Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom MacWood on September 15, 2010, 10:53:11 PM
-
Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?
-
Perhaps, in all that you've read, you could offer something that might indicate Tilly wasn't the primary architect of Shawnee.
-
I don't think there is any doubt he was the primary builder.
-
Tom,
Tilly is the sole designer of both the original Shawnee CC which opened in May of 1911 and the redesigned and re-routed course which was finished in 1913 and the sole designer of numerous improvements and redesigns all the way through the 1930s.
For someone who claims to have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" you seem to have missed all of the articles where TILLY HIMSELF stated that "I" not "WE" not "Myself & Worthington" but ALWAYS "I" designed, laid out, built and a number of other different ways to say that HE WAS THE SOLE DESIGNER.
Now if YOU have any proof otherwise show it and call the man himself a LIAR because THAT is what you are saying. You are saying that each and every time that Tilly took SOLO credit for designing Shawnee that he was LYING.
That is a hell of a claim for one who, despite his own claim to have "read quite a bit on the subject" has NEVER GONE TO SHAWNEE or even ASKED THEM for access to their records so that he could make a TRUE research effort.
You know that I have been hired by Shawnee to write a 100-year anniversary book about the history of the INN, the Golf Course and the impact of it on the entire region.
You know that I have been given complete, total, unfettered and unrestricted access to EVERYTHING in their records and files and have even personally visited and gone through EVERY SINGLE page, document, photograph pertaining to Shawnee, Tillinghast, Worthington and the Worthington businesses in the archive at the Monroe County Historical Society where they are kept.
YOU know that I have interviewed the current owners and the entire family involved and all the employees available. I have also interviewed Fred Warings (Shawnee's past owner and the man who purchased it from the Worthington's) daughter and son. What you don't know is that I have also visited and examined the documents in the Fred Waring archives at Penn State University where all of his archives from Shawnee are kept. I have interviewed his personal secretary who worked with him for nearly 40 yeas.
In EVERYTHING that I have seen there is not a single shred of evidence that CC Worthington who YOU described as being "highly Experienced" in golf course architecture, design and building and therefor MUST have been involved in the design on the other thread, or ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN TILLY was involved in the design, layout and construction oversight of Shawnee.
You know you were asked to produce the proof of this on the other thread and you DIDN'T! This is a charade for other purposes and you know it.
You DEMANDED on the other thread that I produce documents and proofs beyond what Tilly himself wrote that are part of the Shawnee records. I REFUSED to do so as they have been given to me for confidential research purposes and I do NOT have their permission to publish anything until AFTER the book is released next year and then only after they give me permission to do so.
You are simply too arrogant to accept that the owners of a Golf Club, property, etc... might simply believe that their PRIVATE documents are just that... PRIVATE and should be left that way.
I have twice now suggested that you call Shawnee and speak with Rob Howell the general manager and ask him for permission to research. It is his to grant and I've never said anything to him about you in this or any other regard so don't think for a moment that I have any desire to prevent it.
You claim to be a seeker of "truth" but you offer nothing more than that you have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" as PROOF and in doing so call a man a liar.
This is absurd in the extreme and I will have nothing to say or do with this thread ...
-
Phil,
Wasn't CC involved with the facilities aspect, the Inn, and not the golf course ?
-
Having read anything that Tilly wrote out there myself and being friends of the current ownership since I worked down the street at Great Bear G & CC I felt this was absurd as well. So I ask the same thing..the question isn't to give proof of Tillys solo involvement, it's to give one single shrewd of evidence that anyone else was involved. Which I highly doubt can be done.
-
"Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"
Tom MacWood:
That's just another good example of your gratuitous bullshit on this website. Do not include my name on the subject of Shawnee. I've never been there and I know very little about the details of the golf course and its architectural history.
All I ever said on this subject is I think it is so typical of you when you responded to Phil's remark about Tillinghast being inexperienced when he did Shawnee by saying that CC Worthington was experienced. Phil wasn't talking about Worthington, he was talking about Tillinghast. It appears you are now trying to suggest that Worthington designed the golf course and not Tillinghast.
Eric Pevoto asked you a very simple and straightforward question and as is so usual with you on here you neglected to answer it. Why is that? This is the reason everyone on here seems to think trying to discuss anything with you is futile.
Phil Young:
Apparently you are now beginning to personally experience what it is really like trying to deal with Moriarty and MacWood on the subject of Merion!! MacWood's MO on this subject is exactly the same as the two of them on the subject of Merion. And with MacWood the same was true with Myopia and North Shore and a number of others on this website.
What I've always had such a hard time understanding is why it took some on this website so long to recognize his ridiculous MO on here and start to really say something about it. Better late than never, I guess, but in my opinion some of you were definitely not too quick on the uptake! ;)
-
Eric,
You obviously haven't been following along here, as that is not the way this game works! TMac provides things from time to time from his collection, but more often, he doesn't, while whining when others don't provide him to access to their stuff.
TMac,
Some have complained about your various lists being too long. I have an idea for a shorter list you could provide - how about a list of courses from the pre-Golden Age that you believe are correctly attributed as to design!
Seriously, I certainly understand the desire to drill down and know just how things happened in those days, like how much Owners influenced the design, how the process differed from today when the whole notion of designing courses in America was still being formed, etc. It is quite possible that in a complicated process, there are usually some unsung heros who should get more credit than perhaps previously given, either for an individual feature, or for inspiration, etc. As an example, the guys who built MacKenzie's bunkers obviously helped create his legend, but he is still the gca of record. A few years ago, though, one of his bunker builders got in the CA Golf Hall of Fame, so more recognition of all involved is certainly the trend.
I am just not sure we will ever know from records provided and the best we can hope for is nuggets of deeper info, and not revelations that the attribution should be changed. I presume people in those days were probably 99% correct in their recordings of what happened. If they wanted to credit Tillie for Shawnee, there is probably a good reason for it, even if others made contributions of some kind.
I may not be clear in my thoughts, but I wonder if a thread title that simplfies in black and white a question about design attribution, for a thread that is really trying to find out deeper, more complex roles and attributions is simply not one that can't help but start an argument, whether intentionally or not?
-
Thank you Shivas!
-
I just do not understand the point of starting a thread like this. For any project, there is more than one person involved in bringing it to fruition. You could start a similar thread about any course I have worked on -- even High Pointe, where I built all 18 greens myself -- and find other people such as Tom Mead who was the construction superintendent, or Gil Hanse who was a summer intern, or Ken Anderson who ran a bulldozer there some of the time, or even my brother who helped out for the summer, and claim that their role was much more significant than they've been given credit for. But surely, I am the real designer of High Pointe, as much as any other architect was on any of their projects, and probably more than most.
You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. ;)
-
Tom,
I use your Stonewall (old) as the poster child for this type of question. Surely, Stonewall is not a Fazio design, yet some of the routing may have been inherited from him. Nobody would ever suggest Stonewall (old) was co-designed by Fazio (well, maybe Tom MacWood's unborn great grandchildren will in 2065 :) )
-
Shivas, TomM is of course not calling anyone a liar, and particularly not AWT. Reasonable minds can disagree on interpretations of various documents, and like the rest of us Phil has proven to be far from infallible when it comes to fully understanding what happened a century ago.
I don't understand why Phil refuses to actually set out and explain the facts supporting his conclusion rather than repeatedly stating his conclusion and lecturing us on what he considers his own expertise on the subject. Having documents is not nearly as important as understanding them. As Tom Doak said it is always more complicated than just saying that one person did absolutely everything yet that seems to be what Phil is saying. In this regard, I'd also like to see TomMac set out and explain the facts he is relying on to reach his conclusion as well, because I don't understand the basis for his conclusion either.
But it is absolute nonsense for Phil to accuse TomM of calling AWT or anyone else a liar just because they have different interpretations of what happened. And you know better than to play along. For example, Phil's version of what happened with the Amateur issue is very different than my understanding of what happened. Am I calling him a liar for pointing out where we disagree? Of course not.
_________________________________
Tom Doak,
I think I understand what you are saying, but to me you make a very good case for threads addressing these issues. There is often more to the story than is commonly known and while I agree that we shouldn't pretend anyone's role is more significant than the person has been given credit for, we also shouldn't pretend that the person who gets all the credit was a complete one man show either. That is part of why I think these arguments over who gets credit are largely political and pointless rather than historical and productive. It is much more productive to try and tell the whole story than posture to protect or disparage anyone involved.
So to the extent that this thread is just too guys posturing, I agree that the thread is pointless. Phil's posturing about his level of expertise get us no closer to knowing the whole story. Nor does TomMac's challenging that expertise. Both should make their case, but with facts and analysis, not posturing or emotional accusations. If they'd come forward and actually discuss what happened at Shawnee, it could be pretty interesting thread.
Plus, I can't figure out why Phil wouldn't welcome an opportunity to have his conclusions on Shawnee challenged. I would think he would want to be sure he has it right, rather than just lecturing us on his perception of the level of his own expertise.
____________________________
Dan Herrman, if some of the routing was inherited from Fazio then that is an important part of the that course's history and lineage, so I hope that even in 2069 anyone truly interested in Stonewall's history would be interested in bringing that information forward, rather than becoming indignant at the very thought anyone other than Doak might have some responsibility for some aspect of the course -- whether it be good or bad. Hopefully there is a record of what was left over and what was changed, so they won't have to argue about it decades later.
-
Tom,
Tilly is the sole designer of both the original Shawnee CC which opened in May of 1911 and the redesigned and re-routed course which was finished in 1913 and the sole designer of numerous improvements and redesigns all the way through the 1930s.
For someone who claims to have "read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that" you seem to have missed all of the articles where TILLY HIMSELF stated that "I" not "WE" not "Myself & Worthington" but ALWAYS "I" designed, laid out, built and a number of other different ways to say that HE WAS THE SOLE DESIGNER.
Phil-the-author
Which specific articles are you referring to?
-
Moriarty if this threads intent was to discover who may have been on site assisting the design, routing, construction and grow-in then fine I'd agree with you. But as I read the title and the first post I interpreted it as another Merion thread with questioning if Tilly was even the true designer. It struck me as Macwood wanting to be provocative and stir the pot. Not to initiate discussion as to who else was on site and who did what. If what is being insinuated is true then let's stop talking and actually throw some hard evidence on the table to prove so. If Macwood or yourself don't do so then you're wasting everyones time.
-
I just do not understand the point of starting a thread like this. For any project, there is more than one person involved in bringing it to fruition. You could start a similar thread about any course I have worked on -- even High Pointe, where I built all 18 greens myself -- and find other people such as Tom Mead who was the construction superintendent, or Gil Hanse who was a summer intern, or Ken Anderson who ran a bulldozer there some of the time, or even my brother who helped out for the summer, and claim that their role was much more significant than they've been given credit for. But surely, I am the real designer of High Pointe, as much as any other architect was on any of their projects, and probably more than most.
You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. ;)
TD
I could care less who designed High Pointe, or any of your courses. If you aren't interested in who did what at Shawnee find another thread.
-
another one of these "who designed course X threads" that suggest that the architect of record is not the one, without offering any proof that he wasnt?
I hope Ran starts deleting these
-
Jeff, TomD, Dan, Ian, Shivas et al;
This kind of thread by Tom MacWood goes back a long, long way-----as far as I can see when he began a thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" That one is in the back pages somewhere and it's the very same MO as this one.
That one was started in Feb. 2003---SEVEN and a HALF years ago---and I firmly believe it began this entire ongoing adverserial contention about the architectural history of Merion East and the endless contention on his part and Moriarty's that Wilson was not as responsible for the architecture of that course as the club has always given him credit for and that their history book is essentially a work of fiction and their historian is 'the poster boy of unethical archivists.'
From that one all these others by MacWood have kept this MO going---eg Pine Valley, Myopia, North Shore, Shawnee etc, etc, etc!
The demands are always the same too---neither of these guys answers anyone's questions honestly and they demand that others prove their negative scenarios false while all the time demanding that others with access to these clubs turn over all their research even though these two have never even bothered to go to any of these clubs to do their own research!
At this point, I'm delighted to see that practically everyone involved in any of these threads has finally seen through their charade and begun to call them out on it.
-
Shivas, TomM is of course not calling anyone a liar
Yes he is. At a bare minimum, he's calling Phil a liar. He didn't just say it once. He said it twice. Or are you going to give me a what "is is" argument about the difference between bluffing and lying?
Shivas
Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post.
-
another one of these "who designed course X threads" that suggest that the architect of record is not the one, without offering any proof that he wasnt?
I hope Ran starts deleting these
If you aren't interested in history there are plenty of other threads in which can particpate. Questions of attribution have been part of this site from the very beginning, and there have been a number of impressive discoveries made over the years, despite the fact they make you uncomfortable. Golf architecture is a relatively new discipline, and documenting its history is obvioulsy even newer. We have only scratched the surface of documenting golf architecture history so your request should keep Ran very busy.
-
Macwood you started up the thread. You challenged. Put your money where your mouth is and prove him wrong all by yourself with all the content you've extensively dug through. Who cares what he has. You obviously have the holy Grail to Shawnee so let's see it. Phil is not obligated whatsoever to show his cards. And I don't think he's even hiding anything, Tillys story is pretty much all out there. ESPECIALLY with Shawnee. Just put your money where your mouth is for once...
-
David,
If these threads were actually inclusive, as in "who else was involved?", as per your example, I see nothing at all wrong with that, yet Phil had his ass handed to him for daring to ask that question about NGLA.
Instead, however, in virtually every case these threads have taken an exclusionary, adversarial, either/or approach, where the historically acknowledged architect is torn down to make room for the usurper to the throne.
I think more of the former and none of the latter would serve all of our historical knowledge needs very well.
Thanks.
-
"I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be."
Tom MacWood:
If you're going to demand what you have of Phil Young then and some of us on other courses and subjects why don't you produce what you say you have from all your digging? You've been asked this a number of times on here and you just keep avoiding it. With all that is there any reason at all you cannot understand why most all of us think you are hypocritical?
-
Macwood you started up the thread. You challenged. Put your money where your mouth is and prove him wrong all by yourself with all the content you've extensively dug through. Who cares what he has. You obviously have the holy Grail to Shawnee so let's see it. Phil is not obligated whatsoever to show his cards. And I don't think he's even hiding anything, Tillys story is pretty much all out there. ESPECIALLY with Shawnee. Just put your money where your mouth is for once...
Ian
I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, which is why I started this thread. If I knew who designed Shawnee the thread would have a different title. And what is the deal with referring to people by their last name?
-
TMac,
You seemingly have some idea of who did what at Shawnee from your exhaustive reading. I know you would possbily be in for a beat down if you interpreted something in a way someone didn't like, but it would seem sharing your findings in their original form wouldn't be out of line, would it?
Or, was your digging only turning up bones?
-
You could also start a thread titled "Who Was Tom MacWood's Real Father?", but I'm above that. ;)
Really, I would have thought you would have been above saying this, whether it be starting a new thread or dropping it as a suposed afterthought at the end of one of your posts! :o
Chris
-
@Tom MacW
Please respond specifically to post#2 above.
Also, what sources have you visited personally to view documents pertaining to your possible claim of another attribution?
Why don't you just write an "In My Opinion" piece and get this matter where it belongs?
-
Tom Macwood,
If you have NO idea who did what. Then what is your motive or basis for starting the thread. To debunk Tilly as the designer or find out who else did what? And please just answer the simple question...
You state that you did all of this digging. Yet you say you have no idea who did what. And you question Phil with his understanding of Tilly at Shawnee. So your either lying and dug something up to show Tilly wasn't by himself or this is a show of golf architecture dorks whipping their dicks out to see who's is bigger by having unseen documents and bluffing each other. So if you've got nothing and know you can't measure up to Phil just keep your junk in your pants so you don't embarrass yourself in front of us. But if your packing a roll of cookie dough just get on with whipping it out and put Phil to shame. If not why the hell start this thread?
If you just want to know who else was involved on site then don't name a thread "Who designed Shawnee". Because I think we all know you're just trying to challenge Phil into posting all his research that you may want to have yourself because you've hit a dead end and won't go to these clubs yourself to do your own research.
I began my study of golf course architecture after a summer at Ridgewood and obviously started with Tilly. I then moved to Marshalls Creek to work at Great Bear right down the road. I attended the Tilly meetings, played and studied Shawnee ALOT and spent many evenings with the owners families that lived in some of the small houses adjacent to the property. I looked at alot of old original pictures and documents. 9 years later I have nothing to throw into this thread but I will say that if I saw ANY evidence of another person having a big hand in the design of Shawnee I would have immediately made a mental note and want to research it more myself. But there was no evidence of that from what I had access to. So I don't think your conquest of Shawnee is going to turn anything unfound up except the owners contracting Tilly, Tilly designing and constructing it and with a crew under him. So unless you have something saying otherwise this is pointless.
-
Shivas, I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim that TM was calling AWT a liar. As for the rest, TomM answered for himself.
_____________________________________________
Moriarty if this threads intent was to discover who may have been on site assisting the design, routing, construction and grow-in then fine I'd agree with you. But as I read the title and the first post I interpreted it as another Merion thread with questioning if Tilly was even the true designer. It struck me as Macwood wanting to be provocative and stir the pot. Not to initiate discussion as to who else was on site and who did what. If what is being insinuated is true then let's stop talking and actually throw some hard evidence on the table to prove so. If Macwood or yourself don't do so then you're wasting everyones time.
Mr. Larson,
I can't be held responsible for your mistaken interpretations as to the purposes of these thread . As for the Merion threads your barking up the wrong tree. Those weren't my threads. Everything I've done with Merion has been geared toward figuring out what happened.
As for me, I have no idea who did what at Shawnee except to say that AWT certainly seems to have been very involved, and was pumping up the project at about every opportunity. But I don't know if he was working alone or with Worthington or someone else. It was after all CC Worthington's course. I'd like to learn more about the development of the course, so I wish that Phil and TomM would lay their cards on the table.
_____________________________________________
Paul Thomas,
You state that AWT was the architect of record at the time. In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start.
____________________________________________
Mike your post makes no sense. TM is asking "who else was involved." Phil is the one claiming it had to be AWT and no one else, and then refusing to discusss it. Surely that sounds familiar.
As for the National thread, Phil was not asking "who else was involved?" He was propping up your ridiculous notion those early articles should be taken literally, and that therefore Travis and Emmet should get equal credit with NGLA. He claims he was doing so only to point out how we shouldn't misinterpret limited information. In other words, he was making a fool of you and your reliance on those 1906 articles, and using you as an example of shoddy research and bogus conclusions. But as your post here demonstrates it obviously backfired and he definitely did more to muddle NGLA's history than clarify it.
-
TMac,
To answer your original question, Cornish and Whitten credit Tillie in both books. And you know Ron isn't bashful about assigning co credit on Tillie courses, a la Bethpage.
-
After once again having my character attacked by both Tom Macwood and David Moriarity I've decided to give a response.
David, you stated, "But it is absolute nonsense for Phil to accuse TomM of calling AWT or anyone else a liar just because they have different interpretations of what happened."
Don't be absurd, because that is EXACTLY what Tom Macwood did. How do I know, he admits it in this very thread when he states "If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post." Or is there another "bluffing/accusation post" that I am unaware of that he admits making?
Tom Macwood, you stated, "Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all...."
First of all, I DO have the DOCUMENTATION. I am not allowed to share it because it is the private materials of Shawnee and is being used for the book that the OWNER of Shawnee has hired me to write. I am prevented by contract, ethics and honor to publish or divulge anything until AFTER the book comes out. Too bad that you don't like that.
Secondly, you keep stating phrases such as "I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging..."
and "I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"
Then you obviously haven't done either nearly as much as you would lead us to believe, or you research efforts don't include early issues of the American Golfer magazine or you simply don't understand what you are reading. But before I go into that, let's remind everyone the breadth of research that I have done on this subject, 95% of which was done in the last three months:
From Tom Macwood's post #180 on the Top Courses thread. This is where he called me a liar also:
Quote from: Philip Young on September 14, 2010, 09:20:15 PM
You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.
The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.
I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee.
So Tom, now let me answer your question. You asked, "Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"
YES TO ALL THREE!
Articles. How about this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer: Correction, I made a mistake and had it mislabelled. It was from the Philadelphia Evening Telegraph.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly1.jpg)
Well how can we trust someone like Alex Findlay? How could he know anything?
What about A.W. Tillinghast Himself? You obviously must have missed this one in your incredible great amount of reading and research on the subject. It's from his advertising booklet "Planning A Golf Course" But then this is one of those pesky "other sources" and you probably never thought to look for something like this. After all the entire document, which is a scanned copy of one of four known copies to exist can be found on the Tillinghast Association website as part of the Shawnee information. But why would a researcher one want to waste his time looking there?:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly4.jpg)
I can understand that you won't accept that. After all the person who scanned that image is the person you have several times accused of being a liar, so he probably just photo shopped it in.
Also, it was written five years after the fact, so maybe it isn't an altered document. Tilly must not have been able to remember properly after all that time. How about this one that TILLY HIMSELF wrote for the American Golfer in December 1912:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly6.jpg)
Yeah but that's still a year and a half after it opened. I know, how about this advertising brochure that TILLY wrote for the club and was published the MONTH BEFORE it was opened:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly2.jpg)
Then we have this corroboration from the American Golfer from November 1910:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly3AG111910.jpg)
And another cute story from the spring of 1911 from the American Golfer:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Tilly5.jpg)
So Tom, it appears you missed some quite definitive articles and other sources on this. There are plenty more where these came from. Go look them up yourself.
You owe me an apology...
Davaid, back to you... you stated, and I'm writing this inresponse to what you posted after I put this up, You state, "that AWT was the architect of record at the time. In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start."
If you've gotten this far in reading my response you'll see a number of "records of the time" that were quoted from.
-
TMac,
To answer your original question, Cornish and Whitten credit Tillie in both books. And you know Ron isn't bashful about assigning co credit on Tillie courses, a la Bethpage.
thanks Jeff - I dont keep my copy of the C/W book in the office..
-
David,
Only you could twist what I wrote in such a bizarre way. You are truly amazing.
I'm at a loss as well to understand your reading of Phil's point on the NGLA thread.
I would ask you to point out one erroneous fact in that article at the time it was written, but I'm sure we won't agree so don't waste our respective time.
If you think Phil was trying to make a fool of me in that thread you really are an odd duck.
-
David,
Mike speaks from DIRECT knowledge as I emailed him as to what i was interested in discussing and that it was in no way an attack, even an implied one, upon him. he could have mentioned that little point but chose not to.
-
Phil,
I haven't read your post above. I wanted to get this posted before I lose it.
_______________________________________________________
Mike, I have told you repeatedly and for years now the inaccuracies in those 1906 NGLA articles, you just ignore them and continue on your merry way. Whether Phil intended it or not his NGLA thread was aimed squarely at you, as you were the only one who was trying to use the NGLA articles as if they were completely reliable. Those that understand what happened at NGLA knew better.
_______________________________________________________________________
As for the substance of what happened at Shawnee, here are some early accounts of Shawnee, mostly by "Hazard" in AG. Hazard is considered to be Tillinghast. I apologize for any duplications of what Phil produced above. The diagram Phil posted is the same one as in the Dec. 1912 AG article, and goes with the two photos from the Jan 1913 article as well.
- Note that a few time starting in 1912, "Hazard" calls Tillinghast the "architect" of the course.
- Some may find it interesting that the mentions come pretty regularly through May 1911. In June 1911 "Far and Sure" replaced Hazard for a while with the Eastern PA column. Mentions begin again when Hazard again starts in on the column later in 1912.
August 1910.
The work on the eighteen-hole course at Shawnee-on-Delaware is progressing most favorably. The greens, which were made in April, have already been subjected to cutting and light rolling. The sandy sub-soil is admirably suited to the require- ments of the game and is quite differ- ent from that usually found on in- land courses. The Green Committee of the Shawnee Club announce that the course will be ready for opening next May and, although the general plan of the new links has not as yet been made public, those who have seen them and know of the very un- usual natural advantages of this sec- tion of the upper Delaware Valley, assert that this new course will be a genuine revelation to the golfing pil- grim. Some of the pits have already been placed, but this work will be al- lowed to take its place at the end— for the present the labor is being de- voted to the perfection of the putting greens and the development of the
fairway.
September 1910
I have several times referred to the course which is being constructed at Shawnee-on-Delaware by the Shawnee Country Club, but as yet I have at- tempted no real description of the new links. However, inasmuch as there exists no course in the entire State of Pennsylvania (outside the im- mediate vicinities of Pittsburg and Philadelphia) which approaches cham- pionship requirements, the work at Shawnee must of necessity be of intempt has been made to trap the efforts of the mediocre player but rather the nearly-good strokes of the expert; courage finds its reward when com- bined with accuracy but there is al- ways a safe route for the conservative golfer, even though it does demand an additional stroke.
The tees are quite large with aver- age dimensions of 20 by 30 feet, and, of course, the size of the greens is determined by the length of the hole. The short fifth hole is provided withan undulating green protected by no less than two large side pits and thirty irregular mounds just beyond. The long seventh offers a sloping green which has an area of nearly a half acre, but a large pit in the lower cor- ner gathers in the third which throws too much from the line.
The distances follow:
1 313
2 . . .370
3 457
4 377
5. . . 102
6 444
7 522
8 400
9 165
10 .339
11 440
12 326
13 126
14 421
15 197
16 246
17 375
18 391
Out, 3,150; in, 2,861; total, 6,011.
Little can be gleaned from these figures for on paper the distance of 246 does not impress the critic—but that sixteenth offers a safe path to the cup after a long, well-placed drive and one that demands courage, while the pits close up to the green spell "Stop, Look and Listen" before you play, if the stroke from the tee has been under-hit or off-line.
Photo from same issue captioned: "Beginning work on a pot bunker at the Shawnee Country Club."
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee1910-1.png?t=1284673353)
Nov. 1910, Hazard
For the first time in many years Mr. A. W. Tillinghast has absented himself from the tournaments, but he has been very actively engaged in the development of the new course of the Shawnee Country Club. He returned to town for the St. Martins tourna- ment and was successful in the handi- cap, winning the gross score prize.
Dec. 1910, Hazard
Most interesting has been the work on the new golf course at Shawnee-on-Delaware, not only because of the fas- cination in the building of a course, but in this instance by reason of a most unusual condition.
The laborers are constantly unearth- ing ancient relics of the American In- dian. A great portion of the course is located on an island which the Lenapes called Shawano. It was here that the Minsi Indians had a great village and around which they cultivated the soil and hunted. His- tory tells us that here, too, they battled with the Iroquois or Five Nations, who came down upon them in this beautiful valley home from their vil- lages in Northern New York.
As the work on the golf course pro- gresses great quantities of arrow heads (fashioned both for hunting and war) are thrown up from the pits. Stone hatchets, war-club heads, spears, celts, pounders, corn grinders and mills, bits of pottery and beads— all from the pits where in the future the niblick will reign supreme.
March 1911, Hazard
The Shawnee Country Club has engaged as professional and club- maker, Bob Hobens, brother of Jack Hobens, of the Englewood Golf Club. Hobens is a new arrival in this coun- try and he comes over to take the new green on May 1st. He is reputed to be a very fine player. The club at Shawnee-on-Delaware has affiliated with the United States Golf Associa- tion and the Pennsylvania State Association.
April 1911, Hazard
The Shawnee Country Club formal- ly opens the season on Saturday, May 27th. A number of prominent players will be invited to be present to inspect the new course, which has been widely discussed.
May 1911, Hazard
Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, who for the past year has devoted most of his time to the work on the new course of The Shawnee Country Club, tells of a rather remarkable happening there which illustrates the very remarkable quality of the soil so far inland. Eleven of the holes are located on the Island of Shawna. Late last fall a number of guarding pits were dug about the greens, located at one end of the island. Water came on before sand could be dug for them. When the ice cleared from the river this spring, Mr. Tillinghast visited the island to find out how it had wintered. Greatly to his amazement he found all his new pits filled with fine white sand. Nature had been working for him. The winter winds had blown the sand into the pits to a depth of two feet.
August 1912 (Unattributed)
The 13th Hole at the Shawnee Country Club is one of the very best short holes in the country. The tee is on a bluff overlooking a branch of the Delaware River, the green being on the other side. During the pro- fessional tournament one of the pro's, while waiting his turn to play, re- marked to Mr. Tillinghast, the archi- tect of the course: "This is a gr-raund hole." "Yes," assented Mr. Tillinghast, with becoming modesty, "It isn't bad." The pro's tee shot found the willows at the edge of the opposite bank. As this is treated as a water hazard, he played another, which found the middle of the stream; his third went clear over the green. A "gr-raund hole," quizzically re- marked Mr. Tillinghast, as the pro was retreating down the steps to cross the river. "I'm thinking," retorted the pro, "It is nae such a gr-raund hole after all."
Sept. 1912 (Hazard)
Don't speak to me of ingratitude," says Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, as he tells this story on himself. Recently a friend visited him at Shawnee. He never had been a good player but such strokes as he had were abso- lutely gone and consequently he asked "Tilly" to look over his swing and endeavor to correct his faults. They took themselves off to the island where the Shawnee man had a gang of workmen constructing pits along the long seventh hole and where two birds could be killed with one stone,viz.: bunker building and drive doctoring.
Dec. 1912 (Hazard)
In developing the 10th hole at Shawnee, Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, the architect of the course, has worked out a teeing ground which is very unique. It is built into the side of a ridge and extends diagonally across the line of play. Owing to the length —90 feet—the tee-plates can be shifted with reference to the wind in such a manner as to make the carry of the "Alps" as difficult or as easy as may be desired. It will be observed from the sketch that the moving of the plates not only changes the distance but the direction as well. The dis-tances marked from B-B roughly indi- cate the carries of various sections of the "Alps." Obviously the shot from A-A would be easier and from C-C, much more difficult. The way around the "Alps" is quite open but a sliced ball renders a second shot to the green a particularly trying one. The hole measures 339 yards and owing to the throw of the ground the green should be approached dead-on or slightly from the left. A straight carry of the "Alps" is the keystone of success. The teeing ground has been shaped to naturally conform with the slopes on every side and the severe lines of a terrace have been carefully avoided.
January 1913 (Hazard)
MID-SURREY IN PENNSYLVANIA.
The Mid-Surrey scheme of break- ing up the fairway and rough into miniature ranges of mountain and valley, has been attempted at Shawnee on probably a larger scale than any- where in America. Strangely enough the idea of grass hollows and mounds was conceived there three years ago, before the Alpinisation at Richmond was known. The photographs show newly made ridges on the 10th fair- way, before the seeding. The plan of this hole was sketched in the last is- sue of THE AMERICAN GOLFER, and in this connection the illustrations are of particular interest. The height of the greatest of the mounds, in Fig. 2, may be gauged by comparison with the man standing among them.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee1913.jpg?t=1284673276)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19132.jpg?t=1284673314)
June 1913 (Hazard)
The Shawnee Country Club is con- templating the erection of a foot- bridge across the Binniekill, to take the place of the ferry which has been used for the past two years. The short trip in the ferry-boat always has been a pleasing feature, but whenever a large gallery follows the play, the delay in getting everyone across is unavoidable.
The Shawnee greens are coming along beautifully, notably the new ones on numbers 2, 3, 6 and 11, which were remade last fall, and the course generally will be in excellent condi- tion for the season's events.
Photos from Golf Illustrated, 1916 Women's US Am Championship
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee1916.jpg?t=1284673409)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19162.jpg?t=1284673409)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19163.jpg?t=1284673409)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19164.jpg?t=1284673409)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19165.jpg?t=1284673409)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19166.jpg?t=1284673409)
-
Sigh...
-
David,
I am truly amazed at what you were obviously able to find ine the 1:45:15 between when you stated "In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start" and all these wonderful records which prove Tilly as the architect even some that state it in exactly those words!
I can't imagine what you may have been able to find if you had spent as much time at it as Tom Macwood did... yet he can't find any?
-
"Mr. Larson,
Everything I've done with Merion has been geared toward figuring out what happened."
Ian:
That remark just may be the most unadulterated bullshit this website has ever seen, even from David Moriarty! ;)
I would just love to see the IMs and emails between Moriarty and MacWood on what goes on between them on this website on some of these subjects like NGLA or Merion or any of the others they gratuitously question architectural attribution on. I suspect they are all a collection of real beauties. On the other hand, sometimes real rats make for interesting relationships. On that note you should have seen how MacWood tried to disassociate himself from Moriarty and his essay on Merion when MacWood was trying to get Merion and MCC to just send him copies of their original administrative records of Merion East in 1910 and 1911. With friends like MacWood I doubt Moriarty needs any enemies in the competitive GCA research business! ;)
But I really am glad to see so many finally calling these two uber-argumentative characters out on their years long MO on this website with some significant clubs and their course architectural histories.
On the other hand, that Post #35 of Moriarty's looks impressive and he should be congratulated for taking the time to organize and put all that information and the photos and such on a post on this website. However, that kind of thing should never be considered to be some kind of original research material or some kind of informational discovery that bears on the actual subject of this thread. Every photograph and every article on that post has been on my computer for maybe half a decade or more! 8)
Does it say anything about Tillinghast not being the solo architect of Shawnee?
Of course not, but apparently the likes of Moriarty and MacWood seem to think if they just put a ton of photographs and quotes and such on here (what they call "research" ;) someone might actually think so!
-
Phil,
You accuse me of attacking your character. I haven't. I am not sure why you insist on taking anything resembling a question or challenge about your work to be a personal attack. Likewise, I am not sure why you think your conclusions should be treated as beyond dispute or question.
But I am glad you finally began to explain the reasons for your conclusions above, but I could do without your defensiveness and sarcasm, which add nothing to the discussion.
As for my post, I didn't time myself but definitely did not take me that full time to put together that information. That is why I am so perplexed that you have refused to address my requests for you to support your argument.
This stuff isn't rocket science. If people spent more time researching and less time posturing or opining we'd all be a lot better off.
-
TM/DM
Please post an "In My Opinion" piece and stop the nonsense already.
-
Steve Shaffer,
What nonsense?
Is posting excerpts from magazine articles which address the origins of Shawnee nonsense?
Is posting old photos of the course nonsense? How so?
As for an IMO, I have no strong opinion about Shawnee, and I've expressed no opinion on who might have been involved in the design. But I have posted a few article excerpts that indicate that AWT called himself the "architect."
Is posting article excerpts which indicate that AWT considered himself the "architect" of the course nonsense? How so?
On the past thread I was curious enough to ask Phil some questions and he became indignant and refused to answer. Is it nonsense to ask Phil questions about his supposed area of expertise?
Did you actually bother to read any of my posts, of did you just jump on the bandwagon and assume it must all be nonsense? Don't bother to answer, your post above says it all.
-
DM
See my post #27 above.
Why don't you wait until Phil Young's book is published? Why is this being raised now?
-
Tom Doak,
I think I understand what you are saying, but to me you make a very good case for threads addressing these issues. There is often more to the story than is commonly known and while I agree that we shouldn't pretend anyone's role is more significant than the person has been given credit for, we also shouldn't pretend that the person who gets all the credit was a complete one man show either. That is part of why I think these arguments over who gets credit are largely political and pointless rather than historical and productive. It is much more productive to try and tell the whole story than posture to protect or disparage anyone involved.
So to the extent that this thread is just too guys posturing, I agree that the thread is pointless. Phil's posturing about his level of expertise get us no closer to knowing the whole story. Nor does TomMac's challenging that expertise. Both should make their case, but with facts and analysis, not posturing or emotional accusations. If they'd come forward and actually discuss what happened at Shawnee, it could be pretty interesting thread.
Dan Herrman, if some of the routing was inherited from Fazio then that is an important part of the that course's history and lineage, so I hope that even in 2069 anyone truly interested in Stonewall's history would be interested in bringing that information forward, rather than becoming indignant at the very thought anyone other than Doak might have some responsibility for some aspect of the course -- whether it be good or bad. Hopefully there is a record of what was left over and what was changed, so they won't have to argue about it decades later.
David:
I agree with most of what you say above. If it were just generally accepted that NO course is really the product of one mind, and every architect benefits from outside help [some or most of which he brings to the table and pays for], then these threads could be put into proper context and would not generate 1/10 of the controversy [and bandwidth] that they do.
However, if that is Tom MacWood's real goal, then why the hell would he title his own thread "Who Designed Shawnee?" instead of "Who Helped Tillinghast at Shawnee?"
Regarding your Stonewall example, I've never had any trouble sharing the story of how I wound up with the job, and what I changed from Mr. Fazio's routing for the project. Still, context is important ... you made it sound as if I depended on Mr. Fazio for most of the heavy lifting, when in truth, I would have preferred to look at other options, but the permits had already been pulled and I would not have been able to change any more of the routing without a significant delay that would never have been considered. Indeed, the main reason we got the job was that I convinced them that Gil and I could get the course built on a very fast track schedule and for a very tight budget.
-
Lets be real David, YOU stated that Tom didn't call me a liar. Whebn he again did so and admitted that he had made the "accusation" you won't own up to having been at least wrong.
And lets be real about another thing. You didn't ask me to "address my requests for you to support your argument" you asked me to do exactly what you attacked Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison for doing on the Merion Threads and have also criticized Mike for doing on others, that is, revealing privileged information from the board minutes and other documents and not sharing them with all when they shouldn't have and then not posting them on here.
You also didn't and weren't simply "curious enough to ask Phil some questions and he became indignant and refused to answer" on the other thread. Again, I refused to provide you the proofs that you were demanding because I cannot and told you and Tom over and over.
You didn't just ask me what I knew, you asked me AFTER I posted that I had been given access to everything and ALSO stated that that I would honor my agreement with owner and club and not reveal or publish any of their contents until given permission to do which will be after the book comes out. You and Tom won't accept that I am doing the right and honorable thing y the club and owner. Sorry, but neither of you have gone to them and asked for permission to examine their archives now have you? So Tom calls me a liar and you describe me as disingenuous for not postinmg what I shouldn't and therefore becoming a liar to those who trusted me.
You are convenient in your views.
"Is it nonsense to ask Phil questions about his supposed area of expertise?"
No it isn't. There are times, such as the above, where I am prevented from answering. There are other occasions, such as those where tom demanded i provide proof of things and Irefused to because it invovled projects that I was/am working on that are not yet ready for publishing. Don't take offense at that david, because you yourself refused to publish your Merion IMO piece until you were ready to do so. I asked for an advance peak via email and you tuirned me down for that very reason. The least you can do is show me the same respect you expect shown to you, that when a no is given that it be accepted with good faith by the one it was given to.
David, feel very free to ask me any question about Tilly at Shawnee that you'd like on this thread. I'll answer it. That you may not like my answer is quite possible, but I will answer and and all.
I won't do that for Tom Macwood. I will not answer a single question of his until he apologizes for calling me a liar numerous times when I never did. I am CLEARLY owed that from him... By the way, ask him why he never responded to my proof on the other thread where he stated that he hadn't been reading any of my posts and had been purposefully ignoring them yet somehow seemed to respond to all of them? He needs to apologize for that pile of nonsense as well...
Finally David, I have no problem ever admitting when I am wrong, especially as it happens far too often. As I started with above you were definitely wrong in your insistence that Tom did not accuse me of lying. He did and admitted that he had made that accusation after you made your post. Admit you were wrong in that David, you owe me that...
-
Phil, I don't know what your problem is, but I'm sure it hasn't much to do with me.
-- I don't think Tom MacWood called you a liar, but he can speak for himself on the issue.
-- I did NOT ask you to divulge anything. I asked you to explain. Surely you are allowed to discuss these documents, are you not? If not, then you have no business saying a single word about Shawnee here or anywhere else.
-- I was curious and remain curious. Why do you suppose I pulled up all those snippets if I wasn't curious?
You are out of line Phil, and just making crap up and attributing motives to me that aren't mine. If you've got a problem with Tom MacWood that is between the two of you. On this thread and with this issue I've done nothing remotely like what you describe. If anything, I've done much more to support your conclusions than you, which is pretty sad.
So get off your high horse.
___________________________
Tom,
I can't speak for TomM, but I think the issue of Tillinghast's involvement at Shawnee is worth discussing.
As for the Stonewall example, I didn't intend to imply that you depended on Fazio for the heavy lifting or that you weren't interested in other options. As for you being locked into certain aspects of the routing because of permitting and such, that too is a relevant part of the story. Either you had told me this before or I read it somewhere, but others may not have been aware of it so thanks for clarifying.
Did you see that photo of the bunker construction I posted above? Is that how your guys build bunkers.
-
Revisionist historians are not necessarily good historians. Guess what, most of the time, published history is correct.
I doubt anybody has doubted the history of Shawnee in 100 years. Why start now?
OK - I'm off my high horse.
000000000000000
One thing that I find amazing his how they built the golf course over all the archeologically significant grounds. They would never be alllowed to build such a course, at least as long as the relics were still present. (See David's post 35 above with the extract from 1910).
-
Dmoriarty
The stuff you posted is good stuff and it only supports Tillys position at Shawnee. But it's nothing new with anyone who has looked into Tilly and Shawnee. Phil is not on a high horse. I think it just royally pisses TMacwood and maybe, or maybe not, yourself that he has access to the records at Shawnee and is respecting the club by not divulging everything he has on a public forum especially before the history book he's contracted to write is done. If you and TMacwood are adults and professionals hopefully your not too dense to understand that he's not giving it up as he is being professional and respectful to the club. Is that too hard for you guys to understand? Do you guys feel like your entitled to the records he has that you would like to see? Because you guys don't even exist in the clubs eyes. They could care less and would tell you to read the book when it comes out. And that's what your going to have to be satisfied with. And Phil doesn't deserve harassment because he is not giving in to something you guys are demanding. Why would he? Who the hell are you guys? The [self proclaimed] golf architecture history police? Nobody cares what you guys feel you need to know. So accept it or drop it.
TMacwood
*crickets* Bueller? Bueller? Where are you? Shouldn't you be arguing against the proof that has been thrown out on the thread? Or harassing Phil for not giving you what you want or feel you're entitled to? Phil is doing the history book. You can read it when it's done and try to accept the fact that you won't be seeing the clubs records he has access to. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that he is respecting the clubs wishes by not throwing it all out there. Just read the book.
I find it crazy that you are truly doubting yet another clubs history and trying your best to debunk it. And let's be honest, that's what your doing here and that's why you titled the thread what you did.
-
We all say we are seekers of truth here. And I think we all know that we can only achieve a reasonable degree of certainty with a fragmented record. I got to thinking how we could determine who wins this arguement, i.e., what the truth is by simply scoring it like a football game, based on the number of primary references actually posted here. Thanks to Phil and David for most of the material. That kind of post makes gca.com a great resource.
Even that system is not 100% perfect - I leave out the CW reference because they likely used some of the primary references already posted to draw their conclusion. But, I include Phil as one reference, trusting that he wouldn't outright lie, as some suggest, knowing that when his book comes out, he would be found out.
The system also covers the possibility that one document may be untrue for any number of reasons, in assuming that most of what was written was basically correct, and that there may be a few incorrect ones. In other words, it presumes mistakes in reporting may be made about equally on both sides of the fence.
So far, the score is:
Tillie - 11
Others - 0
Tillie is pitching a shutout against TMac so far, but I trust its very early in the game. ;D
What will coach MacWood do to bring his team back into the game?
-
I think TMac made a call to his bullpen to try to bring in a solid closer....or he just gave up. Which is unlikely, but will be interesting...
-
David,
"Phil, I don't know what your problem is, but I'm sure it hasn't much to do with me..."
Evidently you don't read what you state to me with great care. You've been highly disrespectful and more than a bit arrogant, which I'm sure you'll say about me as well.
"-- I don't think Tom MacWood called you a liar, but he can speak for himself on the issue."
You are right, he can, yet YOU chose to speak on it and stated that he hadn't called me a liar. After doing so a number of others on this thread called you to task for doing just that. Yet I'm not allowed to point out that you were clearly wrong to do so and cite as proof Tom's OWN WORDS that he had made the "accusation?" And still you won't simply admit that you were wrong? But you're not the arguing type...
"-- I did NOT ask you to divulge anything. I asked you to explain. Surely you are allowed to discuss these documents, are you not?"
Now you are playing with words for how can I "discuss" the documents if I am prevented from revealing what they say? I can only state what they generally contain (that I am allowed to do) and when I had done so am vilified by you and Tom for not giving sum and substance of what they stated. All can go back and look what you posted on the other thread and decide whether what I have stated is true or not.
"If not, then you have no business saying a single word about Shawnee here or anywhere else." That's a pile of CRAP and you know it. I published a brief evolution history of Shawnee earlier this year in Tillinghast Illustrated. Why wasn't this subject brought up then? This all happened because I cited Tilly at Shawnee as an example that contadicted Tom's absolute statement that no serious owner would hire an untested and inexperienced person to design a golf course in 1910. Tilly was both. You asked me about Tilly's other experience obviously as player and writer that would have given him this. You deny that I answered you when in reality you simply didn't like my answer as it was an illustration to explain the word "no."
I shouldn't say a single word about Shawnee? Sorry David, even before the research on the book started there were very few out there who had researched Tilly's work there as much as I had. If ANYONE should comment on Shawnee it is me.
"-- I was curious and remain curious. Why do you suppose I pulled up all those snippets if I wasn't curious?" I'm glad you are curious. It is an exciting story and one that will surprise many when they read about it next May. By the way, after pulling up all those snippets from the time period, why do you still not refer to Tilly as the "architect" since a number of them, including ones that he wrote, call him that very thing. Or don't you believe what you yourself write when you challenged that any information from the day should be put out here? Why else do you continue to refer to Tilly's INVOLVEMENT as if it wasn't substantial and that he wasn't the architect?
"You are out of line Phil, and just making crap up and attributing motives to me that aren't mine." So now YOU are calling me a LIAR? "Making crap up..." Sorry David, but YOU did say that Tom didn't call me or anyone else a liar. I didn't make that up. Tom did admit that he had made that "accusation" and even said that If I revealed the Shawnee information that I am not allowed to he would "withdraw it". I didn't make that up. I pointed out that you were wrong on what you said, and you were and you are. Yet I am simply making CRAP up? That's pathetic even for you.
"If you've got a problem with Tom MacWood that is between the two of you." I agree with you... So why did YOU INSERT YOURSELF INTO IT? See above...
"On this thread and with this issue I've done nothing remotely like what you describe. If anything, I've done much more to support your conclusions than you, which is pretty sad." Sorry David, but this also is Crap. Until your post, which came AFTER MINE you had not posted a single thing that supported Tilly as being the architect of Shawnee. And even after having done so and providing actual proof you still won't refer to him as such.
David, my horse isn't high, drunk or even mildly inebriated but that last bit makes me wonder as to what fence you are trying to straddle...
-
Phil-the-author
Why not post the Country Club Life article from July 18, 1914 written by Tilly? Isn't that the best account of the project?
-
David,
I must apologize for one thing. You did ask a question that I didn't fully answer that I mentioned above.
"Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point?"
I did answer that by my using the illustration you obviously didn't like.
It was followed by "Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris? He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"
Yes he did in both 1898 and 1901. The true answer is that yes he did know FAR MORE than the average clubby. The reality is that there was no way for him to actually prove it without hiring him to do the job and it took agreat leap of faith to put someone who had never designed a course or built one before in charge of both aspects of the project... If his work turned out poorly then everyone would say "what a bad hire"; fortunately it didn't and Shawnee launched a great career.
-
Tom,
If you want an answer form me to any question then you must apologize for calling me a liar on this public forum. Don't and all you will get from now on is silence, something that I believe you actually will enjoy...
-
Phil-the-author
If you believe I called you a liar, I apologize. I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?
-
Tom Macwood did you not read what Phils been saying? He's not presenting internal club documents as agreed to the club. What the hell don't you get about that? The fact that he won't present them on a public board prove anything that Tilly was a co designer? Hardly. WhY don't don't you quit talking and post the Country Club Life article yourself. I'm interested to see what single shroud of evidence you have brought to the table has anything that represents, irrefutably, that Tilly did not design Shawnee. Quit telling Phil to do anything and man up on your own thread to support yourself.
-
Phil, you need to take a deep breadth.
Look at you. You are telling me what MY MOTIVES WERE and what I MEANT. And when I set the record straight you are accusing me of calling you a LIAR?? I didn't call you a liar, Phil. But you are absolutely wrong in every one of your accusations.
You need to back the hell up. Don't tell me what my intentions were. I know what they were. Dont tell me what I meant. I know what I meant. Don't tell me that I demanded your documents. I didn't. If I had, you could show me where I had. You cannot, because I never did.
Now that you have gone back and looked at my old posts, you know I never demanded your documents. Interesting you didn't bother to set the record straight.
________________________________________
Ian Larson, If you bothered to read the threads, you'd know that I never demanded that Phil turn over his documents. I don't recall TM doing so either. Yet here you are, ranting away as if you witnessed this yourself. Next time try looking at the posts before you start throwing around accusations.
Also, what you think about what might piss me off is pure fiction. What pisses me off is when people like you try put words in my mouth and attribute motives to me that aren't mine. And it pisses me off when people like you don't even bother to read the threads first. But you know what really pisses me off? Nobody, but nobody, puts ketchup on a hot dog.
_______________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
With you keeping score and Dan Herrmann in his usual cheerleader mode, I feel like I am at a grade school basketball game. I don't know why I bothered wasting my time trying to turn this thread toward substance. You guys are obviously more interested in playing games than actually figuring anything out.
-
Tom Macwood did you not read what Phils been saying? He's not presenting internal club documents as agreed to the club. What the hell don't you get about that? The fact that he won't present them on a public board prove anything that Tilly was a co designer? Hardly. WhY don't don't you quit talking and post the Country Club Life article yourself. I'm interested to see what single shroud of evidence you have brought to the table has anything that represents, irrefutably, that Tilly did not design Shawnee. Quit telling Phil to do anything and man up on your own thread to support yourself.
Ian
Relax, I don't believe I told Phil to do anything. I asked him a question, actually two questions.
Do you believe the internal club documents of Shawnee should be treated as some state secret? How many transformations has the resort had over the years, and is it even considered a private club today? Why would they care?
-
Oh...at the turn I love a ketchup covered hot dog and an ice cold Coca-Cola.
Don't hate me David! :)
-
David,
First, you did provide some substance with that fine post on various Shawnee documents and I am sure everyone appreciates that. You also brought some goo. While I see your point to Phil, I think its a wee bit overstated given the circumstances, and he is able to comment on the perception your statements create whether you feel you meant them that way or not. Communication is a two way street and you both flew off the handle a bit, did you not?
As to the scorekeeping, while tongue and cheek I think it might prove valuble for the reasons stated. If there are 11 documents saying the same thing, or strongly implying it, and one that may imply something else, should we really be at someone's mercy who decides that is the ONE key document that tells us the truth? I was trying to head off that whole "my interpretation" can of worms in some sort of substantive way. In other words, encourage us to look at the whole picture as it was presented by those who were there. As of now, that is not a problem. TMac implies that a not posted document is the most authoritative one, but won't post it, asking Phil to do his work for him.
I agree with TePaul on that one - Gratuitous BS and nothing more. For that matter, I don't agree with TMac repeatedly asking why the Shawnee dox should be treated as private when it has been explained to him that those who own them simply want it that way. And maybe, Phil wants it that way so he can sell some books later on and recoup his/their costs. Tmac puts himself in the unfortunate postiong of us thinking he is stubborn, an idiot, or yanking our chain with this thread. None of those are really good options for him, are they?
So, I for one, won't even consider TMacs blathering on until he posts up some support for his own position, or someone is gracious enough to do it for him. I suspect many would be with me.
-
Dmoriarty
I have been reading this from the beginning and I'll call you out as to being very careful as to what you write and how you state things by skirting around it. You haven't demanded Phil produce documents but you continually say he needs to explain his stance. And that if he doesn't explain his stance he has no right to speak of it. Really? You can't be serious. That's some bullshit. Are you too dense to realize that for him to explain his stance he will be going into territory where he's divulging club document info? That doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that. You and Phil both produced ample amounts of info pointing the finger to Tilly being the solo designer. Yet you say Tillys involvement in Shawnee is worth looking in to. So how about for shits and giggles you and Tom Macwood produce something that shows there was another designer taking on designer responsibilities at Shawnee. TMac has talked about the Country Club Life article but has yet to post it himself instead asking Phil to do it. TMac needs to bring SOMETHING to the table which he's failing miserably at. If you guys think Phils full of shit just say it and move on instead of this dead air pointless arguing about him not explaining and not producing. He's not going to. So if you feel it's worth looking in to and TMac feels he should produce documents. Why don't you guys make it easier on yourselves by proving Phil wrong with your OWN research and quit trying to draw it out of him. Post this Country Club Life article for christs sake. That's where it should begin right? So let's get on with it already. If Tilly in fact didn't design Shawnee let's prove it. It should be known if that's the case. But the reality is you are going to be hard pressed to present anything that proves that irrefutably.
-
Tom the Mac,
You absolutely called me a liar and admit so once again. "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case."
First of all I didn't IMPLY a single thing. I flat out stated numerous times that I had complete, total and unfettered access to ALL the internal documents and made copies of everything relating to this and many other issues. Your use of the word "bluffing" has been taken by far too many people on this and the other thread that you called me a LIAR. Those exact words have been told to you over and over. As for your "apology" it is worthless on its face. You need to man up and admit what you did for it to have any true meaning.
That you have the audacity to ask "Have you presented any internal club documents?" after I have stated over and over again that I will NOT do so smacks of one who clearly is still making the same "accusation" which is the term you yourself used. All of this Tom because you refused to accept that Worthington wouldn't have hired an "untetsted and inexperienced" person to design and build Shawnee in 1910.
While we're on the issue of credibility, earlier in this thread you stated that you had "no idea" who designed Shawnee. Really? Then why did you post on the other thread "Phil-the-author, Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience? If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays."
Also on credibility, after I had asked you a question nearly half a dozen times on the other thread you stated, ""Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
Do you remember how I responded? I ended it with a question you still haven't answered and if you desire ANY credibility you must own up to this as well:
Tom the Mac,
I thought about it for a minute, and whether you answer my question or not is of no significance because there really is no way you can defend your statement in light of what Tilly was doing at Shawnee.
What I feel I must comment on is your insulting and sarcastic statement, "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
NONSENSE!
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #31 as you did in #35?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #37 as you did in #38?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #44 as you did in #45?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #46 as you did in #47?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my new comment in post #50 as you did in #52?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my comment which ONCE AGAIN contained the question you were ignoring in post #56 as you did in #57 while ignoring the question once again?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU respond to my reply to your #57 with an answer in #60, where I AGAIN asked the question, with a response in #62 where you once again ignored the question?
I responded in #67 and once AGAIN asked the question to which you SARCASTICALLY responded in #68 with "Thanks."
Who do you think you are kidding with "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
You want answers to questions you ask me? Answer those...
-
Ian
I have not posted the article because the site no longer provides a picture posting option. As I said before I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, and that was after reading that particular article. That article does not prove anything IMO, but it does present an interesting perspective.
-
if the rest of us ignore this thread it will die a quick death
-
if the rest of us ignore this thread it will die a quick death
I think you just extended one more post, two because I responded to you.
-
...............aaaaaaaand do you care to share with us the perspective you speak of TMac? If you can't post that article how were the other two able to post articles? Let's here this perspective though as it seems it's your only sliver of anything. Honestly I think your just dead in the water with this and this thread is going to end up being useless and only motivated to try and prove Phil wrong and call his bluff because you have beef with him which is pretty damn weak.
-
Ian and Paul, this is worthless. I only began responding again because RAN himself suggested that I do so. It wasn't worth the effort. Unless I am apologized to properly and he answers that last question I will not respond again...
-
Ian
Send me your email address I'll forward the article to you, and you can post it.
-
redanman@hotmail.com
In the meantime can you give us your perspective of the article?
-
Ian Larson,
You misrepresent what I wrote. I asked Phil to explain the basis for his conclusions. I also told him that if he promised Shawnee that he would not publicly discuss their history, then he ought not say anything about it here or anywhere else.
Everything you read into my statements is all your fantasy.
_______________________________________
Just think how productive these discussions could be if you guys actually focused on substance instead of this babble about who intended what and who needs to apologize for what.
-
Another photo of Shawnee from around 1916
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19167.jpg?t=1284696293)
-
Dmoriarty I don't fantasize about your statements nor did I misrepresent you or what you said. I didn't quote you, and how I stated what you were saying to Phil which is, and I'm not quoting 1) explain why he has the conclusion he has about Tilly at Shawnee. 2) If he doesn't explain he shouldn't be commenting on the subject at all. That is not a fantasy and it's not misrepresenting what your point is. You can stop your circle talking now because I'm not falling into it. Do something more beneficial to the thread and actually produce something that makes you think this is worth looking into with Tilly at Shawnee.
-
Ian Larson is telling me to contribute something to this thread? That's rich, given his contributions.
-
Well it's you and Macwood that feel there is a need to look into whether Tilly was the solo designer at Shawnee. I don't. So if you two feel that way then please start creating your case as to why which you refuse to do to this point. I don't need to bring any more contributions to the table saying he was solo, there is already enough of that. We are now on the third page and you guys STILL can't come up with anything to show otherwise. Anytime you guys are ready there are many others anxious to see it. I still haven't even gotten an email from Macwood with the Country Club Life that for some reason he can't post himself and would like me to? ??? He can't even give us his perspective on the article!?!? You guys aren't doing well with convincing anybody that this is worth investigating. I'm ready to be convinced!
-
Are they pulling the same thing they did with Tilly's work at Bethpage Black a few years ago? If I recall correctly (and I apologize if I'm wrong), Tom once had an Opinion article looking at the Joseph Burbeck family claims that he was the actual designer of Bethpage Black. Actually, in this case, Tom disputed the claim.
(PS - It can be seen at http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20021021135107/http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opiniontmacwood415.html It's not up on the active site anymore.
-
Dan:
It pretty much looks like another Merion type thread to me; just under another name---eg Shawnee! ;)
-
Are they pulling the same thing they did with Tilly's work at Bethpage Black a few years ago? If I recall correctly (and I apologize if I'm wrong), Tom once had an Opinion article looking at the Joseph Burbeck family claims that he was the actual designer of Bethpage Black. Actually, in this case, Tom disputed the claim.
(PS - It can be seen at http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20021021135107/http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opiniontmacwood415.html It's not up on the active site anymore.
Dan
Thanks for posting the essay. Who is 'they'? It would probably be a good idea to read the essay before jumping to conclusions.
-
Ahh...yes...one can see the sure hand of CC Worthington's expert fingerprints all over it. ;) ;D
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19167.jpg?t=1284696293)
-
Tom - I wrote that first sentence before I found the IMO on the internet wayback machine. I originally thought you discounted Tilly's work at BB, but I was wrong. I read the article before I posted the link, but I didn't properly rephrase the first sentence. I apologize.
-
Back to discussing Tillie's actual architecture, I don't think I see any green side bunkers in the three greens in that pic DM posted last night. However, the greens look huge - at least 8000 SF. The discussion would be more interesting to focus on the evolution of Tillie's thinking. The greens look like Tillie (from the air) so he must have figured out what he liked from his outside study before undertaking any work. However, they aren't elevated as later greens like Winged Foot were. A result of budget, his charge at WF, or an evolution in thinking?
As to bunkering, is this like MCC where the bunkering was purposely left to later after play established where they should be? Or does the photo just happen to show three holes that Tillie deemed didn't need any bunkers because of the creek, trees, etc.?
-
Jeff,
I think you've hit on something and I will start another thread on it
-
In reading this post and trying to cut through all the "baiting" and "angry noise", directed at Phil Young and others, I'm sorry that more constructive dialogue on the evolution of Tillinghast's design principals and style can't take place over all the petty "BS." I wish Phil would stop dignifying these guys with a response and I'm sorry that guys like Moriarty and MacWood feel and act the way they do.
Phil Young has done a tremendous amount of research on Tillinghast and much of his design work. Much of the evolution of Shawnee was presented in an article written by Phil in the last issue of Tillinghast Illustrated on the Tillinghast Association web site at:
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/Golf_Illustrated_files/TI%20March%20Final.pdf
We also posted a slide show of many of the historical photos that we have of the early Shawnee course at:
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/shawn.html
It would be a great accomplishement in the golf world if this golf course could be brought back to Tillinghast some day soon. :D
-
Jeff and Pat,
There is a brief course evolution history of Shawnee on the Tillinghast Association website. It details the ORIGINAL 1911 routing, the rerouted and redesigned 1912-13 course and changes through the years to where the course played to just under 7,000 yards for the 1938 PGA Championship. It can be found in the last issue of Tillinghast Illustrated. It will probably answer a number of your questions and provide you with the information for more. There is also a separate slide shows about Shawnee that can be accessed from the homepage that you will find interesting.
Pat, if you started another thread on the subject I'd be glad to answer any and all questions about it that I can.
Sorry Rick, our posts passed in the netherland of internet space...
-
Phil,
That slideshow is terrific.
-
Thank YOu MIke. That is all Bob Trebus... Who is recovering fom back surgery...
-
Tom Macwood,
Thanks for sending me the Country Club Life article from 1915. Im on the road and wont be able to post it until later tonight or this weekend. If you can do it sooner give it a shot.
Going over it on my iphone I dont see anything but just another document proving that it was Tilly and only Tilly doing the design at Shawnee. Even including a great shot of Tilly by himself during construction all dirty with the captiom stating Tilly (nobody else) as the architect.
I tried to look for an inference to anything that might insinuate that Worthington or anyone else might have had any hand in it and couldnt find anything. Not even a mention of any crew foreman. Its really a good article, but I dont think it does any justice for the "Who designed Shawnee" case if you are trying to research if anyone else was involved. So I dont see why this article would be a good start down that path.
Maybe I missed something. So i would be interested to hear yours and Dmoriarty's take on the article and why you feel its a good starting point.
-
Last night on the Daily Show Jon Stewart announced his October 30, Washington D.C. "Rally to Restore Sanity" in response to the hyperbolic and irrational fear mongering which pervades our national discourse. (And of course he is mocking Glen Beck.) The rally will feature posters with messages such as "I disagree with you, but am pretty sure you aren't Hitler." Not to be outdone, Colbert came out in support of the nastiness and called for a "March to Keep Fear Alive" on the same day and at the same place. I couldn't help but think of this conversation and the website generally.
Rick Wolfe,
I am not sure what thread you are reading. If you go back and read this one you will see that most all of the nastiness is directed at me and Tom. I've tried to get the thread going in a positive and productive direction multiple times, but as your post shows, the petty griping and snippy comments continue. Your post and others like it keep us in the muck, despite what I am sure are your good intentions.
But let's let bygones be. I've got no skin in this game and never have had any, and I'd like to see the conversation elevated above all the pettiness and bickering.
__________________
Ian Larson,
I have never seen the article so I cannot comment on it.
_____________________________________________
TomM
If you'd like it posted sooner, email it and I'll try to get it posted.
-
David,
I often disagree with you, but I am also pretty sure you aren't Hitler....... ;D
Have a rational and sane day and weekend!
-
In reading this post and trying to cut through all the "baiting" and "angry noise", directed at Phil Young and others, I'm sorry that more constructive dialogue on the evolution of Tillinghast's design principals and style can't take place over all the petty "BS." I wish Phil would stop dignifying these guys with a response and I'm sorry that guys like Moriarty and MacWood feel and act the way they do.
Phil Young has done a tremendous amount of research on Tillinghast and much of his design work. Much of the evolution of Shawnee was presented in an article written by Phil in the last issue of Tillinghast Illustrated on the Tillinghast Association web site at:
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/Golf_Illustrated_files/TI%20March%20Final.pdf
We also posted a slide show of many of the historical photos that we have of the early Shawnee course at:
http://www.tillinghast.net/Tillinghast/shawn.html
It would be a great accomplishment in the golf world if this golf course could be brought back to Tillinghast some day soon. :D
These things sometimes get lost so thread bumping that slide show.
Rick W, Phil and/or Tom Doak,
I only played the current course the one time and obviously there is not much left of Tilly today. Is there room to restore the original 4 holes on the Inn side (off the island) of the course?
Any updates on timing, assuming it is still a possibility? The concept of restoration really sounds like they could create a unique niche for themselves.
-
Mike,
It is my understanding that the Restoration/renovation will take place, just a question of when. As for restoring the 4 holes on the Inn side of the Binniekill, Tom can speak better to that. The real plan, as I understand it, is to restore it as close to the 1938 PGA Championship course as reasonable. That course measured nearly 7,000 yards and was the product of years of changes by Tilly.
-
Been to Shawnee a number of times over the span of 30 years but even with the course changes to a main 18 the real issue always comes back to the potential for flooding. It's not a question of "if" but eventually "when."
-
These threads remind me of an extra set professional doubles tenant match: Hundreds of people badly in need of exercise watching four people badly in need of a break.
Mike
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee19164.jpg?t=1284673409)
Phil or Mike or anyone else who may know, is this old 18th green sitting back and to the right of the current first tee (between the hotel and the creek)? Or is it over where the driving range is now or at least was 20 years ago?
-
Andy,
That green site is on the open grass area between the "fire pit" and the small open pavilion, just past where the parking lot ends. That area has been the site of a number of different guest amenities through the years since Fred Waring redid the course...
-
Thanks Phil. I never realized the course went that way Does that mean the 18th played down what is now the driving range? If so, the current 18th (I assume its still the 18th), the long par 3 to the sloping green, didn't exist then?
-
Andy, below is the routing from an advertising brochure that tilly produced for the Shawnee CC the month before the course opened in 1911. Note where the 18th hole is:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shawnee1911routing.jpg)
Below is the new, rerouted and redesigned course ca. 1914:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shawneerouting1914.jpg)
I think you'll have a question... ;D
Photos courtesy of the Tillinghast Association website
-
Phil, OK, 1, 16, 17 and 18 actually look like I remember them from the early 1980s in the 1914 picture. The original 1911 pic shows 18 where you described it.
But the 1916 tournament picture shows 18 back where it was when the course opened. Am I reading all that right? And then at some point 16, 17 and 18 were AGAIN moved back to the locations they were in 1914? Was all that rearranging Tilly? Any idea why the back and forth?
-
Andy,
You're getting there, but the answer lay in the 1914 drawing. Look carefully at it and you'll see a PRACTICE hole, a par-three opposite the front entrance and drive way and circle.
As can be clearly seen in the picture, the driveway, circle and front entrance are there, so this is actually the PRACTICE green from the practice hole and NOT the 18th green! The photo was mislabeled. Further proof is that this was taken during the 1919 Women's Amateur championship. Note how far away the spectators are where as other photos of the 18th green during this championship shows the spectators directly around the green and no driveway in sight!
By the way, do you see the trees fronting the entrance stairs? Here is how they looked from the veranda just a few years later...
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Entrance.jpg)
-
The main problem is that you can only add Tilly as a designer or one who altered / renovated the course, you can not take his name off of it!!!! ;D
-
Phil, well isn't that something! Thanks for pointing that out.
So the current range does run down the path of the original 18th hole or awfully close. Was the original 18th green what became the practice green? Seems they must be extremely close to the same location if not.
Do you know why they did all the rearranging of the holes on the hotel side of the river so soon?
-
Andy,
When the course opened for play, the idea was to provide a place where Worthington and his friends could enjoy themselves ona good and challenging course. At 6,011 yards it was everything that they needed. During that year, and leading on into 1912, Worthington decided that he wanted to sponsor an "Open" tournament and offer considerable prize money to the professionals who would play. He believed that they deserved it and that it would certainly boost exposure to the Inn and golf course. His problem was that the course as it was, fine for himself and his friends, wasn't the superior challenge that he wanted for the best players. So Tilly did a complete redesign and re-routing adding about 500 yards in length.
This course received absolutely rave reviews and the Shawnee Open attracted the best players in the world in 1913 and onward. Players such as Vardon, Ray, Hagen, McDermott, Fred McLeod, Alex Smith and his brother and many, many others. Most are actually unaware that Sam Snead was the playing professional for Shawnee in the late 1930's, well before he would do so for that second-rate resort in Virginia... ;D
To asnwer your questions, no, the current range does not run down the path of the original 18th hole. Go back and take a careful look at the road leading to the front entrance of the Inn and where it runs to. It begins at the END of the street that Worthington Hall is on, and so the 18th hole ran parallel to the Delaware. Actually, portions of both the original 16th and 17th holes cross over what is now the driving range, Doak's Tillinghast challenge course and the Tillinghast Academy grounds.
The original 18th green PROBABLY was used for the new green for the practice hole. But I believe that it was changed to reflect the direction of the shots being hit into it.
-
What happened to the Country Club Life article from July 1914?
Ian Larson indicated he would post it, but he's had it since last Friday and has not. And this after mocking and ridiculing Tom MacWood for not posting it and otherwise not answering quickly enough. To quote Ian Larson from September 17th, "Post the Country Club Life article for christs sake."
-
I just looked at this for the first to in a week. There was absolutely nothing in that article that hinted at Tilly being assisted with the design. But it did only prove even more that Tilly was the lone designer. It's not even worth my time to post it. I don't understand why TMacwood can't post it himself. I'm not wasting my time. If there's something in there it would have been posted by now by the guys that want it posted.
-
I just looked at this for the first to in a week. There was absolutely nothing in that article that hinted at Tilly being assisted with the design. But it did only prove even more that Tilly was the lone designer. It's not even worth my time to post it. I don't understand why TMacwood can't post it himself. I'm not wasting my time. If there's something in there it would have been posted by now by the guys that want it posted.
Are you kidding me? Post the article. You said you would.
-
No Mr. Moriarty I am certainly not kidding you. As I recall you also volunteered to post the article so have at it. Or just tell the guy who has it and is presenting it as some type of evidence to just do it himself. I'm only checking in on this thread weekly to see if anything of significance is ever brought to the table showing anything at all that Tilly didn't design Shawnee. So besides the article I'm not wasting time on the thread.
-
Ian Larson,
You are a class act.
_________________________________________
Tom MacWood,
Email me the damn thing and I'll post it.
-
This is hilarious. Between the two of you neither has managed to post Exhibit A after an entire week. Someone wake me up when these guys get a case together.
-
Ian Larson:
You have conducted yourself admirably in the context of these two confabulators. We need many more on this website like you!
-
Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?
Ian
How many times do you have to be told if I knew the answer of who did what this thread would have a different title? I am asking the question. And you obviously don't have the answer because the only thing you have brought to the table is a bad attitude. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed...again...
-
TMac,
Good morning.
You did ask a question, but also implied others, including Tillie's biographer, had it wrong. Additionally, you claimed to have much material contradicting the long held notion of Tillie the designer. Yet, you have provided nothing to back up your claims. If you have read a lot of other articles suggesting Tillie was NOT the solo designer, is it too much to ask for you to post them, summarize them, etc?
I remind you that the score is 11-0 in favor of Tillie based on documents produced. 12-0 if Ian Larson's read on the article you suggest he post is correct. We are only suggesting you do the Fox News thing - fair and balanced - if you have some info. If not, then this is even a bigger waste of time than we know.
Is asking a loaded question fair play? You remind me of what my father called and was - an "agitator". He and mom would ask the pastor to dinner and then he peppered him with all sorts of obtuse questions, like "Do you think Jesus was made of rubber? The bible tells the story of him tying his ass to a tree and then walking a mile into town." As you can imagine, the pastor stopped coming to dinner at some point, and mom was a good cook!
-
Mr. Jeffrey Sir:
Forget about the Tille architect attribution of Shawnee. I want to hear more about this story of Jesus tying his ass to a tree and then walking a mile into town. Do you think he walked into town with the tree tied to his ass or did he slip the knot somehow? And if you have any info on why he tied his ass to a tree I'd like to know more about that too. Do you think there are any old newspaper articles about it in like the Brooklyn Eagle or maybe the Boston Globe? Do you think the town he walked into was anywhere near Shawnee or maybe Ardmore Pa (Merion East) or South Hamilton Mass (Myopia) or Roslyn LI (North Shore GC)? I'm sure you can understand why I ask----eg maybe Tom MacWood should give Jesus some of the attribution he really deserves as the designer of some pretty good early American golf course architecture if he was in the vicinity!!
And last but by no means least----do you think Jesus was a tree hugger or would he be for comprehensive tree removal?
-
This is hilarious. Between the two of you neither has managed to post Exhibit A after an entire week. Someone wake me up when these guys get a case together.
Ian Larson,
A week ago, after multiple posts berating Tom MacWood for not posting the article, you wrote: "Thanks for sending me the Country Club Life article from 1915. Im on the road and wont be able to post it until later tonight or this weekend."
Last night you announced that despite your word to the contrary you were refusing to post it. Then, as if to confirm your own lack of character, you played it off as if someone other than you has been behaving ridiculously. Again, you are a class act.
Perhaps Tom MacWood had not found someone else to post the article because he was foolish enough to think you were a man of your word? If so, this was obviously a mistake on on his part.
As for me, I have no "case" to "make." I'd like to see the facts out there for all to see.
Here are the two pages of the Country Life Article that TomM sent me this morning. Tom, it appears as if the article continues on past the 2nd page. If there was another email with more of the article I did not receive it.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee1914CCLife1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shawnee1914CCLife2.jpg?t=1285346199)
-
Dmoriarty
I'm a young single guy living in Southern California. I spent my weekend getting sidetracked from GCA surfing in Malibu and playing beach volleyball with tan vixens in string bikinis. I apologize for having a life outside of GCA and posting golf articles from 1914. I guess I'll have to live with myself for not doing so. The real question remains as to why Macwood couldn't just do it himself? Or you for that matter if you saw I hadn't done it?
-
Dmoriarty
I'm a young single guy living in Southern California. I spent my weekend getting sidetracked from GCA surfing in Malibu and playing beach volleyball with tan vixens in string bikinis. I apologize for having a life outside of GCA and posting golf articles from 1914. I guess I'll have to live with myself for not doing so. The real question remains as to why Macwood couldn't just do it himself? Or you for that matter if you saw I hadn't done it?
I too have plenty to do outside of GCA and am subject to many of the same Southern California opportunities and some actual responsibilities as well. But my word means something, and when I give it I do my best to keep it. And I certainly don't scoff at others who rely on my word to their detriment. Nice weather is no excuse to behave like a jerk. Even if it was, until yesterday it has been cool and cloudy at the beach.
The reason I did not pester MacWood to send me the article so I could post it was because HE HAD SENT IT TO YOU AND YOU INDICATED YOU WOULD POST IT. It never occurred to me that you would be so rude as to get the article from MacWood so that you could post it, tell us you would post it, and then not only refuse to post but also try to mock us for relying on your word. I figured you must have been busy.
As for TomMacWood, it makes no difference why he couldn't post it. You said you would. TomM has always posted articles using a method which is apparently no longer available, and he must not know how to post using an outside host or he does not have a website on which to store his documents.
-
David and ian,
I can only speak for myself but I can't help feel that most here would be very appreciative if either of you would be so kind as to drive over to malibu beach and take some photos of the lovely scenery and post those here instead of the freakinf country life article.
I'm just saying....
-
Tinypic should be your friend if you need a free site to host your pic/article. EXTREMELY easy. Go here:
http://www.tinypic.com/
-
David,
Thanks for that. Frankly, I wish TMac would post or quote some of the things he has read that suggest that Tillie was not the sole designer, if he has them.
Mike,
Exactly what do you mean by "scenery?"
-
Last night on the Daily Show Jon Stewart announced his October 30, Washington D.C. "Rally to Restore Sanity" in response to the hyperbolic and irrational fear mongering which pervades our national discourse. (And of course he is mocking Glen Beck.) The rally will feature posters with messages such as "I disagree with you, but am pretty sure you aren't Hitler." Not to be outdone, Colbert came out in support of the nastiness and called for a "March to Keep Fear Alive" on the same day and at the same place. I couldn't help but think of this conversation and the website generally.
Rick Wolfe,
I am not sure what thread you are reading. If you go back and read this one you will see that most all of the nastiness is directed at me and Tom. I've tried to get the thread going in a positive and productive direction multiple times, but as your post shows, the petty griping and snippy comments continue. Your post and others like it keep us in the muck, despite what I am sure are your good intentions.
But let's let bygones be. I've got no skin in this game and never have had any, and I'd like to see the conversation elevated above all the pettiness and bickering.
__________________
Ian Larson,
I have never seen the article so I cannot comment on it.
_____________________________________________
TomM
If you'd like it posted sooner, email it and I'll try to get it posted.
Dmoriarty,
Do you not remember that last sentence? You committed to posting it just as much as I did. So after a week goes by you have the nerve to lecture me about my character and not getting it posted? You said you would get it posted quicker than I, so how did you not drop the ball? If Macwood knows anything about the world wide web, which he does, there's no excuse for him not to be able to post something. It should have happened a week ago between the two of you.
-
So enough with this childish blame game crap....
What's the general consensus of exhibit A? Am I missing something or is there something in there suggesting Tilly either had alot of help or did not design Shawnee at all? I don't see anything...
MCirba,
I dont see DMoriarty capable of convincing the bikini clad women of SoCal into a picture ;D
-
Do you not remember that last sentence? You committed to posting it just as much as I did. So after a week goes by you have the nerve to lecture me about my character and not getting it posted? You said you would get it posted quicker than I, so how did you not drop the ball? If Macwood knows anything about the world wide web, which he does, there's no excuse for him not to be able to post something. It should have happened a week ago between the two of you.
Nonsense. I posted it as soon as I got it. TM didn't send it to me sooner because YOU TOLD HIM YOU WOULD POST IT. Your continued weaseling and excuses further proves you are all class.
-
Then this just proves how important it was to have it posted if it took a week. Did Macwood forget how to work email as well? Get off it and get a life because I could care less what you say about me. The things posted so let's see what the he'll about it proves anything.
-
Ian
I have not posted the article because the site no longer provides a picture posting option. As I said before I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, and that was after reading that particular article. That article does not prove anything IMO, but it does present an interesting perspective.
Ian
You must be tired after a long week because your brain is not working on all cylinders. I never said the article proved anything, if you remember this what I said before I sent it to you....of course at the time you were lathering from the mouth so you may not remember. And I still believe this article does present an interesting perspective considering it is the personal account of a man intimately involved in the project.
A few observations:
* It is written in the third person which is a little strange IMO
* Tilly never mentions Worthington by name although its not difficult to figure out when Tilly is referring to him, including the first paragraph
* Tilly emphasizes his construction role and never mentions in the article that he designed the golf course
-
After reading that article it occured to me that what must have set MacWood to wondering if someone else designed Shawnee was because although Tillinghast wrote that article and has his name on it and photograph in it as the designer, he referred to the person who designed the course (himself) in the third person.
I guess this says something about MacWood's inablilty to understand what he reads because Tillinghast referred to himself as an unnamed third person constantly when he wrote newspaper and magazine arcticles using a pseudonym, generally "Hazard." So it is not at all unusual that he would do it again in an article that has his name on it and his photograph in it with the caption under it as the designer of the course.
That kind of third person reference was obviously just clever Tilly playing mind-games on the reader again. He did that all the time and it is entertaining for sure.
But alas, MacWood is apparently incapable of understanding that game by Tilly. I can just see Tilly roaring with laughter right now at MacWood's stupidity! ;)
And then of course MacWood virtually conceded in his post above that Tilly's third person reference apparently threw him for a loop.
THAT is probably why MacWood suspected SOMEONE ELSE designed Shawnee! ??? ::) :o ;)
As my DI at Paris Island used to tell our platoon---"You can only go as fast as the slowest guy."
-
TEP
I'm referring to the article...his account of the project. He never mentions in the article he designed the golf course; he emphasizes his construction role. We have no idea who wrote the caption for the photograph.
-
TEP
Writing it in third person may not be strange to you because you live your life shifting from one person/personality to another, but for me it is a little odd. Now if he had written this article under a pseudo, like Hazard, that would have been another story, but that was not the case.
-
MacWood
Is this amateur hour? Anyone who has done any moderate amount of study into Tilly knows he would always write articles in third person under a pseudo. Why did he not use Hazard above this article? I'm not sure. It may raise the question as to WHEN he started using Hazard. Not whether or not he designed Shawnee. When was Tillys first article like this written? Are there earlier ones than this? I'm not sure but I would say probably not because Shawnee was Tillys first project. So why would he be published before this?
You put emphasis on the first paragraph. The unnamed owner and Tilly the builder. We know damn well that's Worthington. It's not a mystery. Is it such an oddity that the owner of a property would walk with the designer to show him the land, get to know him and see what Tilly thought? Isn't that what happens even today? Does every Doak course get questioned because he walked with the owner around the property? No.
This was Tillys first attempt, I see nothing wrong or questionable about referring to himself as the builder. Think about it, he just got hired for his first project...what rookie guy would NOT be there everyday getting dirty and building it himself. Maybe he didn't consider himself a designer yet...but he knew he would damn well be building a course taken from his imagination. I agree, we don't know who wrote the caption. That could have been by the editor of the publication after Tilly wrote it. Maybe that caption is the first time Tilly was called a designer. But none the less, if he WASN'T the designer...I highly doubt Worthington would allow someone be titled something they're not in a national publication.
Was Tilly a modest man? At least in the very beginning? If so maybe that's why he preferred third person in his writings and as he continued writing he began to even use a pseudo. Tillys first project, probably some of his first writing, and you have an owner who entrusted his passion project to a rookie. That's pressure, and I think what you have is a passionate and eager young and modest Tilly working his ass off to make his first project a success.
I don't think this story is any different than with today's young designers who are on their own. So it's a HUGE stretch to prove that Tilly did not design Shawnee. Especially since the club has the minutes, as well as Phillip, that you don't have access to...to certify that Tilly was the designer of their course.
-
Ian,
To clear up a few things for YOU...
The earliest known writing by Tilly can be found in the December 1899 issue of Golf. It is titled "A visit to St. Andrews" and it goes into great detail about the trip he made there in 1898 and includes several photos taken by him, including the earliest known printing of his famous one of Old Tom Morris.
He first wrote under the pseudonym of "Hazard" in the November 1898 issue of American Golfer. Writing as “Hazard” in August 1910 he mentioned the progress being made at Shawnee. In November 1910 he wrote, “Mr. A.W. Tillinghast… has been very actively engaged in the development of the new course of the Shawnee Country Club.”
In May 1911 “Hazard” wrote “Mr. A.W. Tillinghast, who for the past year has devoted most of his time to the work on the new course of the Shawnee Country Club…”
Oh yes, lets not forget how in December 1912 that Tilly, writing as “Hazard” wrote, “in developing the 10th hole at Shawnee, Mr. A.W. Tillinghast the ARCHITECT OF THE COURSE…”
These are just a very few of the NUMEROUS times that Tilly directly wrote in print that HE DESIGNED SHAWNEE. There is not one single time where he credits Worthington with anything in this regard… not once.
There are those who mistakenly believe that the 1914 Country Club article is the most comprehensive one written about the design of the course… they are quite mistaken. One simply has to look at the original ADVERTISING BROCHURE put out by the club in 1911 just BEFORE it opened for play, which brochure was ALSO written by Tilly in his capacity as Club Secretary, to see that this is not so. You can see this on the Tillinghast Association website.
In this brochure he describes every single hole and even includes the only known drawing of the original routing. The course is 6,011 yards at opening. Now take a look again at the Country Club article and one will see two figures given for the course length. One is what it then measured in 1914 while the other is what it measured AFTER some changes in 1912. It doesn’t speak to the ORIGINAL DESIGN in any great detail.
In addition, there were numerous other articles written by Tilly and others that gave tremendous details about the course and individual holes BEFORE this Country Club article that were also greater in detail than that one.
Of course, ALL of the above has already been posted on this discussion but, then again, why should someone “who has no idea” who designed Shawnee and states he is interested in finding the truth out have bothered to have read those details?
-
Well! That's good enough for me! Thanks Phil.
-
Has the advertising brochure been presented on this thread?
-
MacWood
Is this amateur hour? Anyone who has done any moderate amount of study into Tilly knows he would always write articles in third person under a pseudo. Why did he not use Hazard above this article? I'm not sure. It may raise the question as to WHEN he started using Hazard. Not whether or not he designed Shawnee. When was Tillys first article like this written? Are there earlier ones than this? I'm not sure but I would say probably not because Shawnee was Tillys first project. So why would he be published before this?
You put emphasis on the first paragraph. The unnamed owner and Tilly the builder. We know damn well that's Worthington. It's not a mystery. Is it such an oddity that the owner of a property would walk with the designer to show him the land, get to know him and see what Tilly thought? Isn't that what happens even today? Does every Doak course get questioned because he walked with the owner around the property? No.
This was Tillys first attempt, I see nothing wrong or questionable about referring to himself as the builder. Think about it, he just got hired for his first project...what rookie guy would NOT be there everyday getting dirty and building it himself. Maybe he didn't consider himself a designer yet...but he knew he would damn well be building a course taken from his imagination. I agree, we don't know who wrote the caption. That could have been by the editor of the publication after Tilly wrote it. Maybe that caption is the first time Tilly was called a designer. But none the less, if he WASN'T the designer...I highly doubt Worthington would allow someone be titled something they're not in a national publication.
Was Tilly a modest man? At least in the very beginning? If so maybe that's why he preferred third person in his writings and as he continued writing he began to even use a pseudo. Tillys first project, probably some of his first writing, and you have an owner who entrusted his passion project to a rookie. That's pressure, and I think what you have is a passionate and eager young and modest Tilly working his ass off to make his first project a success.
I don't think this story is any different than with today's young designers who are on their own. So it's a HUGE stretch to prove that Tilly did not design Shawnee. Especially since the club has the minutes, as well as Phillip, that you don't have access to...to certify that Tilly was the designer of their course.
Interesting post...I suspect the reason or reasons you did not post the article are revealed within.
-
Tom,
This is the only time I will respond to any post that you make on this or any other thread with the exception of if you attack me as a person as you did earlier. You owe me a true apology for calling me a liar. Until you do so, acknowledging what you did, I will not answer any question you may have or respond in any way to whatever you may write.
And lest anyone think that this hasn't been said to Tom on this thread already, this is what I wrote in post #53:
"Tom, If you want an answer form me to any question then you must apologize for calling me a liar on this public forum. Don't and all you will get from now on is silence, something that I believe you actually will enjoy..."
So do not ask me anything else until you apologize...
-
Philip:
I'm glad to hear you won't be responding to Tom MacWood. Even if he does apologize to you for calling you a liar on here I hope you never respond to him again.
Ian, I suggest you do the same with MacWood. As you can see by his recent posts to you there isn't any point anyway.
The jerk is really on a roll recently. He called Phil a liar; he just accused me of having multiple personalities; he recently defamed the long time historian of Merion by calling him "the poster boy of unethical archivists."
I don't think any of us should provide this guy with any forum on here and I hope Mike Cirba stops responding to him on any thread in the future.
Just look at his ridiculous rationale about Tillinghast and Shawnee. The idiot doesn't even get what writing about yourself in the third person means. Tom MacWood cannot research or analyze his way out of a paper bag! Personally, I think the man is sick.
-
Just read the article for the first time this morning...
How someone could read about someone "constructing" a course where they talk about determining hazard placement and type and not recognize by this time that the word construction was used virtually synonymously and inclusively in those days to pertain to any number of tasks INCLUDING design at that time is beyond me.
George Crump in the beginning of 1913 before a single hole was designed at Pine Valley named his group the "Construction Committee", as did Merion with Hugh Wilson's committee.
And Why not? They were planning to construct a golf course. They weren't just charged with or intending to "design" a course. It makes total sense yet has been bastardized here repeatedly, and yet again on this thread by those looking to interpret this article to prove that Tillinghast, an inexperienced novice at course design AND course construction, was not selected by CC Worthington to design and build his important golf course at Shawnee in 1909.
This article from 1916 shows more of how the term "constructed" was used, this time referring to the USGA ruling that made some men like Travis and "The Philadelphian", who was Tillinghast, into professionals for their architectural work.
Notice how the author only makes a distinction between "construction" which includes design and building...putting in the time necessary, versus those he seems to criticize for the limited value of their "paper jobs" that includes very little time on the property and no time spent in the construction process as was historically done by most of the foreign professionals.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4304253237_f6414fd30e_o.jpg)
-
Phil-the-author
If you believe I called you a liar, I apologize. I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?
Phil-the-author
I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man thats your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision.
Mike
In your article I find it very interesting that the construction aspect is emphasized with several of those gents...in particular Tilly at Shawnee, Wilson at Merion and Crump at PV. Who wrote the article.
-
Tom the Mac,
You wrote, “Phil-the-author, I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man that’s your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision.”
Tom, you did NOT APOLOGIZE nor did you ACKNOWLEDGE what you did.
I don’t know what world you live in but saying, and I’ve copied this directly from your earlier post and HIGHLIGHTED where necessary in hopes that even YOU can understand:
Phil-the-author
If you believe I called you a liar, I apologize. I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?
Your use of the word “BLUFFING” in this case is the same as calling me a liar. I have stated numerous times that I have copies of the internal club documents as well as the ORIGINAL ones in my personal possession and have them because the owners of Shawnee have hired me to write the 100-year anniversary book. I didn’t “IMPLY” anything. I was totally clear on this and stated it numerous times as well as that because the owners do not want me to put these records into the public eye I will NOT post any of them on here.
You stated above, “There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest…” So because YOU want me to BREAK my contract, and far more importantly, my WORD to those who trusted me with them, I should post them simply so that I can “put the bluffing accusation to rest”. In other words, to prove that I AM NOT LYING TO YOU i SHOULD LIE TO THOSE THAT TRUSTED ME WITH THIS?
Tom, by that you prove yourself to be a man without honor. It also shows exactly who is behaving like a child.
“Phil-the-author, If you believe I called you a liar…” I not only believe it but so do the many who ALSO took you to task for calling me a liar. What, are they acting like children also?
“I apologize.” In what way is that an apology? You certainly don’t acknowledge having even done anything insulting, in fact, you DENY IT! “I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case…” Tom, NO ONE on here who either read the comments or who will read them now will state that I “IMPLIED” anything. The simple fact is that you won’t own up to what you did.
You insulted my honor. You spoke about acting like a child, yet a MAN would have said in the very beginning that “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to have offended you. I understand that you are NOT ALLOWED to post the documents and will have to wait until either they can be shared or the book comes out to verify what you’ve said.”
No, all you could say was IF… I called you a liar… I DON’T BELIEVE I called you a liar.”
Finally, you stated that, “There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest…”
You are correct in this, in fact there are actually TWO ways that can “put the bluffing accusation to rest”. The first is to do what I encouraged YOU TO DO two other times already on this and the other thread which led to you beginning this one. I suggested that you call ROB HOWELL, manager at the Shawnee Inn and CC and ask him if I had the records. I told you then and I tell you again now that I haven’t spoken about this nonsense to him or the owner. I am certain that he will tell you that I have them because HE GAVE THEM TO ME HIMSELF! Go ahead, Tom, accuse that man of “BLUFFING” or are you afraid to simply make a simple phone call, one that will expose you for what you have done and what you are?
The second and easiest way to put an end to it, and one that should have been done from the very beginning, is to BELIEVE ME when I say I HAVE THEM in my possession. But that you won’t do because the implications of what it means that you should actually trust someone such as myself is too much for your ego to bear.
Tom, with every denial on your part you simply prove the truth of what I have said.
Acknowledge what you did and properly apologize. This is a question of honor; something I think is fairly obvious that you know little about.
-
We all go overboard from time to time, especially with topics we feel passionate about, which is unfortunate.
Can we get back to the subject of this thread ?
In reading every document/article offered, it would seem difficult to conclude that another party, especially one without any contemporaneous citation, designed and/or constructed Shawnee.
AWT seems to be THE MAN.
Do we have any documentation or articles specifically citing someone else as THE architect ?
-
"Phil-the-author
I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man thats your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision."
Tom MacWood:
That remark of yours is just another reason neither Phil nor anyone else on here thinks you apologized. If one is really interested in apologizing for something they said that insulted or defamed someone else they generally make an apologize for it and then ask the person they insulted or defamed to accept their apology. When that is done the apology is complete and effective in the world I come from but perhaps it is different in your mind and your world. You seem to take the relatively simple act of an apology and just turn it into another opportunity to continue arguing with the person you insulted! ???
-
Tom MacWood:
That remark of yours is just another reason neither Phil nor anyone else on here thinks you apologized. If one is really interested in apologizing for something they said that insulted or defamed someone else they generally make an apologize for it and then ask the person they insulted or defamed to accept their apology. When that is done the apology is complete and effective in the world I come from but perhaps it is different in your mind and your world. You seem to take the relatively simple act of an apology and just turn it into another opportunity to continue arguing with the person you insulted! ???
TEP
What the hell would you know about insulting and defaming people?
-
Tom MacWood:
Rather than always answering posts with irrelevent questions don't you suppose you should concentrate on sticking to the matter at hand here----eg effectively apologizing to Philip Young with the thought of getting him to accept your apology? ;)
While you're at it why don't you apologize to Merion's historian for your character assasination of him on this website ("the poster boy of unethical archivists" ::) ) and particularly since he doesn't participate on here? The list is getting longer quickly of the people you need to apologize to including the Township manager of Merchantville NJ.
I would have to say that one should probably not think of you as unethical; it seems to be more a matter that you don't seem to even know what ethics are.
-
Pat,
Thank you for your well-meaning attempt to bring civility to this thread. You asked, “Can we get back to the subject of this thread?” That is actually the problem.
This thread was started as a direct attack against me for what I stated on the Top Courses thread. This is what Tom Macwood wrote in his opening post:
“Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?”
On the other thread I clearly stated that Tilly designed it, had no help in doing so, oversaw the construction and that EVERY contemporaneous article and writing stated the same thing and that Tilly HIMSELF had written it as well. In addition, I mentioned the documents in my possession from Shawnee. I was challenged on this and asked to prove it by posting them. I refused for reasons that I have stated quite clearly too many times and that you are aware. After calling me a liar on that thread, he started this one. With that background in mind then, reread what Tom actually wrote (my highlights):
“Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?”
How disingenuous can you be? I had stated numerous times that there were internal; documents and records that prove it and now he’s once again asking for them as the basis for another thread after calling me a liar for having them?
No, Pat, this thread has been a personal attack from the very first post.
To answer your question, “Do we have any documentation or articles specifically citing someone else as THE architect?”
No, we don’t, and I include Tom the Mac in that as he has specifically stated in post #62 on this thread, “As I said before I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, and that was after reading that particular article…” (the Country Club Life article he claimed was the best source for information on the original design. I believe I’ve disproved that.)
Tom Paul, I know you are well-meaning in asking Tom Macwood about apologizing for his unwarranted and completely rude slandering of Jogn capers. That is a separate issue and should not be part of this discussion, especially as it only gives hiom the opportunity to ignore what he has been directly asked to do...
-
"Tom Paul, I know you are well-meaning in asking Tom Macwood about apologizing for his unwarranted and completely rude slandering of Jogn capers. That is a separate issue and should not be part of this discussion, especially as it only gives hiom the opportunity to ignore what he has been directly asked to do..."
Philip:
I understand what you are saying but this kind of thing with MacWood towards you on some recent threads on Shawnee is just one more in a whole list of threads over the last seven plus years that are exactly the same as this subject on Shawnee that MacWood started. This is what I go through with the likes of Merion and Myopia with MacWood and Moriarty and perhaps since this just happened with you from MacWood you can now appreciate it better. I've been accused of altering original Merion documents and of withholding evidence etc since I don't turn over to them what I have and the reasons I've always given for it are of no real difference than the reasons you gave MacWood about what you have and what you know on Shawnee. My relationship with Merion and Myopia isn't much different than yours is with Shawnee even though it seems just about impossible to get MacWood and Moriarty to understand or acknowledge that.
Their approach is to just throw threads on here with some bizarre alternative "THEORIES" on the histories of various clubs, and when those ridiculous theories are criticized they both then demand that all the private material from these clubs be turned over to them to prove their ridiculous alternative theories wrong. And the both of them constantly combine those demands on here with continuous statements that these clubs are only out to protect icons and their history books are works of fiction and fantasy or worse.
This is very much the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative wrong, and thankfully, at this point, they have both been called on it and censored on it by everyone who participates on any of those threads.
You're just the latest victim with something that has been going on with those two on here for over seven years, Philip.
But if you are asking me to stick to the subject of MacWood apologizing to you I'd be glad to and I completely support your request to get him to apologize to you for virtually calling you a liar on here. If you get his apology to your satisfaction I think you should tell him you accept it and then this too will pass.
However, I do renew my suggestion that nobody respond to MacWood on this kind of thread subject he so often starts and that way the guy will have no forum left for this kind of time-wasting garbage!
-
Come on, Phil, grow up. Tom MacWood not only apologized, he told you that he had no intention of calling you a liar. By your logic, you must be calling Tom MacWood a liar because you refuse to believe him. And if he disagrees, he would be calling you a liar for calling him a liar. It gets pretty silly rather quickly.
You cant take every disagreement as a personal insult, yet that is what you are doing here. You did the same thing to me above . . . accusing me of calling you a liar because I corrected your understanding of MY INTENTIONS. Tom MacWood told you his intentions. Now let it go.
Rise above it and try to get back to substance. It is pretty sad when there is a thread about Tillie and most of the substance has come from others rather than you.
-
David,
As happened earlier in this thread, it is YOU who are sticking your nose in this and so when I tell you are wrong you will once again cry "foul" that I am picking on you. Cut the crap.
As far as "most of the substance" coming from others in this thread, taht of course is ludicrous as well. I have citred NUMEROUS examples proving without any question that Tilly designed Shawnee by himself, including where he calls himself the "ARCHITECT of the course..."
No David, it is you who is simply trying to back up your friend. Tom Macwood DID call me a LIAR. He ADMITTED it MORE than ONCE. He refuses to apologize for having done so.
As far as my calling him a Liar, I would never do such a thing. I would always challenge someone who's word I doubted and who I thought was being disingenuous. I might do it something like this, as I did on the other thread where Tom was most disingenuous and I caught him at it red-handed. He never responded to it:
Tom the Mac,
I thought about it for a minute, and whether you answer my question or not is of no significance because there really is no way you can defend your statement in light of what Tilly was doing at Shawnee.
What I feel I must comment on is your insulting and sarcastic statement, "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
NONSENSE!
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #31 as you did in #35?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #37 as you did in #38?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #44 as you did in #45?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #46 as you did in #47?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my new comment in post #50 as you did in #52?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my comment which ONCE AGAIN contained the question you were ignoring in post #56 as you did in #57 while ignoring the question once again?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU respond to my reply to your #57 with an answer in #60, where I AGAIN asked the question, with a response in #62 where you once again ignored the question?
I responded in #67 and once AGAIN asked the question to which you SARCASTICALLY responded in #68 with "Thanks."
Who do you think you are kidding with "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
So tell me David, based on the above, wouldn't you agree that Tom the Mac has been quite disingenuous in his statement to me? He NEVER responded to that and I've posted it to him several times now. He won't because he CAN'T. The truth is there for ALL to see.
No David, Tom is definitely wrong here and I won't relent in demanding he apologize for it. Sorry iof you don't like it and also if you don't like being told so. Then again, I only did because YOU stuck your nose in it yourself.
Now of course, if YOU really wanted to help settle this, and Tom was right when he said that there was a simple way to end this, YOU could do what I've suggested to Tom Macwood that he do at least three different times. It is such a simple thing, call Shawnee and speak to Rob Howell. He's the General manager and is the person who GAVE ME all the documents and access. Ask him if he did. Go ahead, and then tell all on here his answer.
Tom doesn't have the BALLS to do it and neither do you. Just as I haven't spoken to Rob about this thread or subject or Tom Macwood, ! haven't spoken to him about you either.
Go ahead and ask him, David. See if I'm "BLUFFING" about that as well.
-
As I said Phil, grow up.
-
As I said, David, make the phone call and then tell all that I told the truth or simply keep your nose out of it.
-
Since anyone who has read what has transpired on the other threads will understand, let me once again state that I had not wanted to post these because in doing so it can only embarrass Tom Macwood who called me a LIAR for stating that I had them earlier in this thread and refused to apologize.
I offered him an opportunity to apologize in private, actually sending him these as proof. He denies receiving the email and then had the AUDACITY to say on the other thread "Why don't you start a thread about that supposed email so I can ignore that too."
To recap then; I stated that I had all the original documents, board meeting minutes, paperwork, etc... from Shawnee as I have been hired by them to write a 100-year anniversary book. Tom called me a liar and demanded that I post them. I refused because my agreement with the owner was that I would keep them to myself until AFTER the book is released. That, of course was not good enough for Tom who called me a liar once again and even did so on another thread where he admitted doing it.
Because it is a point of personal honor, I received permission from those at Shawnee to post whatever I felt I must to prove what I had and clear my name of the slander that had been thrown my way. That is the only reason I am posting these now and they are the absolute and unarguable proofs that I have the documents in my possession.
The first is the COVER of the ORIGINAL BOARD MINUTES book. It actually details the very beginning of the Manwalamink CC the forerunner of the Shawnee CC:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shawnee1.jpg)
This is the page that details the incorporating of the Manwalamink CC in 1900:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shawnee2.jpg)
This is the page that details the name change and the legalities in doing so to the Shawnee CC in 1910:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shawnee3.jpg)
So Tom, even YOU CAN'T SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE THEM!
I posted these when I didn't want to and never wanted to embarrass you by doing so, but you left me no choice.
Now, you owe me an admittance of what you did and a proper apology!
-
Good stuff Phil....but I think they will STILL find a way to maintain their stance and not give you credit.
-
I disagree Ian. Tom Macwood can only do one of two things on this thread. he can be a man and admit that he called me a liar, apologize for doing so and acknowledge that I have the records. or he can simply "IGNORE" this thread which is what he stated on the other one that he would do.
-
I think it is quite clear now that Tom Macwood is NOT a man of his word. He stated in post #19 above "Shivas, Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post."
Now as all can see from what I posted above, I absolutely have the documents, records, board minutes and much more. I never BLUFFED, OBFUSCATED, TRICKED, MISSPOKE or the word that describes all of the above in the way that Tom Macwood accused me, LIED!
Tom, by your own words your complete ignoring of what has been presented both privately and publicly, rebuffing my efforts to settle this in private and now in public and completely ignoring WHAT YOU STARTED shows you to be a man of no character or class or honor.
It also shows that by not admitting your wrong and apologizing, YOUR statement "If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post will become a lie and prove you to be exactly what you accused me of doing...
Preserve even a tiny piece of your dignity and do so...
-
One very last bump (I promise) in hopes that Tom Macwood will show some semblance of being a man and do the right thing...
-
I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case.
Phil-the-author
What was the purpose of posting those particular excerpts? Does it shed any light on who did what at Shawnee?
-
Tom the Mac,
"What was the purpose of posting those particular excerpts?"
It is beyond me how you can ask such a question. Wasn't it YOU who stated, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?"
Maybe you don't remember what I responded because you "ignore" what I write; oh wait, I disproved that claim on the other thread, but we'll let that issue go for now. This is taken from YOUR OWN POST on the Top Courses thread which is where you FIRST called me a LIAR on this issue:
Quote from: Philip Young on September 14, 2010, 09:20:15 PM
You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.
The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.
I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee. [In case anyone is wondering that was your response]
Tom, to answer your question I presented those items for the following reasons:
1- They provide ABSOLUTE PROOF that my "claim" that I had and have the records from Shawnee are true! You can NOT deny what they are, the ORIGINAL Board Minutes from the Club!
2- The two pages that cite the creation of Manwalamink CC in 1900 and the renaming and restructuring into the Shawnee CC in 1910 were shown to prove that I had ALL the documents going back to DAY ONE!
3- I PURPOSEFULLY chose to post ONLY those three pages because any and all other documents which bear on the question can be seen, viewed or read about in the coming 100 year anniversary book next May.
4- On this thread you have admitted clearly that you have "no idea who did what at Shawnee" and yet there has been numerous proofs, including Tilly's OWN WRITTEN WORDS that he was "the architect of Shawnee" so that the need for me to produce "internal documents" are unnecessary. That is why I also won't post any and you'll have to wait until next May.
5- Nothing else is needed to prove that you were wrong.
6- You have no excuse to not apologize based upon them as they are exactly what you stated I didn't have and then asked for, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?"
7- Frankly, as your response here shows no remorse, embarrassment or admittance that you were wrong or even an intimation that you would even consider an apology, I expect that you will use the above as simply another arguing point.
Tom, in private emails to some who suggested, counselled and even told me that it was time to let this go I said that I would. That doesn't mean that I am rescinding my demand that you properly apologize; far from it! You owe me one and you should, if only for dignity's sake.n You should end this and admit what you did and properly apologize.
Let's also clear up a few minor points and answer a few other questions posed by you that are quite relevant.
YOU stated in your post quoting from yourself, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case."
Your numerous uses of the word "bluffing" is calling me a liar. This is not only my belief but a number of others who directly challenged you on it and SPECIFICALLY told you that you called me a "LIAR."
Secondly, and actually quite important as I believe you will try to wriggle out of what you've done by saying it is a misunderstanding or you didn't mean to imply that by your use of the word "bluffing": in the same sentence you state that I "IMPLIED" that I had "internal club documents/minutes that made my case."
I already answered this on the other thread, but since you bring this statement up once again, take another look at the SEVEN things that I reposted above which was in answer to your baseless charges on the other thread. How could any person with even a modicum of intelligence believe that when I state that I HAVE and YOU HAVE NOT mean that I am IMPLYING anything?
I stated quite clearly on numerous occasions that I had them and now I have proven it.
The questions you asked that need answering? Why after Ian challenged you on the other thread you answered him with the following:
"Ian Relax, I don't believe I told Phil to do anything. I asked him a question, actually two questions. Do you believe the internal club documents of Shawnee should be treated as some state secret? How many transformations has the resort had over the years, and is it even considered a private club today? Why would they care?"
Do you believe the internal club documents of Shawnee should be treated as some state secret?
No, I don't and do not treat them that way.
How many transformations has the resort had over the years, and is it even considered a private club today?
The RESORT has had at least 5 transformations over the years depending upon your definition of the word, but I don't believe that is really the question you meant to ask. The GOLF COURSE has undergone numerous "transformations" or redesigns which is also the word I believe you are looking for. Again, depending upon your definition of these terms, there are far too many to list here, though again, you'll see that question dealt with in May when the book comes out.
"Is it even considered a private club today?"
No, it isn't... because it has NEVER been a private club which certainly proves how very little you know about it. It is a RESORT and the RESORT owns a GOLF COURSE. The owner(s) of the RESORT also own the GOLF COURSE. The RESORT leases NON-EXCLUSIVE USE of the GOLF COURSE to the Shawnee Country Club. The RESORT also leases SPACE on the lower level of the SHAWNEE INN for use as the CLUBHOUSE for the SOLE use by MEMBERS of the SHAWNEE CC. The SHAWNEE CC is and has always been a PRIVATE CLUB.
Why would they care?
What business is that of yours? Why do YOU CARE that THEY care? Frankly you again don't even recognize ALL of those involved. First, the Shawnee Inn's records are separate and distinct from the Shawnee CC's records. The ownership of the Inn has records and documents that the Shawnee CC does not have and vice-versa. As such the records, documents, minutes, notes and letters are from a variety of owners, sources, etc..., each of whom have their own reasons for allowing or not allowing the publishing of what is THEIRS!
It's just too damn bad that you believe that you are entitled to see them when you won't even make a phone call to Shawnee to ask. I have told you numerous times who you should call yet YOU WON'T DO IT! Yet you have the audacity to publicly call me a liar, be given an opportunity to apologize privately, refuse to, and now, when you have nothing left to you but to simply admit you were wrong, you can't do it.
This is beyond pitiable...
-
TMac,
I think he tells us what the purpose is - to prove your contention wrong that he doesn't have internal documents.
BTW, even if those don't show a contract with Tillie to design the course (I didn't see that in a quick review) he has still posted an equal number of documents as you have to bolster your contention that its not a cut and dried case.
How can you start a thread saying you have done a lot of research, and think Tillie was not the sole designer, and not post one iota of those documents to prove your contention?
This is about the clearest example of your intent here, which is mostly to piss off other people, as far as I can tell. It certainly isn't to promote open and honest discussion of gca attribution because you just ask leading questions, and withhold anything you might have. Its probably time for us to make the same accusation you made of Phil, no? Either you have documents countering the Tillie attribution or you don't?
Why do you ask questions on this thread, if none of them shed any light on who did what at Shawnee?
-
I find it very telling how the term "construction" almost always back then referred to both the routing, design, and building phases, including agronomics.
It makes perfect semse...these guys were constructing golf courses, and they didn't make such specialized distinctions to the different parts of the job as we do todAy.
Such a historic understanding helps explain a lot of things that may seem strange to us today when viewed only from our modern understanding and perspectives.
-
Jeff, yes Phil tells what his purpose is and in the process confirms just how much trouble Phil is having processing even the simplest information. Tom MacWood never accused Pjil of lying about access to the records. TM accused Phil of bluffing when Phil suggested that these internal records made Phil's case. That is still an open question, and one which the docs posted by Phil don't answer.
Like with Phil claiming TM called him a liar, he is off his rocker here too. I have no doubt that Phil thinks the docs make the case, but the way Phil is processing this stuff, who knows?
Also you are wrong about Tom not offering anything. The article I posted above is from TomM. I only posted it for him.
What is YOUR purpose here Jeff? Because I find it odd that you of all people would scold Tom MacWood for backing up his positions. You seem to have an opinion on about everything, but I don't ever recall you producing any novel facts to back it up. And like here many of your opinions are based on a twisted or misrepresented version of facts others have comE up with.
Mike Cirba, so you've decided to take your Merion argument on the road? Pretty funny to see the extent to which you will go to avoid acknowledging the obvious.
-
"Unless you now want to call him a LIAR and call every other majopr golf writer at the time who praised Tilly for his design at Shawnee, and who didn't mention Worthington as doing anything in that regard."
Phil-the-author
I had a feeling you were bluffing. First of all because you pulled this trick before on the North Shore thread. At the time you were trying to make the case Tilly could have designed NS even though he never listed it on his master list. You produced your own list of eight or ten courses you claimed he designed, but never listed. When you were asked to support your list you said you couldn't because of an impending book. I then proceded to go down you list course by course showing why your list was bogus. The second reason I thought you were bluffing is your continued boasting you have internal documents, so therefore I guess we are supposed to believe these documents make your case. But when you were trying to prove Shawnee was a solo job instead of saying I have internal documents to prove it, you said old articles say Tilly designed Shawnee on his own, and anyone who doubts those articles is calling Tilly and every major golf writer a liar. By the way I don't believe every major golf writer wrote that Shawnee was a Tilly solo job.
-
Tom and David,
You make it quite apparent that NEITHER of you has anything to offer.
David, you are wrong in everything you stated which is why so many others got on tom's case fopr calling me a LIAR!
Tom, so you are STILL calling me a LIAR after everything I posted? I'm sorry, but I will NOT post what is in those documents. With your attitude you will most likely accuse me of alterring them.
All this because you wouldn't accept that Worthington hiored an "untested and inexperienced" person to desuign Shawnee. THAT is what this all goes back to.
-
Phillip,
Go back and read what TomM wrote. It leaves no doubt that he thought you were bluffing about whether those internal documents support your case.
I guess now I understand some or your bizarre posts, like where you demanded I call Shawnee! But how you could have gotten this wrong when TM explained it repeatedly is beyond me. And to think you have been been going from thread to thread demanding TM apologize for something he never even said. You even tried to drag Ran into it, didn't you?
Get a grip Phil.
-
David,
Niether Phil or I are as stupid as you portray in your attacks on us. You always presume that someone who disagrees with you must be an idiot, but that is nothing but arrogance on your part, not reality.
BTW, the one document you (finally when others didn't do it, and thanks for that) confirmed Tillie was the designer as much as anything. So, one piece that goes against TMacs initial thread idea, and none of his extenisve reading and researching to support his original thesis has been presented by him. NONE.
Can I pull a David M here and ask why it is YOU can't understand one of the simplest words of the English language. NONE means NONE, David, no matter how you try to parse it.
BTW, liar, bluffer, in this context is all the same. And I just see where TMac is again pushing his theory, without posting any supporting documents while chastising Phil yet again, and letting it spill over into the old NOrth Shore thread, too. It seems to be a double standard, to me.
When we don't agree with your interpretations, you playing defense by going on offense - such as when you won't answer a question but demand others do, name calling, etc. isn't good or logical argument - its just argumentative.
You posting one document can't be construed as you having take the road of the high and mighty re: interest in history either.
And like everyone else on here, I am naturally curious about whatever those old course documents, pictures, etc. show. I haven't done the research Tom Mac has, and always appreciate it when he and others show old stuff from any course. I don't always agree 100% with his analysis, but that falls under what would be natural disagrements between reasonable men.
I stand by my stance the TMac is out of bounds on the idea of this thread by posting a theory with no evidence and then demanding absolute proof from Phil. It is simply a tactic that is guaranteed to start a flame war, whether intentional or not, but in context of other discussions here, I think Tom made an intentional judgement, in pursuing a personal agenda against others on this board, rather than intelligently discussion the history of Shawnee. That is not always the case with Tom, but I regret to say, I believe it is in this case.
David, at one time, your responses to me were civil, or about in proportion to whatever I dished out your way, and I felt like we had sort of an understanding about each other, and I respected you. Lately, nearly every one of your posts lashes out, attacks, and questions other posters, all while accusing them of doing the same. (and not coincidentally, provides less substantive contributions than before) I wish you would go back to some semblance of rationality, but you seem to have completely lost it from what I read on these boards. We can deal with difficult Dave, but not demented Dave!
Its certainly time for all of us to take a Merion and Shawnee break, for the benefit of all.
-
Sorry David, I don't have to go back and re-read what Tom posted. YOU need to go back and read EVERYTHING that Tom posted and you will see that he plainly called me a liar for not posting ANYTHING that I was given by Shawnee. ANYTHING!
And for one very last time, remember, this all started because Tom Macwood could not accept that Tillinghast was the proven exception to his "theory," which he has argued to death as fact, that by 1910 no one would hire someone who was "inexperienced and untested" to design a golf course. That is EXACTLY what Tillinghast was and EXACTLY what Worthington did.
David, I have no problem accepting from anyone that they believe that Tom did not call me a liar, but not from you. Your agenda is more than clear. It is obvious in statements such as "I guess now I understand some or your bizarre posts, like where you demanded I call Shawnee!"
Tell the entire truth on that one David because anyone can go back and look through the thread and see what really took place. I originally told Tom that HE could call Shawnee and confirm that I had the documents. He never did. He told him that in response to my statement that if I made myself a LIAR to the owner of Shawnee by posting the documents that I had agreed not to publish then he'd, and lets QUOTE HIM, "WITHDRAW HIS ACCUSATIONS!"
Well, now I've gotten permission to post what I would like on here. I post the proof that I have the documents and yet that is simply not good enough for Tom & You. Did you ever even consider that if he had done what he had said he would do and "withdraw his ACCUSATIONS" that maybe I would have posted more of them and maybe even included those which he'd most like to see? Of course not, that would never enter into his or your mind. No, BOTH of you would rather have me be a liar to the Shawnee ownership.
So David, when I suggested, NOT "DEMANDED" as you once again arrogantly in your misrepresentation of what I actually said claim, that you call Rob Howell at Shawnee and he would CONFIRM EVERYTHING THAT I CLAIMED I had, I also said that doing so was a little thing. Why did I say that? Because both YOU & TOM said that I could end all of this by doing the "little thing" of posting them and making myself a liar.
I actually gave you and Tom very easy outs on that. Actually anyone from on site can feel free to call and ask Rob Howell and he'll CONFIRM that he gave me all of the documents that I claimed to possess and MORE!
One last thing, I didn't "drag" Ran into this. I asked him for advice, I asked him to act as a go-between and I asked him to talk to Tom to try to persuade him to speak with me and end this privately. Tom chose this, NOT ME! And since you brought Ran back up, feel free to confirm with him what he suggested to me on the phone originally, that I post the proof and EMBARRASS TOM! Those were his EXACT words.
David, all you want to do is argue. I am done with you on this.
-
Mike Cirba, so you've decided to take your Merion argument on the road? Pretty funny to see the extent to which you will go to avoid acknowledging the obvious.
David,
No need to discuss Merion. It's your basic misunderstanding of the terminology of the time period, your lack of substantive supporting evidence to support your positions, and your twisting of words and facts that is at issue here.
But since you mentioned Merion, I'll mention that your theory rests on a number of faulty assumptions, with one big one being the name of Hugh Wilson's Committee, the "Construction Committee". In your paper you argue that it was called that because it had no design role, but simply was charged with building the course to others' specifications.
Here's two articles about Pine Valley written by Tillinghast early in 1913 months before Harry Colt arrived.
Note the name of the Committee in the bottom article. It's clear that 1) Crump and his committee were designing and building the course and 2) the overwhelming use of amateur architects made up of top local players around Philadelphia to design and develop courses continued almost unabated up until WWI, at Merion, Pine Valley, Philadelphia Cricket, Philadelphia Country Club, Huntingdon Valley, LuLu, North Hills, and a number of others.
Guy like Phil and I will continue to provide evidence and facts, you and Tom go ahead and post nonsense like self-derived lists and wild speculation that only have meaning to the uninformed, those predisposed to buying into flimsy conspiracy theories, or those with simply a passing interest who may not know better..
January 12, 1913
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part2.jpg)
March 23, 1913
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part2.jpg)
-
That is ridiculous Phil. You've been self-righteously demanding that TM apologize for something he didn't say, and because you again failed to understand the simplest statement. Look at what he wrote, for goodness sakes. Now you are lashing out at me, because you refuse to consider that it was you who were wrong from the beginning.
I don't know what is going on with you but I assure you I have no interest in arguing with you or even discussing anything with you Phil. You seem to have lost your ability to understand even the simplest things, and keep flying off the handle based on some pretty incomprehensible interpretations. Perhaps you should consider taking a step back and getting a grip.
Good Luck.
-
David,
To quote that great philosopher Archie Bunker... :P
-
Phil-the-author
You implied you had internal documents that proved Shawnee was a Tilly solo job, and I said you were bluffing. Have you presented any internal documents proving Shawnee was a solo job? Me thinks you protest too much. You are bluffing.
-
Twood,
You still have to prove otherwise which you cant. Phil has shown over and over that he has access to documents that you never will but would love to. Give it up or get out. Move on to your next useless conquest.
-
Tom the Macwood,
You are beyond reasoning with this. I have posted NUMEROUS times that I am NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING that I am DEFINITELY stating that I have ALL the documents and that there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Tilly designed Shawnee by himself, oversaw the construction, redesigned it in 1912/13 by himself, redesigned and tweaked it a number of times through the years all the way up to and including the for the 1938 PGA Championship.
You might think I protest too much but I know for a certainty that you are wrong and continue to call me a liar as you just did again saying "You are bluffing." You are a fool and this is over.
-
Ian, I don't think it is Tom's burden to disprove that the records back up Phil's claim, given that Phil has never established that they prove it.
You and Phil seem to have caught a touch that nasty ailment tepaulitis, a malady which causes those infected to mistakenly believe that access equates to knowledge and understanding. It doesn't.
-
It's hardly surprising that both Tom MacWood and David Moriarty choose to ignore the Tillinghast articles on Pine Valley, as their content simply demolishes several of their most preciously held myths they've tried for many years to perpetuate on this website, all in one shot.
The irony of Tilly blowing away their specious theories on a thread where they attempted to slight his authorship of his very first design is simply delicious poetic justice.
-
Tom MacWood,
When you have a chance, could you reply to the question my friend Eric Pevoto posed in post #2?
-
Where did I say he wasn't the primary architect?
-
"You and Phil seem to have caught a touch that nasty ailment tepaulitis, a malady which causes those infected to mistakenly believe that access equates to knowledge and understanding. It doesn't."
Unfortunately for you and Tom MacWood it does. Every researcher/historian whose analysis of a golf course or architect of a subject course (Merion and Wilson) has any credibility has had significant access to the subject club and its archives.
-
Tom MacWood,
Regarding reply #169: Fair enough. Therfore, could you offer your answer to your own question from post #1, "Who designed Shawnee"?
-
Dan,
DON'T give Tom Macwood a pass on his seemingly benign statement "Where did I say he wasn't the primary architect?"
On the Top Courses thread, Tom stated the following as FACT "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910."
I challenged him on this point and in my reply #50 stated "Nonsense! A.W. Tillinghast was both inexperienced and untested and yet had designed Shawnee by late 1909 and was overseeing its construction throughout 1910 and had done neither before those years."
This started a series of back and forth posts where Tom answered, acknowledged and/or commented on parts of every one of my posts yet would not answer the question as I posted it in #56 "Since you chose to ignore my disagreement with your contention that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." I'll ask you if you then considered A.W. Tillinghast who had just finished his design of Shawnee and was now overseeing its construction, both of which were firsts for him, was actually experienced and tested in 1910, and if so, what you could possibly base it on?"
It got all the way down to my post #131 where I again asked "You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine] In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?"
And then TOM ANSWERED with this in post #147:
His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience.
So now Tom has both downplayed Tilly’s role as SOLE designer by denying it, he also relegated Tilly to the position of JUNIOR PARTNER in this!
After I challenged him on that line stating that Worthington was both Tilly's design "associate" on Shawnee and that he had a "great deal of experience" he again responded, now more than a bit sarcastically, "Phil-the-author, Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience? If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays."
On this thread, after showing his ineptitude and demanding someone post the Country Club Life article that Tilly wrote about Shawnee in 1914, he stated in this post #123 “I'm referring to the article...his account of the project. He [Tillinghast] never mentions in the article he designed the golf course; he emphasizes his construction role. "
In fact, on one of the other threads, before I posted the quote where Tilly stated that he "was the ARCHITECT of SHAWNEE" in an article about the course, Tom even stated that he never questioned that Tilly was the person in charge of CONSTRUCTION!
No, Dan, Tom never stated the words "Tilly wasn't the primary architect" but, then again he did say:
1- Tilly was a design associate of WORTHINGTON on the project.
2- WORTHINGTON was the very EXPERIENCED golf course architect of the two.
3- Tilly didn't claim that he was the DESIGNER of the course in the Country Club Life article
4- That "If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you[/i], it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays."
Now how could anyone with even a miniscule ability to reason believe that with those statements that Tom Macwood has NOT stated that:
1- WORTHINGTON was in charge and was the MAJOR designer of Shawnee.
2- Tilly's role was one PRIMARILY of CONSTRUCTION Manager.
And then Tom states on this thread several times that "I have NO IDEA who designed Shawnee[/b]."
What a load of crap! Be honest Tom the MAC, and admit that you HAVE been stating that Worthington was both one of and lead designer of the course. If you have that belief, FINE! Then back it up with facts if you can. But DON'T deny that you haven't stated it because you have!
-
Tom MacWood,
Regarding reply #169: Fair enough. Therfore, could you offer your answer to your own question from post #1, "Who designed Shawnee"?
Dan
I don't know who did what which is why I started this thread. The article I posted (written by Tilly) gives the impression the two men may have at least studied the site together initially. Based on the fact Worthington had already laid out three courses (at least) to that point, and the fact that he was heavily involved in golf course maintenance, and the fact that Tilly had no experence, it is not too far fetched to expect Worthington was involved someway in the design of his golf course. In fact I would say it is likely. The other thing that stood out in that article is Tilly's emphasis on his role as the primary construction supervisor, and not mentioning anything about designing the golf course.
-
Dan:
It looks like you got an answer to your question to Tom MacWood. However, as I'm sure you can see from his answer to your question, he does seem to have a remarkably "compartmentalized" way of thinking and reasoning. One might say he just has blinders on.
Another good example of that is that he keeps asking for someone to explain to him how an inexperienced insurance salesman like Hugh Wilson could have been called on by MCC to design the East and West courses.
Apparently it has never even occured to him that Hugh Wilson may not have been ONLY an inexperienced insurance salesman; he may've had some truly inherent talent for golf course architecture and the men of MCC apparently knew that and understood or they probably would not have picked him to chair the committee to create the East and West courses!! ;)
But apparently Tom MacWood's assumption is that he really couldn't have had any inherent talent for architecture and therefore the men of Merion actually picked someone else to design the courses and then all got together and agreed to lie about it for the unlikely purpose of making some kind of icon and hero out of a young inexperienced insurance salesman!!
Huh??? ::) :o ;)
-
Tom,
You keep painting yourslef into an impossible corner.
"I don't know who did what which is why I started this thread..." I'll agree completely that you don't know who did what at Shawnee. As for why you started this thread, others beside myself have already stated their beliefs on that subject at the beginning of this thread.
"The article I posted" get it right Tom since you DIDN'T post it, David Moriarity did "(written by Tilly) gives the impression the two men may have at least studied the site together initially." That they certainly did they even crossed the Binniekill walking on the ice in the winter of 1909. Do you know WHY THEY DID THAT? There is a VERY GOOD REASON. Let's see if you can figure it out on your own.
"Based on the fact Worthington had already laid out three courses (at least) to that point" Worthington built 6 holes on his estate at Irving-on-Hudson. He would supervise the design and construction of 9 holes for the Caladeno Golf Club. This doesn't mean that he either designed or laid the course out himself. He did lay out the 9-holes of the Manwalamink Golf Club on Depuy Island. So with all that experience, the question must be asked WHY would he HIRE Tillinghast to DESIGN the golf course at all?
"and the fact that he was heavily involved in golf course maintenance" That is patently incorrect. The only aspect of golf course "maintenance" that he was invovled in before and after Shawnee was the Worthington Mower Company. The first gang-mower that he invented was a horse-drawn one in 1906 which cut the fairway grass at Manwalamink. That was it. He was NOT "heavily involved" in golf course maintenance as he had both a crew and soperintendent caring for the course and his properties. You can find that information in the records. That was it until 1919 when he developed a gas-powered tractor for pulling the mowers and expanded the gang-mower idea.
"and the fact that Tilly had no experence" Really? Wasn't it YOU who mentioned Tilly's building of the "rudimentary course" in Frankford in 1898 as PROOF that he was EXPERIENCED on the other thread when I challenged you on this very point? You're beginning to speak out of both sides of your mouth now.
"it is not too far fetched to expect Worthington was involved someway in the design of his golf course. In fact I would say it is likely."
Maybe you would, but the records say OTHERWISE!
"The other thing that stood out in that article is Tilly's emphasis on his role as the primary construction supervisor, and not mentioning anything about designing the golf course." You leave out a VERY IMPORTANT point here Tom. In the article Tilly also NEVER STATES that WORTHINGTON had ANYTHING to do with the design, laying out, building, finishing, maintenance or anything else with the creation of the golf course at Shawnee. In fact, there isn't a SINGLE article written by Tilly where he gives Worthington credit for any aspect of any of the above. NONE. He does, however, in numerous articles and publications, call himself the "ARCHITECT" of Shawnee. EVERY golf writer of his day credited the course design to him and none EVER mentioned Worthington as having any hand in it at all.
You want everyone to believe that WORTHINGTON was the LEAD designer at Shawnee (see my post above where you clearly stated such) and yet you also say thyat "I don't know who did what at Shawnee." That jaw has to be hurting pretty badly by now from talking out of both sides of it.
Maybe the biggest irony in this is that you keep pounding away on Merion asking "Why would they hire an inexperienced and untested insurance salesman like Wilson" as if that is some sort of proof, yet here YOU HAVE STATED that Worthington hired an INEXPERIENCED and UNTESTED Tillinghast to take part in designing Shawnee since you referred to his being Worthington's design "ASSOCIATE" on it.
Yep, that mouth of yours is getting a real two-sided workout...
Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!
-
TEPaul and Philip,
Exactly what I was getting at.
I've been asking for a while why Fownes was so successful at Oakmont, but others as inexperienced would have been failures.
-
Dan
How long have you been participating on GCA?
-
Phil-the-author
I think you may be selling Worthington a little short. How much time did he spend overseas studying the great golf courses?
-
Tom the Macwood,
His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.
Tom, admit that you are simply grasping at straws and trying to "reason" something through based solely upon little snippets of information that has NOTHING at all to do with this question.
And by the way, I write about the wheres and whens of how Worthington learned the game and his passionate interest in it in the book.
Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you.
If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this:
Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!
-
Jeff,
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread and so I missed your long and insulting post to me above. Sorry about that.
I don't think either you or Phil is stupid and I haven't attacked either one of you. I am not sure what is going on with Phil. He is not himself lately. As for you, you've never been all that into the facts, and I think I have just grown a bit tired of you constantly drawing conclusions based upon an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the record. I've grown used to your constant lectures on how I behave, and mostly just don't look at them. You've got plenty on your own plate in this regard so I hardly see you as a sage when it comes to these issues.
That said, I have no animosity toward you about this, but will admit it does get a bit old having to set the record straight after about all of your posts. I can see you resent me doing so, but I'll nonetheless continue. I don't do it for you so much as for anyone else who might stumble onto the post, see that a real designer has posted, and take what you present as fact as that when it often is not.
For example, here you berate me for only coming up with one document:
"You posting one document can't be construed as you having take the road of the high and mighty re: interest in history either."
You should really get your facts straight before you say such things. Why don't you go back and take a look? You might find I've done a more thorough job of making Phil's case than he has.
That said, as for the substance of this discussion, I've never taken a position, and I am out of it. I have no interest in discussing anything with Phil right now. Again, get your facts straight before you assuming TM's positions are mine. I do stand by what I said about Phil's accusation, and anyone who reads what TM wrote can see that Phil misunderstood it, but that has nothing to do with the substance at issue.
My recent questions to you were serious. I wasn't trying to be nasty. I really have no idea why you are here, or what your purpose is. Frankly, while you obviously like to express your opinion, you just don't seem all that interested in the details of what went on. So what gives? Why hang out with history geeks when it is obviously not your thing?
______________________________________________________
Dan Herrmann,
As for Oakmont, I think I addressed that last time you suggested that Fownes was a resounding amateur success from day one Surely the Fownes' were a great success, eventually, but it took them about a decade to pull it off. They were by no means inexperienced by the time Oakmont became a top course. But then maybe I am wrong. Is there anything the historical record that suggests that Oakmont was considered a top course as soon as it was built?
Also, you if you ever do actually research it, you might find that there were others around Oakmont who were well qualified to help Mr. Fownes out were he ever in need.
As for your graphic above, if you pile onto an insult graphically instead of verbally, is it less of an insult? Is it less of a mean and unnecessary swipe? Is there some sort of cartoon-graphic-exception to the love you preach?
-
David,
"I don't think either you or Phil is stupid and I haven't attacked either one of you. I am not sure what is going on with Phil. He is not himself lately."
What a most disingenuous and self-serving load of crap! You have CONTINUOUSLY shown arrogance with your sarcastic insults to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, not just me. In fact, even when someone does agree with you and even supports something that you state and correct Tom Paul by name while doing so as I did on the other thread, what do you do? You rip into them as you did me! Go back and take an HONEST look at what you wrote and the posts that followed. The irony in them is that it would end up with me being CORRECT in the date you got mad at me for correcting you on!
No David, don't play the aggrieved "I've done nothing wrong to Phil or anyone on here and no one would think so" nonsense.
Look at how that type of crap plays in your statement, "I do stand by what I said about Phil's accusation, and anyone who reads what TM wrote can see that Phil misunderstood it, but that has nothing to do with the substance at issue."
Answer me this then. If that were true why have so many on this and other threads given it to Tom specifically stating that he DID call me a LIAR! Are they all simply stupid? Are they all simply misunderstanding Tom? No David, you are disingenuous in the extreme.
Finally, let us say that I "misundersdtood" Tom. Explain this. After everything I have said about my belief that his ACCUSATION that I was BLUFFING was his calling me a liar, why would Tom the Mac then, knowing my strong feelings on that very point, just a few posts ago on this very thread say, ONCE AGAIN, "Me thinks you protest too much. You are bluffing."?
Am I MISUNDERSTANDING poor Tom the Mac once again? Who are you kidding? You know what he said, what he meant, the purpose for starting this thread, and the attacks made. You know because you've supported every one of them.
And no David, you never made a "more thorough job of making Phil's case than" that Tilly was the designer of Shawnee than I have on this or any other thread. That statement almost made me laugh...
-
David,
Well, you have attacked me. If you don't think so, perhaps we could put that to a gca.com vote to see how others percieve your posts. I think it would be similar to the 12-0 record of documents saying Tillie designed Shawnee vs Worthington. At least I admit I have gone over the line with you a few times. No doubt, some of this is "Pot meets Kettle". I agree staying out of this crap makes a lot more sense for both of us, and actually have no animosity at all towards you. It should be a good natured argument, if handled correctly.
Good to know you don't think I am stupid, but seriously, I have read all the documents posted here and made my own independent analysis. Disagreement doesn't mean a non understanding of the facts as.....
You do make an interesting point about me which might bear some understanding on misunderstandings. I do have a designers personality, and yes, that leans towards big picture rather than details. There is no doubt that people like me need people like TMac to dig and dig, becase we just wouldn't do it otherwise and most on gca.com really appreciate those who do that kind of digging. As a gca, in truth, anyone who takes that kind of interest ought to be a friend of mine.
But, its just as true that those detail seeking peronsalities often have trouble with the big picture thinking, too. The saying "Can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind. A recent instance is you (IMHO) trying to make a mountain out of a molehill because Bailey was in charge of putting together then honorary dinner for Wilson. I looked at it and said "its a frikken chicken dinner" and you somehow parse it out as him not knowing a damn thing about the history of the design in enough detail to be meaningful. All it does is show the mindset of the club at the time that Wilson did a lot of work on the project. It really proves no ones design attribution point to a level of detail that you would desire. It is what it is. Now, is the detail analysis you did on the meaning behind that letter really worth the detail you put in it?
Another is your defense of TMac's non apology. You could parse every word of that and conclude that he apologized based on the words. In truth, other humans who are a bit more sensitive to context and nuance over the actual words, would more than likely say (if we put it to a gca.com vote or brought in human relations experts) that it was a half hearted, admit nothing you don't have to apology which Phil would not find satisfying or appropriate. You might be right in some technical sense in backing up TMac, but there is more than technical correctness involved. We can leave it at that.
In both cases, personality strengths are also weaknesses since we all process info a certain way and true understanding requires a broader look from different perspectives. And, its often a case where detail type thought process people and conceptualizers often have trouble communicating and understanding each other. To be honest, I think that is a large part of the problem here, more than either approach is inherently wrong.
Thanks and good night.....
-
Phil, You should know that I am not reading your posts, so there is no need for your waste your time writing them. Thanks.
Jeff,
This is not golf course design. You just can't dynamite the facts into oblivion whenever they don't match your "big picture" idea of how you want things to be. Yet that is what you do again and again.
Take your bizarre presentation of my use of the Baily letter. You are so intent on making your "Big Picture" point that you have twisted my views on the Baily letter 180 degrees, and are ironically trying to use own argument against me as if I believed that this letter was the key to understanding who did what. It is almost as if you think I am Mike Cirba!
-- Do you really believe I am trying to use this irrelevant dinner invitation to "prove" various design attributions to some high level? Where do you get this stuff? Every time this thing comes up I have argued that it is irrelevant to proving anything about anyone's design attribution to any level of specificity. In other words, I have consistently maintained EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME. But you have a "big picture" point to make, and you aren't going to let mere facts get in your way!
-- It was YOU who introduced this irrelevancy into the conversation again! I had asked what Merion's internal records said about Hugh Wilson's specific involvement in the planning process before April of 1911, and this is what you came up with! A dinner invitation from a scrapbook, NOT FROM MERION'S RECORD, WRITTEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TIME IN QUESTION, AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUGH WILSON'S SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE DESIGN PROCESS!.
Also, my last post had nothing to do with what you describe as TomM's "non-apology." Phil misunderstood Tom's initial "bluffing" statement; which was about whether these internal records backed up as Phil's overall point. [As an aside, Phil has now backed away from implying that these internal records make his overall point, and this in and of itself strongly suggests that TomM had a point when he said he thought Phil was bluffing as to whether the internal documents made his point for him.]
As I have said many times before, IF YOU HAVE TO FUDGE THE FACTS TO MAKE YOUR POINT, THEN YOU SHOULD PROBABLY RECONSIDER YOUR POINT.
-
Old analysis of my problem with David: Different communication style....
New analysis: DM is simply an argumentative as**!@* who would argue that the sky isn't blue just to piss people off, and won't admit/can't believe that he is wrong about anything, a no matter how simple.
-
David,
You should know that any time you misrepresent anything that I've said or make a comment that "something is wrong with Phil" or other crap like that, I will most definitely respond. Your welcome.
Jeff, I think you've certainly stated the truth and in many ways understated it. I'd tell you to quote me on that but then David will avoid reading what you wrote!
-
Again Jeff, the facts don't support your conclusion.
I notice you just called me an asshole. Now that is a good example of an inappropriate attack. Pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation. Really nothing more than lashing out emotionally.
Thanks for making that point for me.
-
Why David,
There must be something wrong with you. Obviously you must not be yourself as of late. How could ANYONE think that Jeff called you an "asshole?"
You MISUNDERSTOOD what Jeff said. He stated, and I'll highlight it this time so even you can read it, "DM is simply an argumentative as**!@*"
Now I know I can be a little slow in the understanding, but I don't believe that ANYONE out here would see "as**!@*" as the word "asshole". How can you say such things about such a well-meaning member of the board. You simply MISUNDERSTOOD him!
Then again, you'll just claim that you didn't read this post anyway so what does it matter... ;D
-
"I notice you just called me an asshole. Now that is a good example of an inappropriate attack. Pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation. Really nothing more than lashing out emotionally."
Actually Moriarty, Jeffrey did not call you and asshole; you're the one who said he said you're an asshole. Jeffrey said you are an as*****
But nice ASSUMPTION on your part! ;)
But if you want to talk about good examples of and inappropriate attack, or a pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation and really nothing more than lashing out emotionally----then LET'S TALK ABOUT YOU calling me a drunk, liar and creep on HERE!
How about THEM APPLES---you unreconstructed as******!? ;)
-
Tom the Macwood,
His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.
How much time, and when, did the two men spend overseas studying the great courses prior to Shawnee?
-
Tom Macwood,
You seem to have left a little bit out of my statement. It ended with:
"Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you... If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this: Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"
So you want answers to your questions? This from the man who complained on the other thread just now that there are too few "searchers" doing real research on here! I'm happy to provide answers to any and all questions but will only give them to those who are polite, who want to DUSCUSS and not DISPUTE and who actually want to learn. Most importantly of all, they have to be able to admit when they are mistaken, some thing that I have no problem doing.
If you think that statement is self-serviong crap then start a thread and ask the group for any and all to tell their experiences in asking me Tilly questions and my attitude toward helping them. Just last night I got a call fromk someone who was looking for some information about a Devereaux Emmet course that Tilly redesigned. I gave him the phone number of the person who runs the club to make arrangements for him to tour it and study it. What he doesn't know is that I followed it up with a phone call to that person to let them know he would be calling. He will be treated very well. I've done similar things for many others.
So Tom, you want me to answer you? Then do two things. Answer the questions posed to you and stop avoiding them. More importantly, PROPERLY APOLOGIZE! You have some nerve continuing to ask questions and ignore those asked of you before you slandered me. To do so now without properly apologizing is the height of hypocrisy.
-
Deleted, with great reluctance.....
-
Jeff,
I would gladly explain it to him if he asks nicely... ;D
If any post on this site defines the ending of the Master card commercials, that most definitely does!
PRICELESS!
-
Ran must very proud of how these gentleman treat his website.
David,
If you believe I called you an argumentative asshole, I apologize. I don't believe I called you an argumentative asshole. I said you were bluffing when you implied that Mike Cirba had no idea what Bailey knew of the design process when he posted a frikken chicken dinner invite to show appreciation for Hugh Wilson's efforts.
In truth, if I was tempted to call you an argumentative asshole, I would have posted something like this:
David, you are an argumentative asshole...... Stop...... More strongly worded message to follow when I have time! Stop......
I will also admit I considered a whole host of other monikers, but they never got typed out. And that I was surprised that when I was somewhat conciliatory, you lashed out at percieved slights, while when I was more direct, well, you were more subdued. I really don't understand that reaction, but what the heck, as you tell us, I am dum as a stump anyway and can't grasp basic concepts! Such is life! You say it was an emotional reaction. While you are astute, you lack the skills to comprehend basic situational, comparative humor, at least as far as I can tell.
But, now that you know I thought even for a milisecond about calling you some kind of name before deciding NOT to call you an argumentative asshole, I apologize. I don't believe I thought about calling you an argumentative asshole (and more) enough to send a stronger, more detailed rebuttal argument, and I am not sure you are able to fully grasp what I type, or are yourself these days, so I am not sure that even warrants a full blown (and by that I mean half hearted) apology. I mean, if you don't understand me, why should I apologize for it? Standard logic on this site dictates that, no?
In fact, since it would have only been a theory (same as analysis in this context) that you are an argumentative asshole (and more), I am told that this needs no additional explanation around here, whereas if it was an established fact that you were an argumentative asshole (and more), I would be required proof positive.
Also, since it would have been only my interpretation of your posts that you are an argumentative asshole I think, based on other posts around here, that I would be entitled to demand others consider my interpretation as FACT, without any more supporting documents, at least as far as I know. I mean, when its only a theory, anything goes around here, right? And, clearly, you would believe that there would have been no need for me to travel to California to dig deep myself and find source material to confirm that you were an argumentative asshole, right? Lastly, I think you can agree that since I didn't call you an argumentative asshole, that no harm comes to your reputation. And, if it happens that I mistyped tense, words, or something else where this post implies that you are an argumentative asshole (which I hope to God it doesn't because that is not what I really think) then I am sure that everyone here will realize that this is an initial draft, subject to revision and an ongoing work in progress as more facts become available to me.
But, IF it turns out you are an argumentative asshole, then there can be no argument about the fact that I discovered it first! I expect many others will try to jump on the bandwagon IF it turns out you are an argumentative asshole and claim they discovered the true facts before I did. But, in truth, maybe they did. I mean, it all comes down to whose words and writings you believe, no? I mean, lets think about this. Let's suppose you wake up tomorrow to a headline in the LA Times saying "Moriarity called an argumentative a#*$%^". Would you believe that, or say, the thoughts of TePaul, Phil Young, Mike Cirba, etc. and others who WERE REALLY HERE when you allegedly got called an argumentative a#*$%^? If you knew the reporter got it second hand, or had the belief that anyone on golfclubatlas.com wanted to spread an unfounded legend about David Moriarity being an argumentative a#*$%^, I mean, who would you believe? I mean really? Who am I kidding.....you would twist the words of the paper around to PROVE to your satisfaction that you were called an argumentative asshole, despite all the evidence to the contrary, no?
And that is EXACTLY how crappy history gets written, when people with an agenda let that get in the way of FACT! They may not know they are perpetrating an unsupportable legend, and furthering a conspiracy started by everyone involved. And then, 100 years from now, someone may actually come on here and mistakenly actually call you an argumentative asshole while you lay in your grave!
So, I may not have gotten my point across eariler, but then, I am dum as a stump, not much at analyzing things, and of course, too big picture oriented, and clearly not myself lately. But, in no way, shape, or form, did I call you an argumentative asshole (and/or more). I don't know why you can't comprehend that the written record doesn't support your belief that I called you an argumentative asshole (and more). And if it couldn't have happened, we all know from the logic put forth in certain quarters here, that it didn't happen, double negative notwithstanding.
Not to mention the fact that IF you think I called you an argumentative asshole, then I accuse you of hiding facts from me, playing games with source materials, and the like. Its obvious that I am putting up with a lot of pure BS here. You transposed several symbols into letters spelling the word asshole, not me, buster! Why did you miss those few letters in the translation? Why were you playing games with the source material, buddy?
And, as I have told you before, I have no animosity towards you at all. As far as I am concerned, this is just a little humour and good discussion between old gca.com friends! ;D And I do respect you to the degree that IF I called you an argumentative asshole (which I didn't) I would have to admit and celebrate the fact that you are a WORLD CLASS asshole, and I mean absolutely the bestest internet asshole I have known. Surely, IF I said you were an asshole, I would have been sure NOT to have left that part out, simply out of respect for your contributions, posting style, etc. that you exhibit consistently on gca. com. David, if you are an argumentative asshole (and more), you are the man! You are simply the BEST! But, of course, I DIDN'T call you an asshole (and never would) so I didn't mention that. And, that's my interpretation of WHAT I WROTE, so you are obligated at all costs to agree that I DIDN'T call you and asshole. I mean, its clear that if you don't, well then you just don't understand, right? You just can't understand what a huge compliment I paid you!
So, once again, if you believe I called you an argumentative asshole, I apologize. I don't believe I called you an argumentative asshole. There is nothing in the record, so far as I know, that proves that.
That ought to be a satisfactory apology and I trust you find it 110% satisfactory, and that it makes you feel better about you, me, and your position on this internet site. I wrote it using everything YOU taught me about human relations and proper decorum on this site. I trust we can move on from this misunderstanding, caused by your communication style and inability to process information, feelings, and thoughts of others who might enjoy this board.
And for that, I apologize on your behalf, which you should find quite satisfactory again. If you don't understand what a huge and generous offer I have made, I am sure Phil Young and maybe TePaul will graciously explain it to you, just in case you haven't been yourself recently. I think they would enjoy that, but who am I to speak for them? Really, I need to quit pretending that I speak for them, because I have NO connection to them, or any club they belong to, or any thoughts they may have.
Perhaps the best resolution would be for you and me to collaborate on an IMO piece called "The missing assholes of golfclubatlas.com."
Again, I apologize for you feeling like I called you an argumentative asshole. On a website like this, there is really no reason for something like that to happen, don't you agree?
Sleep well, you big old Teddy Bear of an argumentative a$%#**^&, you!. Perhaps we can renew our lively discussions soon. I look forward to it, but will be on a plane most of the day, tomorrow, but hope to check in tomorrow night to see what gems you offer up in response. Until then......
-
Oh well, there goes the need to delete it!
-
Truer words have never been spoken! "Ran must very proud of how these gentleman treat his website."
-
Tom the Macwood,
His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.
Phil
The 200-mile pipe is interesting, but I don't think it is as important to the subject of Shawnee as his past design experience and his time overseas playing the great classic courses. Do you? Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?
-
"and the fact that he was heavily involved in golf course maintenance" That is patently incorrect. The only aspect of golf course "maintenance" that he was invovled in before and after Shawnee was the Worthington Mower Company. The first gang-mower that he invented was a horse-drawn one in 1906 which cut the fairway grass at Manwalamink. That was it. He was NOT "heavily involved" in golf course maintenance as he had both a crew and soperintendent caring for the course and his properties. You can find that information in the records. That was it until 1919 when he developed a gas-powered tractor for pulling the mowers and expanded the gang-mower idea.
You don't think developing the first gang mower and starting the Worthington Mower Company translates into being heavily involved in maintenance? That is similar to saying the Wright brothers were not involved in aviation.
-
Tom,
Instead of this innuendo, could you simply show us any evidence that Worthington was involved in the design?
You and David rely on less factual evidence in your posts than a supermarket tabloid!
-
Tom,
These are the very last questions that I will answer for you UNTIL you BOTH PROPERLY APOLOGIZE and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
1- "You don't think developing the first gang mower and starting the Worthington Mower Company translates into being heavily involved in maintenance? "
NO I don't. I think it means being heavily involved in business and inventing a solution to a need that he saw. I think it means that he wanted to see the grass cut efficiently and evenly since his first means of doing so, a flock of goats and a goatherd, didn't work.
2- "The 200-mile pipe is interesting, but I don't think it is as important to the subject of Shawnee as his past design experience and his time overseas playing the great classic courses. Do you?"
YES I do. The reason is because Shawnee is far more than a golf course and was FAR MORE THAN A GOLF COURSE to Worthington. For example, where does the INN get its water from? Seems like a dumb question now doesn't it, but when you learn why it is a MAJOR part of the story. For just as Worthington designed the water pipe in the desert he also designed and oversaw the building of the pipeline to the FRESH WATER LAKE that is up in the woods on the mountainside of Buckwood Park. That line is STILL used today to provide the Inn with its water. You'd think there'd be plenty of fresh water with the Delaware River and the Binniekill right there: but for Worthington who had a passionate love of fresh spring water there wasn't. By the way, there is the FIRST of the many thin gs that Worthington was doing during that 1906-1911 period which would PREVENT him from having ANY part in designing the golf course.
3- "Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?"
Sorry Tom, but you asimply don't get it do you. A biography of an particular individual, in this case Tilly, is simply that... a biography of THAT INDIVIDUAL. There was absolutely NO REASON that Worthington's "design and overseas experience" as you put it" needed to be in the book. It IS in the Shawnee book, and before you begin to think that is in anyway a response to the incorrect things that you've posted about his involvement in the design process let me correct that. It's not and was written weeks ago and is a VERY minor part to his story anyway.
Now, YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS (I've increased them):
1- WHY are you avoiding answering my questions?
2- WHAT is your source for your information regarding Worthington's vast "design experience?" Note, I didn't state what were the courses you credit him with designing but rather what is the source, newspaper article, golf magazine article, etc... that contains the information.
3- And for the THIRD TIME, ""Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you... If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this: Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"
-
Mike,
There is NONE, NOTHING at all. I would have been more than happy to share with Tom privately, as I have with a few others what I was allowed to share it on this, that is, exactly what the original Board Minutes said. I would have made arrangements for him to visit Shawnee and get access to them to see for himself. HE COULD HAVE FOUND OUT WITH A SINGLE PHONE CALL! Now that is gone and NOT because of anything that I have said since I didn't ever bring the subject up. Rob Howell, the Shawnee general manager and also a member of the golf club, is the person who GAVE EVERYTHING TO ME! All those documents and information that Tom accused me of LYING about having. That is why I told Tom to call him several times, but he DIDN'T! Rob is a "lurker" on here and has been watching these discussions for some time now. He is well aware of Tom & David all on his own. So if Tom had simply apologized for his "accusations" toward me this would have ended long ago and he'd be sitting in Ohio a much better informed person. Of course he would have the information that Worthington wasn't invovled in the design of Shawnee, but he would have had it.
To paraphrase another great philosopher, this one from the planet Vulcan, Tom is, always has been and always will be the... Macwood!
-
I wonder which ODG design is next to get "The Treatment"?
-
Andy,
As a final answer to the question posted in your reply #92, here is an early post card. It is a colorized print of an early aerial clearly showing the practice hole/green that was mislabelled as 18. You can clearly see the new 18th hole on the opposite side of the Inn.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/shawneeoldpracticehole.jpg)
By the way, do you know what that building is in the far upper right-hand corner?
-
I wonder which ODG design is next to get "The Treatment"?
Dan Herrmann,
What "treatment?" Is there a point to posts like this, or would you just feel left out if you refrained from piling on with your pals? And speaking of piling on . . . Again, your self-righteous gaze has gone blind when it comes the abhorrent behavior of those you have the nerve to refer to as "true gentleman."
Like witless sharks to koolade in the water, your "true gentlemen" have been swarming in insults and boorish behavior, a virtual feeding frenzy of gratuitous and tangential personal attacks.
Is this the "respect and love" you beg of me?
I should be used to it by now, but I am always a bit taken aback by the silence from you and the other hypocrites who defend these "true gentleman." I am not too religious, myself, but I always thought the goal was supposed to be to get your own house in order.
What sort of "religious upbringing" taught you condescension and sententious priggishness toward your enemies, while also teaching you to condone, encourage and even pile on the boorish behavior of your buddies?
-
Dandy Dan Danderino:
Excellent use of a term.
As Mark Twain famously said: "Nothing in the world can withstand the ONSLAUGHT of---HUMOR!"
Unfortunately, there are some who tend to view it as sententious priggishness, condescension, boorishness and such. Their problem for sure and certainly not yours and mine. Perhaps it has something to do with the well-known SEVENTEEN STRAINS of insecurity but nevertheless, even they can never withstand the onslaught of HUMOR even if and when they don't even recognize it for what it is!! ;)
-
"What sort of "religious upbringing" taught you condescension and sententious priggishness toward your enemies, while also teaching you to condone, encourage and even pile on the boorish behavior of your buddies?"
Mssr. Moriarty:
I believe what you refer to as some sort of "religuous upbringing" that you just assigned to Dandy Dan Danderino's remark and term ("The Treatment") is either the ethical affects of Supreme Pennsylvania Quakerism that suggests that all people be treated with extreme equanimity or else it is the vestiges of Noblese Oblige that are embued in Dandy Dan and me that requires that one treats Cobblers and Kings the very same way whether it be like Kings or whether it be like Cobblers!
And being such equanimitous men of Good Will and Mirth we do not recognize the word or concept of "enemies." To us, all men are created equal (or at least should be afforded "equal opportunity" such as how to find the door of Merion's Archives) and treated equally whether they be Go**G**s or A*******
And THEN there was this perfectly delightful adage one should always strive to live by that was coigned years ago by Dring Wetherill, the brother of debutante superstar Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill which went: "If you can't feel free to deck your friends then what the hell are friends for?"
-
And THEN there was this perfectly delightful adage one should always strive to live by that was coigned years ago by Dring Wetherill, the brother of debutante superstar Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill which went: "If you can't feel free to deck your friends then what the hell are friends for?"
No thread is really complete without an appearance from Fern and Dring.
-
David,
Let's substitute, for argument's sake "The Treatment" with "Critical Review of Traditionally Accepted History, With an Eye Toward Changing the Dominant Paradigm".
Would that be better?
Mike,
You wrote, "You and David rely on less factual evidence in your posts than a supermarket tabloid!" Keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch has become a media multi-millionaire by publishing such tabloids. Somebody's buying the product (although nobody would readily admit to it).
-
David,
Let's substitute, for argument's sake "The Treatment" with "Critical Review of Traditionally Accepted History, With an Eye Toward Changing the Dominant Paradigm".
Would that be better?
No, not really. It doesn't adequately convey your passive-aggressive attempt at nastiness.
How about the rest of my questions? Are you going to explain why you are quick to scold MacWood and I for anything you might construe as bad behavior, yet you snigger with the rest of them when your "true gentlemen" show their true nature?
On second thought . . . For argument's sake, let's substitute my last question with "Why have you behaved like a self-righteous hypocrite?"
Would that be better?
-
David,
To quote a once-wise contributor to this website "If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion get the hell off of it..."
-
Tom the Mac,
As an inducement to get you to finally answer my questions I thought I'd post a photo of Worthington's deep involvement in golf course maintenance for you:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/HorseDrawnMower.jpg)
-
Phil:
Some indepth independent research indicates that horse was named MacWood.
-
Tom,
Funny you should mention that, I understand that was actually branded onto his backside on the side that isn't showing.
-
Tom,
These are the very last questions that I will answer for you UNTIL you BOTH PROPERLY APOLOGIZE and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
1- "You don't think developing the first gang mower and starting the Worthington Mower Company translates into being heavily involved in maintenance? "
NO I don't. I think it means being heavily involved in business and inventing a solution to a need that he saw. I think it means that he wanted to see the grass cut efficiently and evenly since his first means of doing so, a flock of goats and a goatherd, didn't work.
2- "The 200-mile pipe is interesting, but I don't think it is as important to the subject of Shawnee as his past design experience and his time overseas playing the great classic courses. Do you?"
YES I do. The reason is because Shawnee is far more than a golf course and was FAR MORE THAN A GOLF COURSE to Worthington. For example, where does the INN get its water from? Seems like a dumb question now doesn't it, but when you learn why it is a MAJOR part of the story. For just as Worthington designed the water pipe in the desert he also designed and oversaw the building of the pipeline to the FRESH WATER LAKE that is up in the woods on the mountainside of Buckwood Park. That line is STILL used today to provide the Inn with its water. You'd think there'd be plenty of fresh water with the Delaware River and the Binniekill right there: but for Worthington who had a passionate love of fresh spring water there wasn't. By the way, there is the FIRST of the many thin gs that Worthington was doing during that 1906-1911 period which would PREVENT him from having ANY part in designing the golf course.
3- "Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?"
Sorry Tom, but you asimply don't get it do you. A biography of an particular individual, in this case Tilly, is simply that... a biography of THAT INDIVIDUAL. There was absolutely NO REASON that Worthington's "design and overseas experience" as you put it" needed to be in the book. It IS in the Shawnee book, and before you begin to think that is in anyway a response to the incorrect things that you've posted about his involvement in the design process let me correct that. It's not and was written weeks ago and is a VERY minor part to his story anyway.
Now, YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS (I've increased them):
1- WHY are you avoiding answering my questions?
2- WHAT is your source for your information regarding Worthington's vast "design experience?" Note, I didn't state what were the courses you credit him with designing but rather what is the source, newspaper article, golf magazine article, etc... that contains the information.
3- And for the THIRD TIME, ""Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you... If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this: Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"
Phil-the-author
According to Worthington's obituary in the NY Times he collaborated in organizing St. Andrews GC on the Hudson, and later developed other golf courses. According to the article his interest in mowing golf courses led to the development of that mower, and ultimately the Worthington Mower Co. If I'm not mistaken he is cited in Cornish & Whitten for his contribution to golf course development and maintenance equipment. It is ridiculous to claim he wasn't heavily involved in course maintenance.
I asked you why you ignored Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book, not the Shawnee book. Why did you ignore it? Are we to assume you also ignored it your forthcoming Shawnee book.
I never said Worthington had vast design experience. I said he had designed at least three courses prior to Shawnee. No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.
-
Phil, thanks for the postcard, fascinating! The 18th green in that picture looks to be where I recall the 18th (a long par 3) being in my younger days
I do not know what the building in the upper righthand corner is. Hard to even see a building up in there. What is it? Is that area currently part of Doak's short course? What do you suppose that colorful square is sitting where the range currently is?
PS Pity this thread has to be so ugly. This course has a special place in my heart for several reasons, and I look forward to your book Phil. Any idea on a publication date?
-
Tom The Mac,
I apologize (something that it seems that it is impossible for you to do) for not answering this post sooner. I was out of town doing research physically AT a club.
You stated, “According to Worthington's obituary in the NY Times he collaborated in organizing St. Andrews GC on the Hudson, and later developed other golf courses.”
So Tom, instead of TELLING us what is stated in the article, why don’t you POST it? Isn't that what you take others to task for continuously on here? Yet that seems to be something you don't feel is necessary for you to do. If you did, maybe a thinking person might see it a bit differently than you do. Let me give you a bit of help by quoting the entire few relevant paragraphs:
“Worthington knew golf. Long before the ancient game was known I this country he played in Scotland when the old feather ball was in use, and brought some back to this country…”
Are you kidding me? When was Worthington born? January 6, 1854. So WHEN did he play golf in Scotland that was “BEFORE the ancient game was known in this country?” Golf balls and clubs were being advertised in the New York Times in the 1700’s! I think the writer wasn’t exactly accurate there…
He went on, “On his estate at Irvington-on-Hudson he built 6 holes…” That is true, 6 holes were built on his estate, but since he had just taken over the Worthington Pump and Machinery Company at his father’s death, I don’t think he was out there with a shovel. No, he had someone build it for him. Did he DESIGN it? NO ONE KNOWS! But I agree with you in thinking that he did. Where we probably differ is that I believe that it was a simple and rudimentary course of no apparent distinction.
“… and collaborated in the organization of one of the first golf clubs on these shores, at St. Andrews, Mt. Hope, New York. Later he helped develop the Ardsley Golf Club at Ardsley, New York…”
Now Tom, be honest here. WHERE in any of that does it mention designing or laying out a golf course? It doesn’t. Once again you fail to realize what Worthington was ACTUALLY DOING during these years. His actual involvement was as one of the founding members and NOT as someone either putting pen to paper and designing a course, walking with stakes in hand and laying out a course or even overseeing the work being done. If you have ANYTHING that says otherwise POST IT!
“About this time Worthington took the game of golf to Delaware Water Gap near his mountain retreat of Buckwood Park. He supervised the design and construction of 9 holes for the Caladeno Golf Club and followed this hobby by laying out 9 holes on his private grounds at Shawnee. His last contribution to the game was his championship course for the Shawnee Country Club…”
Yes, he actually did design and physically lay out two courses; first the 9 holes at Caladeno and the second the 9 holes “on his private grounds at Shawnee.” Now before you get too excited by that last phrase, that is referring to his HOME (hence the term “private grounds”) of Manwalamink where he loved with his family. The “mountain retreat of Buckwood Park” was his HUNTING LODGE! He spent time there with friends (including Tilly) from which they would go hunting. It was NOT his permanent residence as you have stated in the past, but that isn’t worth discussing at this point. You can read all about it in the coming book and then argue until you’re blue in the face if that makes you happy.
So consider the SPECIFICITY of what it says about those two courses ONLY! None of the first ones mentioned nor SHAWNEE itself, the single greatest golf course he was associated with, NONE of them were said to have been designed and or laid out by him where as Caladenon and Manwalamink specifically were. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that they were different from the others in that regard. Actually the question that should be asked is WHY did Worthington have such a personal involvement in these two courses and NOT in the others?
Simple… By the time he moved to Shawnee he had RETIRED and SOLD the Worthington Pump and Machinery Company when he did those two courses! Was he retired when Shawnee was being designed and built (including the Inn)? NO! He had already started THREE NEW BUSINESSES including the Worthington Mower Company and the Worthington AUTOMOBILE Company! He was building STEAM-powered autos which he would use at the Inn to fetch visitors with who arrived by train! I’ll let you do a bit of your own research and find out the THIRD company… Let’s just say he was a LITTLE bit busy!
The article continues with, “The matter of maintenance of these golf courses was ever uppermost in his mind…” It goes on to mention the “Scotsman” and his herd of goats he brought over to keep the grass in check and then his invention of the mowers and the founding of the Worthington Mower Company. I hate to tell you this Tom, but again you read far more into this than what actually occurred.
“According to the article his interest in mowing golf courses led to the development of that mower, and ultimately the Worthington Mower Co. If I'm not mistaken he is cited in Cornish & Whitten for his contribution to golf course development and maintenance equipment. It is ridiculous to claim he wasn't heavily involved in course maintenance.”
Tom, creating a business AFTER every course (except Shawnee) that is mentioned that you have stated he was responsible for designing and building has absolutely NOTHING to do with the act od designing and building them! Cornish & Whitten were correct in their citing him for his contributions to golf course maintenance. However, the fact remains that he ONLY created a small horse-drawn tractor (see photo in earlier post) BEFORE Shawnee was open for play. He didn’t produce his large gang-mowers and the tractors to pull them until the late teens! So Tom, is “maintenance experience” had NOTHING to do with the design and creation of Shawnee.
Once again you have the balls to ask me a question and even go so far to say “Why did you ignore it” when I have told you numerous times that I will no longer respond to your question until you properly apologize to me… and yet you CONTINUOUSLY IGNORE THAT! Still, the question you ask and the accusation that I’ve ignored you is so ludicrous that I simply must comment.
You asked, “I asked you why you ignored Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book, not the Shawnee book. Why did you ignore it? Are we to assume you also ignored it your forthcoming Shawnee book.”
Tom, how STUPID are you? I not only didn’t IGNORE it, I CLEARLY ANSWERED IT just above. How about READING what I actually write for a change?
Here it is:
3- "Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?"
Sorry Tom, but you simply don't get it do you. A biography of a particular individual, in this case Tilly, is simply that... a biography of THAT INDIVIDUAL. There was absolutely NO REASON that Worthington's "design and overseas experience" as you put it" needed to be in the book. It IS in the Shawnee book, and before you begin to think that is in anyway a response to the incorrect things that you've posted about his involvement in the design process let me correct that. It's not and was written weeks ago and is a VERY minor part to his story anyway.
Finally, you stated that you had, “never said Worthington had vast design experience. I said he had designed at least three courses prior to Shawnee. No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.”
Really now? Then WHO wrote thios on the Top Courses thread in post #138 while ironically QUOTING from a post you would later deny having read:
Quote from: Philip Young on September 13, 2010, 09:13:14 PM
Tom the Mac,
I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:
You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine]
In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?
"His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience."
I’m sorry, maybe “vast” was the wrong word, but you certainly stated that Worthington had a “GREAT DEAL of EXPERIENCE” and even referred to him as Tilly’s “ASSOCIATE” in the design and building of Shawnee. You also made reference to his design experience in answers to others such as Mike Cirba.
No Tom, You simply are trying to back out of what you stated. Say you were wrong; it won’t hurt at all. You were. So what? It means nothing except when you won’t admit it and that compounds everything and you lose credibility.
Now, APOLOGIZE because by ignoring this you prove yourself to be a very little man when you then accuse me of IGNORING YOUR QUESTION’S when I didn’t!
-
Hi Andy,
I was away for a few days and missed your post. You wrote, "I do not know what the building in the upper righthand corner is. Hard to even see a building up in there. What is it?"
That is actually Fort Manawalamink, the house that Worthington bought, restored and lived in. If you can picture how the present road that leads to it is actually a few blocks PAST the Shawnee General Store then you'll get a general idea of just how far out this postcard view extends and how far upwards it really dooesn't. That is why it isn't part of the Doak' short course. You're getting fooled by the location of the entrance road as the one that comes down today and where Doak's course is was built many years later.
"What do you suppose that colorful square is sitting where the range currently is?" It's two things. The FIRST swimming pool and the first tennis court. Remember, this is a hand colorized print of a black and white photograph. The painter saw the two squares and simply thought they were BOTH pools!
PS Pity this thread has to be so ugly. This course has a special place in my heart for several reasons, and I look forward to your book Phil. Any idea on a publication date?
Yes. It is tentatively scheduled for a May 2011 release to coincide with the celebrations being planned for the 100th anniversary on May 23rd.
-
Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"
Phil-the-author
No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.
-
Phil-the-author
You wrote that vast post to argue that Worthington only designed two and not three courses before the Shawnee project? With the jury being out on who designed the third course on his family's Irvington, NY estate? Since he designed the other course on his other estate chances are he designed that one too. But let just say he only designed two courses before Shawnee, the logic still holds that he would have involved himself in the design of Shawnee because he had design experience and Tilly did not.
By the way Worthington's father died in 1880 so I don't think he had just taken over the company at the time the 6-hole course was built. In fact he sold his interest in that company in 1889 so chances are he was retired at the time he built that particular course, and no I don't believe he was holding a shovel.
-
Tom the Mac,
Once again you show how little you know about Worthington and Shawnee.
First of all, WHY did he "sell his interest in that company" as you put it? Could it because he consolidated it into a NEW and MUCH LARGER COMPANY in which he was the Chief Executive Officer? Sorry Tom, but he didn't retire in 1889 despite whatever "chances" or strained logic you are using to come up with that statement. I know it because again, I have the records from several sources and know exactly when he DID RETIRE as well as when he CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT. Those dates were only 4 years apart. Go ahead and look up that information since you have done such a marvelous job of researching this. Oh yes, that information will also be found in the Shawnee book.
I "wrote that vast post" (good play on words there!) to REFUTE YOUR statement that "His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience." He had some, and of that, FAR LESS than what you attribute to him. He did NOT have a "great deal" of design of, laying out of or building experience of golf courses. His PRIMARY function in all of them was as the money man and SOLE function in the MAJORITY of the ones you cite was again as the money man.
You need to admit that you are simply wrong in how much experience that you believe that CC Worthington had in course design. Of course now that you just stated that "because he had design experience and Tilly did not..." you need to go back to the other thread where this stupidity started when you made the statement that "by 1910 no one was hiring an inexperienced and untested person to design a golf course" because you just accepted that IT HAPPENED!
Now as far as "logic" dictating that Worthington "must have" been involved in designing Shawnee, AGAIN I say, PUT UP or SHUT UP! Show the PROOF that it happened! You demand that of EVERYONE ELSE but somehow conveniently forget to do so when confronted with YOUR statements of supposed "facts." You can't. You know it, I know it and most everyone on this site knows it so just admit that it is a SUPPOSITION that you are making and I have NO PROBLEM with it whatsoever; its a wrong one but I can at least understand your reasoning. Unfortunately you've stated quite clearly that he WAS the designer and Tilly's "ASSOCIATE" in doing so and because you stated that he had "far more experience" at it than Tilly then he must have been the LEAD DESIGNER. You even went so far in your "reasoning" on the Country Club Life article that you stated how Tilly never called himself the designer and only mentioned his constructing of the course. You NEGLECTED though to mention that Tilly NEVER mentioned Worthington by name and only referred to how the two of them walked the ice of the Binniekill together in 1909. NOTHING about WORTHINGTON AS DESIGNER!
By the way, for someone who likes to reason on things, did you ever think of asking yourself WHY Tilly was at Shawnee in the winter of 1909 a place where he normally wouldn't have been? Could it be because his friend said "Tilly, we need a golf course for my project and I want you here to DESIGN it?" Did you ever ask yourself WHY they would cross over to Shawnee Island at that time? Maybe because Worthington was showing Tilly the land he wanted to build the golf course on? Isn't that something that EVERY OWNER does with the architect who he wants to DESIGN THE COURSE?
Finally Tom, WHY DO YOU KEEP AVOIDING THE SUBJECT OF APOLOGIZING FOR CALLING ME A LIAR? You keep asking questions of me and yet you won't do what you should.
You have been wrong on this ENTIRE subject and throughout the discussion. You have made unfounded, unwarranted and slanderous accusations EVEN after I provided proof that I have the documents. Tom, your credibility is shot.
-
Tom and Phil,
Just a question about Worthington's design experience - okay, so he had something to do with two courses. Do we know if any are any good or not? Just because he designed two, do we know if he enjoyed it, was any good at it, had time for it? Did he feel Tillie's connection to the Philly golf scene or playing ability, etc. make him better qualified?
It seems as if the decision would be made beyond a few simple numbers by other factors. IMHO
-
Jeff,
He wasn't any good at it, and more importantly, even if he wanted to pursue it when he retired and had the opportunity and money to do so, he DIDN'T. It is what he pursued during that time that Macwood doesn't know about that was just ONE of the things he was involved in that would PREVENT him from designing the golf course in any capacity and why he hired Tilly.
Worthington loved the game and loved playing it. He was NOT an early golf course architect wannabe...
Jeff, the real bottom line is that if Tom wants to proclaim Worthington as even a true design "ASSOCIATE" of Tilly's at Shawnee, which IS the exact title he gave him, he has to PUT UP or SHUT UP with it. He has posted not one single thing that even hints at it. Think about what he would have to say if I changed two words, if I substituted "Wilson" for Worthington and "Merion" for Shawnee. Even Tom Paul would say there was proof of nothing, yet Macwood argues against Wilson at Merion and demands PROOF"!
Its his turn to provide the PROOF! I have. Among the NUMEROUS proofs I provided Tilly's own words where he stated "I am the ARCHITECT of SHAWNEE."
No Jeff, this doesn't even approach the possibility of being debatable, especially where Tom has CONVENIENTLY stated that he "DOESN'T know who did what at Shawnee." That is what makes this entire topic a joke and an insult.
-
Phil-the-author
In 1909 how many American amateur architects had more than three designs to their credit? Half a dozen, if that? Relatively speaking he was very experienced, certainly much more experienced than Tilly. Under the circumstances it makes more sense that he would lend a hand, than not lend a hand.
The reason Tilly was at Shawnee (with his friend) in the winter of 1909 was to lay out the new golf course. Are you under the impression I'm disputing Tilly was involved in the lay out of the course?
Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"
I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about here. What was Worthington doing between 1906 and 1911 the would have prevented him?
-
Tom the Mac,
I'm sorry, but you NEVER used the phrase "relatively speaking" in conjunction with Worthington's experience before this even though you had at least 5 opportunities to do so. All of a sudden this magic phrase is being used by you as if everyone should believe that you had been using it or implying it all along. Methinks you simply don't want to admit you're WRONG!
You stated, "Relatively speaking he was very experienced, certainly much more experienced than Tilly. Under the circumstances it makes more sense that he would lend a hand, than not lend a hand..."
Sorry Tom, but the problem is that you are completely UNAWARE of ALL the circumstances and so what makes "sense" to you simply isn't so. Instead of showing any humility toward me as one who has ALL of the facts, documents, etc... you continue to ignore what is being said to you.
On the other thread, when asked as to how you came to believe something as fact without supplying anything to back it up, you stated that you were able to do so because of your "many years of research" on the subject. Heaven forbid that someone else has researched this topic deeper than you!
"Are you under the impression I'm disputing Tilly was involved in the lay out of the course?"
NO I am not, yet you have relegated Tilly to a VERY MINOR ROLE in it ascribing the CHIEF role of designer to Worthington without providing any evidence or facts whatsoever and also stating on the other thread when challenged on it that Tilly was the "constructor of Shawnee" clearly implying that Tilly's role was mostly one of building.
No, Tom, you are playing fast and loose with your words. What YOU HAVEN'T DONE is PROVIDE ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOPUR CLAIM. NOTHING. NADA. BUPKISS. Despite being repeatedly challenged with the phrase PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
"I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about here. What was Worthington doing between 1906 and 1911 the would have prevented him?"
That is the point! YOU DON'T KNOW! Yet you stated how "Under the circumstances..." But how can you make that statement if you CLEARLY don't know what the CIRCUMSTANCES were? That is both hypocrisy and stupidity with a big bunch of over-blown ego added in.
What is now very clear is that you have no desire and never did to DISCUSS this topic. That you did so to simply "break my balls" as it were. Finally, and for the very last time, APOLOGIZE for SLANDERING ME as you did. I will not rerspond to anything else since you admittedly have nothing to add nor any desire to learn.
-
Phil-the-author
When I make a statement about an historical figure I assumes the person reading it understands it is relative hsitocially to that period. Obviously you have difficulty judging these comments/observations from a historical perspective. I apologize for any confusion.
I understand the circumstances just fine. I also approach these subjects objectively which is clearly impossible for you. Not only is it impossible for you to analyze these things with an open mind your lack of historical background prevents you from fully comprehending what you see and read, which results in Alpinization being first develpoed in Richmond, Va. Yikes.
You are right, I don't know what would have prevented Worthington from assisting in the design, especially since he was on site at the time! The answer is nothing would have prevented him. Nice try though.
I don't recall calling you a liar, but if I did I'm sure I had good reason. When did I call you a liar?
-
TMac,
No need to keep insulting Phil, really.
But to answer your question, I get the impression that it was quite possible under the circumstances for Worthington to have some input, given whatever experience he had, his interest, etc. It would be great to know if he had a Francis Moment, or even more. Most owners do have some input and learning what it was would be fascinating.
That said, given most owners do have some input, the real question to answer is are you looking to find that out, or change long held design attribution credit, because you deep down believe much of it is flawed? It may be, or it may be that your quest to dig deeper into who did what just doesn't fit everyone else's view of how that work would change attributions.
The arguments about attribution could go on forever without resolution. More interesting information about what Worthington actually did, vs what you speculate he might have done, would be of value.
-
For those who may care. I will not have anything to do with Tom Macwood for his constant slandering of me. As such I have just resigned from the site. I wish all well.
Phil
-
Tom MacWood,
You may try to kid us that you look at facts objectively without bias or agenda, but I bet if you are really honest with yourself you wouldn't buy such a transparent load of hooey.
Why not just be honest about it? It would make productive dialogue so much easier.
-
Bias or agenda? You're funny. This coming from a guy who had a black, Irishman by the name of Hugh Wilson traveling to Europe (with his wife and 6 children) by way of Argentina, and who for a long period could not mention the name Barker without also mentioning Tom Dunn and "itinerants." At the time I thought we should rename him Herbert "The Gypsy" Barker.
-
Tom,
I much prefer Herbert "Midnight Train To Georgia" Barker, thanks. ;)
My bias is simple. I believe most history is accurate, at least on the macro level, even if specific facts can be mistaken and/or misinterpreted over time.
I much prefer to not posthumously attempt to rip away a person's life achievements and reputation based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and twisting of words and facts in an attempt to present a plausible, but historically unsupported revisionist view.
That's my bias, Tom. Call me a soggy sentimentalist, but I don't believe one should attempt to change history through mere conjecture or tinker with a person' achievements and reputation without absolute certifiable proof.
Obviously, your biases and agenda are coming at these questions from a much different perspective.
-
TMac and Mike,
C'mon, to be fair, we all have some bias. We have all speculated and made mistakes in so doing, in lieu of a complete historic record that required reading, rather than interpreting.
-
Jeff,
Yes, we all have biases and predispositions; that's my point.
Instead TMac would have us believe he's looking at this from a cold, clinical, completely objective viewpoint which is ridiculous.
No one that passionate and almost obsessively taken with his subject could be that detached and unmotivated by personal emotion.
-
Jeff Brauer,
You have some nerve calling Tom MacWood out for supposedly insulting Phil. Take a look at Phil's recent posts. For that matter, take a look at your own. Driven by righteous indignation and zealoutry, you guys are out of control and have been for some time now.
As for "biases" driving our conclusions, our respective track records speak loudly on that issue, and in this regard you insult the very concept of sound historical analysis when you mention Tom MacWood in the same breath as Cirba (or you, for that matter.) Look at your respective records. The differences are as pronounced as fact versus fiction.
-
David,
Have a nice day yourself.
There's only one person here who has provided factual evidence over the past several years and that would be me.
Others can make up their own minds on the meaning of that factual evidence without you and/or Tom interpreting it for them, which you don't seem to understand.
That's ok...if you two want to spend time speculating that Worthington was involved with the design of shawnee without a shred of evidence or factual historical information just to irritate Phil Young, then I guess that's what you guys will choose to do but it says a lot, frankly.
-
when I mentioned that I'm the only one providing new factual evidence the past few years, I'm of course speaking of the Merion issue. I'd also be remiss to not mention that much of what I presented came from the incredible research work of Joe Bausch.
-
"For those who may care. I will not have anything to do with Tom Macwood for his constant slandering of me. As such I have just resigned from the site. I wish all well."
Phil:
I care! Do NOT reseign from GOLFCLUBALTAS.com.
I know Moriarty and MacWood annoy you on here; they seem to be intent on annoying everyone. Just ignore them. If you think MacWood called you a liar and you asked for an apology and he just continues to beat around the bush the way he has, just ignore the guy. Same with Moriarty. Both of them have called people on here liars, creeps, drunks, the historian of Merion the poster boy of unethical archivists----you name it and if they are asked to apologize they just rationalize it by saying if THEY think there was a good reason to say those things about people on here then apparently it's OK. That's what MacWood told you today on this thread.
Just ignore people like that in the future. It makes no difference at all if they say they are only interested in facts or truth or the accurate history of architecture etc. They can say that if they want to, they can say whatever they want to, but their words on here certainly say otherwise and big-time. Those two are only on here to annoy people, they have been trying to do that to some of us for years and it's obvious; there is no question of it. The reason why they do that is another matter and they are only hurting themselves and their own reputations in that stupid charade even if they apparently don't see it or refuse to admit it.
Just ignore those two. Truth and facts and an accurate presentation of architectural history is the last thing they want and their words on here to you and a fairly large number of us are proof positive of that.
Don't resign from this website, Philip!
-
Phil,
I'm with TePaul on this one. I have been told that if you resign, you can't come back. So, just in case you want to, just lay in the bushes for a while. Putting up with argumentative A$#(*&#% is part of the whole, uh, "charm" of this place!
BTW, I agree with your last few posts. TMac has as of yet produced exactly zero documents to back up his theory that makes up this thread. That kind of "logic" is an insult to all of us here. And, he defends himself by speculating, calling you dumb and a liar (well, a bluffer for TMac's defenders).
I merely pointed out that it was possible that Worthington could have thown out an idea or two, since he was there. That is about all we can speculate on. The other thing about these attribution threads is that we sometimes miss the obvious. TMac may say that at that time Worthington was more experienced, so he HAD to have designed the golf course. However, that ignores what transpired in reality - Tillie gets credit in all magazine articles, Tillie goes on to become famous GCA and Worthington disappears, etc. To argue that Tillie couldn't have designed the course because of lack of experience ignores all of that.
Again, if TMac is arguing that Worthington has some input, I can agree that speculation would say that of course he may have. But, while logical, its all speculation. I haven't seen TMac admit any of that. And yet, we all get called out for our supposed lack of historical accumen. Things that make you go hmmm.
-
Phil,
Please do not resign. You're a key resource here - and a helluva nice guy!
Illegitimi non carborundum!!!!
-
Philip,
I would concur with all those who are requesting that you do not resign. I truly enjoy your contribution to this site.
I had a single issue with MacWood (re. a Merion thread quite some time ago) and chose to not engage him in the future and have happily done that. Tom Paul is spot on with his recommendation that you just refuse to have any further communication with him, no matter how tempted you are to do so. I believe that is the best way to marginalize him.
It's just not productive in any event.
DLA
-
To all who have encouraged me to stay, I thank you. I have left it up to Ran to decide and I trust his judgement. As he hasn't removed me I've decided to post something that some may find interesting. It is the only known (at least that I can find) map of the Caldeno Golf Links built and supposedly designed by Worthington.
What fascinates me are the names of the various places on the map, particularly "Diana's Bath." Who it was named for and why in a tiny community that has three churches, a post office, a train station, a news stand and at least 11 hotels must be one heck of a fascinating story. Interesting looking course with only six holes barely shown, wouldn't you agree?
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Caldeno_Map.jpg)
-
This should help settle the question of whether Worthington would entrust his new course to an inexperienced, rank amateur in 1910, courtesy of the Tillinghast Association;
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc208/1101825906573/doc/jtxAN3IT3ZOMCfWO.pdf
-
Mike,
If you go back to the first page of this thread in my post #31 you'll find portions of that document displayed and referred to. You'll also find reference to the Tillinghast Association website where we've had that displayed and downlodable for several months and you'll also see it included in last February's issue of Tillinghast Illustrated where a brief course evolution history was published.
With that in mind, the next issue which has been long-delayed due to technical issue will be put up next week. I guarantee there will be some interesting discussions generated by it! ;D
-
Phil,
Thank you. Will the next issue include your research findings for SFGC?
-
;D
-
To those that are interested, Lawn mowers were first introduced in the 1830s. There is a collector of them in the UK. I would copy and post his article that was published in the British Golf Collector magazine, but I want to respect copyrights.
The first use of a mower on a golf course in the US is probably at Oakhurst in the 1870-80's when they would borrow the mowers from The Greenbrier.
I wanted to make sure it was clear that Worthington wasn't the first mowers for golf.
-
Ralph,
That is certainly true. Worthington's innovations came in two areas. First the gang-mowers which he incented for horse-drawn use in 1904 where he simply ganged up a series of hand mowers. Then, in 1919, he created the first tractor driven gang mower. It had metal wheels with appendages welded onto them that would allow for aerating of the turf as it drove.
-
I wish I could reproduce that article for people to read. It is very interesting. He had most all of them restored for use and only knew of one that he was missing which, of course, was the oldest he was able to find during his research.
-
Phil,
So why would Worthington hire an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?
I thought by that time no one with any sense was doing that sort of thing? ;)
-
This should help settle the question of whether Worthington would entrust his new course to an inexperienced, rank amateur in 1910, courtesy of the Tillinghast Association;
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc208/1101825906573/doc/jtxAN3IT3ZOMCfWO.pdf
Mike
That article was posted on this thread pages ago, and I don't think it precludes Worthington from assisting Tilly. Remember Worthington was with Tilly in 1909 when he first inspected the property (not mentioned in this particular article).
Also, Tilly later referred to himself as the Dean of American golf architects because he laid out his first course in the pink-jacketed nineties.
-
Tom,
The article doesn't preclude CB Macdonald from contributing either, but there is no evidence to say he did, is there? I have not seen a reference anywhere that Worthington was involved.
You seem to put a lot of stock in someone's experience designing "tin can" courses, as Worthington did on his own property prior, and as Tillinghast did a dozen years before with some friends in Frankford.
That task essentially meant that in a big meadow they cut some holes and put tin cans in the pasture and crudely played around. Do you seriously consider that golf course architecture?
Here's what Tillighast said about his prior "experience";
"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”
I find it odd that you find this to be prior experience, and yet summarily dismiss the prior experience of men like Dr. Toulmin, who was one of the men who laid out a real golf course at Belmont, or Rodman Griscom, who news accounts in 1900 stated had golf course design and construction experience, presumably on his daddy's farm with the first Merion course expansion.
Those men were all supposed raw, inexperienced design amateurs by 1910, yet Tillinghast's 3 cans in a field a dozen years prior is real design experience? ::)
Your biases are showing, Tom. So why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?
-
Mike:
Do not be surprised that your article or whatever did not convince Tom MacWood. Do not forget that he is the man, nay the self-proclaimed 'expert researcher' ;), who seems to actually believe that HH Barker routed and designed Merion East in December 1910 simply because he found some train schedule that had him traveling between New York and Georgia at that time. After that, why anyone on this website takes anything Tom MacWood says is completely beyond me as I'm quite sure it is completely beyond you!
-
Tom,
The article doesn't preclude CB Macdonald from contributing either, but there is no evidence to say he did, is there? I have not seen a reference anywhere that Worthington was involved.
You seem to put a lot of stock in someone's experience designing "tin can" courses, as Worthington did on his own property prior, and as Tillinghast did a dozen years before with some friends in Frankford.
That task essentially meant that in a big meadow they cut some holes and put tin cans in the pasture and crudely played around. Do you seriously consider that golf course architecture?
Here's what Tillighast said about his prior "experience";
"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”
I find it odd that you find this to be prior experience, and yet summarily dismiss the prior experience of men like Dr. Toulmin, who was one of the men who laid out a real golf course at Belmont, or Rodman Griscom, who news accounts in 1900 stated had golf course design and construction experience, presumably on his daddy's farm with the first Merion course expansion.
Those men were all supposed raw, inexperienced design amateurs by 1910, yet Tillinghast's 3 cans in a field a dozen years prior is real design experience? ::)
Your biases are showing, Tom. So why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?
Mike
I don't believe CB Macdonald had any connection to Shawnee or the Delaware Water Gap region.
CC Worthington was involved in the first two courses in the area, designing them both. His Shawnee project would be the third course in those parts. He also designed the Buckwood Hotel, which is a pretty extraordinary situation when you think of it. The only similar situation I can think of in golf architecture history is B. Hall Blyth at Muirfield. And you cannot ignore CC's inventions dealing with Worthington Mower Co. My impression is Worthington was a fairly creative and hands-on fellow. Under the circumstance I think it would have been possible for him not to be involved.
I take it you believe Tilly was involved in some misinformation or embellishment when he referred to himself as the Dean of American golf architects.
-
Tom,
Tillinghast told us precisely what "experience" he had prior to Shawnee...we dont' have to speculate...we have his exact descriptive words. He said;
"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground, I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”
Does that sound like golf course architecture to you?
Why do you think Tillinghast never gave credit to Worthington for Shawnee's design if the owner had something to do with it?
More importantly, why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?
-
Tom,
Tillinghast told us precisely what "experience" he had prior to Shawnee...we dont' have to speculate...we have his exact descriptive words. He said;
"I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground, I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”
Does that sound like golf course architecture to you?
Why do you think Tillinghast never gave credit to Worthington for Shawnee's design if the owner had something to do with it?
More importantly, why do you think Worthington hired an inexperienced, unproven, no-account son-of-a-rubber-salesman, rank amateur to design his landmark course in 1910?
Mike
At best it sounds like a very crude form of golf architecture. So would you agree Tilly was misleading when he referred to himself the Dean of American golf architects based on his 1890s work?
In his first article after the completion of Shawnee Tilly didn't even give himself credit for designing the course (he emphasized his construction role). In that article he did however say the two men first went over the site together.
Landmark course? Why would you say that?
Why Worthington chose Tilly to oversee the construction of Shawnee deserves further investigation IMO. Perhaps the answer can be found in the Tillinghast biography. Do you have the book?
-
Tom,
As usual you state your BELIEFS as if they are accepted FACTS. Unfortunately for you, everyone of the supposed "facts" that you to believe so are WRONG.
"At best it sounds like a very crude form of golf architecture. So would you agree Tilly was misleading when he referred to himself the Dean of American golf architects based on his 1890s work?"
On what FACTS do you base this statement? On what Facts do you ascribe that Tilly referred to himself as the Dean of American BORN ( if you're goping to state something as fact you can at least get the quote correct) golf architects" and that he did so because of his "rudimentary golf course" he designed and taught the game on in 1898? By the way, how many holes did this "course" have? WHY DID TILLY LAY IT OUT? HOW LONG DID IT LAST?
"In his first article after the completion of Shawnee Tilly didn't even give himself credit for designing the course (he emphasized his construction role). In that article he did however say the two men first went over the site together."
That statement is so wrong it is beyond stupid. You are refering to the 1914 Country Life article which was definitely NOT the "first" article that Tilly wrote about the course "after the course was completed." All you have to do is go through this thread and you'll find NUMEROUS references to articles that Tilly wrote describing the design of Shawnee AFTER it was built including one that I posted where he called HIMSELF the ARCHITECT of Shawnee, all of which he clearly states his role as the deigner and all qwritten before that article that YOU have declared as being first.
"Why Worthington chose Tilly to oversee the construction of Shawnee deserves further investigation IMO. Perhaps the answer can be found in the Tillinghast biography. Do you have the book?"
Worthington chose Tilly to both DESIGN and oversee the construction of the course. Again you are ascribing to Worthington the DESIGN of the course WITHOUT PROVIDING ONE SINGLE PIECE OF PROOF!
Once again, contact Shawnee and ask to examine the records. The proof of what happened can be found in them. Of course, you won't do that, all you'll do is argue based upin what YOU want to believe happened and NOT on what actually did.
And to answer your question, no, the answer as to why Worthington chose Tilly to design and coversee the cconstruction is not found in the biography.
Two other things... Worthington did not DESIOGN the Buckwood Inn. He hired architects and engineeers to do that. He told them that he wanted the building constructed out of cement and hollow tiles so that it would be fireproof. Design it? No, that was beyond his skills, talented man that he may have been. Also, you can wait until next May to read about the "other two courses" in the area that you state that Worthington designed. Some pretty interesting information has been found about them as well...
-
Philip:
R.S. Worthington!?
Who was that? Was he C.C. Worthington's son perhaps?
-
Tom,
R.S. Worthington was Worthington's son Reginald, one of three. He was a pretty good golfer in his own right yet not talented at all in business as his two brothers also weren't. They were the demise of several enterpirses their father began and turned over to them, including the Worthington Mower Company. I have a neat picture of it being torn down after it went out of business...
-
Thanks.
I asked because I saw his name while researching something else entirely. He obviously was a very good player. He was the first person to beat Quimet after his 1913 US Open victory.
-
Tom,
As usual you state your BELIEFS as if they are accepted FACTS. Unfortunately for you, everyone of the supposed "facts" that you to believe so are WRONG.
"At best it sounds like a very crude form of golf architecture. So would you agree Tilly was misleading when he referred to himself the Dean of American golf architects based on his 1890s work?"
On what FACTS do you base this statement? On what Facts do you ascribe that Tilly referred to himself as the Dean of American BORN ( if you're goping to state something as fact you can at least get the quote correct) golf architects" and that he did so because of his "rudimentary golf course" he designed and taught the game on in 1898? By the way, how many holes did this "course" have? WHY DID TILLY LAY IT OUT? HOW LONG DID IT LAST?
Didn't Tom Bendelow and CB Macdonald lay out golf courses prior to 1898? I think Willie Park Jr. laid out real courses in America in 1898. Is that claim misleading?
"In his first article after the completion of Shawnee Tilly didn't even give himself credit for designing the course (he emphasized his construction role). In that article he did however say the two men first went over the site together."
That statement is so wrong it is beyond stupid. You are refering to the 1914 Country Life article which was definitely NOT the "first" article that Tilly wrote about the course "after the course was completed." All you have to do is go through this thread and you'll find NUMEROUS references to articles that Tilly wrote describing the design of Shawnee AFTER it was built including one that I posted where he called HIMSELF the ARCHITECT of Shawnee, all of which he clearly states his role as the deigner and all qwritten before that article that YOU have declared as being first.
Who said anything about a 1914 Country Life article? I was referring to a 1914 County Club Life article. What earlier article are you referring to, when was it written, and where in the article does Tilly claim he designed the course?
"Why Worthington chose Tilly to oversee the construction of Shawnee deserves further investigation IMO. Perhaps the answer can be found in the Tillinghast biography. Do you have the book?"
Worthington chose Tilly to both DESIGN and oversee the construction of the course. Again you are ascribing to Worthington the DESIGN of the course WITHOUT PROVIDING ONE SINGLE PIECE OF PROOF!
Once again, contact Shawnee and ask to examine the records. The proof of what happened can be found in them. Of course, you won't do that, all you'll do is argue based upin what YOU want to believe happened and NOT on what actually did.
And to answer your question, no, the answer as to why Worthington chose Tilly to design and coversee the cconstruction is not found in the biography.
I've read your biography, and your speculation in that book. You said Worthington and Tilly discussed building a course there as early as 1907. What is that based on?
Two other things... Worthington did not DESIOGN the Buckwood Inn. He hired architects and engineeers to do that. He told them that he wanted the building constructed out of cement and hollow tiles so that it would be fireproof. Design it? No, that was beyond his skills, talented man that he may have been. Also, you can wait until next May to read about the "other two courses" in the area that you state that Worthington designed. Some pretty interesting information has been found about them as well...
Who was the architect?
-
Tom the Mac,
Once again you deflect and don't answer anything asked of you!
I asked, "On what FACTS do you base this statement? On what Facts do you ascribe that Tilly referred to himself as the Dean of American BORN ( if you're goping to state something as fact you can at least get the quote correct) golf architects" and that he did so because of his "rudimentary golf course" he designed and taught the game on in 1898? By the way, how many holes did this "course" have? WHY DID TILLY LAY IT OUT? HOW LONG DID IT LAST?"
Your "answer" to it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with YOUR claim that Tilly CALLED himself something BASED upon something he did in 1898. It answers NONE of the peripheral questions about the "course" in fact it is a statement that is bizarre. It is an answer to some question, but most certainly none that I asked.
"Who said anything about a 1914 Country Life article? I was referring to a 1914 County Club Life article. What earlier article are you referring to, when was it written, and where in the article does Tilly claim he designed the course?"
Is THAT the best you can do? I left out the word "Club" and you're taking me to task for it? Grow up there especially when you know what was meant. Once again, it is a DEFLECTION because I stated that the articles are already in this thread and are in DIRECT RESPONSE to statements and questions you made during it. Go lookmthem up because you know where they are.
"I've read your biography, and your speculation in that book. You said Worthington and Tilly discussed building a course there as early as 1907. What is that based on?"
"For one who has claimed to have "read a great deal on this subject" you sure seem to miss a lot! Here is another one uou can go look up because it is from several sources including Tilly himself! By the way, how about a hint that will show you the answer? Where was Tilly own a summer residence in 1907 and who would purchase it from him in 1908?
"Who was the architect?"
That is the easiest answer of all. Why it can be found on the same piece of paper as the answer to the question "Who was the engineer?" It is clearly printed on the DESIGN DRAWINGS for the Buckwood Inn. That's another one that you can go fnd and read. I'm not doing your legwork for you as all you want is to argue and have no interest in the actual facts. I will do you the common courtesy of suggesting that you start at the SAME place that I did, in PERSON, at the Monroe County Historical Society....
Now, answer my questions otherwise you prove that all you want to do is argue...
-
I don't know why Tilly laid out the rudimentary course or how long it lasted, and I don't really care.
I asked you four questions and you didn't answer any of them, which is par for the course. Here is a link to a brief biography on Worthington. His obit in the NY Times is fascinating as well. It is a shame you have chosen to bury his story.
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/w/o/r/H-R-Worthington/BOOK-0001/0006-0001.html
-
Sorry Tom,
But I did answer your questions, and unlike you, did so quite specifically. I stated that the answers were already posted in this thread. By doing that I showed that anyone who desires to see them can find them, and quite simply too. You though, as usual refuse to accept that you are simply wrong.
I am not "BURYING" Worthington's story as you put it. I am telling the TRUTH about what actually happened and not MAKING history up as you appear to be doing based SOLELY on what you BELIEVE happened.
You, despite being called on by numerous people on this thread and once again by me in my previous post and which YOU PARRED YOUR OWN COURSE by ignoring once again, simply have yet to produce a SINGLE piece of FACT that states that Worthington designed the golf course... NOTHING.
By the way, you already know that I have his NY Times obituary because earlier in this thread I referred to what it ACTUALLY stated.
Thank you for that "link" but it is worthless to me. I happen to have a copy of the MANUSCRIPT of an in-depth biography of C.C. Worthington written by his son and grandson. I also have several other far more in-depth brief biographies of him some that were written while he was alive and some immedioately after his death. In addition to that I have several books written at the tiome that Worthington arrived in Pa. and Shawnee that tell that story from their perspective incl;uding those who actually SOLD HIM THE PROPERTY! On top of all of that I happen to also have several hun dred newspaper accounts that deal with all of the events of Shawnee, Buckwood Park, Worthington State Park, the golf course, Worthington Mowers and much, much more...
I am quite sure I know and understand Worthington, his businesses and his family's history a whole lot more than you do....
What you are attempting to do with Worthington at Shawnee is what Ron Whitten did with Joseph Burbeck and Bethpage. The damage done by Whitten to Burbeck's true legacy is monumental as a great man who did an incredible work will never be rememberred for that. You sully Worthington's legacy by your proclamations of what you "believe" he must have done because what he actually did accomplish during those years was far more important and lasting than the building of the golf course. You can read about it next May and you'll then reralize that the chapter titled "Worthington's Vision" isn't burying a thing about what an amazing man accomplished.
So Tom, how about answering the questions you were asked:
1- On what FACTS do you base this statement? On what Facts do you ascribe that Tilly referred to himself as the Dean of American BORN ( if you're going to state something as fact you can at least get the quote correct) golf architects" and that he did so because of his "rudimentary golf course" he designed and taught the game on in 1898?
2- When will you provide even a SINGLE piece of factual evidence that Worthington designed the Shawnee golf course?
By the way, before you're tempted to call me a liar again as to what I claim to have, here's the cover to one of the manuscripts, this one written by his grandson...
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/CCI11162010_00000.jpg)
-
Nice work, Phil...
-
I agree---nice work Phil. But I really don't understand why you are going to such lengths to try to continue dealing with Tom MacWood's largely irrelevent questions.
-
Phil,
I hate to jump in this late, and may have missed something, but I have a question. What is the meaning of AWT being the club secretary and having had the links planned and built under his direction? (according to the header in that linked article)
Did he have a contract for design, or did he agree to be part of the club in part to obtain the position of designer?
Just curious, as things in those early days often happened way different than they might today. Thanks.
-
Jeff,
Those are good questions and well worth asking. In order to appreciate what happened one must understand what the Shawnee CC is and what it isn't. Originally the Manwalamink GC was formed by Worthington in 1900 and the only members were his LOCAL friends, and by local I mean within a day's driving distance. That is actually part of the reason and story as to why Tilly was given the commission because he summered in Shawnee and actually owned a house just a short distance from Worthington's. Mrs. Worthington bought his house from him in 1908 for a very interesting reason which you'll have to read in the book about and is one of those pesky little things that C.C. Worthington would be involved in which would make it impossioble for him to have any active role in designing either course or Inn as Tom insists.
With the coming of the Inn and the golf course, and it is the reason behind why he built it in the first place, Worthington was now able to have a golf club where members could live anywhere in the country and even overseas if they wanted. He built the entire facility so that his friends and business acquaintances could enjoy the paradise that he had found. He believed that it was the perfect place to bring together the captains of industry and business leaders to meet and discuss global and regional issues and help improve life for everyone as a reult from the owners down to the workers.
So for many years the membership of the club and the guests who stayed at and in a number of cases summered at the Inn were of this class and calibre. In August of 1910 the Manwalamink Golf Club closed and reformed as the Shawnee Country Club with the new golf course as its home course when it opened in May of 1911.
This club was to run as all important ones did and so the board of directors installed Tilly as the Club Secretary. He was also the CHAIRMAN of the GREEN COMMITTEE and the constituition of the club assigned the oversight of the design and building of the golf course SPECIFICALLY to this committee. One name lacking as NOT being a member of that committee? C.C. Worthington!
So there is unquestionable proof in the Board minutes and constitution besides other documents and written material that Tilly designed and built the course.
Now because Worthington wanted the Shawnee Country Club to be invovled as an entity in the golf course, the constitution made the Club responsible for the day-to-day care and maintenance of the golf course and not that of the Inn. So as you can see there is a unique relationship here.
As a means of garnering the new members that Worthington desired he had Tilly prepare the advertising brochure that can be seen in full on the Tillinghast Association website. The heading under the title states that he designed and built it and adds in parentheses that he is also Secretary of the Club. It doesn't mean that "AS Secretary of the Club Mr. Tillinghast..." but rather that "Mr. Tillinghast Designed and built and happens to also be the Secretary of the Club..."
"Did he have a contract for design?" Yes he did.
"Did he agree to be a part of the club in part to obtain the position of designer?" No he didn't because he was already a member of the Manwalamink Golf Club and so was automatically one of the new Shawnee CC when it changed over. Understand the history here. Tilly spent a good deal of time playing with all of the Worthington's from the late 1800's onward. They knew him BEFORE they made the move to Shawnee and specifically considered having him design a course that they hoped would attract many important people as members would aid the vision that C.C. Worthington had of establishing a center for business and even political discussions.
-
Jeffrey:
I really don't know the significance of a golf course architect also being appointed the secretary of a club at its inception but interestingly Devereux Emmet was also appointed the secretary of a club he designed a course for. In Emmet's case, and perhaps somewhat unbelievably, he was appointed the secretary of the Womens National GC that he designed the course for. I say somewhat unbelievably because the membership of the club was exclusively women. The founder of that club was Marion Hollins, the same woman who a few years later would essentially found Cypress Point GC and who was responsible for creating its membership.
-
Tom,
Let me clear this up for you & Jeff as I may have written it less than clear. Tilly was the appointed Club Secretary of the new Shawnee CC partly because he was the EXISTING Club Secretary of the Manwalamink GC at the time of the changeover. In addition, Tilly would be appointed President of the Shawnee CC in 1914.
-
Phil
Perhaps you should re-read the thread from beginning to end one more time. This is what I wrote originally:
Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?
Does that sound like I'm suggesting I have fact to support Worthington collaborating with Tilly? Have I ever suggested I have facts to support a Worthington-Tilly collaboration? Have you presented internal documents that prove Tilly Shawnee was a solo design?
What I have said from the beginning is that under the circumstances - Tilly being inexperienced, Worthington having designed prior golf courses, Worthington designing the clubhouse, the two men walking the site initially together, Tilly emphasizing his construction roll in several publications - that it is likely the two men collaborated.
You did not answer my questions: Is Tilly's claim of being the Dean of American (or American born) architects misleading? What about CBM, Emmet, George O'Neil to name a few all designed full length legitimate golf courses around or before the turn of the century and were still active well into the 1920s. You said in your biography the two men (Worthington and Tilly) discussed building a golf course as early as 1907. What is the source for that? Who designed the Buckwood Inn...what was the man's name?
-
Phil,
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed explanation. I know you have better things to do with your time than answer our questions endlessly, and I do appreciate it.
TMac,
I know Phil is frustrated, and I am somewhat by a post that says you have no facts to support Worthington collaborating with Tilly and also saying that it is likely that he did in the same paragraph. Since I stopped counting at a dozen, and Phil and others have provided other documentation saying and also suggesting via inference that Tilly did design the course, I wonder why you keep pounding on a probably insignifigant point. The only value on the length of this thread is that more stuff continues to come out.
I am interested in the possibility that Tillie (as gca's are prone to do) may have exagerated his position by calling himself the dean of American Born architects. Just a bit of advertising and promotion? Perhaps, but the long term results certainly proved him at least mostly right, didn't they?
-
"Phil
Perhaps you should re-read the thread from beginning to end one more time. This is what I wrote originally:
Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design."
Tom MacWood:
When or where have I ever suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design? You've always had an interesting way of putting words in peoples' mouths they never remotely said! ??? ;)
-
Tom the Mac,
I don't have to read what you wrote in your opening post. All you are doing on here and the prior threads where you brought up this crap simply to argue is cast unsupoported suppositions and then demand that others produce facts.
Your opening statement "Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?" is WRONG on its face and you know it!
I have NEVER SUGGESTED that and you know it. I have flat out stated it to be FACT and you know that as well. You keep ignoring the documents and articles written by Tillinghast himself that have been quoted from by myself and others NUMEROUS times throughout this thread, including the article where TILLINGHAST HIMSELF wrote "I am the architect of Shawnee."
No Tom, I will not produce any internal documents for you. Even you aren't that assininely stupid at this point to think that I don't have them as all others accept that I do because of the book I am writing for Shawnee.
You have the ARROGANCE to post a "link" to a page of minimal biographical information on C.C. Worthington that is a mere nothing as if I need the information and then when I post the cover to but ONE of the manuscripts that are in my possession and that is authored by his grandson you don't even mention anything about it because you see how stupid your vain attempt to appear knowledgeable on this subject failed.
You lost any opportunity for me to "share" anything of that nature a while back because of your low-class and baseless actions and accusations toward me. I once again suggest that you call Shawnee and ask for permission to see their records and documents. Hell Tom, if you went there TOMORROW you would be able to get a good look at many of them because they will be on PUBLIC DISPLAY during an all-day media event being done as a kick-off to the anniversary celebrations next May. Of course you would face the possibility that you might run into me and have to suffer the indignity of ME SHOWING THEM TO YOU!
No, you don't really want to learn the truth. Consider, if you really were even a fraction of the researcher that you think you are, how then could you, who makes the claim that, "I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that..." not be EMBARRASSED when the writings of Tillinghast himself say over and over that he did it including (one more time in case you simply can't process this quote from his Hazard article) where he wrote "I am the ARCHITECT of SHAWNEE" and yet have missed these?
No Tom, you were and are aware of what Tillinghast wrote; what you are doing is showing your pettiness in arguing the unarguable and doing so simply to annoy and harrass . Its like once again demanding the NAME of the architect of the Buckwood Inn. Go to Shawnee tomorrow or any other day and ask to look at the original plans or don't embarrass yourself by doing that because after all of this crap they just might say no to you and go to the Monroe County Historical Society and ask to see the Buckwood Inn files. You'll find the answer there. I did it... so you can do it too.
Finally, you have some set of something to state to me "You did not answer my questions." I did and I have. It is YOU who keep ignoring questions as they are repeatedly asked of you over and over. So for the THIRD TIME I aske:
"On what Facts do you ascribe that Tilly referred to himself as the Dean of American BORN ( if you're going to state something as fact you can at least get the quote correct) golf architects" and that he did so because of his "rudimentary golf course" he designed and taught the game on in 1898?"
Where has it ever been recorded that it was TILLINGHAST who made the statement that he was the "Dean of American born golf architects?" In all of your "voluminous readings" you must know the answer to that since you stated it as FACT to Mike Cirba earlier on this thread, "Mike, At best it sounds like a very crude form of golf architecture. So would you agree Tilly was misleading when he referred to himself the Dean of American golf architects based on his 1890s work?" And again as FACT when you also stated to Mike Cirba on this thread, "I take it you believe Tilly was involved in some misinformation or embellishment when he referred to himself as the Dean of American golf architects."
You even stated it as FACT to me, "I am interested in the possibility that Tillie (as gca's are prone to do) may have exagerated his position by calling himself the dean of American Born architects. Just a bit of advertising and promotion?"
So once again Tom, WHERE and WHEN did TILLINGHAST ever make that claim?
No Jeff, I am no longer frustrated by Tom the Macwood. I wish I could find him amusing; unfortunately it is even hard to pity him at this point.
Tom, when you are finally ready to actually DISCUSS things and present a single FACT to back up your statements as quoted above, I will then be more than happy to answer questions and guess what, I just might even show some stuff on here that will surprise you... might if you can ask it the right way...
I almost forgot... One reason for going to Shawnee tomorrow is that there will be family members of each of the four owners of the Inn including some of the WORTHINGTON'S! Ask them directly what happened and then demand that they show you the documents when it disagrees with what you "believe" must have happened...
-
"......you don't even mention anything about it because you see how stupid your vain attempt to appear knowledgeable on this subject failed."
No, Philip, I don't believe you or any of us can assume that Tom MacWood sees THAT and I'm afraid THAT is the real problem with both him and these kind of threads he starts and then drones on endlessly page after page after page!
-
Phil,
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed explanation. I know you have better things to do with your time than answer our questions endlessly, and I do appreciate it.
TMac,
I know Phil is frustrated, and I am somewhat by a post that says you have no facts to support Worthington collaborating with Tilly and also saying that it is likely that he did in the same paragraph. Since I stopped counting at a dozen, and Phil and others have provided other documentation saying and also suggesting via inference that Tilly did design the course, I wonder why you keep pounding on a probably insignifigant point. The only value on the length of this thread is that more stuff continues to come out.
I am interested in the possibility that Tillie (as gca's are prone to do) may have exagerated his position by calling himself the dean of American Born architects. Just a bit of advertising and promotion? Perhaps, but the long term results certainly proved him at least mostly right, didn't they?
You're right I should be more understanding of Phil's feelings, we all should be, he is very sensitive and prone to drama queen episodes now and again. I understand Ran has a boat load of emails to prove this. I had no idea that suggesting Worthington may have assisted Tilly would create such a furor, after all this is a discussion group, and I continue to think it is a distinct possibility. Sue me.
-
TMac,
I didn't mean to say anything about Phil's feelings and how you should handle them. I am really noodling on how this thread fits in the general ethics and customs of this and other discussion boards, by posting a thesis with no basis in historic fact, being proven wrong and still declaring it an open question? I would concede the original question in your thread to possibly be valid and worthy of discussion if you had read certain articles suggesting Worthington was co-designer, even if you apparently over stated the amount you had read on the subject. I certainly question your interpretation on this one, if not your intent, given 275 replies and 99% of us believing its a settled question.
I grant you, that while I love gca history like you do, I am more taker than giver in these discussions. I appreciate those like Phil who research and put history in coherent fashion, and I appreciate all who post documents here, including you over the years, for us to read and interpret. At this point, its just a low reward situation for most of us, or at least me, since I don't wish to speak for Phil or others.
-
You did not answer my questions: Is Tilly's claim of being the Dean of American (or American born) architects misleading? What about CBM, Emmet, George O'Neil to name a few all designed full length legitimate golf courses around or before the turn of the century and were still active well into the 1920s. You said in your biography the two men (Worthington and Tilly) discussed building a golf course as early as 1907. What is the source for that? Who designed the Buckwood Inn...what was the man's name?
Phil
I think we all understand why you are not answering these simple questions....no need to write a bloody manifesto.
-
TMac,
Enlighten me. I don't understand why he isn't answering these simple questions. In fact, I thought he already answered them multiple times. Of what are you speaking?
Thanks.
-
"......you don't even mention anything about it because you see how stupid your vain attempt to appear knowledgeable on this subject failed."
No, Philip, I don't believe you or any of us can assume that Tom MacWood sees THAT and I'm afraid THAT is the real problem with both him and these kind of threads he starts and then drones on endlessly page after page after page!
This thread started in mid-September. If you check I believe you will find this thread was resuscitated several times by others, not me. Some people just can't enough of it and me, including you.
-
TMac,
Enlighten me. I don't understand why he isn't answering these simple questions. In fact, I thought he already answered them multiple times. Of what are you speaking?
Thanks.
Some possible reasons:
1. He doesn't know the answer
2. He knows the answer, but would prefer not to paint Tilly in a negative light
3. He has no source
4. His feeling are hurt
...should I go on?
-
Sorry Tom, but we all know why YOU AREN'T answering the questions. Once again you put up two more posts and fail to answer the question asked of you.
It is YOU who stated that Tilly made the claim of being the the Dean of American Born Architects. I asked you to PROVE that he did. You keep avoiding that. You stated that he made this grand statement because of the rudimentary course he designed in 1898 . I asked you to provide the facts and proof that he did that. It is YOU who is making unsupportable claims and refusing to provide the proof for them. So asnwer the question that was FIRST asked of you before anything asked of me.
You are correct; I stated in my biography that Tilly and Worthington discussed building a golf course "as early as 1907." Where did I get that information from? I already answered that. Tilly himself wrote of it. You can certainly find it if you so choose. By the way, others wrote of it as well...
Who designed Buckwood Inn? Again, I'm not giving you the answer. I told you several places where you could locate the information. Go get it yourself just as I did.
I would have given you all of this information and more; quite gladly as I share a geat deal of what I have found openly with many. I refuse to share anything with a classless man who called me a liar, admitted doing so and refused to apologize for it despite numerous attempts on my part to settle it amicably and in private. And you have the audacity to now say, "You're right I should be more understanding of Phil's feelings, we all should be, he is very sensitive and prone to drama queen episodes now and again."
Tom you are a hypocrite and full of disingenuous crap. You waste everyone's time here. You started this thread as a direct attack against what I posted on the other thread and have continued your silliness throughout.
You mention the emails to Ran, "I understand Ran has a boat load of emails to prove this..." Of course you are aware of them as a number of them were CC'ed to you by me. What you copnveniently leave out are the emails Ran sent back to me including one where he told me to go ahead and "embarrass him" because he thought maybe that would be the only way you might learn not to slander people. Of course, since you obviously can't be embarrassed the idea of you learning that your behavior is wrong is also beyond you.
You stated, "I had no idea that suggesting Worthington may have assisted Tilly would create such a furor, after all this is a discussion group, and I continue to think it is a distinct possibility. Sue me."
Actually the "furor" as you put it, was caused by your slanderous allegation that I lied about having the Shawnee Inn and CC's original documents including board minutes. My posting the cover and two pages from them weren't enough "proof" for you that I had them of course and so why should you have been a man and apologized.
No Tom, no need to sue the stupid and ignorant...
-
So Tom,
Explain why YOU won't answer the questions asked of you? Why YOU won't provide the facts and proof asked of you?
I've been quite clear as to why i wouldn't answer in the past and why I won't answer you now. I have actually answered a number of these questions privately for some who have asked. But I will not dignify the horsecrap that you have flung at me with with any answers because you have proven yourself to be unworthy of the help.
I guess that answer would be in the "Should I go on" category that you listed after the first four were all blatantly incorrect. :P
-
TMac,
I need to go out for a while, but in Phil's post 271 he appears to say that tillie never called himself that, and that is was you who suggested it. He then asks you to support your claim. Is that not an answer and if not, can you point out where Tillie actually did say this? I don't mean to put you through any real trouble, so if its not in this thread, or easily accessible don't worry on my behalf.
Its just that you two have some animosity and someone is talking right past the other, perhaps in both directions making it a bit hard to follow.
Again, thanks.
-
"This thread started in mid-September. If you check I believe you will find this thread was resuscitated several times by others, not me. Some people just can't enough of it and me, including you."
Tom MacWood:
And certainly including you. But unlike the rest of us it appears you have learned just about nothing from Phil after a couple of months and multiple pages. But then again, you never seem to learn anything from others on this DG or if you actually think you have, adimitting it!!
-
"This thread started in mid-September. If you check I believe you will find this thread was resuscitated several times by others, not me. Some people just can't enough of it and me, including you."
Tom MacWood:
And certainly including you. But unlike the rest of us it appears you have learned just about nothing from Phil after a couple of months and multiple pages. But then again, you never seem to learn anything from others on this DG or if you actually think you have, adimitting it!!
What did you learn?
-
.
-
Annnndddds sssoooooooo PPPHhhhhhhiillllllllll,
What have you learnt from this thread? ;D
-
Tom MacWood:
I would say I've learned from this thread via the voluminous information Phil Young has contributed that it looks pretty conclusive that the architectural attribution for Shawnee should go to A.W. Tillinghast, even though I doubt that fact has ever really been in question. ;)
-
;)
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/dump.jpg)
-
C'mon Rick, You know that Hymer must have drawn that back in 1898 and not "22" as he dated it. You know he had psychic abilities that would have allowed him to see into the past and the future and paint what Tilly was photographed doing at Winged Foot discussing the plans with his on-site foreman (the source of the drawing).
And even though the caption "A.W. Tillinghast, The Dean of American Born Architects" was the title of HYMER'S drawing, it simply must have been Tilly who created the phrase because of the magnificence of that rudimentary course he built in 1898 in Frankford where he taught the public to play golf for a few months that single late summer. So memorable that today they are literally thousands of students there... at the Frankford, Pa. High School that sits on the spot!
Of course, as Tom the Mac has now shown himself to be an admitted liar, see the Harry Colt thread where he led on Sean Arble with phony claims of documented proof of Harry Colt coming's and going's from the U.S. based upon British ship manifests, I guess based upon the scientific axiom that "it takes one to know one" more credence must now be given, even by me, to his claim that I lied on this and the other thread about having the Shawnee documents in my possession.
My, my... what are we to do...
-
Tom MacWood:
I would say I've learned from this thread via the voluminous information Phil Young has contributed that it looks pretty conclusive that the architectural attribution for Shawnee should go to A.W. Tillinghast, even though I doubt that fact has ever really been in question. ;)
That's new? No, I'm looking for specific new facts you learned. I take it you've read Phil's biography of Tilly. What new info did you pick up here that was not covered in the book?
-
Tom MacWood:
Perhaps there is no new information extant that Phil did not cover in the book. But even if there isn't I don't have much doubt that you might try to create some. You have a very consistent record of producing speculation and then continually maintaining it should be considered as fact. The HH Barker New York to Georgia train ride design of Merion East is definitely one of the best examples of that! ;)
-
At nine pages I assume this means that Shawnee has officially replaced Merion.
Can't wait to see what course next becomes the bone of contention.
-
Annnndddds sssoooooooo PPPHhhhhhhiillllllllll,
What have you learnt from this thread? ;D
Hopefully not to pre-announce any projects here.
-
Hi Ralph,
The next one? I believe that will be decided in a day or two when the next edition of Tillinghast Illustrated is released.
As far as not not pre-announcing any projects... I didn't. This started on another thread where Tom didn't like my example that tilly was inexperienced and untested as an architect when he designed Shawnee. He then claimed that Worthington was "greatl;y experienced" and an "associate" with Tilly in the design. That is what started this. I later explained that I had been hired to write the book and had all the documents, records, etc... in my possession at which point Tom called me a liar and here we are...
As far as announcements though...
Today it was officially announced by Charlie Kirkwood at a press conference at Shawnee that there are a number of special Centennary events planned throughout the year. One that I believe you'll be very interested in. It's highlighted for you!
One of the special celebrations is the Wedding Vows Renewal Weekend, June 25-26. In honor of the hundreds of couples who have held their wedding at Shawnee, a group ceremony will be held for couple to renew their vows, followed by a brunch. Also, each participating couple will be able to stay overnight for only $19.11 (in honor of the Inn’s 1911 opening).
As part of the wedding day celebration, Shawnee is conducting a world-wide search for the couple married at Shawnee who have been together the longest. The special “bride and groom” that emerge by March 30, 2011 will be invited to participate in the Wedding Vow Renewal and receive a complimentary two-night stay, compliments of the resort.
Another major celebration event is the Centennial Ball on May 21, which will be a traditional gala designed to connect the early years of Shawnee with today. Guest must be in either contemporary formal attire (black-tie optional), or may choose the more festive 1911 period dress.
As part of the theme to honor the past, Birthday Dinner celebrations to commemorate each of the resort’s key ownership figures will be held – honoring C.C. Worthington on Jan. 6, Fred Waring on June 9, and Charlie Kirkwood on Aug. 3. Each night, guests will select from popular dishes of each owner’s era for only $19.11 (again, in honor of Shawnee’s 1911 opening).
Other significant events in 2011 include the opening of the new Shawnee Museum on Jan. 5; a special Centennial Performance at the Shawnee Theater on May 20; the Shawnee Centennial book release party on May 3; the Centennial Hickory Classic golf tournament – using wood-shafted clubs – on Oct. 16; and the year-ending Centennial Winter Carnival on Dec. 31.
that the book would be released at a special presentation on May 3rd. He also announced that there will be a HICKORY Tournament on October
-
They wanted me to get involved, but until I know what is happening with personal things, I just can't do much on the hickory golf event front. I wish them well and will be pleased to announce it on hickorygolf.com if they request it.
Hope I can be there as it will be on my birthday.
I guess I misunderstood the progression of info on this thread. It seemed like TMwood was trying to get all the good stuff out of you that would be announced in the book, which would not leave any surprises when it was out.
-
Trust me Ralph, there will be a LOT of surprises and very unexpected historical information in it.
-
Tom MacWood:
Perhaps there is no new information extant that Phil did not cover in the book. But even if there isn't I don't have much doubt that you might try to create some. You have a very consistent record of producing speculation and then continually maintaining it should be considered as fact. The HH Barker New York to Georgia train ride design of Merion East is definitely one of the best examples of that! ;)
Have you read the book?
-
Phil
Tilly obviously promoted the idea of being the dean of American born architects. The image just posted appeared with an article he wrote. There is also an interview in 1928 where again he is referred to as the Dean, and also 'the pioneer of American golf architects." His first course in the 90s being the justification given in that article. Don't you think that claim is misleading? CBM, Emmet, George O'Neil (to name a few) all designed legitimate golf courses around or before the turn of the century and were still active well into the 1920s.
You wrote in your biography the two men (Worthington and Tilly) discussed building a golf course as early as 1907. What is the source for that?
-
TMac,
As I hinted earlier, it may be an exageration, but then so is much of marketing and its not like he didn't have some claim, at least by 1928, based on his volume of work then, or even in 1922. BTW, your worlding says he is referred to, not he says he is the dean. Was it his words, or those of his interviewer?
Anyway, "misleading" is a somewhat subjective concept when regarding marketing claims of gca's or others. We can debate it forever, no? BTW, what publication was that 1928 interview in? I am thinking that perhaps, if it was a Philly pub or NY they may not have recognized something like Chicago CC (the pre 1922 Raynor course and an early milestone) or at least didn't want to.....East coast bias couldn't have just started in our lifetime!
-
Do you understand how they are using the term Dean is this case? He is claiming to be the oldest/longest practicing golf architect. Either you are or you aren't, it has nothing to do with volume of work.
The interviewer used the term, but clearly Tilly was the source. In his Tilly biography Phil wrote, "It [the drawing in Golf Illustrated] was given the same self-proclaimed designation by which Tillinghast had begun referring to himself, the 'Dean of American Born Architects.'" Do you own Phil's book?
The interview was in a NY publication, and I think everyone familiar with golf (and golf architecture) in that city would have known Macdonald and Emmet's history, and Tilly obviously knew their history. He most likely knew O'Neil's history as well.
-
I do own Phil's book on Tilly, but haven't looked up that passage. I agree that Tillie probably coined it, or at least encouraged its use.
Dean of....probably means the longest practicing, but thought it might also sort of mean "head of the class" or some of both, in Tillie's mind. In any event, it was a catchy marketing claim, and probably not in Tillie's mind needing to be 100% true. Not unlike RTJ’s claim that the “sun never sets on the RTJ courses”, CBM’s claim of coining the term golf architect, or even a menu claiming “best hamburger in town”.
On the other hand, it probably had to have some basis in truth in case someone raised the question you do. Off the top of my head, he may have felt that O’Neill was a part time designer until the 20’s (according to CW) and that CBM was Scot/Canadian and/or never took a fee, that he wasn’t American born or really a “Golf Course Architect”.
It also occurred to me that the west coast guys (Hunter or Behr maybe?) critiqued Raynor when he went out there by dismissing his models and template holes as opposed to site specific design. Maybe he dismissed CBM’s early work on that basis (as relating to who was the earliest practicing American Golf Course Architect)?
Any way you slice it, it was certainly an embellishment, as most marketing claims are to an extent and probably true only in a very narrow way. Misleading? I don’t care for that choice of words. It’s kind of negative in tone.
-
Tom,
"Tilly obviously promoted the idea of being the dean of American born architects. The image just posted appeared with an article he wrote."
That is correct in that the IMAGE did appear on the page FOLLOWING the article. The real questions though are WHY did that image appear there, WHO is responsible for placing it there in the journal, WHAT is it depicting, WHO was responsible for creating it and WHO is it that titled it "The Dean of American Born Architects."
You are clearly trying to infer something from title, drawing and article and yet you obviously don't seem to know the answers to the above questions because if you did you wouldn't have written what you did.
Secondly, you responded to Jeff, "Do you understand how they are using the term Dean is this case? He is claiming to be the oldest/longest practicing golf architect. Either you are or you aren't, it has nothing to do with volume of work."
That is absurd and completely incorrect. He is NOT claiming that because he both wasn't and he also knew it! His FIRST design in his own mind and in ACTUALITY was Shawnee. You again show that you have no understanding whatsoever as to what the "RUDIMENTARY" course that he laid out in a Frankford park in 1898 was and what it was for and HOW LONG IT LASTED! You don't even appreciate WHY Tilly did it. You have my biography, go back and READ what Tilly actually wrote and the word "INVITED" might jump out at you this time! Why did Tilly say that?
Who "INVITED" Tilly to Frankford to lay out this rudimentary course and why? When you know the answer to those questions, and the ones above, you'll understand why your supposition is completely wrong.
"There is also an interview in 1928 where again he is referred to as the Dean, and also 'the pioneer of American golf architects." His first course in the 90s being the justification given in that article. Don't you think that claim is misleading? CBM, Emmet, George O'Neil (to name a few) all designed legitimate golf courses around or before the turn of the century and were still active well into the 1920s."
Tom, how about not PARAPHRASING the article but instead POST it. Let everyone see what it actually says so that little things such as CONTEXT and, as Jeff himself has already noted above, WHO it was that actually called him that. I will no longer comment on "facts" that you present unless you actually present them, though the real bottom line in this is what does how someone praised Tilly have anything at all to do with whether or not he designed Shawnee?
You are trying to show a level of expertise on a subject for which you have both admitted and clearly demonstarted you have very litlle. This is simply an attempt at obfuscation.
"You wrote in your biography the two men (Worthington and Tilly) discussed building a golf course as early as 1907. What is the source for that?"
I've answered that several times already. Tilly stated it and so did others. What is your problem with the date that DISCUSSIONS about a possible golf course began? Again, what was happening in 1907 with Worthington and Tilly that also prove this to be true?
Tom, you should quit trying to make something out of nothing.
-
TMac,
By your definition of "Dean of" which I think is correct, and based on being the first american born gca, only Emmet would seem to be in contention, and Whitten lists Garden City as 1899 as opposed to Frankford's 1898 according to Phil.
If we add in my conjecture that Tillie would put accepting paid fees as a gca, and Whitten's statement that Emmet didn't accept fees until later in his career, then Tillie could stake that claim on either basis, no?
Did Emmet or other americans design courses that we know of before that? And, not that it matters, but if Tillie wasn't the first American to accept a fee to design a course, who would you say it was? You mention O'Neill as designing "around that time" but Whitten lists his courses as way later, but allows that he dabbled earlier. And, by your strict "dean of" definition, O'Neill (or others) would have to be proven to have designed a course in 1897 or earlier, no?
Of course, you might argue, and I might agree that Tillie was narrowing the definition quite a bit to suit his desire to make the claim (whether for business promotion or personal ego, its quite a distinction) American Born, takes a fee (or perhaps is just invited by outsiders in his first work) continues to take fees on regular basis, etc. I think there is probably enough truth to it to allow him to make that claim, no?
-
Jeff
Nine out of ten times in this context (non-academic) Dean of...means the longest serving or longest active, as in Dean of Big 10 coaches, Dean of PAC 10 coaches, Dean of Missouri Valley coaches, Dean of Diplomatic Corp, Dean of Cardinals, Dean of capital hill journalists, etc. I don't think there is any doubt what Tilly was claiming, and it was based on the crude layout in 1898. That course was metioned as the justification in the 1928 article.
O'Neil was more active than what is indicated in C&W. Macdonald claimed he was born in the United States. Emmet was both born in America and very active. They all designed legitimate golf courses prior to Shawnee and continued to practice into the 1920s.
I find it hard to believe anyone would question CBM's credentials as a pioneer because he used templates, especially when the person doing the questioning is claiming he was the longest active architect based on a very crude temporary golf course. I think it is more likely people would question that course as an example of legitimate golf architecture.
-
"You wrote in your biography the two men (Worthington and Tilly) discussed building a golf course as early as 1907. What is the source for that?"
I've answered that several times already. Tilly stated it and so did others. What is your problem with the date that DISCUSSIONS about a possible golf course began? Again, what was happening in 1907 with Worthington and Tilly that also prove this to be true?
I didn't ask who was the source I asked what is the source. Did you find it an article...if so what article?
Have you been able to confim the existance of the course at Frankfort?
-
I think Tilly was using the term to designate himself as the first american-born professional architect...surely he knew he didn't design the first courses in this country nor claiming so.
-
If a 1928 article called A.W. Tillinghast the dean of American architects I'd say that was probably a pretty accurate statement in 1928.
However, that was 1928 and that was just some article. This is 2010 and this is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and therefore we should have at least twenty more pages first to decide what the exact definitions of "dean," "American," and "architect" are!
-
TEP
If you look back a few posts you will see the first mention of him being the Dean is 1922. By the way Emmet and O'Neil were still active in 1928, and both designed golf courses prior to Shawnee. I'm not sure when was CBM's last design, but he did publish a book in 1928 relating to golf architecture. Emmet and O'Neil were also professional golf architects.
-
George Taylor called Tillinghast "Dean" in a 1927 article. In the same year an article by "The Professor" laid it on Emmet, and in 1934 Innis Brown resurrected it and gave it to Ross. By 1971 it landed on the shoulders of RTJ sr.
No one seems to have been given the title between '34 and '71. ;D
Nowadays it would seem that Geoffrey Cornish could rightfully lay claim to it.
-
Tom MacWood:
Uh-huh. Whatever.
-
TMac,
If we are talking about Tillie or his supporters using the term in 1928, it would appear they are combining long service (not necessarily the longest as per strict definition) and success. While O'Neill and Emmet may have still be active, at that time, their resumes' didn't match Tillies in quality and quantity. We have no way of knowing just how strictly Tillie or others would apply a dictionary definition.
As an example, there may be some Ohio junior college coach that served longer than Woody Hayes, but Hayes would still be more likely to be considered the dean of Ohio college football coaches based on his accomplishments, no? Its a star system, then and now, and Tillie's star had continued to rise.
I tend to agree with Phil on this one....while its a legit point of discussion, its probably a mountain out of a molehill to disagree with the basic premise. It was a nice marketing slogan, nothing more, and certainly never intended to be completely historically accurate, so we shouldn't necessarily judge it by those standards, even if we note it isn't exactly true.
-
If we are talking about Tillie or his supporters using the term in 1928, it would appear they are combining long service (not necessarily the longest as per strict definition) and success. While O'Neill and Emmet may have still be active, at that time, their resumes' didn't match Tillies in quality and quantity. We have no way of knowing just how strictly Tillie or others would apply a dictionary definition.
I've not made a mountain out of anything. If anyone is to blame it is Phil for not answering a very simple question. I find the topic interesting if you don't no one is forcing you to post.
What gives you the idea they are combining service and success (is there a precident for that)...and him being called the Dean dates to at least 1922.
-
Hey guys, especially Tom Macwood, NONE of you are getting what I said. You all have ascribed to TILLY that HE gave himself the title. Again, I ask, WHO GAVE HIM that title? Where is it from and WHY?
Tom Macwood, you are doing that which you always do, applying a type of reasoning and therefore stating your CONCLUSION as FACT when there is simply no basis for doing so. You are wrong. Simply because "nine out of ten times," and I personally don't agree with your statistical analysis there, a word is used in a certain fashion, that has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with how it is used on this occasion.
What you are also doing is again what you ALWAYS do when you can't answer a question posed to you... you deflect to something else and avoid answering. Go back to my previous post and answer the questions or simply say that YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS. There is nothing wrong with that. Instead you ask me "Have you been able to confim the existance of the course at Frankfort?"
WHY do I need to CONFIRM that? The implication behind the question is that we cannot trust Tilly's own words. Are you now saying or implying that he LIED about it? That is an absolutely absurd question and is simply asked to further obfuscate and deflect away from the entire subject of this thread.
"I didn't ask who was the source I asked what is the source. Did you find it an article...if so what article?"
Guess what Tom, I ANSWERED the WHAT and also the several WHO's. It is you who can't seem to read too well here. I have stated that Tilly wrote it and several others have written of it as well. I also told you that you can look it up yourself because it is very easy to find.
Guys, really, don't buy into the crap he is spewing as he is simply trying to make something out of nothing.
-
"I'm not sure when was CBM's last design, but he did publish a book in 1928 relating to golf architecture."
According to Macdonald his last involvement in a start up project was Yale before 1928. Obviously he continued to fiddle around with the architecture of NGLA until the mid to late 1930s when he ran into some problems with the administration of that club. He may've fiddled with the architecture of The Links after 1928. In October 1926 after what appears to have been a particularly contentious board meeting he resigned suddenly from The Creek Club at which time he held the position of the president of the Kellenworth Corporation that owned the club (by the way, right around the same time (1926) he did make a few minor architectural recommendations for The Creek's architecture which have been recently considered again). He gave as his reason for resigning that he wanted to go to his cottage in Bermuda and write his memoirs ("Scotland's Gift Golf") which, according to some of his friends, he had been threatening to write for about 5-6 years.
-
Phil,
Oh I get it, but allow that Tillie wouldn't do much to dissuade the monicker, nor should he have. He earned his stripes.
TMac,
I find it interesting to discuss as well. I am trying to answer your questions, with some research and some speculation/opinion. I just feel there is a limit to what we can conclude, as with many topics here.
Jim Kennedy's post showing us how it was used by many writers to describe many gca's in a similar time frame puts some of the use of the phrase in context. I believe the phrase has a general connotation to it, including long service, quality, accomplishment, etc., regardless of what Webster says. Whether 1922 or 1928, those comments by others are nearly 20 years after Tillie's first design. In a general sense, when they called Tillie and others the dean, it was saying they had been around a while.
Maybe someday Rees will be the dean of US Open remodels, Doak the dean of minimalists, etc. I gather there could be more than one dean, given its a general title of admiration for a body of work.
BTW, what American born gca designed a course earlier than 1898?
-
"BTW, what American born gca designed a course earlier than 1898?"
Mr. Jeffrey:
American born Herbert Leeds did the so-called "Long Nine" at Myopia in 1896 on which they held the 1898 US Open (that was actually significant as it was the first US Open that was held at a separate site from the US Amateur). It is very hard to document but Leeds may've even done something in Maine earlier than 1896. However, Leeds was definitely not a professional architect even though there is no doubt he was respected in American golf for what he did do---eg Myopia. In 1898 Leeds expanded Myopia to eighteen holes and it held three more US Opens by 1908.
-
Jeff,
I completely agree with you that Tilly had no problem in using the moniker which is why I wrote that in my Tilly bio. The point here is that Tilly didn't give it to himself. Also, that it had nothing to do with his being the oldest or loongest in business architect but rather that he was the BEST one. That is how the word "Dean" is meant in the context of the original 1922 Hymer illustration.
Tilly himself only considered his architectural career to have begun with Shawnee. The Frankford "rudimentary course" was first mentioned in a 1908 article that he wrote. I am really the only person in modern times who has commented on it and ascribed any realistic meaning to it in terms of his long-time interest in architecture.
The irony in this discussion is that Tom seems to forget how he once told me I was wrong in citing that very bit of work after his return froma St. Andrews trip where he spent a great deal of time with Old Tom Morris as an example of Old Tom's influence on him and his interest in architecture.
Tom Macwood also keeps missing the point that Tilly was "INVITED" to lay out this short rudimentary course and so my question which he keeps ignoring, WHO "invited" him to do so and for what purpose. The story behind that is quite important and would surprise many when they learn they answer. (It will be found in Tilly Volume II).
I have too much to do right now and have no more time to waste on this...
-
"I didn't ask who was the source I asked what is the source. Did you find it an article...if so what article?"
Guess what Tom, I ANSWERED the WHAT and also the several WHO's. It is you who can't seem to read too well here. I have stated that Tilly wrote it and several others have written of it as well. I also told you that you can look it up yourself because it is very easy to find.
Guys, really, don't buy into the crap he is spewing as he is simply trying to make something out of nothing.
Several? I'll take one article (date and publication) where anyone states the two men discussed it in 1907.
-
Tom,
I'm glad you will. As I have already stated several times, I won't provide you with anything. Go look it up yourself.
-
If you won't give the information again for whatever reason, give us the number of the reply. I first asked the question in post #258.
-
Tom,
You have slandered and insulted me and you yet ask for cooperation. You are a fool and I am done waasting my time with you. You had numerous opportunities to learn, gain informations, resources and even share, yet you deliberately chose the opposite. Now reap what you've sown for I am done with you.
-
BTW, what American born gca designed a course earlier than 1898?
CB Macdonald, Lawrence Van Etten, Arthur Fenn, CC Worthingon, Ed Tufts, George Wright, Leonard Tufts, D. Leroy Culver, CE Orr, PE Bowles, FD Fairbanks, E. Conde Smith, FQ Brown, SE Blunt, and WS Pierce are few American born designers in 1898 or earlier. According to the Harpers Golf Guide there were 872 golf courses in America in 1899 my guess would at least fifty were laid out by Americans, probably more.
And let us not forget Squire Merrill and his rag tag gang...I can't believe TEP through them under the bus.
-
Tom,
You have slandered and insulted me and you yet ask for cooperation. You are a fool and I am done waasting my time with you. You had numerous opportunities to learn, gain informations, resources and even share, yet you deliberately chose the opposite. Now reap what you've sown for I am done with you.
Phil
I've gone through this thread and all the articles you've posted (and didn't post) and I can't find the 1907 discussion anywhere.
It is pretty clear why you cooperate on occasion and why you don't cooperate at other times. In this case there is no shame in admitting that the 1907 discussion was conjecture on your part. I don't have a problem with that at all...historians make educated guesses all time, but they also explain that it is conjecture, that is where you failed.
Have you been able to confirm the existence of the golf course at Frankfort?
-
"In this case there is no shame in admitting that the 1907 discussion was conjecture on your part. I don't have a problem with that at all...historians make educated guesses all time, but they also explain that it is conjecture, that is where you failed."
Tom MacWood:
In your world and in your mind is conjecture synonymous with speculation?
-
Tom,
You show yourself to once again be a fool and far less a researcher than you claim. You insult me once again and do so while proving what I just said about you:
Tom: "I've gone through this thread and all the articles you've posted (and didn't post) and I can't find the 1907 discussion anywhere."
Tom: "If you won't give the information again for whatever reason, give us the number of the reply. I first asked the question in post #258."
Post #258? You obviously did a pretty poor job of going"through this thread" because in POST #259 I wrote:
"I've read your biography, and your speculation in that book. You said Worthington and Tilly discussed building a course there as early as 1907. What is that based on?"
For one who has claimed to have "read a great deal on this subject" you sure seem to miss a lot! Here is another one you can go look up because it is from several sources including Tilly himself! By the way, how about a hint that will show you the answer? Where was Tilly own a summer residence in 1907 and who would purchase it from him in 1908?
THAT is the answer I gave you then and also where I wrote, "You have slandered and insulted me and you yet ask for cooperation. You are a fool and I am done wasting my time with you. You had numerous opportunities to learn, gain informations, resources and even share, yet you deliberately chose the opposite. Now reap what you've sown for I am done with you."
So once again you insult me by claiming that there was a "discussion" of it when you know there never was. Is thuis ANOTHER EXAMPLE of you simply MAKING THINGS UP as you ADMITTED TO in the Harry Colt thread? Yet you have the AUDACITY to state, "It is pretty clear why you cooperate on occasion and why you don't cooperate at other times. In this case there is no shame in admitting that the 1907 discussion was conjecture on your part..."
No Tom, I simply refuse to provide YOU with anything. I share my information freely with many, many on here and both publicly and privately and do so gladly. Go ahead and ask on here; others will tell you that is so. You are the first person I have ever decided that I will not give another thing to.
That despite your voluminous searches on the early history of the creation of Shawnee you can find no mention of Tilly and Worthington in 1907 you also prove how poor a job of looking you have done... If you want to think it is "conjecture" rather than a well-earned piece of researcher's justice for the way you have treated me you prove once again the fool you have been to be true...
-
Where was Tilly own a summer residence in 1907 and who would purchase it from him in 1908?
Phil
That is very interesting...was that the source of your conjecture?
As far as the Colt thread is concerned are you familiar with sarcasm? I'd recommend you look at the post that proceeded that one. You may also want to check David Moriarty's later post that confirmed the date I gave. Obviously I didn't make it up.
Have you been able to confirm the existence of the Frankfort course?
-
Philip:
Perhaps I only ask for my own edification but how many times are you going to say you are done with wasting time on Tom MacWood on here and then just continue to waste time on him on here?
-
Tom Paul,
I would love for this thread to end... as well as all communication with Tom. Unfortunately he brazenly accused me of "conjecture" when he has nothing upon which to base it and also does so once again. He accuses me of making things up. He, of course, is both fool and idiot.
I am done with him and only posted here once again because you asked a question.
-
Philip:
Very good; I hope you stick to that. If he continues on in the same vein he has for some years on here does anything Tom MacWood says to you at this point really deserve your response?
Actually, I'd say it may be fine to respond to him if he ever actually says anything on here that is intelligently declarative but to hereinafter refrain from responding if he continues with those endless leading questions of his which are all excellent examples of irrelevencies.
-
BTW, what American born gca designed a course earlier than 1898?
CB Macdonald, Lawrence Van Etten, Arthur Fenn, CC Worthingon, Ed Tufts, George Wright, Leonard Tufts, D. Leroy Culver, CE Orr, PE Bowles, FD Fairbanks, E. Conde Smith, FQ Brown, SE Blunt, and WS Pierce are few American born designers in 1898 or earlier. According to the Harpers Golf Guide there were 872 golf courses in America in 1899 my guess would at least fifty were laid out by Americans, probably more.
TMac,
Thanks for that list. I figured there had to be some, but wasn't going to go through Whitten and Cornish to find out, at least yesterday. It is so nice that someone has enough intererst to have researched that era so much and have it at their fingertips.
I also figured most were laid out by Scottish golf pros, which would be the stereotype for pre 1900, and if only 50 were laid out by American's I guess that would fit the general perception.
Going back to the question of Tillie being the dean, it appears that the use of that term included longevity, and the quality of work during that longevity. Certainly, Tillie had earned those kind of accolades, even if some might question the exact wording as an academic excersise.
-
Mr. Jeffrey:
The list of American born men who laid out and/or designed courses in America before 1898 is a whole lot longer than the list Tom MacWood just produced but most all of them should probably not be considered of much significance in the annals of American golf course architecture. Matter of fact, about half the names on that list above aren't even in Cornish and Whitten and probably shouldn't be considered of much significance in the annals of American architecture either. I'm sure you've noticed over the years that MacWood is quite the name dropper and when he drops some names that he probably figures few on here have ever heard of he tends to try to add significance to them. An excellent example of that was his claim that was reported on the Merion threads that HH Barker was considered to be the second best architect in America around 1914.
-
Mr Paul, my good man,
Perhaps there were more American born layouts. So many of those 872 golf courses did not use a gca because they didn't exist at the time and I doubt there were over 800 Scotish golf pros in the US who could layout courses either. So, most were lost to history.
I know TMac thinks they are important, and they are, just because they did early work. Also, those whose names have been largely forgotten over time, like HH Barker, who did in fact produce some decent work for the era. It is a matter of gentlemanly speculation as to just how good and important those like Barker were and whether history has so far gotten it wrong with a need to make it right....or, just add to what we know by looking at heretofore lesser studied gca's.
I have always said TMac is one of our best resources here for digging out facts like that above. From time to time, we disagree on the meaning of certain things, and even get pissy about it, but really, that at least half our fault, no?
To your last point, was there even a ranking of gca's in 1914? Probably not formally, at least as far as I know. So, any speculation based on what they thought back then is sure to be frought with danger.
Short version: I am trying to play nice as we all agreed a while back. I see little reason to bring back up old sore points on the new and improved golfclubatlas.com.
-
Mr. Jeffrey:
No---of course you're right---eg we on here speculate about many things and have disagreements about many, many things as well and I have no problem with that at all. It would seem you and I are in some disagreement about Tom MacWood and his value on some of these threads and that's fine too of course! ;)
And I think this certainly is the new and improved GOLFCLUATLAS.com----and as a result of that I am no longer insulting Tom MacWood----merely disagreeing with him where I have some disagreement with him which is just about everything he says on here, particularly in the last seven years or so. :(
Additionally, I'm glad to hear you're trying to play nice on here with Tom MacWood---it would seem that recently he does need to find a friend.
-
TePaul,
On the new and improved gca.com, I now notice even the slightest of insults and "tweaks." I called TMac out on one - calling Tillies supporters claim of being the dean of gca as "misleading" I thought was inflamatory enough to warrant a response from Phil, and it was, even though TMac may have just not thought that choice of words through.
Similarly, I am basically calling you out. Your last two posts may not outright insult Tmac, but their intent is still clear enough to see.
While I have disagreed with Tom MacWood on some of his analysis, I come from a perspective of having been in similar situations as the gca, albeit in different eras, and he comes at it from seeing many different sources of material as more of a historian. We have disagreed when I apply my perspective to speculation/conjecture/analysis and he applies his. The funny thing about most of those types of arguments is, we may both die, go to heaven, and find out we were both so far off base as to laugh about it. Why not start now?
BTW, I don't know why I am thinking about this, and almost hate to bring it up here, but we failed to note a historic day 5 days ago didn't we? It was the 100th anniversary of the presentation of the Merion Land Plan to the members, or at least the date of the plan. In this next month, we ought to be raising our glasses to toast the consumation of the land deal, and several other historic transactions at MCC, don't you think?
-
Mr. Jeffrey:
I'm sorry to see you say I'm insulting Tom MacWood. I don't believe so unless you feel that telling him that I disagree with him and why and how much is an insult.
You're right, we sure did miss the centennial of the presentation of the Merion plan on here. But I suppose that's understandable on this website at this point as it seems pretty near everyone on here is sick and tired of even seeing the name Merion.
However, some good things are in the works with Merion about much of this stuff that was so contentious on here. The club believes that it should write up and have its own presentation of this particular era and the details of it. The thought is if they don't, come the US Open the hundreds of press people might only find the contents of numerous Merion threads of this website on Google that focused on the adverserial discussions on that factually far-fetched and fallacious essay.
In their opinion, and in mine, that would definitely not be a good thing at all for the accurate presentation of Merion East's original architectural history, so they will be producing their own specific in detail essays that will be sans speculation which was pretty much the hallmark of the threads about it on this website.
-
"In this next month, we ought to be raising our glasses to toast the consumation of the land deal, and several other historic transactions at MCC, don't you think?"
Indeed I do, Mister Jeffrey:
I think the whole club and all those who admire it and its history so should all raise their glasses to it this coming month---the centennial month and year of the putting together of the MCCGA Co. and the purchasing of the land by Lloyd himself. I think the one who should be toasted centrally and primarily for all this is certainly Horatio Gates Lloyd who over-all may've been one of the most and most interesting angels to a golf club there's ever been, recognizing there sure were a few others around here around the same time who sure were too, such as George A. Crump.
And in January, 2011, and likely on Jan. 11, 2011 we should all toast the creation of the Wilson Committee who together created one of the world's greatest golf courses and managed to do it despite being labeled as a bunch of know-nothing novices at the time by a couple of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's self-proclaimed "expert researcher/historians" ;) ???
It's just amazing what some raw talent can do, and right outta the box, don't you know!? ;)
Oh, I'm sorry; this thread is about Shawnee, isn't it? Did you know, Mr Jeffrey, that the Shawnee Indians of Pennsylvania who inhabited that area where Tillie designed his first real course and that amazing southern Canadian tribe known as the Waathufuquawees? that were from the region where Macdonald's family came from in southern Canada got into one helluva violent rumble back apparently in December 1510 which would make this next month and this year the quincentennial of that historic event?
Yep, apparently the Waathufuquawees? were hot on the tail of a pretty fast rabbit just north of Niagara Falls and as they were so wont to do they took a wrong turn just before the toll booth, got completely lost AGAIN (hence their tribe name "Waathufuquawee?") and the next thing they knew the Shawnee were attacking them in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, March 28, 2011 has been designated the centennial day and year of Richard Francis's brainstorm to solve the final problems on the final five holes including the expanding of the area of #15 green and #16 tee. There will be some hundreds of us on that day who, shortly after midnight will ride our bicycles first to Horatio's house on Cooperstown Rd and then to Merion's clubhouse and toast him----Richard the Francis, that is----and then very likely all break out in song.
-
I laid that old Johnny Carson joke on my teenage daughter when we visited LA a few years ago. She had never heard that and giggled a good ten minutes, maybe as much as Dad making that insinuation. She had never heard of my personal fave - the old Carnac jokes JC did. And the "Slauson Cutoff". Ah, good times.
-
Ah, yes, Carnac the Magnificent!!
Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes on you. As for you Marilyn, the great delicious MM, warming your tush over a hot NYC subway vent----probably the most uplifting single photograph ever taken!
Who designed Shawnee indeed?!
-
BTW, what American born gca designed a course earlier than 1898?
CB Macdonald, Lawrence Van Etten, Arthur Fenn, CC Worthingon, Ed Tufts, George Wright, Leonard Tufts, D. Leroy Culver, CE Orr, PE Bowles, FD Fairbanks, E. Conde Smith, FQ Brown, SE Blunt, and WS Pierce are few American born designers in 1898 or earlier. According to the Harpers Golf Guide there were 872 golf courses in America in 1899 my guess would at least fifty were laid out by Americans, probably more.
TMac,
Thanks for that list. I figured there had to be some, but wasn't going to go through Whitten and Cornish to find out, at least yesterday. It is so nice that someone has enough intererst to have researched that era so much and have it at their fingertips.
I also figured most were laid out by Scottish golf pros, which would be the stereotype for pre 1900, and if only 50 were laid out by American's I guess that would fit the general perception.
Going back to the question of Tillie being the dean, it appears that the use of that term included longevity, and the quality of work during that longevity. Certainly, Tillie had earned those kind of accolades, even if some might question the exact wording as an academic excersise.
You won't find that many early American golf architects in C&W. I'd agree the majority of early American course were laid out by foreigners. Tilly was not the Dean of American born golf architects; he exaggerated. At best he would have been #4 in longevity. It is not something you earn, either you are or you aren't.
-
Tom Mac,
I disagree that you don't earn it, citing again my ficticitous example of Woody Hayes vs some junior college coach. And, by the fact that different admiring journalists used the phrase for different gca's in the same time period. There is no official designation, no strict definition, a la websters. If some writer labels Tillie the dean, then some writer labels Tillie the dean and if a consensus forms, it sticks.
As far as I know, no one really challenged any of the use of monikers until you! So, consensus over 90 years is pretty damn good. All, IMHO, of course.
-
Tom Mac,
I disagree that you don't earn it, citing again my ficticitous example of Woody Hayes vs some junior college coach. And, by the fact that different admiring journalists used the phrase for different gca's in the same time period. There is no official designation, no strict definition, a la websters. If some writer labels Tillie the dean, then some writer labels Tillie the dean and if a consensus forms, it sticks.
As far as I know, no one really challenged any of the use of monikers until you! So, consensus over 90 years is pretty damn good. All, IMHO, of course.
Yours is a poor example. Are you trying to say CB Macdonald and Devereux Emmet were junior college coaches compared to Tilly? I think they did challenge it, Jim Kennedy gave one or two examples of Emmet being called the Dean.
-
".....see the Harry Colt thread where he led on Sean Arble with phony claims of documented proof of Harry Colt coming's and going's from the U.S. based upon British ship manifests,..."
Philip:
Did Tom MacWood not supply those ship manifests he mentioned on Colt returning to England? I thought he did. I am very interested in knowing about the existence or accuracy of ship manifests of the UK of that era for a number of other reasons. I hope he's not just speculating about them.
I'll take a look at that Colt thread. On it I think I asked MacWood or Moriarty if they could actually produce one of those UK digitized ship manifests but I forget what their response was.
-
".....see the Harry Colt thread where he led on Sean Arble with phony claims of documented proof of Harry Colt coming's and going's from the U.S. based upon British ship manifests,..."
Philip:
Did Tom MacWood not supply those ship manifests he mentioned on Colt returning to England? I thought he did. I am very interested in knowing about the existence or accuracy of ship manifests of the UK of that era for a number of other reasons. I hope he's not just speculating about them.
I'll take a look at that Colt thread. On it I think I asked MacWood or Moriarty if they could actually produce one of those UK digitized ship manifests but I forget what their response was.
If you have doubts why don't you get off your lazy derriere and look it up yourself for once in your life. Ancestry.com is accessible to anyone with internet access willing to pay the nominal fee.
-
TMac,
No doubt CBM at least could also be called dean of...gca, albeit it Tillie may not have deemed him American born (Scot and Canadian parents according to CW). I don't think Emmet did enough to be considered the "dean."
Perhaps this is semantics, but I don't call different writers using similar accolades for different gca's they admire as a "challenge." I just don't see the use of "dean of" as such a black and white excersise as you might. I doubt the writers who hung those accolades on these guys did either.
-
I should certainly asks you the same questions about why you never bothered to go to Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia, Aronimink and North Shore to do research if you have the interest in their architectural histories you seem to say on here that you do.
As for Ancestory.com, there are plenty of people on here other than you who apparently use it. I'm quite sure eventually they will confirm or deny that UK digital ship manifests from that particular time are on it.
-
I should certainly asks you the same questions about why you never bothered to go to Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia, Aronimink and North Shore to do research if you have the interest in their architectural histories you seem to say on here that you do.
As for Ancestory.com, there are plenty of people on here other than you who apparently use it. I'm quite sure eventually they will confirm or deny that UK digital ship manifests from that particular time are on it.
Why don't you confirm or deny it instead of relying on others to do research for you?
-
"Why don't you confirm or deny it instead of relying on others to do research for you?"
Tom MacWood:
Probably because I have never been very interested in subscribing to Ancestory.com. Others have and I know they use it but frankly I've never even been sure of its credibility and that may be because I don't believe I have ever seen anyone who has used it on here put any actual documentation copies from it on here. Someone recently said that might be because it's copyrighted. I'm not sure I understand what that is or what that means in the context of Ancestory.com. If someone who subscribes to it and uses it actually finds something like a UK digitized ship manifest from the late 19th or early 20th century on it I would think that (the digitized UK ship manifests) would be public domain information.
Of course my other question and concern is whether or not you're simply stonewalling because you never actually did find an actual or digitized copy of UK ship manifests from that time and place. If you actually had I would assume you would post it on here as you have so much other old material. But if you haven't actually found digitized or actual UK ship manifests from that time I guess I understand why it is you act like you are now with responses like the ones quoted above.