[Geoffrey_Walsh]

As mentioned on the Cobb's Creek thread, we uncovered the story of two African American golfers who were disqualified under questionable circumstances in the 1928 Public Links.  80 years after it happened, their story is being told today in the Inquirer after it had long been forgotten.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20080331_A_curious_episode_steers_a_reputation_off_course.html

This is why I love this site and the passion of the people who spend their time here.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

Thanks for pointing to that link.

In a time where questions of race relations are highly newsworthy, it's about time that this story was told.

Something that Joe Bausch came across just yesterday is that both of these men were originally charged with "professionalism" prior to the tournament, and had to endure formal USGA hearings which exonerated them PRIOR to the tournament, and it was likely hoped that they'd either leave, or fail to qualify for matchplay.   So much for a warm welcome.

It's certainly indicative of how far we've come, but also indicative of why resentments  and mistrust persist.

[Joe Bausch]

I've been in e-mail contact w/ Joe Logan today as I unearthed other newspaper articles on this incident from the Philadelphia Public Ledger.  They seem to include some additional info, in particular that some people were accusing them of being professionals from the get-go:

Here is the first article, from August 2, 1928:



Then one from August 3rd:




Now from the 4th:



And from the 5th:

[TEPaul]

It's good to see Joe Logan conclude his article with the explanation that it's about the facts of a Rules situation on the course and not necessarily one of race.

By the way Joe-Joe, there might be a slight typo in your article when you mentioned the Shippen incident at Shinnecock as taking place in 1996. But what's the big deal amongst friends with being off by a century? 

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

It's good to see Joe Logan conclude his article with the explanation that it's about the facts of a Rules situation on the course and not necessarily one of race.

Tom,

I'm a little hazy on how this disqualification process works.  If a gallery member reports a rules infraction, what happens then?  How does the player defend himself?

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it strains credulity to look at it simply from a rules situation, much as I understand the USGA's position in trying to retroactively defend something that happened 80 years ago.

Wouldn't their playing partners have reported a Rules infraction, had one existed?

These guys showed up in Philly and had their amateur status challenged, the only two this happened to.

They were the only two players who had others in the field threaten to quit rather than play against them.

They were the only two players in the field who were disqualified on supposed rules violations that were not identified on the spot, but hastily called into question after Medal Play once one qualified and the other would have played off for the last Matchplay spot.  Media queries to the USGA produce the "witnesses" were refused.

They were the only two players in the field who were black.

Now, I suppose all of this could have been a miraculous coincidence, but...


Is it all just coincidence that after the John Shippen episode in 1896, the next African American to play in the US Open wasn't until 1948?   

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I'm a little hazy on how this disqualification process works.  If a gallery member reports a rules infraction, what happens then?  How does the player defend himself?"

Geoffrey:

Information on a situation from someone like a gallery member can be considered by the tournament committee in coming to a resolution but there is some wording within the Rules that implies if there is still doubt the issue should generally be resolved in favor of the player.

One of the best points Joe Logan and the USGA made is in Rules situations intent has little or nothing to do with it----the deal is simply whether a Rule was violated regardless of intent.
 
 

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, I would like to disagree with you but all the facts are on your side.   

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck....

[SPDB]

Tom:
While the article concludes with Fay's defense of the USGA, I don't think Logan's conclusion, nor do I think anyone can reasonably conclude that this was simply a rules violation.

You also might tell Joe that he's got two typos. Shinnecock is in Southampton, not South Hampton.

[TEPaul]

"Mike, I would like to disagree with you but all the facts are on your side.   
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...."

Joe:

All the facts are not on Mike Cirba's side unless he's also interviewed both Ball and Stout AND Curtain and Wright about the Rules incidents in question. I don't think Mike Cirba knows any more about the actual facts of the actual incidents on the golf course than any of the rest of us do.

But here's an interesting thought from that 1928 tournament. It appears from what Joe Logan and the newspaper reporting back then said of that day that "observers" may've been assigned to those two players. Is that kind of thing something that has some meaning or context in The Rules of Golf?

Well, not really. It does have something to do with the latitude within the Rules of Golf of a tournament committee (Rule 33) which in my opinion is STILL somewhat open-ended and undefined as to what a "tournament committee" can and can't due within the Rules of Golf---eg the Ohio State GA's decision to require a "competition" golf ball. But do The Rules of Golf themselves get into the details of that kind of thing? Sometimes they do but not always in all things. The Rules of Golf themselves are only interested in the facts of rules situations on a golf course be they black or white or yellow or green. They make no distinctions that way and they do not consider things like race or racial relations within the context of the decision making of the actual Rules of Golf.

But the Rules do make some provisions for even a situation like that in 1928 and that was the the Rules of Golf do provide that the tournament qualifying rounds could've been restarted. That may've even happened but as was reported neither Stout or Ball chose to pursue it. But if they had and they prevailed with the Tournament Committee that would've been the resolution.

[Joe Bausch]

Tom, I should have put an emoticon after my "facts" statement.  Of course we'll likely never know the entire story.

That being said, this whole episode does not pass my sniff test.  Not at all.

[TEPaul]

"Tom:
While the article concludes with Fay's defense of the USGA, I don't think Logan's conclusion, nor do I think anyone can reasonably conclude that this was simply a rules violation."

SPDB:

No, it would seem it surely wasn't JUST a Rules violation. Perhaps it was a lot more than that, including racism. But the point is noone back then or now should look for a resolution of a racial incident in the Rules of Golf. In The Rules of Golf a determination of golf Rules facts is the only goal and there is a mechanism for that which is supposed to be impartial to other things such as intent or even racial matters.

But again, as I just said you can see that even the Rules of Golf via the latitude they assign to Tournament Committees did provide another resolution. That could've been if Stout and Ball insisted the qualifying rounds be restarted. It was Ball and Stout's decision not to ask for that.

As far as racial prejudice against Ball and Stout the rules incidents aren't quite as specifically interesting to me (since we will never know the specific facts of the actual on-course incidents) as the fact that the tournament committee apparently decided to put "observers" on Ball and Stout. There's nothing technically wrong with that within the Rules of Golf (or for tournament committees) but if two black competitors were the only competitors assigned obsevers I would say the tournament committee for this particular tournament was acting in a racial way if there was nothing else to worry about with those two players other than they were black.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom - Well said.

[Bob_Huntley]

It surprises me that folks have a hard time deciding whether it was a rules violation or just plain cussedness that brought about the disqualification.

It would seem to me that the USGA was an even more elitest organization than the owners of baseball's major leagues.  It took the latter group another twenty years from this incident to allow a black man to play the game.

Why is it that when the Mexican authorities shot and killed  hundreds of protesters in Tlatelolco,  the Olympic pooh-bas offered not one condemnation of the violence? Yet when Tommy Smith and John  Carlos raised their Black Power salute, Avery Brundage, quite possibly the most corrupt official in any sporting group extant, shipped them out of the country and banned them from future competitions.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

This provides a nice case study of how a professional historian could shed more light on this incident without necessarily uncovering anything more about the incident beyond the yeoman's work of Mike C and Joe B.

For example:

1. Did Joe Dey write any of the Public Ledger articles? (I think he would have been writing for them at the time of these articles.) If so, did that help contribute to his reputation as a golf writer, which led directly to his becoming the USGA's first secretary?  Is there any evidence of a dispute among the executive committee at the USGA, one possible outcome of which (eventually) was the hiring of Joe Dey?  (More generally, is there anything to suggest what impact this incident may have had on Dey?  For someone who nearly entered the seminary, presumably it would have made some sort of impression.  Did he ever mention it?  Did he make any decisions while with the USGA that theoretically could have been influenced by this incident? What about his tenure as commissioner of the PGA Tour?

2. Do the USGA archives indicate who was behind the decisions? What was the process -- did it involve a few individuals, an entire committee, etc?

3. Is there any record to indicate how the leaders of the USGA behaved outside their golf-related duties? How did they run their businesses? Did any court cases or union / labor issues surface that may provide some insight?

4. What was the general state of race relations in the country, in Philadelphia, and in NYC society in 1928?  Despite being far, far more restrictive then than now, the climate still could ebb and flow.  And important regional, even city-specific, differences existed.  An African-American's lived experience could vary tremendously from one region to another, one state to another, and one city to another.  What's the larger context into which this episode might fall?

5. What's the record say on African-American participation in this event in other years? Was this a "one and done?"

Mike and Joe, sincere thanks for the effort!

Mark

PS Something interesting about the Shippen "incident" is what role CB Macdonald may have played in the decision.  Macdonald was Shippen's playing partner, presumably a sign that Macdonald supported and perhaps was actively involved in the decision.  And here's the twist in that tale: according to his grand niece, Macdonald was "part Mohawk Indian."  To my knowledge, nowhere else have I seen that fact reported. (Assuming of course his grand niece is correct.)

[TEPaul]

MarkB:

Those sure are some interesting questions. I heard not long ago that the USGA is in possession of many to most of Joe Dey's notes and diaries although I do not know what time periods they cover.

Yes, Macdonald did claim himself that he was in favor of Shippen competing and said he would play with him himself if noone else was willing to.

That fact and evidence is just another interesting factor into the thoughts and feelings and positions to do with golf of Macdonald which were both varied and complex, to say the least. In some ways and on some issues he seemed to be an egalitarian involving golf (perhaps from his original days in Scotland where Kings would happily play with cobblers if they were good enough) and in some other ways and issues he played the part of the supreme elitist (to do with which clubs he felt should belong to a golf administering association) as well as perhaps his feeling on professionalism in certain ways in golf such as architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

All the facts are not on Mike Cirba's side unless he's also interviewed both Ball and Stout AND Curtain and Wright about the Rules incidents in question.

Tom,

I've been hanging with so many ghosts lately that I do in fact believe I've interviewed all of them.  I can tell you that Ball and Stout are still pretty pissed off and Curtain and Wright repeatedly took the 5th!   

Actually, the option the judge suggested was that after matchplay finished, the winner would face Ball and Stout, respectively.   Obviously, there was no fairness in that proposed resolution, either.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You know all those ideas about ghosts and such is something I would love to respond to but I shouldn't. But maybe you and I should talk about getting Hugh Wilson's illegitimate grandson Huge "Puffy" Wilson to weigh in on this. 

One of the more interesting items in Joe Logan's article which was probably missed by most (but for which I will call him tomorrow and congratulate him on) is the seemingly automatic reaction by the judge back then (McNeille who was not a golfer) to go to "intent" on the part of both Ball and Stout as well as the tournament committee.

The fact is he did not understand that in a on-course Rules of Golf context "intent" has nothing to do with it (and this fact is appropriate to and analogous to at least one other thread on the front page today). Of course if the "tournament committee" was acting with racial intent it certainly does have a lot to do with the whole thing----but MacNeille found the committee's intent was not racial even despite apparently putting "observers" exclusively on those two black players during the qualifying rounds. To me that is the most unexplainable and unexplained and perhaps damning item of this entire issue in the 1928 USGA Publinks championship at Cobb's Creek. Clearly that was in a day when the issue of "racial profiling" had not even been contemplated.

But seriously most of us today probably need to seriously consider that some of the things that happened back then should perhaps not be considered quite so damning as if they happened today. After-all the world has come a long way since then. It reminds me that in some of his articles probably as late as the 1930s Tillie referred to an issue called "nigger golf". I'm quite sure Tillie did not mean that to be as perjorative back then as it certainly would be today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()