. the extrapolations and theorizing and assumptions they do/make in linking the public and private lives, and in 'explaining' the public works via the private life. I don't think I object to that in principle, but in practice I don't think it's usually done very well. And I think that's important because, in the hands of a talented writer, these assumed linkages and 'explanations' can become so interwoven into the narrative arc of the story that a reader can't tell where the history and truth and facts end and where the speculations begin; the one version of story of the subject's life can easily become THE story. Historians, I believe, need to be more circumspect in this regard.
But also -- and at the risk of sounding arrogant -- I have to admit that, if a good historian has given me all the facts about a subject's life both public and private, I feel very capable of making those linkages and finding those explanations for myself, and just as capable as the historian is (assuming he/she has put down on the page all they know or have discovered about the subject). In truth, I prefer to make my own linkages, as it allows me to participate more in what I'm reading. What's the alternative? Am I supposed to assume that the historian has more life experience or more insight into the human condition than you or I do, Mark? If he/she has gotten the acts and words and facts of a subject's life down on paper, what special and unique qualifications does he/she have to go further than that, and to create a narrative and an 'explanation' that ties those facts together?
To paraphrase (I forget who) - "every philosophy contains within it the author's autobiography"...or I might say "every biography contains within it the historian's own philosophy."
Yes, I don't want "plastic saints", Mark. But I'd like to think that I'm not a plastic person - no one is. I think as grown-ups we're quite capable of understanding the complexities and contradictions and failings of all human beings; such that, if we have the facts, we're not likely to create plastic saints out of the materials of our own psyches. Of course, that 'version' of the subject will be in part of our own making, the facts filtered through the lens of our own lives. But then again, the alternative is to ask me to accept another person's 'version', which also has been filtered through a lens. I'm sorry, but I tend to prefer my own, if only because it is my own. (Also, my version exists only for me, in my own mind and in the privacy of my living roon; I'm not putting out in public for others to believe in.) And I think that a good historian leaves room for that to happen; he/she allows for that participation instead of trying to prove themselves smarter and more insightrful than anyone else. A good historian is, I think, humble. (Maybe a good storyteller is not).
And finally, Mark - when it comes to the work of artists etc, I tend to find that looking at or reading or listening to or participating in the work itself tells me as much and all I need to know about the artist's life, if in a more subtle and vague and less-prescribed way. It seems to me that if anyone thinks that great art isn't also an exposing of the artist's in-most self and deepest self-understanding, they don't understand either art or the creative process.
And to bring this abruptly back to golf course architecture, don't you think you can tell/understand something important and significant about, say, Ben Crenshaw through his work with Bill Coore in designing courses? Do you need to know more 'details' about the man's private life to get a sense of why, say, Sand Hills is the way it is, and a sense of the spirit(s) behind its creation?
Excuse the ramble. I'd been thinking about your post since yesterday.
Peter
-
Peter: I think I am more or less on the same page with you here, and I am seeing that I am never going to agree with Tom MacWood about it.
I never set out to be a "biographer" of Dr. MacKenzie ... I was trying to explain HIS WORK and what was important and unique about it, and I got caught up in the personal details from my collaborator. But, I think the role of a biographer should be the same as that of a doctor -- "First, do no harm."
I have written things in the past based on hearsay, only to later find out that they were not true, and as much as I tried to avoid drawing conclusions in the MacKenzie book there were several which have been found out to be wrong in the years since it was published.
For a biographer to gather facts about someone's personal life is a situation very open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and I just don't think they should be going there ... but apparently that is the very thing that drives biographers in the first place, the zeal to draw conclusions that nobody else has drawn. :) See, we can generalize about them, too.
They probably have severe envy of their subjects ... is that because of disagreements with their mother or with their father?
-
TD
I don’t believe I criticized your handling of the MacKenzie book. You’ve explained you just wanted to analyze his work, there was no desire to write a biography, that part was more or less thrown on your lap. I understand that. I was simply disagreeing with your view that the private life of a golf architect should be off limits when trying to tell the story of Herbert Leeds, George Crump or any other famous figure. And typically historian do not delve into personal details because they like gossip, they do it because its impossible to fully explore a person’s life without it.
Peter
I agree with much of what you wrote. I want the biographer to present the facts, but I don’t want him to be a dime store psychologist. We may differ slightly in that I don’t have a problem with the writer explaining or presenting linkages, but I don’t want the story to be loaded with tons of conjecture.
It appears your problem is more with poorly written biographies than an objection to the exploration of the personal background of the subject.
As far as getting more from looking at or reading or listen or playing their works, that goes without saying. The product of their genius is the reason why anyone would want to write or read about these guys.
-
Tom:
I didn't think you had criticized my handling of the MacKenzie book, my apologies for implying otherwise. You might feel differently about it if you knew what part of the background I'm leaving out, but since I don't want to send you on a new mission, I'm not going any further with that.
I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.
-
Tom:
I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.
Agreed. It also brings more attention. Which is why historians are tempted to give it more weight than it deserves.
Bob
-
I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.
TD/Bob
Most historians like unsubstaniated rumors? Most historians are not best selling authors. I'm not sure what you guys have been reading but that hasn't been my experience. Do you have any examples?
PS: I know some of the stuff that was left out about the MacKenzie book, dealing with the product of his time in Oz and personal info about Marion Hollins. I don't blame you, afterall they were nothing but rumors. So no worries about sending me on any new mission.
-
This thread has done that rare thing on here; it's become more interesting as it's developed. Thanks to all of you for spending the time to set down your thoughts.
Tom:
I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.
Agreed. It also brings more attention. Which is why historians are tempted to give it more weight than it deserves.
Bob
Yes it sells books, but where an author has looked at the gossip and can state that's all it is, isn't that an important thing to add to a book examining the life (as opposed to the works)? I admit I've read my share of biographies of creative people and I'd say people’s fascination with their lives and the desire to understand what drove them to e.g. compose 40 symphonies or marry and divorce 6 times etc. etc. is to contrast with their own situation. In my case 0 symphonies and a twentieth wedding anniversary next year. There is a general fascination with creative people.
I can understand if Tom Doak doesn’t wish to be drawn further here. However it’s my understanding that the original genesis of the book “The Life and Works of Dr Mackenzie”, came from Dr Scott a man who never played golf. Somehow he became fascinated with his subject because of the private highly unusual choices of a man whose work held no interest for him. This was almost certainly based on rumours he’d heard, because he was too young and in the wrong place to have met most of the individuals concerned. I will now speculate that it was more than just a rumour that caused him to collect facts about the life. It was that fascination with what makes ‘genius’ different?
I have many books on music. The ones that are scholarly analysis of purely the works are beyond me and the ones that reprint the known facts on the life are boring. Give me a little colour, help me understand and if there’s gossip it’s part of the job of the biographer to sift through it and examine it’s credence.
-
Tony:
Actually, Dr. Scott was a medical professor who heard so much about the great "Doctor MacKenzie" that he wondered if he was really a good doctor, since if he was, Dr. Scott couldn't imagine why he would throw that in to become a golf course designer.
After a bit of research he discovered that MacKenzie was in fact NOT a good doctor, or even much of a doctor at all ... his father was a doctor and Alister eventually finished med school and passed the exam, but his heart wasn't in it and his practice was modest at best.
My favorite line from Scott's manuscript (paraphrasing) was that MacKenzie probably lost a lot of patients who came into his office with various ailments and were told that "fresh air and exercise" through playing golf were the solution.
-
All -
These are hard questions. There are no easy answers.
To paraphrase a line from the now forgotten American poet Delmore Schwartz (the original line goes: "In dreams are born responsibilities")
- with knowledge is born responsibilities.
Bob
-
My comments are IMHO. Very nice arguments made here all around. We need heroes and sometimes gossip is a lazy excuse for research.
But this talk of gossip, trivial and the personal: one man's trivia is another man's biography, I guess. I think detail adds authenticity and fleshes out the man; that stuff sometimes / often IS the life. You know, like Lennon said: life is what happens while you're making plans. (The work on the other hand, stands alone. Nothing anyone says or writes, with very, very few exceptions, is going to change the opinion of the work.)
Peter, nice post. I agree on some, possibly most of what you've written. It's down to the execution; I just think the best an author can do is reveal the life as completely as possible, contradictions and warts included, and leave it to the reader to make his judgments.
That said, the very act of creating a biography or history is selective and highly judgmental: what to leave in, what to leave out. Unless you're up for a 25-volume history.
We the reader do not need to be "protected" from this or that. IMHO 99 percent of hagiography does the subject a great disservice in rendering him literally inhuman. Not to mention it's dull: how many political autobiographies actually get read?
Ecce homo. One doctor to another: "About the termination of pregnancy -- I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the children born the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was tuberculous. What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the next pregnancy."
"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."
When I as a reader discover I have been given an incomplete (and therefore misleading) set of facts, I am reminded of that doctor asked to make a judgment without being given the whole story.
Mark
-
Bob
Responsibility to who? I get the impression that you and some others believe that our primary responsiblity is protecting the reputations of these famous golf architects, even if it means ignoring or sweeping under the rug some of their personal indescresions, bad behavior, or human weaknesses. I also get the impression there are some who believe that golf clubs associated with these men are the custodians of their biographies. I would submit that situation has led to many mistakes over the years, and in many cases an incomplete story.
If our goal is to explore the lives of these individuals, IMO our responsibility is to tell an accurate, honest and complete story. Accurate in getting the facts straight, honest in giving proper perspective to those facts, and complete in not ignoring the less attractive or unfavorable sides of their lives.
-
Tony
I agree with much of what you wrote. I think we are naturally curious about these talented people, and the more colorful the figure, the more curious we are, which goes back to what McCullough was saying about how he picks his subjects. Assuming all potential subjects have some extraordinary talent, he was drawn to those who were the most interesting, with some imperfections. Not only are these people more interesting to the reader, but more importantly interesting to him. He spends six or seven or eight years of his life researching and writing about these people, they'd better be interesting to him. With all due respect to William Flynn, that is why I'd rather read about Tom Simpson or Alister MacKenzie or Stanley Thompson than Flynn.
On the subject of gossip there is gossip and there is gossip. When the gossip has been out in the public for a while (and there quite a few of these floating around in golf), not only should the rumor not be ignored, IMO they must be addressed, explaining what it is known, what is not known, what is fact and what is fiction, and hopefully in the end giving insight into the rumor's likely falseness or truth.
On the other side, there is gossip you hear that is not generaly known, which you can not substantiate in any way. That kind of stuff I believe should be left alone.
When I was researching the A&C essay I got in contact with the couple who were living in Horace Hutchinson's old home adjacent to Ashdown Forest. The woman told me she had heard a rumor that he killed himself, that he jumped out a window in London. I had done considerable research on Hutchinson, and I knew he had suffered from poor health for several years, but there wasn't the slightest hint anywhere that he killed himself, so I didn't write about.
While I was researching the recent essay on 1890s golf architects I was going through old articles in an Edinburgh newspaper. I was looking for info on several Scots I was writing about. In the process I stumbled upon an article on Hutchinson's death - it was reported he jumped from the top of his home in London. This time I wrote about it. I don't believe I over-hyped it, and I deliberately did not include some of the more disturbing details. My goal was to present the events of his life in proper perspective, hopefully I accomplished that.
-
I'm still struggling with some of this, for two reasons:
1. Much of a personal story is a matter of perspective. Is your dad an alcoholic or does he hold his drink well? If it's your story, what matters there is YOUR perspective and how it affected you as you grew up -- not the conclusion of an historian 75 years later.
2. Much of the controversy here has been about how Crump or Hutchinson or someone else died. There may be facts, and you may be able to find them out, but these are only illuminating about that person THROUGH PROJECTION. Crump's death had nothing to do with how he lived his life -- it happened afterward, and at least part of it was based on a level of pain that nobody but George Crump could understand. I don't see how that is relevant to his life, because he didn't necessarily have that pain in the rest of his life.
-
TD
That would be something I would avoid all together. I'm not a physician, I'm not quailified to say who is and who isn't an alcoholic today much less then. That is one of the reasons I was uncomfortable when Phil diagnosed Tilly as bipolar in his biography. Even if you are a qualified physician how do you diagnose a person who has been dead for seventy years or more.
On the other hand if you have solid reports of excessive drinking and/or reports of eratic behavior due to drinking, I have no problem bringing it up. As an example I found reports that Ramsey Hunter was let go by St. Georges because he was "worse with drink." I have no idea if he was an alcoholic, but I do know his drinking had a effect on his career, and its a fact he died relatively young. The reader can decide if he had a condition or not.
Crump's suicide was the last action of his life. The events that proceded that final act and the final act are important to note IMO. The same is true for Hutchinson. To get a complete picture of their lives - the good parts and the painful and frustrating parts - you need to bring up how it ended.
-
as someone who's worked with people who were close to Stanley Thompson, Ian Andrew chooses not to tell tales out of school.
authors and journalists haven't got that as an excuse. we find things out about people, and then we decide what's worth disclosing, and what not. it isn't easy, but to some degree it's automatic, because it has to be.
it's very easy to rationalize omitting references to individuals' sins and peccadillos by reassuring yourself you are taking the high road.
however -- and however sad it is to say -- in a larger sense, the biographer leaves out these details at great peril. these days we consider that very few successes are achieved at no cost to an individual or those closest to him. if a person's private life involved imposing suffering or hardship upon self or upon family & friends, even if it may only be the appearance of such hardships, then omitting such accounts amounts to whitewashing -- no matter how much you admire your subject.
-
Tom Doak, your first point -- an excellent one -- calls to mind a story about John Kennedy told by Lincoln historian David Herbert Donald.
The only time Donald met Kennedy was the day after a group of historians had tried to co-opt Kennedy into their scheme to rate all presidents. One day later Kennedy still was steamed how casually the historians tagged his predecessors with a "below average," a few marked as outright "failures" and so forth.
With emotion Kennedy told Donald, "No one has a right to grade a President -- not even poor old James Buchanan -- who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions."
Clearly Kennedy's point was about the public, whereas yours is concerned with the private. Both your points deserve attention.
Just to be clear, we are talking about historical figures here. Everyone alive and for that matter recently dead ought to be entitled to a fair measure of privacy, the right to be left alone, provided of course they don't cross that clear line which involves the sacrifice of the private for purposes of entertainment. I would include athletes there, but even politicians deserve privacy, although sadly it appears a requirement today that our Presidents trundle out their families for display. (But below the Pres-VP level, politicians still get a fair berth from reporters. Certainly not a Kennedy / Roosevelt / Wilson-sized berth, but fairly reasonable.)
(Frankly I am amazed at how little respect younger generations -- geez, starting to sound old here! -- have for their privacy. In this Internet age of global-access databases I have come to feel the same way about my privacy as I do about my reputation: more than something to be guarded, it's become another thing that must be managed.)
So I dunno, maybe it should work that way for long-dead people, too, with your level of privacy somehow a function of a caste-like system tied to how important and famous you were when alive. Certainly that's what essentially we have today, for if you didn't do much when alive you're not likely to win a biographer now that you're dead!
Donald's one-volume history of Lincoln by the way I highly recommend. To take the approach you recommend and which I agree with requires a lot of primary-source material and a willingness to ignore a lot of the secondary-source material, which nevertheless carries great risks. Do you know when Lincoln's papers were made available to the public? 1947. I find that amazing. We may well know Lincoln better than did his constituents!
Here's a passage from his introduction that may relate to our discussion:
In focusing closely on Lincoln himself -- on what he knew, when he knew it, and why he made his decisions -- I have, I think, produced a portrait rather different from that in other biographies. It is perhaps a bit more grainy than most, with more attention to his unquenchable ambition, to his brain-numbing labor in his law practice, to his tempestuous married life, and to his repeated defeats. It suggests how often chance, or accident, played a determining role in shaping his life. And it emphasizes his enormous capacity for growth, which enabled one of the least experienced and most poorly prepared men ever elected to high office to become the greatest American President.
There is a lot of private mixed in with the public there, but he lived up to Kennedy's ideal, and were any of us to rate a biography, that's about as much as we could hope from the researcher, don't you think?
Mark
-
I'm still struggling with some of this, for two reasons:
2. Much of the controversy here has been about how Crump or Hutchinson or someone else died. There may be facts, and you may be able to find them out, but these are only illuminating about that person THROUGH PROJECTION. Crump's death had nothing to do with how he lived his life -- it happened afterward, and at least part of it was based on a level of pain that nobody but George Crump could understand. I don't see how that is relevant to his life, because he didn't necessarily have that pain in the rest of his life.
What Tom MacWood's revelation about Crump changed was this.
We are interested in Pine Valley as one of the supreme WORKs of Golf Course Architecture. Naturally we are therefore interested in how it came to be and the LIFE of it’s dominant creator.
Old History.
Pine Valley was finished by others because Crump suddenly died from an infected tooth.
New History.
After giving his all to the project over several years, Crump took his own life at a time when the project was unfinished and still facing major difficulties. Friends covered up this fact to protect his reputation and found the means to ensure his project was finished.
I think Tom did exactly what Peter asked for in an earlier post and left us to make up our own minds on what this all meant. He handled the revelation in his essay sensitively. I think the new information he discovered is now central to the Pine Valley story. The friends were probably right to draw a veil over what happened then and Tom was right to set the story straight many years later.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood7.html
Tom D, maybe like so much else on here it all comes down to a subjective point of view. As I said above I’ve read many biographies of historical figures who have interested me in various fields. Do you read many biographies or perhaps you more interested in the works? This is not intended as some GCA slight, merely to understand better why we feel so differently about the role of the biographer.
-
Tony:
Thanks for that. I had failed to consider that Crump took his own life while he was still working on Pine Valley, so it IS part of the story there.
As for my reading habits, I read almost exclusively nonfiction, including a fair number of biographies. I guess I just don't have as big an appetite for the interpersonal stuff in biographies. I am a private person by nature, and I don't like the thought that 50 or 75 years from now some genius might try to reconstruct my life without having talked to me about it -- but at the same time, it would be extremely uncomfortable for me to share every personal detail with a bunch of strangers, and I think I have a right to keep my private life private.
-
Tony,
I believe that very few people, including a number of close golf friends, actually knew that Crump took his own life at the time.
If anyone covered the facts, it seems more likely it was his family. Certainly, in reading the writings of Tillinghast and others it seems that they were of the belief that he was taken from them unexpectedly.
I expect Tom MacWood will disagree, but that's ok.
-
Tony,
I believe that very few people, including a number of close golf friends, actually knew that Crump took his own life at the time.
If anyone covered the facts, it seems more likely it was his family. Certainly, in reading the writings of Tillinghast and others it seems that they were of the belief that he was taken from them unexpectedly.
I expect Tom MacWood will disagree, but that's ok.
Not sure on what basis you believe this. How would one refer to a suicide other than "unexpected" or "sudden" or "tragic?" You wouldn't expect them to write that he shot himself every time his name came up, would you? Obviously, those who knew did not want to write about it in golf magazines and that is certainly understandable, but this makes it pretty difficult to draw conclusions about who knew about it and who did not.
But ultimately I think it makes no difference whether it was his family or his friends or both who covered up the truth about his death. It is part of the story of the creation of Pine Valley and at this point there is no compelling reason not to tell the full story. While I understand and agree that digging dirt and gossip on the likes of Doak, Coore, or Fazio serves no legitimate academic purpose at this time, I do not know that this will be the case 100 years from now when someone else is trying to understand these men and this era of golf course design. Are not some understandings of Van Gogh's health problems and his relationship with his brother helpful to understanding his art? How about Klimt's and Picasso's womanizing? How about Egon Shiele's peculiar lifestyle habits?
I guess that to my mind, privacy concerns diminish with the passage of time. So while it is understandable to me why those closest to Crump might have felt compelled to cover up the circumstances of his death, it is inconceivable that some today would of their own volition still go to such great length's to cover it up. Hopefully, like Crump, some designers are creating lasting works of art that will still be worthy of study in 100 years, even though we don't yet have the critical time and distance from what is happening now to fully put it into historical perspective. Unfortunately, by the time we do, it will be much more difficult to to put the pieces back together. This is one of the many dilemmas of history.
Lastly, I find it very ironic that some here have no qualms about trying to falsely and maliciously trash the reputations of those living today in order to protect their legends of the long dead. How about you Mike?
-
Perhaps the answers are found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Grooming-Gossip-Evolution-Language-Dunbar/dp/0674363361
The basic premise of the book is:
"Why is it that among all the primates, only humans have language? According to Professor Robin Dunbar's new book, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, humans gossip because we don't groom each other. Dunbar builds his argument in a lively discussion that touches on such varied topics as the behavior of gelada baboons, Darwin's theory of evolution, computer-generated poetry, and the significance of brain size. He begins with the social organization of the great apes. These animals live in small groups and maintain social cohesion through almost constant grooming activities. Grooming is a way to forge alliances, establish hierarchy, offer comfort, or make apology. Once a population expands beyond a certain number, however, it becomes impossible for each member to maintain constant physical contact with every other member of the group. Considering the large groups in which human beings have found it necessary to live, Dunbar posits that we developed language as a substitute for physical intimacy."
Perhaps gossip is just a sub-concious mode thats been genetically selected in humans over tens of thousands of years to keep the social structure intact. The process of spreading this information is just cause we can't groom each other anymore!!! ;D
-
Tom Mac & Tom Doak,
I have been out of town for a week and wanted to respond to something.
Tom D, Tom Mac responded to your "discomfort" over the idea of a biographet using perosnl details, i.e. alcohol problems, or even a suicide such as Crump's in writing about someone. He wrote, "That would be something I would avoid all together. I'm not a physician, I'm not quailified to say who is and who isn't an alcoholic today much less then. That is one of the reasons I was uncomfortable when Phil diagnosed Tilly as bipolar in his biography. Even if you are a qualified physician how do you diagnose a person who has been dead for seventy years or more..."
Let me set the record straight on that. I did not "diagnose" nor did I write in my Tilly biography that Tilly suffered from Bipolar Disorder. You can read a number of my conclusions about his personal life in the chapter titled "A Look Back at a Life." Not a single time does it mention his being Bipolar.
That said, I have written this in both private and semi-public settings as I am also convinced that he dis suffer from BP and that there are very good reasons for believing so; still, this is not a "diagnosis." Among those who agree with this opinion is his grandson, Dr. Philip Brown Jr., retired from the Mayo Clinic as was his own father who was Tilly's son-in-law. In fact I discussed it with him during the first of several interviews I did with him for the book. His immediate response was that he "always wondered if maybe he had been."
Dr. Brown even went so far to say that he believed I was in the BEST position to make this judgment. This was and is because I have a son who has suffered with a very severe form of the Disorder for some 14 years now. In fact, I just now returned home after picking him up on his release froma psychiatric hospital, his 8th stay this year alone. It is this unique exposure to the illness, it's symptom's, manifestations and treatments, that led to Dr. Brown's comments.
I have an essay that will soon be published that states all of that and far more, both outlining the reasons for it and how it affected both his life as a person and as an architect.
The reason for going into this subject, as well as others such as his "drinking" and "Disappearances" are because they have been reported on for many years even to the extent that they are used humorously by several members of GCA.com in many a comment. The problem is that these comments, and almost everything written and reported about his personal life over the years has been either incorrect, exagerated or taken way out of context.
Tom D., whether I am a good one or not, I do consider myself a very serious biographet and historian. I am fascinated by the things that make people tick and how they express their genius. This is because I lack it myself. Learning of personal details that can be an embarrassment to person or family and sharing them because they will "sell books" as someone else mentioned in this thread, is something I greatly detest. But if someone accomplishes a great deed or a series of grand successes in a chosen field, and their weakness or illness would stop almost anyone else, exploringf it becomes, not just an interesting sidelight, but a necessity to understanding the genius behind the person.
The light of history should magnify and only expose on rare occasions...
-
Phil:
It seems to me that you are making far more of the potential bipolar disorder than I would, because you have a personal connection to it.
Then again, I am satisfied with accepting the man's genius WITHOUT having to explain it, and without trying to make his genius even more stunning than someone else's.
-
Phil
I should have written you suggested he was bipolar in your featured interview at the time the book came out.
I'm no doctor, but couldn't there be a million reasons why he behaved the way he did?
From what I understand bipolar disorder is something relatively new, recently idenitified and recognized, and has a pretty broad net, and is still somewhat controversial. I'm not sure I understand what would be the purpose of diagnosing or suggesting a long gone historic figure may have sufferd from it.
-
Tom Mac,
You asked, "I'm no doctor, but couldn't there be a million reasons why he behaved the way he did?" No, not a million ;D, but obviously more than one.
"From what I understand bipolar disorder is something relatively new, recently idenitified and recognized and has a pretty broad net..." That is incorrect. Bipolar Disorder has been diagnosed as such for many years by that title and even many more going back well into the 1800's as Manic Depression. It's "recent identification" as you put it, has to do with the better understanding that we now have as to the causes and symptom's that define it and the notoriety that has been created by a number within the media and how they have reported it. It is a very, very real disorder that manifest's itself mildly in some and extreme in others.
It "is still somewhat controversial." While I agree with this statement it demands the question of exactly WHY is it controversial? The bottom line reason is that mental illness of any type is considered a taboo subject and when it is brought to the forefront for people in general it is done so in avenues that quite often misrepresent it. For example, both Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, two illnesses that have many similarities of symptom's while also even more dissimilarities, are often portrayed in the movies and television shows as being what caused the "bad guy" to kill or hurt people. Whereas some mentally ill people have hurt innocent people, the overwhelmingly vast majority haven't and lead lives of quiet dignity.
"I'm not sure I understand what would be the purpose of diagnosing or suggesting a long gone historic figure may have sufferd from it." More than one person on here has asked that of you and your insistence upon bringing Crump's suicide to the fore, yet you defend it vigorously. Your statement gives the impression of inconsistency at the very least.
In Tilly's case there are far greater reasons for considering this possible illness and how it affected his life, but before going into that, i want to address Tom Doak's points.
Tom, you said, "It seems to me that you are making far more of the potential bipolar disorder than I would, because you have a personal connection to it."
I can completely understand why you think that. I readily admit that the idea of it was in part caused by seeing the effect's of the illness upon my own family. But for the same reason that I am more sensitive to it's effects I am also far more able to recognize it in others where many would miss it. It is just as when some doctors misdiagnose a particular illness simply because they are almost never exposed to someone with it. A cough is not simply a cough, yet it can also just be that while in others it heralds, lung cancer or aids or tuberculosis or an alergy.
You also said that, "Then again, I am satisfied with accepting the man's genius WITHOUT having to explain it, and without trying to make his genius even more stunning than someone else's."
I don't feel that I am trying to make Tilly's genius "more stunning than someone else's," rather I am trying to understand it, especially in light of how he has been portrayed for many years.
How often has someone both on here and in print referred to Tilly's drinking? or used the term "flask architecture" in reference to him? Didn't even his own family (Dr. Brown himself) write of Tilly's disappearances from his family for days at a time and hint at severe problems as the cause and the using this to underline how astonishing his accomplishments actually were?
The reason that I brought to light my belief that he was Bipoalr, and it is a disorder that I readily admit can only be a supposition in his case and NEVER diagnosed since he is dead, was because I had come to learn that much of how he had been portrayed were both incorrect and misunderstood. Since these dark sides of his were out there in this fashion I believed that history demanded that someone tell the real causes and truth if possible. That is why I wrote it.
In a sense, haven't you felt compelled to act in the same fashion when being critical of what you saw as either design flaws or poor work when describing courses by other architects in your Confidential Guide? You certainly felt a need to expose these and took a great deal of heat from some for doing so.
Certainly saying that someone poorly design a golf course is in no way the same as stating that one believes another to be mentally ill, but that is not really what I did. I gave it as the reason behind a number of his actions, and as you'll see when it comes out, that includes and explains his approach to the game of golf and his interests in deeply exploring so many aspects involving it including golf course architecture...
-
Peter Pallotta:
Those first two paragraphs of your post #71 are so good. They got right to the heart of this entire general subject.
I see while I've been gone for a week the subject of some posts on this thread got back to Crump and his suicide, so don't blame me for bringing it up again.
Just some historic housekeeping on Crump's suicide:
1. Tom MacWood did not break the story that Crump may've committed suicide. That story has been known to me for over thirty years and consequently from those I heard it from it would seem the story has been around Pine Valley in one sub-rosa form or another probably from the day he took his own life.
2. What Tom MacWood did is PROVE Crump committed suicide by shooting himself. Tom MacWood did that simply by producing evidence of his death certificate which states he died of a gunshot wound to the head.
The public story of the cause of Crump's sudden death has always been that he died suddenly of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess.
Is it of any historical interest why that story of his sudden death due to poison to the brain from a tooth abscess was generated back then?
It probably is of historical interest. The fact is Crump's teeth were so bad at the time of his death it is not at all unreasonable to assume he may've shot himself for that reason alone (excruciating pain). It is directly documented that at the end of his life Crump frequently walked around Pine Valley with a small towel in his mouth his teeth were so problematic.
Crump had no children, and his young wife had predeceased him. His only real family was his mother who apparently had moved into his commodious house in Merchantville, N.J. (it seems Crump spent the vast majority of his last few years living at his cabin at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville).
It also seems apparent from an interview (1990) in a newspaper with George Govan (Crump's foreman's son who lived on Pine Valley with his family) that Crump shot himself at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville as his death certificate suggests).
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Crump's mother was probably the generator of the story that Crump died of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess (Crump's body was probably moved from Pine Valley to his home in Merchantville).
Those are the facts as I understand them. So, the question probably becomes why Pine Valley never looked into the rumor of Crump's suicide by a gun and attempted to prove it? In my opinion, even with the rumor that he shot himself that's been around for decades they just didn't want to do that (prove he shot himself) out of respect for the man and his family and whatever their wishes were over eighty years ago.
Some on here have also said that this club or others around here may've concertedly covered up this reality and rumor (suicide) to protect Crump's reputation! If that's the case I would certainly ask----protect what reputation of Crump's? If they're suggesting this is to protect his reputation as an architect and the creator of Pine Valley, how he DIED clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what he did architecturally those years he worked practically daily at Pine Valley on the design and architecture and creation of the golf course. The collected material in and around Pine Valley explains that in detail.
The point is, if anyone at Pine Valley had ever actually wanted to PROVE that Crump committed suicide all they would have had to do is go to the township or the state recorder of death certificates and petition for Crump's death certificate essentially as Tom MacWood did. There is no question at all Pine Valley itself or anyone from that club could have done that more easily and more appropriately than Tom MacWood did.
The point is this entire affair of the proving that Crump shot himself doesn't have much to do with Pine Valley the club or Pine Valley the golf course and its architecture and who did what there. On the other hand, it probably does have something to do with some analysis of George Crump, the man!
George Crump, the man, is certainly interesting to me and always will be but proving he committed suicide was surely no agenda of mine and it apparently wasn't the agenda of Geoff Shackelford who I discussed this with about five years before Tom MacWood ever got involved.
In my opinion, Tom MacWood's agenda probably has something to do with his interest in people like Crump but I think his agenda has a bit more to do with promoting himself on here and elsewhere as a researcher. I've said it before, and I feel the same now as then that it's not really the proving of the nature of Crump's death I have a problem with, it's the way he went about it and the fact that he didn't have the decency to even speak with the club first. Maybe they would've tried to discourage him and maybe they wouldn't but the point is there is basically no way to stop him or anyone else from trying to prove it.
Tom MacWood has also said himself that in his opinion many of these clubs (and their friends) actively try to distort the true history of their architecture and their architects to protect and/or enhance their reputations or whatever. I do not believe that to be the case at all----certainly not with Pine Valley's George Crump or Merion's Hugh Wilson. I believe these men actually did what their clubs and their histories have given them credit for! Furthermore, the contemporaneous and direct records of these clubs basically prove what these histories say. To suggest otherwise, as some on here have done, is just not factually supportable, in my opinion. If suggesting otherwise is ever going to be more than just speculation and conjecture, some actual facts are going to have to be produced. To date there has been nothing like that in an architectural context.
-
I also spent four days at Myopia last week and I certainly did ask a number of those around who might know and none of them have any knowledge of Willie Campbell designing the original nine holes of Myopia before Herbert Leeds became involved. Myopia believes that club members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did that in 1894. There were also a couple of pretty fair writers at that tournament (both of which I spoke to about this), including writers on golf, not the least of which was John Updike.
So, Tom MacWood, despite some Boston Globe article from back then that you refuse to come up with, maybe the architectural history of that golf course is accurate. If you don't think so, you should try to produce something. I've produced on here the club's side of its history and if you want to disprove it you should produce something that can.
It also seem TCC believes its first holes were created by app. three members including Robert Bacon, the grandfather of the man I played in last week's Myopia tournament with. Pretty extraordinary guy, that Robert Bacon. Perhaps you should try to do some "independent research" on him! ;)
-
I realize speaking about Myopia, the golf course, is not exactly on subject of Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick but that golf course sure is unique. There are, by my count, up to nine or so holes on that course that are truly unique (at least in America). They definitely may not be everyone's cup of tea but they sure are unique. Perhaps the most accurate way to describe them is they are "of an era". It must have been something else to play them way back when, and it's something else to play them today, even if for very different reasons.
I know some on here will disagree, but, in my opinion, a pretty high greenspeed really does have its particular place in golf and architecture----eg with it the imagination requirement or level can be quite remarkable.
-
Peter Pallotta:
Those first two paragraphs of your post #71 are so good. They got right to the heart of this entire general subject.
I see while I've been gone for a week the subject of some posts on this thread got back to Crump and his suicide, so don't blame me for bringing it up again.
Just some historic housekeeping on Crump's suicide:
1. Tom MacWood did not break the story that Crump may've committed suicide. That story has been known to me for over thirty years and consequently from those I heard it from it would seem the story has been around Pine Valley in one sub-rosa form or another probably from the day he took his own life.
2. What Tom MacWood did is PROVE Crump committed suicide by shooting himself. Tom MacWood did that simply by producing evidence of his death certificate which states he died of a gunshot wound to the head.
The public story of the cause of Crump's sudden death has always been that he died suddenly of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess.
Is it of any historical interest why that story of his sudden death due to poison to the brain from a tooth abscess was generated back then?
It probably is of historical interest. The fact is Crump's teeth were so bad at the time of his death it is not at all unreasonable to assume he may've shot himself for that reason alone (excruciating pain). It is directly documented that at the end of his life Crump frequently walked around Pine Valley with a small towel in his mouth his teeth were so problematic.
Crump had no children, and his young wife had predeceased him. His only real family was his mother who apparently had moved into his commodious house in Merchantville, N.J. (it seems Crump spent the vast majority of his last few years living at his cabin at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville).
It also seems apparent from an interview (1990) in a newspaper with George Govan (Crump's foreman's son who lived on Pine Valley with his family) that Crump shot himself at Pine Valley and not in his house in Merchantville as his death certificate suggests).
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Crump's mother was probably the generator of the story that Crump died of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess (Crump's body was probably moved from Pine Valley to his home in Merchantville).
Those are the facts as I understand them. So, the question probably becomes why Pine Valley never looked into the rumor of Crump's suicide by a gun and attempted to prove it? In my opinion, even with the rumor that he shot himself that's been around for decades they just didn't want to do that (prove he shot himself) out of respect for the man and his family and whatever their wishes were over eighty years ago.
Some on here have also said that this club or others around here may've concertedly covered up this reality and rumor (suicide) to protect Crump's reputation! If that's the case I would certainly ask----protect what reputation of Crump's? If they're suggesting this is to protect his reputation as an architect and the creator of Pine Valley, how he DIED clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with what he did architecturally those years he worked practically daily at Pine Valley on the design and architecture and creation of the golf course. The collected material in and around Pine Valley explains that in detail.
The point is, if anyone at Pine Valley had ever actually wanted to PROVE that Crump committed suicide all they would have had to do is go to the township or the state recorder of death certificates and petition for Crump's death certificate essentially as Tom MacWood did. There is no question at all Pine Valley itself or anyone from that club could have done that more easily and more appropriately than Tom MacWood did.
The point is this entire affair of the proving that Crump shot himself doesn't have much to do with Pine Valley the club or Pine Valley the golf course and its architecture and who did what there. On the other hand, it probably does have something to do with some analysis of George Crump, the man!
George Crump, the man, is certainly interesting to me and always will be but proving he committed suicide was surely no agenda of mine and it apparently wasn't the agenda of Geoff Shackelford who I discussed this with about five years before Tom MacWood ever got involved.
In my opinion, Tom MacWood's agenda probably has something to do with his interest in people like Crump but I think his agenda has a bit more to do with promoting himself on here and elsewhere as a researcher. I've said it before, and I feel the same now as then that it's not really the proving of the nature of Crump's death I have a problem with, it's the way he went about it and the fact that he didn't have the decency to even speak with the club first. Maybe they would've tried to discourage him and maybe they wouldn't but the point is there is basically no way to stop him or anyone else from trying to prove it.
Tom MacWood has also said himself that in his opinion many of these clubs (and their friends) actively try to distort the true history of their architecture and their architects to protect and/or enhance their reputations or whatever. I do not believe that to be the case at all----certainly not with Pine Valley's George Crump or Merion's Hugh Wilson. I believe these men actually did what their clubs and their histories have given them credit for! Furthermore, the contemporaneous and direct records of these clubs basically prove what these histories say. To suggest otherwise, as some on here have done, is just not factually supportable, in my opinion. If suggesting otherwise is ever going to be more than just speculation and conjecture, some actual facts are going to have to be produced. To date there has been nothing like that in an architectural context.
I also spent four days at Myopia last week and I certainly did ask a number of those around who might know and none of them have any knowledge of Willie Campbell designing the original nine holes of Myopia before Herbert Leeds became involved. Myopia believes that club members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did that in 1894. There were also a couple of pretty fair writers at that tournament (both of which I spoke to about this), including writers on golf, not the least of which was John Updike.
So, Tom MacWood, despite some Boston Globe article from back then that you refuse to come up with, maybe the architectural history of that golf course is accurate. If you don't think so, you should try to produce something. I've produced on here the club's side of its history and if you want to disprove it you should produce something that can.
It also seem TCC believes its first holes were created by app. three members including Robert Bacon, the grandfather of the man I played in last week's Myopia tournament with. Pretty extraordinary guy, that Robert Bacon. Perhaps you should try to do some "independent research" on him! ;)
I was hoping that your break would do you some good. Oh well, I guess not.
You state that MacWood did not break the story of Crump's suicide?? Of course MacWood broke the story.
It makes no difference what you or someone else could have done or should have known. You did not do it. Whatever you knew you concealed it. MacWood brought the story to light, with proof.
Are you so small a man that you cannot even give MacWood credit for this?
Your pathetic and irrational ranting and raving against MacWood has got to stop.
-
The "story" that Crump shot himself has been around Pine Valley for longer than anyone on this website has been alive and that's a fact (even Crump's own caddie was aware of that story and he was the one who remembers Crump walking around the course at the end with a towel in his mouth). It was mentioned in a magazine article years ago. Tom MacWood did not break that story but he did prove it was true.
If some on this website want to give him credit for making the world aware that Crump may've committed suicide I have no problem with that but he did not break that story, he simply proved it to be true by producing Crump's death certificate.
If anyone from the club had ever wanted to prove that story they could've done so very easily by simply doing what MacWood did---eg asking for Crump's DC. No one seemed to want to do that and I can understand the reason even if some on here don't appear to understand that.
The point that is probably more important is the nature of his death had no effect on what Crump did in life with the golf course during his years there constantly. The record of his architectural condribution is clear and factually supportable. Thankfully the suggestion that was implied that Crump and his roll with the architecture of Pine Valley was glorified by the club because of the shock of his sudden death seems to have dissipated (one can find that suggestion and implication in the back pages of this website). I think it's important to make that clear on here. Colt's roll with the architecture of Pine Valley has also been made more clear and has been factually supported.
To me this is the value of a website like this one. There are the club architectural histories and occassionally they may be challenged as to their historic and factual accuracy. Some details may be found to be bogus or generated years later for various reasons. They are then reanalyzed and these histories obviously become clearer.
Pine Valley's story is certainly different from Merion's, and both are very different from Myopia's but the point is Crump's contribution and Colt's contribution has now been more specifically identified and defined and it's more historically accurate. Colt's contribution will no longer be minimized by anyone. With Merion, Macdonald and Whigam's contribution has also been more accurately identified and defined and the point is their contribution is exactly what the club and its record said it was contemporaneously back in 1910 and 1911, despite the contentions of some who suggest it was in some way minimized by Merion. It wasn't! And for that reason the on-going research via GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has done a good job with the details of that club's early architectural history, as is the case with Pine Valley. Myopia's may be on-going but to date this website has seen nothing solid to suggest that Myopia's early architectural history should be revised somehow by the club.
In the end these are the things that're important. It's not about the people who look into these things, it's about what is ultimately found out.
-
Tom MacWood proved the Crump died at his own hand from a gunshot wound.
However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself. I think Tom's procurement of the death certificate simply proved the long-time "insider" rumor.
-
Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine.
-
Tom MacWood,
Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself? How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture? We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others. But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself?
Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual. Others respect the privacy of individuals. Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects. Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study. Crump was not a public figure. He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district. As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story. His death was a factor. But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace. The circumstances of his death are not fully understood. Why he committed suicide will never be revealed. So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?
-
Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine.
Tom, I know it is unimportant, and that you think so. I have just grown very tired of watching the extent to which these guys will go to avoid acknowledging that anyone other than themselves could ever figure anything out. Backroom rumors, gossip, and local myth may satisfy TE Paul's thirst for "knowledge," but he should not trying to pass off hearing gossip as an accurate understanding of history.
________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Morrison,
You have a lot of nerve lecturing Tom MacWood on privacy concerns and on coming forward with information unrelated to the topic at hand.
-- Have you forgotten your repeated attempts at sullying MacWood's reputation with your vague and unsupported third-hand rumors about some supposed indiscretion at some private club or another?
-- Have you forgotten that you once did your best to spread laughably false and third hand rumors about my supposed snail's pace of play?
What does it say about a man when he has more concern for the long dead than he does the living?
Tom MacWood,
Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself? How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture? We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others. But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself?
Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual. Others respect the privacy of individuals. Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects. Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study. Crump was not a public figure. He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district. As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story. His death was a factor. But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace. The circumstances of his death are not fully understood. Why he committed suicide will never be revealed. So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?
Yet another shining example of why the USGA should have absolutely nothing to do with a guy like Wayne Morrison when it comes to building its archives: Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed. Wayne and Tom Paul, you do realize that the roles of Censor and Archivist are in opposition, do you not?
Wayne, I am fascinated at your willingness to so flippantly decide what is part of the story and what isn't.
-Is this the real reason you let the Barker routing slip your mind?
-Is this the real reason you have longe misrepresented the identity of the real draftsman of some of the Flynn drawings?
-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?
-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the portion of the Alan Wilson report which credited C.B. Macdonald?
-Is it the real reason you (reportedly) left references to Macdonald and Whigham's role at Merion out of the early drafts of the long awaited Flynn Puff Piece?
-Is it the real reason you never bothered to take a closer look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?
-Is it the reason you knowingly misrepresented M&W's role at Merion, trying to reduce them to glorified travel agents?
-Is it the real reason you sat silently while TEPaul lied about Merion purchasing the property in 1909?
You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed Astonishing.
I guess that is also the reason you and TEPaul are now cherry-picking the information from MCC. You decide what is "important to the story," on the one hand, and what should be concealed, on the other.
-
"However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself."
Excuse me, Mike, but GeoffShac did not know that Crump shot himself. All he knew is that he had read there was a rumor to that effect in a magazine some time ago. He did talk to me about writing about that but he decided against it on his own apparently.
-
David,
For one who has continuously taken others to task for misrepresenting what had been stated by them, you sure take a liberal view for yourself when quoting others.
Where in anything of what Wayne wrote that YOU quoted from, does he ever state that Crump's suicide needed to be "CONCEALED?" The word and phrase isn't in there and the meaning of what was written doesn't support this conclusion.
Still, you wrote, "Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed..." and also "You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed... astonishing."
David it is time for you to stop doing exactly what you are critical of others for.
It's time for ALL of you guys to let this stuff go and quit ruining good discussions because you can't stop yourselves fromtaking shots at each other.
-
"Who broke the story is not important IMO. What is important is uncovering the truth. If you are interested in the true history of these courses (as opposed to legends) you must have the facts, be it the circumstances that led to Crump's suicide or Wilson's 1912 trip to the UK or Campbell's design of Myopia's first nine."
Tom MacW:
I'd agree with that---eg who broke the story is not that important but the truth is. However, I'm afraid almost no one can see what that has to do with Pine Valley and Crump's roll there. Therefore when you speak about the "legend" of Crump I fail to see what difference it makes if he died suddenly of suicide or poison to the brain from a tooth abscess. Do you see what difference it makes to the legend of George Crump in the context of his legendary status as the creator of Pine Valley? Was George Crump a legend in some other way that we are not aware of? As a golfer or perhaps a legendary hotelier? ;)
I think the fact that Wilson may never have gone abroad before 1912 and that the 1910 story which I do give David Moriarty full credit for discovering, actually makes Wilson and Merion and his part in its creation even more interesting and probably significant within the history of American architecture.
Of course, David Moriarty's contention in his essay was that the 1910 story abroad was always used as a rationale for how such an inexperienced man in architecture could have done as much as he did with the course, and that if that 1910 story was proven to be false it would prove that there was no way Wilson could have done in 1911 what the club gives him credit for. I think the more remarkable thing all this research has proven is that even if he never did go abroad BEFORE routing and designing and constructing the course in 1911 he nevertheless actually did do what Merion's history says he and his committee did. And now records perhaps not used in research in close to a century prove that to be the case.
As for your contention that Campbell designed the original nine holes of Myopia in 1894, I'm afraid that will just have to remain your opinion unless and until you produce something that establishes that. For the time being I believe the club's own record of who did it (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) are probably a whole lot more accurate than some unproduced Boston Globe newspaper article! ;)
But if you ever do produce it then it might be worthy of some level-headed discussion on here.
-
David,
For one who has continuously taken others to task for misrepresenting what had been stated by them, you sure take a liberal view for yourself when quoting others.
Where in anything of what Wayne wrote that YOU quoted from, does he ever state that Crump's suicide needed to be "CONCEALED?" The word and phrase isn't in there and the meaning of what was written doesn't support this conclusion.
Still, you wrote, "Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed..." and also "You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed... astonishing."
David it is time for you to stop doing exactly what you are critical of others for.
Phillip, I did not quote him as having used the word "concealed." That is my understanding of his position. He thinks the information should never have been brought forward.
Both TEPaul and Wayne have repeatedly written and said that the information about Crump's suicide should never have been brought forward. Plus, they did everything they could to try and pressure and brow-beat Tom MacWood into not bringing it forward. Plus, in the quote Wayne is scolding MacWood for having brought the information forward, even stating that it reflects poorly on MacWood as a human being.
Moreover, this is part of a long pattern of behavior on the part of these two. They have repeatedly concealed, misrepresented, ignored, forgotten, cherry-picked or never even bothered to look closely at documents that did not fit with their version of the story. You are a researcher, so you know that this is inappropriate behavior. Once cannot pick and choose facts but must represent and consider them all.
It's time for ALL of you guys to let this stuff go and quit ruining good discussions because you can't stop yourselves fromtaking shots at each other.
Phillip, at this point it is impossible to have a good discussion about any historical issues, because these guys think they can always control the agenda. Ignoring them does not work so I am taking them on whenever they do it.
-
As for your contention that Campbell designed the original nine holes of Myopia in 1894, I'm afraid that will just have to remain your opinion unless and until you produce something that establishes that. For the time being I believe the club's own record of who did it (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) are probably a whole lot more accurate than some unproduced Boston Globe newspaper article! ;)
But if you ever do produce it then it might be worthy of some level-headed discussion on here.
Tom Paul, you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you? You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?
-
Tom MacW:
I'd agree with that---eg who broke the story is not that important but the truth is. However, I'm afraid almost no one can see what that has to do with Pine Valley and Crump's roll there. Therefore when you speak about the "legend" of Crump I fail to see what difference it makes if he died suddenly of suicide or poison to the brain from a tooth abscess. Do you see what difference it makes to the legend of George Crump in the context of his legendary status as the creator of Pine Valley? Was George Crump a legend in some other way that we are not aware of? As a golfer or perhaps a legendary hotelier? ;)
TE
Reread the essay. I was telling the story of Crump's life. The trials and tribulations encountered while building PV and his suicide are not important events in his life? If that is your opinion, I'm confident you are in the minority.
-
Phil:
Good point about not taking any more potshots at one another---AND SO---how about we get back to Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick----the subject of this thread----that is if anyone has ansything left to contribute about him and what made him tick.
I just came back from there where ironically I played in a 3-4 day invitational called the Herbert C. Leeds. There seems no question listening to some who know the history of the club best (although there are two gents they say I need to talk to who really do know most about the place at this point) but that Leeds could be a pretty tough hombre. No one denies he could be really tough on having women around in certain situations and it seems like when some termed him a martinet they were probably right on. When he was alive the club members referred to him as "Papa" and it seems like he got his way however he wanted to do it.
So what made Leeds the architect tick? Who really knows but it appears that whatever his particular reasons just like Crump at Pine Valley and maybe Wilson of Merion and even Fownes of Oakmont they all went at their particular course they made famous with a singlemindedness of purpose that was pretty remarkable and most all of them did it for the remainder of their lives which just may be the most important thing of all for people like us to know and appreciate!
-
"However, several years before that, one of the former big participants here from the west coast told me in a phone conversation that Crump killed himself."
Excuse me, Mike, but GeoffShac did not know that Crump shot himself. All he knew is that he had read there was a rumor to that effect in a magazine some time ago. He did talk to me about writing about that but he decided against it on his own apparently.
Tom,
It wasn't Geoff who shared that with me back then.
-
"TE
Reread the essay. I was telling the story of Crump's life. The trials and tribulations encountered while building PV and his suicide are not important events in his life? If that is your opinion, I'm confident you are in the minority."
Tom:
I don't need to reread your essay on Crump. I've read it a number of times, I've told you a number of times I think it's good for what it is and I know exactly what it says and what your contention or implication appears to be of what led to his suicide. I'm sure I probably know more about George Crump and particularly his life and times at Pine Valley through those years at Pine Valley than you do or ever will never having even been there and while your assumption of what may've led to cause him to shoot himself, while certainly very plausible, is surely nothing more than common guesswork on your part or anyone else's.
I mean no disrepect to you when I mention it but the multitude of reasons that may've led a man like that to do what he did are probably staggering. That time and that class and even that avocation really did produce some remarkable people in some ways that most today would probably term an eccentric, even an extreme eccentric. It seems like George Crump was definitely that albeit and unusually lovable one by all who knew him or saw him.
I mean, come on, right off the bat it is just not that normal to basically hie into the woods in first a tent and then a little cabin and spend the remainder of your life, basically five years, pretty much just doing what he did down there. I'm not too sure many really understand what he did that way and what it must have been like. He lost his wife young, he sold his business before he was forty and he went into the woods with this single-minded fixation. It's like have the man went into deep exclusion and pretty young.
One might fairly ask what in the hell did he think he was going to do with the rest of his life if he expected to live a normal lifespan?? One thing seems sure---he never said, not to anyone. What happened to him really did seem to be a total shock and wrench to everyone who ever knew the man.
I'm the only one on here who ever laid eyes on someone who actually knew him and that sure was the impression I got from that person even if he was very young at the time. On the other hand, that man was equally as fascinated by John Arthur Brown too. That guy caddied at Pine Valley from the time he was about ten until he was almost ninety.
When I tell you stuff like this your general response is that I must live in a Holiday Inn Express or something. It's pretty mindboggling, the degree of the defensiveness! ;)
-
"Tom Paul, you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you? You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?"
Don't worry, I'm quite sure I know what the differences and distinctions are between a club history book and club records and minutes and archive material a whole lot better than you do. The reasons are pretty obvious---eg I've dealt with a whole lot more of all of them than you ever have. It is a most interesting learning process, that's for sure.
I'll tell you one thing for sure---if I had to go about trying to learn the history of a club or its architecture the way you have tried to do it, I doubt I would've ever tried it at all. It is no fault of yours, and I'm not suggesting it is, but apparently you simply cannot even imagine what a real disadvantage you have put upon yourself trying to truly understand a club or its architectural history the way you have gone about it.
The same is true of Tom MacWood. We've told you endlessly that one can never truly understand much of anything about a club like a Merion or Pine Valley or Myopia or even the history of its architecture if they never even go to it. Of course neither of you are even remotely willing to listen or consider that from us. It really doesn't matter anyway, since you probably never will do it or listen to those who have gone before you. You two birds are really some God-damned pair, that's for sure----a couple of guys who promote themselves as these "expert researchers" of courses without ever really even seeing them or any of their own records. To me it used to be kinda maddening but now I see it pretty much as just a joke.
No wonder you two guys, particularly you, Moriarty, question, insult and challenge us on practically every post. Obviously there isn't anything else for you to do, at this point---you never had much in the first place and even you guys know that's pretty apparent now.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, what about PART TWO?? That seemed pretty dumb in the beginning but it's seems a lot dumber now, don't you think? ;)
-
"Both TEPaul and Wayne have repeatedly written and said that the information about Crump's suicide should never have been brought forward."
In a sense that's true and that's accurate, at least for me. I can't really speak for Wayne. I never would've said that or ever felt that if MacWood had just gone to Pine Valley first. In a way it was no different than the discussion I had with GeoffShac on the very same subject---eg writing about Crump's life and apparent suicide some years before I ever knew of MacWood.
I asked him if he decided to do it if he would approach Pine Valley about it first. I believe he said he wasn't sure. I remember we did discuss what he might do if he did go to them first and they tried to discourage him. I think he said he probably wouldn't do it but that he understood it's a free country and they certainly had no real right to stop him. That was that and for whatever his reasons he obviously decided not to do it in the end.
I think MacWood or anyone doing a story like that should go to the club with it first. Call me old fashioned if you want, that's OK---that's just the way I felt, still feel and I hope I also will with a thing like that.
-
"Tom Paul, you do understand that a club history is not club record, don't you? You realize that it is a second hand source, don't you?"
Don't worry, I'm quite sure I know what the differences and distinctions are between a club history book and club records and minutes and archive material a whole lot better than you do. The reasons are pretty obvious---eg I've dealt with a whole lot more of all of them than you ever have. It is a most interesting learning process, that's for sure.
I'll tell you one thing for sure---if I had to go about trying to learn the history of a club or its architecture the way you have tried to do it, I doubt I would've ever tried it at all. It is no fault of yours, and I'm not suggesting it is, but apparently you simply cannot even imagine what a real disadvantage you have put upon yourself trying to truly understand a club or its architectural history the way you have gone about it.
You have no idea how I have gone about researching Merion's history. As for your methodology, you may want to reconsider considering how badly you guys had botched Merion's history.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, what about PART TWO?? That seemed pretty dumb in the beginning but it's seems a lot dumber now, don't you think?
I have said many times that I'd like to revise Part I first, but it seems sort of silly given the hide-the-ball games you guys are playing with the source material.
But now you have made clear that your promised "point-by-point counterpoint" of my essay is not going to happen (gee, I wonder why?) and your promised report to the USGA is not going to happen. In fact, you guys are apparently only doing is a slight revision to your ever growing Merion Chapter to reflect the information and analysis that I brought forward. So I guess I might get around to making some changes in Part I and turning to Part II.
Still seems silly though. I do my rewrite, you guys come forward and nitpick it based on sources you won't even let me see, we repeat the process.
-
"You have no idea how I have gone about researching Merion's history. As for your methodology, you may want to reconsider considering how badly you guys had botched Merion's history."
Maybe I don't and I'm afraid I really don't want to know when I see the result of the way you've gone about this and what you've produced.
You keep saying that---eg that we've botched Merion's history. Despite the fact we've told you a number of times, which you always ignore, that is not an era of Merion's history Wayne and I ever intended to write about in detail. What we intended to write about was William Flynn, and there's surely a lot more to his life and work than just Merion. We've also told you numerous times Flynn even if perhaps there in that early era (1910-1911) was not significantly enough involved for us to get into.
We've told you this over and over and over again and you simply ignore it each and every time. At this point I really don't care if you do continue to ignore it and if you continue to tell us on this website we botched some history we never intended to write about or really research in detail in the first place.
I'm glad you do continue to do this over and over and over again. Hopefully it will serve to show this website even more clearly just what a defensive and personally consumed charlatan you are.
Frankly, at this point, David Moriarty, I would strongly encourage Tom MacWood to sever any connection he has to you whatsoever, even in perception. Both of you are so blatantly trying to promote yourselves as what you refer to as "expert reseachers" but at least he's worth something on here that way and to architectural research. You have pretty much proven, at this point, you are basically worth less than nothing that way!
-
"I have said many times that I'd like to revise Part I first, but it seems sort of silly given the hide-the-ball games you guys are playing with the source material.
But now you have made clear that your promised "point-by-point counterpoint" of my essay is not going to happen (gee, I wonder why?) and your promised report to the USGA is not going to happen. In fact, you guys are apparently only doing is a slight revision to your ever growing Merion Chapter to reflect the information and analysis that I brought forward. So I guess I might get around to making some changes in Part I and turning to Part II.
Still seems silly though. I do my rewrite, you guys come forward and nitpick it based on sources you won't even let me see, we repeat the process."
David Moriarty, aren't you ever going to get it?
This is just not always about you, even if you just never cease with trying to make it seem like it is. Merion and others interested in this subject have read your essay and they've all considered it and what it means. It doesn't do anything at all for anyone I've spoken to about it from the club or otherwise who matters. It's just basically a flop pal, why don't you just get real and either just go away on this subject or get onto to something else about architecture with which you can learn from the mistakes you made trying to do this thing.
We all totally realize you will never admit how we've shown specifically how your points and premises just don't make any logical sense. Unfortunately for you, I guess, most everyone else seems to understand that or accept it but you. They also see the way you've tried to keep all this going for months---it's not me, it's you and now all you do is attack us. We didn't research for you and we sure didn't help you write what you did. That's your work, your product and I can understand that it has to be hard for you to face up to this, I really can but what are you going to do?
It's time to drop all this. There's no need for you to rewrite your first part or do a second part. The history of Merion is clear and its supportable as well as their relationship with Macdonald and Whigam back then and their non-relationship with H.H. Barker.
We told you all along and many times that the way Merion's history and record treats C.B. and Whigam is accurate. Those people who recorded that Merion record were there throughout, they all saw it and lived it in detail and despite both yours and MacWood's preposterous contentions to the contrary they did not lie about what they did or Macdonald did or didn't do. It's all right there in its raw state.
If you want it or want to analyze it in real detail do not brow beat me and Wayne Morrison any longer about withholding anything from you. We are not doing that and we never did. If you want the kind of access to that club or any other that we may've had and enjoy then I guess you pretty much better learn how to do what we've been able to do over the years, maybe ten for Wayne and maybe thirty plus for me.
Honest to God, this is really getting old and it's become tiring. Let it go and we sure will. Are you OK with that? Just let it go. Get onto to something else. I proposed a great subject for you to get involved in next but you weren't interested. That's too bad. You should reconsider what I said and recommended. Macdonald is obviously your man but you're going to need to get a whole lot more objective about him and a whole lot less defensive towards some people about him first.
-
Wayne Morrison,
You have a lot of nerve lecturing Tom MacWood on privacy concerns and on coming forward with information unrelated to the topic at hand.
-- Have you forgotten your repeated attempts at sullying MacWood's reputation with your vague and unsupported third-hand rumors about some supposed indiscretion at some private club or another?
I've tried to ignore you. But since you insist on telling lies and distort facts, I am once again forced to respond. Ask Tom MacWood about the way he introduced himself at Garden City and the embarrassment he caused the member who attempted to help him.. After that, shut up.
-- Have you forgotten that you once did your best to spread laughably false and third hand rumors about my supposed snail's pace of play?
I did not try my best. I made one side remark about it. You are a liar and when you don't lie, you distort. The same gentleman confirms that story to this day. Why should he make it up?
What does it say about a man when he has more concern for the long dead than he does the living?
You merit no respect or concern.
"Tom MacWood,
Please explain the importance of knowing that Crump shot himself? How does this fact increase our knowledge of the golf course architecture? We know that Crump's death impacted the development of the course, delaying it for several years and shifting some of the design work to the Wilsons, Alison, Maxwell, Flynn and others. But how does the uncovering of the truth about his death increase our knowledge of anything other than the final detail about Crump himself?
Some people want to know every detail that can be determined about the life and death of an individual. Others respect the privacy of individuals. Important historical figures (presidents, generals, etc) deserve more scrutiny than golf architects. Where one falls on this continuum says as much about themselves as it does about the individuals they study. Crump was not a public figure. He was developing a golf course for his friends and the Philadelphia district. As I see it, the details of his death are not important to the final story. His death was a factor. But I prefer to let the dead lie in peace. The circumstances of his death are not fully understood. Why he committed suicide will never be revealed. So what exactly is the point, except to bring attention to the man who dug up the superficial circumstances?"
Yet another shining example of why the USGA should have absolutely nothing to do with a guy like Wayne Morrison when it comes to building its archives: Wayne Morrison has decided Crump's suicide is "not important to the final story," therefore the information should have been concealed. Wayne and Tom Paul, you do realize that the roles of Censor and Archivist are in opposition, do you not?
Good thing the USGA and all other reasonably thinking entities and individuals give you no consideration whatsoever. You merit none. You distort and twist my words and finger me as a censor. I gave my opinion. Not an official one in any capacity, but a simple opinion. You have no idea what you are talking about and it is consistently evident to everyone but you and your Ohio mentor.
Wayne, I am fascinated at your willingness to so flippantly decide what is part of the story and what isn't.
I would think with your simple mind that everything fascinates you.
-Is this the real reason you let the Barker routing slip your mind?
No. He was not hired to do anything by the Club. He worked for the development company that sold the land to the Club. Perhaps if I was concentrating on the move from Haverford to Ardmore, I would have mentioned it. It now has a place in the Flynn book. However, unlike your essay, I got the story right.
-Is this the real reason you have longe misrepresented the identity of the real draftsman of some of the Flynn drawings?
A lie. You have no idea what I've represented or misrepresented because you have not seen the Flynn book manuscript. Just because I don't put something on GCA doesn't mean it isn't recorded. Don't be so stupid all the time, it is wearisome.
-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?
I didn't conceal anything. You and MacWood think because you are not aware of something that it has been concealed. Plenty of people, all more competent than you have seen the results of our research efforts. Why should we share anything with you? You are insignificant and have proved time and time again incapable of interpreting raw data and limited data at that.
-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the portion of the Alan Wilson report which credited C.B. Macdonald?
See immediately above.
-Is it the real reason you (reportedly) left references to Macdonald and Whigham's role at Merion out of the early drafts of the long awaited Flynn Puff Piece?
You are an asshole. If you have seen the Flynn book, the person that showed it to you broke his confidentiality agreement. If you haven't seen the Flynn book manuscript, then you don't know what you're talking about. That never stopped you before so why should I expect it to be different now?
-Is it the real reason you never bothered to take a closer look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?
You have no idea what you're talking about. I used the Sayres Scrapbooks for the book I was writing...about William Flynn. The contents of the scrapbooks I was interested in dealt with Flynn's efforts at Merion, not before. The only reason I got involved in studying the earliest history of the move from Haverford to Ardmore was to verify your essay. You cannot accept that this investigation proved your speculative essay false. When you finally consider the MCC board minutes, you will realize your faulty process was bound to create such a error filled mess. Ran will certainly see his endorsement as premature and unfounded.
-Is it the reason you knowingly misrepresented M&W's role at Merion, trying to reduce them to glorified travel agents?
I never said that. You misrepresent my position and just about everything else you present.
-Is it the real reason you sat silently while TEPaul lied about Merion purchasing the property in 1909?
He made a mistake and admits it. You won't let it go. You have nothing but the flotsam of your scuttled essay to cling to.
You decided that all of the above was "unimportant to the story," and therefore should be concealed. Astonishing.
It is not astonishing that you lie and twist the facts in your absurd statement that has no bearing at all on reality.
I guess that is also the reason you and TEPaul are now cherry-picking the information from MCC. You decide what is "important to the story," on the one hand, and what should be concealed, on the other.
I am sure it comes as no surprise that you are wrong in this regard as well. If yours was a random process, you'd have better results than you do. Yours is a systematic fault. You need help. A great deal of it.
-
Wayne
How did I introduce myself at GCGC?
-
"-Is it the real reason you and TEPaul long concealed the 1912 letter to Oakley which provided the real date of Wilson's trip abroad?"
David:
My God man, at least do something positive for yourself where you really do deserve it! ;)
Have you become so outraged and blind with your vindictiveness towards some of us that you've actually forgotten you were indirectly responsible for that letter to Oakley that provided the real date of Wilson's 1912 trip abroad?
Wayne and I never had that letter all these years from the so-called Wilsons to Piper and Oakley agronomy files at the USGA.
Because I began to doubt that Hugh Wilson ever did go abroad in 1910 because of your manifest research and your essay in April or so I actually took a day and drove to the USGA and spent most of the day trying to do a time-line on Wilson's wherebabouts in 1911 and 1912. And it worked, as it essentially proved Wilson had no time to take a trip abroad in 1911 as he keep writing letters so often through that entire year from Philadelphia to Oakley (Piper had not yet come on the scene at that point).
I kept on going into 1912 and there I found that early May 1912 letter from Richard Francis to Oakley explaining he was fielding Wilson's coorespondence to Oakley while Wilson took 'a hurried trip abroad.'
There was a letter from Wilson to Oakley written on March 1, 1912 and we know Wilson returned from France to America on May 1, 1912 thanks to your ship manifest research. That only left a window of two months maximum (several months not seven months) and it looks more like that trip was no more than 4-5 weeks, if that even with transatlantic travel time, given the nature of the time differential in that correspondence.
We never withheld that letter to Oakley from you. We never had it in the first place. When we made our copies of our so-called "Agronomy letters" about five years ago we only read through all the letters in those files for the ones that mentioned William Flynn. That was probably no more than 15 percent of the total app 1,500 letters.
Here you are accusing us of withholding something from you when in fact your own research actually got me to go up there and corroborate the validity of perhaps the only thing of substance you ever have proven on Merion's history----eg that Wilson's trip was in 1912 and there may not have been one in 1910.
By the way, those facts really will become a revision to Merion's history and if you want the textual credit in the archives for it I'm sure we'll be glad to give it to you. The interesting point, though, is that never was a misinterpretaton back then (the 1910 trip). That does not seem to have appeared in the record for up to a half century later.
Jeeesus, do not get so consumed in your vindictiveness towards us that you actually forget that you got me to do something which served to corroborate your one and only real and bone fide point and discovovery to do with Merion's history.
How in the hell bizarre is this on-going dispute going to get anyway? That remark of yours about us withholding that letter from you really is bizarre. The next day I put it on this website. I don't think you even mentioned it or thanked me for it. You just continued to challenge us.
Really incredible. REALLY incredible!!
-
"Wayne
How did I introduce myself at GCGC?"
Tom:
Just forget about it. It's not the kind of thing this website needs to hear. But GCGC was not the only one. My advice to you would be when you go to these clubs maybe you might consider that the people who arrange it for you are doing you a favor. Maybe you think you're doing them and their club a favor because they should know you think you're some kind of "expert" researcher ;) who's about the only person out there that's capable of setting their architectural record and history straight.
You know pal, it kinda, sorta, doesn't exactly work that way. Believe me guys like me and Wayne who do this stuff all the time know that. My advice to you is when you plan these study trips of yours or whatever they are just get on the schedule of your host or try to act like you are rather than asking them to get on yours. And when you've got that schedule set don't even think about just showing up on another day and expect that nobody cares. They do care. This just must be part and parcel of the fact you have just about zero understanding of clubs from a membership perspective. Believe me that shows loud and clear on most everything you say on this website. You actually act like you don't even care what the hell a membership thinks about their own architecture and that you might even need to protect it from them. It's beyond belief in my opinion, and it's always been that way with you on here.
Thank God you aren't still so obtuse you call yourself the one and only defender of the Old Dead Guys on here anymore as you used to. That stuff is still in the back pages of this website! ;)
-
"When you finally consider the MCC board minutes, you will realize your faulty process was bound to create such a error filled mess. Ran will certainly see his endorsement as premature and unfounded."
Wayno:
Ran sure might but don't you think you're being a bit overly optimisitic that David Moriarty or Tom MacWood ever would? We could probably show them a series of hole designs and a Merion East course design plan with a 1911 date on it with Hugh Wilson's signature that completely matches the way the course was originally built and I have no doubt those two would try to find some way to dismiss it or discount it as hyperbole or some exaggeration to keep their Merion history revision charade going.
-
TE
That is outrageous....he showed up on the wrong day. Who was that?
I had wonderful day at GCGC, the only downer was that Pat couldn't make it. In fact of all the clubs I visited on my tour the GCGC folks (members and professional) were the most hospitable and generous. Inviting me to have lunch after my tour around; we had a very spirited discusion about the history of the course. The highlight for me was the head pro (Gil) getting up from lunch periodically running into the clubhouse, to bring out old photos of the course that were hanging inside. You should have been there, you might have learned something.
-
"TE
That is outrageous....he showed up on the wrong day. Who was that?"
You got me, it must have been somebody else, right? ???
"You should have been there, you might have learned something."
You really don't need to worry about me and GCGC Tom. Maybe you were there for a couple of hours or whatever and I'm glad you had such a great time. I grew up about twenty miles from the course, I've been there plenty, I know Patrick real well and it's pretty hard to find someone who knows more about the history of that architecture even if you might think you do after a few hours. They showed you some photos too? Wow, isn't that something. And you actually had lunch there? That's incredible. It's pretty hard to not get to know the entire history of a course if you actually eat lunch there I guess!
Get to know Mel Lucas and you might really learn something about GCGC.
We had the Lesley Cup there in 2005 to go back there for the 100th anniversary of the Cup that began play there in 1905. I don't think you need to concern yourself with what I know or don't know about the place. But if you think you have it all figured out after a few hours, hey, isn't that wonderful even if it was on the wrong day or whatever.
But if you're so oblivious you didn't even realize that I guess that's cool too. What the hell, if you're really having fun what difference does a day make? ;)
-
Wayne,
I stand by everything I said in the post above. It is accurate as far as I know, and you have written nothing that changes any of it. All of the listed misrepresentations and omissions were made on the website. I havent seen your book. You posted about leaving important M&W material out of early version. The misrepresentions regarding the sketches? The website. It is all from the website.
As for the gossip you have spread about Tom MacWood, you miss the point entirely. I don't give a damn what you think happened at Garden City. It is none of my business and none of your business. Besides, you weren't even there. But most importantly, using this type of gossip to try and trash someone's reputation on this website is beyond low, it is downright despicable. You can't win an argument on the merits so you try to trash the guys reputation on a public website? What kind of a man are you?
Same goes for the garbage you spread about my supposed snail's pace of play and my clogging up the course all day. What kind of a man spreads nasty rumors about someone just because of some unrelated disagreement? And you readily admit trying to trash my reputation, but call me a liar because I understate how hard you worked at trashing my reputation? Classy.
As for the "gentleman" who supposedly stands by the story, I'd be glad to politely discuss it with him. But given that he is yet another of your mystery sources, I don't have that opportunity, do I? Wayne Morrison making a claim he is unwilling to back up? Gee, what a surprise.
Not that it is any of your business, but anyone who has walked with me regularly on any golf course would find your gossip about my snail's pace of play absolutely preposterous. I may not be good, but I am by no means slow. And I would just as soon pick up my ball on every hole before I would clog up a course at which I was a guest. For you to claim otherwise based on third-hand gossip is absolutely outrageous.
_________________
But you pretty much said it all when you justify spreading false and malicious gossip about me and MacWood based on your conclusion that we do not deserve your respect or concern: "You merit no respect or concern."
So your personal code of behavior is admittedly subjective and circumstantial, and therefore entirely hypocritical. I guess that explains why many still think so highly of you. They just haven't had occasion to disagree with you yet.
___________________________________
TEPaul, As much has you wrote about that correspondence over the years, and you hadn't bothered to read it? I told you guys long ago that you could figure out Wilson's whereabouts by those letters. If you waited until the eve of my essay to even look at them then my comments about your mishandling of the source material applies still. What kind of an expert has this info and doesn't bother to look at it?
As for your going into this gossipy garbage about MacWood, see my comments above.
-
Wrong again, Moriarty.
As for my comment "you merit no respect and concern," that was directed at you alone. Why did you falsely include Tom MacWood in that characterization? I know it is convenient and compelling, but it simply isn't true. You lie, twist and scheme. Your posts are replete with examples such as this. Your sense of reality is alarmingly distorted. I have a pretty high regard for Tom MacWood on most matters. I have none for you.
-
Wrong again, Moriarty.
As for my comment "you merit no respect and concern," that was directed at you alone. Why did you falsely include Tom MacWood in that characterization? I know it is convenient and compelling, but it simply isn't true. You lie, twist and scheme. Your posts are replete with examples such as this. Your sense of reality is alarmingly distorted. I have a pretty high regard for Tom MacWood on most matters. I have none for you.
Wayne,
You have a very odd notion of what constitutes a "lie" and have always been played pretty fast and loose with the term. Remember when you called me a liar for correctly pointing out to you that the early measure of the 10th hole at Merion was exaggerated by 20 or 30 yards? I thought that was bizarre at the time, but now I realize that you throw the word around so much that I am starting to wonder whether you even grasp the concept. For example, here you say that I "lie, twist and scheme" but in looking back at the quote, the more reasonable explanation is that you are not very careful with your use of the word "you" which can be second person singular or plural.
But never mind. You again entirely missed the point which is the same whether you were referring to me, Wayne, or both of us.
But I must ask, if you have such a high regard for Tom MacWood then why would you stoop to trying to malign his reputation and character by passing on petty second hand gossip about him?
-
"TEPaul, As much has you wrote about that correspondence over the years, and you hadn't bothered to read it? I told you guys long ago that you could figure out Wilson's whereabouts by those letters. If you waited until the eve of my essay to even look at them then my comments about your mishandling of the source material applies still. What kind of an expert has this info and doesn't bother to look at it?"
For the record, Wayne and my collection of the so-called "Wilson/Piper/Oakley Agronomy Letters" that spanned from 1911 until 1925 (for Hugh Wilson) and beyond for Alan Wilson, the above statement is not correct at all.
Wayne and I went through the entire collection of those Wilsons to Piper and Oakley letters about five years ago scanning through about 2,000 letters during an entire day. The only ones we copied at the Green Section of the USGA in Far Hills were the ones pertaining to William Flynn since he was all we were researching and writing about then. I would estimate that we copied about 15% of the total of approximately 2,000 letters.
This year, probably in May, during the early discussions of Merion and Wilson and MacDonald/Whigam involving this essay of Mr. Moriarty's entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" I went back to the USGA at Far Hills and went through ALL the agronomy letters from the years 1911 and 1912. I did this to try to create a time line on Hugh Wilson's whereabouts in the years 1911 and 1912. That is when I found the letter from the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association's Richard Francis (one of the members of Hugh Wilson's committee that designed and built Merion East) dated in late March or early April to the US Dept of Agriculture's Russell Oakley explaining to Oakley that Hugh Wilson had taken "a hurried trip abroad'. At that point Hugh Wilson had a correspondence of approximately 150 letters with Oakley.
This letter went beyond the ship manifest that Mr Moriarty found for a Wilson trip abroad in 1912 and this letter corroborated that ship manifest listing of a Hugh Wilson and proved Merion's Hugh Wilson was indeed abroad at that time.
Neither Wayne nor I had that particular letter in our possession in the previous five years so it wasn't a matter of not reading it, we did not have it. I also found a 1912 letter in those files from C.B. Macdonald to Hugh Wilson discussing fertilizer application on putting greens. As far as we can tell that was the only other known collaboration (1912) between Macdonald and Merion following his second and last visit to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 which is confirmed by MCC board meeting minutes.
Again, the above statement is incorrect. It is not that we did not read a letter we had for some years, it was simply that we never had it until the discussion on Merion began around April of this year.
-
As I said . . . as much has you pontificated about that correspondence over the years, you hadn't bothered to read it? I told you guys long ago that you could figure out Wilson's whereabouts by those letters. If you waited until the eve of my essay to look closely at them then my comments about your mishandling of the source material apply doubly. You knew what a terrific source they were, yet you never bothered to give it a close look? Unbelievable
And while you are backtracking, perhaps you two can explain why the Sayres Scrapbook pages dealing with Merion East's creation sat for five years untouched, right under your noses?
TEPaul didn't you write something for the GAP and for the USGA on Merion? And didn't Wayne write something like 140 pages on Merion in his Tome, including coverage of the origins of the East Course? And you referenced a 80 page document that Wayne had written for the USGA on early Merion didn't you? Ever think research might have helped?
I know. I know. You guys only cared about Flynn. But if this is the case, then why have you been pretending to be experts on early Merion for the past decade? And the book covers the origins of the course, doesn't it? You included it the book but didn't bother to research it? Yikes.
Look guys, it was never my intention to rub your noses in your the past piles of [Merion research and analysis.] I tried to let bygones be and work with Wayne to put the final few pieces in place. But now, given your continued unsubstantiated attacks on my research and analysis, I think it is important that we establish a clear baseline, for the sake of comparison. And you guys were the self proclaimed experts, so you are it.
I will gladly compare my methodology, research, and analysis a with anything you two have ever written, or with any other scholarship on the origins of Merion East. This includes your super secret report, which must be largely derivative else almost entirely erroneous.
-
David,
For gods sake man, please step away from the computer.
Your last post was the most self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, and self-delusional thing I've ever seen written here.
What the hell exactly do you think you've contributed or proved with your paper? And, humorously enough, you claim you wrote it "for the good of golf".
Man, don't you have young kids or something you should be playing with?
I think everyone should drop this crap, and I've tried to lighten the tone here hoping that some others would realize that the 5 minutes HH Barker spent on looking at the property and the 2 days CB Macdonald spent with the Merion Committee are but about .00001% of the collective time and credit and argumentative nonsense that we've all been engaged in for the past six months, but if you can't realize that even those guys would be laughing at us by now you need some serious help.
-
Mike,
I am not the least bit upset, and my family is fast asleep. In fact it is kind of liberating to actually speaking my mind about these two.
These guys want to continue to rip my research and analysis without substantiation, then we should establish a baseline for comparison's sake. Their past work on Merion may be a very low baseline, but it is all we got.
And Mike, do me a favor and do not talk about my private life on this website. It's really none of your business. Thanks.
-
The subject of this thread is: "Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick."
Having just done 37 straight hours of "independent" and deep expert research I believe I have conclusively determined what it was that made Herbert Leeds tick. It was a rather large KEY that his friend Parker inserted into a keyhole located just above Herb's tailbone and with which he wound Herb up. A "Full-Wind" apparently kept Herbert Carey Leeds whirling and ticking for up to eight straight days.
By the way, the Leed's "Key" was found last week while I was there in a dusty old wooden box in the eaves of Myopia's old Court Tennis Court (that is now used as part of the maintenance facility). In the same box we also discovered a lock of hair that was labeled as belonging to Georgina Campbell, Willie Campbell's fascinating wife. It may take up to a week for me to determine what this means regarding the architecture of Myopia Hunt Club.
I am not sure yet but I suspect Georgina Campbell's roll and significance in the history of American golf AND ARCHITECTURE has been both misunderstood and seriously minimized. I mean to do something to rehabilitate her reputation and make this wrong right after all these years.
You all can expect a really in-depth and independently researched "In My Opinion" piece on this website on this matter shortly. I'm considering titling it "The Missing Key and Lock of Hair of Myopia."