TE
I'll give you my take on the differences between the Travis & Macdonald's position in due time....unfortuenately I don't have time to do it justice right now. As far as being impossible to deal with...I will acknowledge I don't have the patience I once had. I expect more than I once did.

The point about the Travis & Macdonald's exchange is not which man's position is stronger. As I said before I have no idea what is true. The R&A worked in secret.....we will never know what transpired.

My point is there was an obvious clash...there was a distrust or dispute simmering between the two men. Which goes back to the original questions: did this clash have anything to do with Travis not working on LI, and could their clash have effected Ross & LI.

I should have said they worked in private...same difference.

From what I understand the R&A is a private club, and the self appointed rules of golf committee was an instrument of the club. I don't believe you can just walk off the street into the R&A and certainly not into one of their quarterly rules of golf meetings. I have never discovered a press report where the correspondant was reporting what he observed at the meeting. As far as I know they were not open to the public. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 I do not believe the minutes from these meeting are in the public domain either....perhaps you know how to get access to them. What we know of what occured in these meetings is what the individual committee members tell us occured.

"Our job is to try to determine why and also ultimately how it all played out and who seemed to have handled that situation best as it influenced and reflected on the future."

Maybe thats your job, I'm not sure thats my job. What I try to do is share what I have discovered, and perhaps my opinion, and let each individual make up their own mind as to what may have happened. In the case there are far too many unkowns for anyone to definetively determine what happened. (Like why Travis & Macdonald had a parting of the ways at NGLA)

TE
All in due time...if you can't wait there is nothing stopping you from looking for the information yourself (I gave you a list of publications).

It is my understanding that the USGA was an association of clubs, with democratically elected representatives. And that the R&A was a private club.

I have not found the R&A's Rules of Golf Committee minutes published anywhere...I would love to read the argument Macdonald made (or didn't make) regarding the mallet putter in the September 1910 meeting. Or if the committee discussed the possible ramifications in America of banning the Schenectady. Or what the members may have said about Travis's article in March of 1910 (if anything). Or if any of the committee members expressed bad blood regarding Travis. Or the individual members positions pro and con regarding Willie Park's crooked neck putter. I don't believe you will find those conversations in Macdonald's book.

TE
I've read quite a bit about the subject -- including Macdonald's book and a letter he wrote to Travis in November 1910 explaining the situation.

It was, as I said before, an interesting epoch....with as many questions as answers.

May 1910- The captain of the R&A rules committee--Burn--rules that all mallet-headed putters are illegal and submits a motion that they be empowered to write wording into the rules that specifically states these clubs are a "substantial departure"…it is seconded by Ted Blackwell (ironically the man defeated by Travis in the finals of the '04 Am). Another member motions the Schenectady be exempt, seconded by another, then voted down.

Macdonald did not attend the May meeting. He later said in a letter to Travis that he had no idea that the Schenectady would be included in the mallet issue. His ignorance is a little unbelievable. The Times (London) wrote after the May decision that it was not unexpected the mallet and Schenectady would be victims of the committee. In fact the more shocking development was fate of the 'goose-necked' putter…due to an ambiguous statement the R&A made about shafts. Also in London Henry Leach wrote that it was common knowledge the rules committee "were hot on the track of certain mallet-headed putters…and meant to abolish them if they could."

May 18, 1910- Secretary Watson of the USGA cables Burn of the R&A asking if the Schenectady is barred (he had read it in a newspaper…they had not been informed the issue was being considered). Burn responded that it had been barred. (Travis would continually emphasize that no definitive action had been taken in May, only the authorization of a new clause on form and make…specific wording that would be added to the rules at their September meeting).


Spring and Summer 1910- In the months following the May ruling there was strong condemnation in the US and UK. The main complaint being that it was completely unnecessary and illogical--and that it threatened to create fraction between the US and Britain for no good reason. Those opposed included: Hilton, Darwin, A.Mitchell, Herd, W.Park, Behr, R.Garner, Perrin, Egan, Travers, Fownes, Tillinghast, Sargent, Vardon, Duncan, A.Campbell, A.Ross, W.Anderson, J.Foulis, Golf Illustrated-UK (Garden Smith), Golfing-UK, American Golfer, The Times and the NY Times. Those in support included Blackwell, Burn, Low, Hutchinson, Taylor, Braid. Macdonald was silent.

July 1910- In the American Golfer Travis writes an article entitled 'Mallet-Headed Putters' with quotes of support from a long list of important golf figures. It is also pointed out that the club can still be used in golf competitions in the US (but not in Britain).

September 1910- The R&A meets and adds specific wording that bars center-shafted clubs. They also clarify the wording on Willie Park's famous 'goose-necked' putters, which makes it legal.

November 1910- Travis writes that the R&A had made an egregious blunder. And that the issue is now in the hands of the USGA. He says that in his opinion the USGA has little choice…they had just a few months earlier ruled the Schenectady was legal, when it was believed barred on the other side, an about face could not be done without "stultifying itself". He addressed the idea (proposed by Macdonald) that the USGA could "save its face" by adopting the R&A ruling, but 'interpret' it to permit the Schenectady. It was Travis's view that this was a ridiculous idea…that rules on mallet clubs were now so specific. And he asked what would happen if the US's interpretation was questioned before the R&A (the 'final court of appeal')…how could they possibly rule other than the Schenectady was in direct contravention of the rules? He also emphasizes the USGA was treated with scant courtesy…never being notified of the matter (or the decision).

December 1910- A letter (dated from November) to Travis from Macdonald is printed in the American Golfer…response to Travis's November article. He corrected Travis, he did know the mallet issue was being addressed at the May meeting (Travis had said the USGA and its surrogate CB was unaware), but that he had no idea the Schenectady would be affected. CB said the Schenectady and goose-neck had been 'accepted' form and make of golf club for ten years, though "neither is traditional". {his opinion that the clubs were not traditional is interesting}

He said that he had written to all the committee members in June, expressing his view that they had made a mistake barring the Schenectady….he also reiterated his surprise with the decision. He shared that HG Hutchinson had told him he had never considered the 1908 rules in light of the Schenectady, but upon reflection there was no other decision to remain consistent, Macdonald said he was of the same opinion himself.

Travis wrote a brief follow-up…he pointed out the May ruling was not what killed the Schenectady, but the September meeting when the specific words were added. He wrote that Macdonald was not appointed by the USGA and was not an official of the USGA…although representing them. He was a member of the R&A and was appointed by the R&A. He called the situation un-American….and suggested the USGA "be permitted to elect their own delegate! Not that it really matters much, his influence being so inconsequential"

December 1910- USGA will address the club issue at their annual meeting in January.

January 1911- In the American Golfer Travis writes an article 'Nearing Crisis' analyzing a circular Macdonald wrote at the request of the USGA, giving a 'history of fact' (this is in Macdonald's book). Travis again reiterates Macdonald is in no sense a representative of the USGA. Travis writes that for the first time we are given the reasons (chain of events) for the ruling….the NZ croquet question and the ambiguous question from the Pickering Club, Travis says "And that is all!"

He questions why Macdonald fails to mention the USGA was kept completely in the dark and that secretary Watson had to wire the R&A asking for an explanation after reading about it the newspaper. And that the May decision was only an opinion…not a definitive decision. He is again critical of Macdonald's advice that the USGA accept the R&A's new rule, but interpret it to legalize the Schenectady. Travis suggests the USGA go back to the 1908 rules and then scrutinize each new amendment as they come…to see if they make sense in America. There is also a letter from President Taft giving his support for the Schenectady.

January 8, 1911- In the NY Times Macdonald criticizes Travis. He claims Travis has been giving a false impression not only on the mallet-headed putter, but other points as well. "It is extraordinary that one so expert at the game as Mr. Travis, and who is also the editor of a strictly golfing paper, should make such erroneous statements. An important point which he refuses to recognize is that only the clause on the form and make of golf clubs has been authorized by the Royal and Ancient Golf club in general meeting. Nothing that the Rules of Golf Committee can do makes a rule unless it is approved by the R&A Golf Club….[the golf club ruling] has not been approved in general meeting, consequently, as Capt.Burns states in his letter, we are a t liberty to interpret the clause to our own satisfaction."

January 9 & 13, 1911- Two NY Times editorials, the first giving Pres. Taft's view of the Schenectady and the second critical of the R&A; stating the US needs to look out for its best interests.

January 14, 1911- Leighton Calkins attending the USGA meeting 'fires the last shot of the campaign' in the NY Times. "There is a very amusing paragraph in the second Macdonald circular letter, which has not been commented upon. Referring to statements which have been made to the effect that a Schenectady putter or centre-shafted putter is an American idea or invention. Mr. Macdonald allows his loyalty to St.Andrews (which we will admit and sincerely admire) to draw him into a damaging admission, so far as St.Andrews itself is concerned." Macdonald relates that in the 1870's a similar putter was used by a famous golfer named Hodge and also AF MacFie used a similar putter twenty years before. "So it seems the center-shafted clubs were in use nearly forty years ago! Yet St.Andrews now bars them because they are not of a 'traditional form and make'".

January 15, 1911- The USGA meeting convenes. Travis writes "Mr. Charles B. Macdonald was afforded an opportunity to read a paper on golf and conditions both at St. Andrews, where he played in the somewhat "archaic days" of 1872, and in this country did much to arouse the sentiment of the audience in his plea for maintaining the most pleasant relations with the Royal and Ancient. He urged unification and standardization of rules as his keynotes and was respectfully given close attention." The USGA decides to go back to the 1908 rules which legalized the Schenectady. It is nearly unanimous…the most prominent delegate siding with the R&A is John Ward, who is ironically representing GCGC, he is also a good friend of CB Macdonald. The USGA would later add a clause that specifically legalizes the center shafted golf club.

Tom MacW:

In my opinion, it is not hard to say who was right or wrong in the chronology of events you outlined in your last two posts. It's probably not to say that Travis was wrong exactly, merely quite seriously misinformed of the exact facts and the chronology of events. A reading of pages 158 to 169 in Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf" will prove by the contemporaneous correspondence between Macdonald and Burns and various others from the R&A and USGA exactly what went on. You are wrong to say that Macdonald was silent on this issue and that correspondence will prove he was not.

You are also wrong to say that Macdonald was appointed to the R&A Rules Committee only by the R&A and Travis is wrong to suggest that that appointment which was confirmed and approved by the USGA as their representative on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee was in some way "Un-American".

Here is a description of how Macdonald was appointed as the USGA REPRESENTATIVE to the R&A Rules Committee probably in the summer of 1907 as a general rift between the USGA and the R&A seemed to be impending due to general dissatisfaction with the R&A rules of golf within the USA (particularly the Western Golf Association) .

"The letter went on asking the opinion of the Royal and Ancient as to what course of action the USGA should take, saying it did not believe in any drastic or radical legislation. It stated the belief that the time had come for a revision of the rules and implied in the letter that they would like to confer in such a revision with the Royal and Ancient. To this letter Captain Burn replied in a most conciliatory tone, and at the Royal and Ancient's September meeting a revision of the rules was decided upon., when Horace Hutchinson introduced the resolution that the golf committee on rules be authorized to invite the USGA TO APPOINT a representative member of the Rules of Golf Committee (R&A). The resolution was adopted, and being a member of the Royal and Ancient, I was appointed on the committee and confirmed by the USGA, and through me the USGA voiced their wishes."

What's Un-American about that? Travis appears to have been seriously misinformed and perhaps of the mind that the USGA should break away from UNIFICATION with the R&A and create their own rules for the game of golf. This is the very thing Macdonald always opposed---a split between the R&A and USGA, and thankfully due to Macdonald's own efforts on a compromise with the Schnectedy putter, the USGA was able to adopt the R&A's ruling on the form and make of clubs while at the same time avail themselves of the compromise Macdonald created allowing "interpretation" by the USGA making it possible that the Schnectedy was never banned in the US while it was by the R&A for 41 years until it was finally unbanned by them.

Macdonald's compromise allowed the USGA to accept the Schnectedy putter as legal while at the same time avoiding a complete split on the Rules of Golf with the R&A.

It appears Travis was still trying to make an issue of the Schnectedy putter being banned approximately seven years after his British Amateur win in 1904 perhaps in some way as a retaliation against him. Macdonald said the banning by the R&A had nothing whatsoever to do with Travis and his use of a Schnectedy putter in 1904 at the British Amateur. It looks like Macdonald and the record of correspondence he provided between the R&A and the USGA was right about that.

It is not of much wonder to me why Macdonald in and around this time was probably getting seriously pissed off with and at Walter Travis!  

Tom MacW:

Regarding your post #138, I'm very glad to see you offer those other sources and opinions and me offer Macdonald's. It probably isn't completely essential for us to decide here and now who was right or wrong but there certainly is nothing wrong with offering our own opinions on it after multiple sources are offered.

Some on here may think all this is nit picking but I disagree and I know you do as well. I think this type of back and forth between at least the two of us is what Golfclubatlas.com can be and I think that's a very good thing.

There's no question at all that the Schnectedy putter incident both in 1904 and again in 1911 and just perceeding that day was a very big issue in golf (a President of the United States probably wouldn't have offered his own opinion on a completely trivial golf point!). Obviously national pride (both ways) was a big issue here although perhaps one that should not have occured if a real understanding of what those two organizations were trying to do was completely understood!!

The following quote that I already offered above should serve to clarify Macdonald’s appointment and position on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee and how that came to happen and to be approved by the USGA!

“To this letter Captain Burn replied in a most conciliatory tone, and at the Royal and Ancient's September meeting a revision of the rules was decided upon., when Horace Hutchinson introduced the resolution that the golf committee on rules be authorized to invite the USGA TO APPOINT a representative member of the Rules of Golf Committee (R&A). The resolution was adopted, and being a member of the Royal and Ancient, I was appointed on the committee and confirmed by the USGA, and through me the USGA voiced their wishes."

You should see that Macdonald was appointed to that committee by the R&A AND his appointment was CONFIRMED and approved by USGA! It very much followed the recommendation on that appointment that Macdonald (and others) understood came from Horace Hutchinson. Presumably this meant if the USGA did not agree to CONFIRM that appointment Macdonal would not have served on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee for the purpose of helping to ensure unity in the rules of golf between the R&A and the USGA! The fact he just happened to be a member of the R&A and the USGA just made his selection a logical one---as he himself (and apparently Hutchinson) said!

Apparently, Travis did not completely understand that and you may not either. Apparently some newspapers and magazines did not understand it as well. It appears Travis and some others were attempting a number of years later to make this Schnectedy issue look like it was in retaliation against Travis although Macdonald and those on those two organizations who were actually considering the situation and the reasons for their decisions on this situation did not feel that way at all. This is perhaps why Macdonald eventually included the actual decision making correspondence (the actual letter writing that effected the decisions) in his book.

In my opinion, what that in effect did is clear up the Schnedtedy putter issue record. What those men on those two organizations were primarily interested in doing is averting a complete rift and schism between the R&A and the USGA----the very thing that was always utmost in Macdonald’s mind. Because of his part in this entire issue that is exactly what happened----a schism was AVERTED! The brouhaha that led to this attempt to avert a rules schism occured in 1907 and has nothing to do with Walter Travis or his Schnectedy putter.

Maybe Travis didn’t fully understand that for some personal reason and maybe he didn’t even want to see a schism averted---maybe he wanted to see the two organizations part ways on the rules of golf! And that is probably exactly why he and Macdonald parted ways and were no longer friendly towards each other!

"NY Times (9/1907) :
"I am informed by the Secretary of the R&A Society of golfers of St.Andrews that CB Macdonald, the prominent American golfer and former champion, who is a member of the premier British Club, has been invited to become a member of the rules of golf committee.

CB Macdonald, when seen yesterday at Garden City GC, said that he had not yet been informed of the action of the famous club, but that he was a member of the organization and would be glad to serve it in any capacity. He said that he would be abroad next Summer, and that the meeting of the rules of golf committee would be held in May. He could very readily attend its sessions and give American golfers the benefit of his services as their representative. He had talked with President Havemeyer of the USGA, who appeared to regard the appointment as very happy selection, and believe that golfers throughout the US would be well pleased to feel that American views would have personal expression before the legislative committee."


Tom MacW:

I'm from New York and I grew up with the NY Times and I do respect that newspaper but if the above is actually a quote you took from the NY Times in 1907 this is a very good example of just how inaccurate indirect information and reporting can be compared to the actual correspondence I'm offering and how you should simply not depend on some of these newspapers and magazines for the exact facts.

It's nice to know that USGA President Havemeyer was so happy in 1907 that Macdonald had been recommended to serve as the USGA's representative on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee. That would've been a neat trick indeed since Theodore Havemeyer died in May 1897!!

Aren’t you the one who mentions how important accurate chronological reporting is?

TE
Perhaps CB had performed a séance.

Tom MacW:

I think you should definitely keep all the material coming you have or can find from Travis and any other source from that time involving the Schnectedy and the R&A/USGA organizational and rules negotiatons. That was a really important time in setting the stage for the future of amateur golf as it relates to those two organizations and Macdonald's part in it and his basic theme of unity, as well as basically being opposed to ball and equipment standardization. it's important to know and to understand the details and the facts and it appears from some of the discussion on this thread alone there's still far too much misunderstanding of what really was going on during those important years.

Getting back to Ross and LI...when he died it was revealed he was planning to write his memoir that summer...if he had lived a bit longer perhaps this mystery would have been solved.

Tom MacWood,

Ross had plans to write a book? Would be very interested to see the evidence for that. His own manuscript, mainly from 1916-1920, sat unfinished for 30 years at his death and wasn't published until 1996. Neither his daughter, Lillian, nor anyone else in his family ever mentioned that to me during many hours of interviews, and they knew him and his documentrary word extremely well. Upon his death, Ross had instructed his secretary, Eric Nelson, to burn the office documents, and most of them were lost, but in all of the letters, telegrams and notebooks that remain (thanks to everyone else savingg stuff and there being more than Nelson could burn) there's no evidence that he ever intended to write anything.

Ross was doing very little from 1933 on, and he had enormous amounts of free time during the subsequent fifteen years oif his life until his death in April 1948. I find it highly unlikely that with all of that free time (Depression, World War) he would have waited until the mid-1940s to write, by which time his health had already slowed him down measurably.

Brad
It was in the May 1948 Golfdom in a well written memorial to Ross after his death.

"Ross was said to have designed between 600 and 800 courses in the United States and other contries. A few weeks prior to his death he was not certain of the exact number but intended to go through his records to determine the precise count and assemble other material for his memoirs which he planned to work on late this summer."

E-mail me your mailing address and I'll send you a copy.

TE
I'm not prejudice...I'll look for information anywhere, be it the Cleveland Picayune and Spitoon or the NY Times.

You shouldn't allow Macdonald's slip of the tongue or the columnist's slip of the pen paralyze you. The information Macdonald relays in that article is not materially altered by the error:
A) That the R&A extended in the invitation to Macdonald
B) that the USGA would be pleased by a Macdonald appointment from the R&A  
Which is consistent with Hutchinson's comments at that time and consistent with Travis's understanding in 1910.