[T_MacWood]

TE
Not only did they amend Section 10, they also added their own very specific defintion of a mallet-headed headed putter (significantly different from the R&A definition).

[TEPaul]

"He believed the USGA should go back to the mutually agreed upon rules of 1908 and then independently rule upon each subsequent amendment -- deciding to adopt or not to adopt each subsequent amendment. The USGA ultimately went with Travis's idea."

Is that what Travis believed and advocated? The USGA did not revert back to the agreed upon language of 1908 which had no mention of mallet putters or the Schnectedy. The 1908 wording was;

"The Rules of Golf Committee intimates that it will not sanction any substantial departure fron the traditional and accepted form and make of golf clubs which, in its opinion, consist of a plain shaft and a head which does not contain any mechanical contrivance, such as springs".

The problem with the 1908 wording agreed upon by the R&A and USGA was it didn't specifically define what was acceptable or not acceptable and it preceded the mallet question which eventually included the Schnectedy. The USGA used section 10 in its existing by-laws to make the interpretations on the Schnectedy (or mallet) to their satisfaction. Section 10 was not included by the USGA in response to the mallet and Schnectedy issue, it already existed in the USGA's by laws. In essence Section 10 was a latter day "Conditions of Competition" mechanism which is today used to enact existing local rules (within the rules book) in competition which need to be specified on the "Conditions of Competition" sheet to be in force.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you think created this big Brouhaha over the Schnectedy putter. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you think this issue was really all about if something other than just out of control national pride and probably Travis's fanning that flame over some hurt feelings resulting from the Sandwich incident in 1904. Do you really think what the R&A did was in any way some retaliation against Travis? The net effect of the resolution of the Schnectedy issue in America whether from Travis or Macdonald (although there may have been some minor technical differences) was basically the same---the Schnectedy was not barred in the US although it was banneed by the R&A for a full 41 years. And other than disagreement (lack of rules unity) and a few others such as disagreement over the stymie, and later something like the steel shaft issue the Rules of Golf were unified between the R&A and the USGA as Macdonald always hoped they would be and worked so hard to see that they would be.

So what is the issue here with you on this subject? What do you suppose Travis was saying things during this Schnectedy issue like "Un-American" for? One result of it all obviously was a real falling out between Travis and Macdonald that was probably never repaired! Isn't that what you wanted to know in the first place?

The real concern with people like Macdonald and others on the board of the USGA was that this type of flame fanning was just giving more leverage to the radical thinking of the Western Golf Association which was threatening to write their own rules of golf in contravention of the R&A/USGA rules.

This fortunately never happened thanks to the compromise efforts within the USGA over the Schnectedy issue. The R&A obviously did make a technical and a political mistake with the mallet and Schnectedy issue---Macdonald knew it and said so, as did many others, even apparently those within the R&A who originally effected the ban. What did Travis do during this time? Nothing particularly positive that I can see---he basically contributed to fanning the flames of discontent in America to what the USGA was trying to do and did do.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Go back and read post 174...."Resolved, That Section X of the By-Laws of this association be, and the same are, hereby amended to read the follows:
The competition shall be played in accordance to the rules of golf as approved by the R&A Golf Club of St.Andrews, Scotland, September, 1908, with such amendments and interpretations only as may have been or may be hereafter adopted by the USGA, together with such local rules as are in force and published on the green over which the competition are played."

They adopted an independent amendment on the mallet, just as this newly amended by-law provides. Which is what Travis advocated.

I've explained the background on what incidents led to the banning...including the Travis article of March 1910. And the reaction at home and abroad. I've explained the un-American comment. Go back and read it. In fact, I'd suggest you keep reading; expand your research beyond Macdonald's book. There is a wealth of material to absorb from numerous sources that may give you a whole new perspective. I know it may take some effort....but its well worth it IMO.

[TEPaul]

Tom;

This is a virtual waste of time with you. You're saying nothing at all here that's worthwhile or worth continuing this discussion--you're finding nothing new or enlightening at all. The technicalities of interpretation from the various participants back then and what may have led to the same basic resolution or effect with this issue are so miniscule as to not be worth anyone's time on here. I've read all this stuff and I know the rules of golf and the theory and prinicples behind all of them and their interpretations a helluva lot better than you do--of that there is no question at all in my mind.

So again, forget these mincing rules and amendment distinstions that went on between the R&A and the USGA between 1908 and 1911. Just tell me what is it that you're trying to get at with this issue of the Schnectedy putter and Travis and Macdonald?

Please tell me that because you've dredged up and rerun some articles from the London or NY Times or from Travis that people read back then that you're not trying to tell all of us that you've found something enlightening or something new that no one was aware of previously!

Would you deny that the press brouhaha over the Schnectedy was one basically involving both national pride and some discontent involving factions in the US who wanted to break away and create their own rules of golf---the Western Golf Association being the most glaring example. Macdonald's book treats this in detail. He does criticize Travis as well, calling his actions and his writing during this time undignified and uncalled for.

Would you agree that it's pretty clear why Macdonald and Travis didn't get along? And co-incidentally this is about the exact time Macdonald got rid of Travis at NGLA.

[T_MacWood]

TE
With all due respect if anyones time has been wasted, its mine based upon research investment.

You have to admit I've done a hell of a lot of work...most of the work. I've gone back and dug up every source I could get my hands on, I've attempted to explore it from all the angles, I've tried to look at it from all the perspectives. I've produced a wealth of material on this thread. I put together a timeline...a fairly time consuming process. I've brought out numerous contemporaneuos articles from many sources (on both sides of the pond). And I've addressed every question you raised on your previous post, pages ago...please go back and read it.

 I agree with you, it was an important issue, but I'm not certain you have a full appreciation for the many complex realtionships: Travis vs Macdonald, Travis vs R&A, Macdonald vs America, R&A vs USGA, America vs Britain, Brtain vs Britain, East vs West, etc. I would strongly recommend you dig deeper.

I would agree that Travis and Macdonald obviously didn't get along....what I'm not certain is when their fallout occured...before this incident or because of it.

[TEPaul]

"You have to admit I've done a hell of a lot of work...most of the work. I've gone back and dug up every source I could get my hands on, I've attempted to explore it from all the angles, I've tried to look at it from all the perspectives. I've produced a wealth of material on this thread. I put together a timeline...a fairly time consuming process. I've brought out numerous contemporaneuos articles from many sources (on both sides of the pond). And I've addressed every question you raised on your previous post, pages ago...please go back and read it."

Tom:

You're absolutely right--you certainly have produced a lot of research material. Thank you very much for that. This has been a good thread for those interested in the details of that time and that interesting issue, as we are.

[TEPaul]

"I agree with you, it was an important issue, but I'm not certain you have a full appreciation for the many complex realtionships: Travis vs Macdonald, Travis vs R&A, Macdonald vs America, R&A vs USGA, America vs Britain, Brtain vs Britain, East vs West, etc. I would strongly recommend you dig deeper."

Tom:

You'd be surprised how much I've read on this issue. I'm pretty confident I know what happened at that time and amongst those men. I do put more validity in what was written by those who were directly involved in the decision making amongst the USGA and R&A though. You seem inclined to suspect them of something and I'm not sure I understand why you'd do that or that I'd agree with that. Also, some of the articles written, particularly by the London and NY Times, I find to be pretty slopping and spotty reporting of the events and those involved.

[TEPaul]

"what I'm not certain is when their fallout occured...before this incident or because of it."

It seems to me it occured because of Travis's articles and his stand on the Schnectedy issue and his criticism of Macdonald's part with the R&A Rules of Golf Committee, and probably his criticism of the USGA's postion too. I believe it's pretty hard to underestimate how much concern Macdonald had regarding unification and how much effort he put into that. It seems to me you probably don't fully understand or appreciate that. His calling Travis's reactions 'uncalled for and undignified' (even if he said that much later) is a clear indication of Macdonald's feelings. And all that was developing between 1908 and 1911, the very time he obviously let Travis go regarding a design association on NGLA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()