Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Thomas MacWood]

I have an aerial photograph from 1923-24 (it was published in 1924) that shows the huge expanse of sand. From what I understand Flynn was engaged by the Creek in 1927. When you look at the photo it is pretty obvious its not Flynn, the sand does not create any segregated fairways, just huge blocks of solid sand separating those holes. Another interesting feature of that early course the 17th green is totally surrounding by sand, the green is in effect an island (a fairly common feature with Macdonald's Short holes). I'm not sure who altered that or when, but it isn't like that today or a couple of years ago when I visited.

Hutchinson published his book Fifty Years of Golf in 1919.  Did he travel to the United States in between his 1910 visit and the book publication?  If not, why didn't he mention that the course had changed significantly between his earlier visit and publication?  It certainly is misleading. 

He did not travel to the US after 1910. The book is his memoir, he clearly explains what years he came to the US. Its not confusing in the least if you've read the entire book. In the forward HGH explains the book was written in 1914 (also prior to Macdonald at Shinne) and explains why it was not published until 1919.

Please tell me why you posted the and/or before Raynor in your attribution.  How do you know that Raynor was involved at all in the design or that perhaps Macdonald was not at all?

I have no special knowledge of who did what at Shinnecock. Raynor and Macdonald were a team, sometimes Raynor was the designer and Macdonald acted as consultant, sometimes CBM is the designer and Raynor in charge of construction. I was just trying to cover my bases.

As for the Creek Club, the date of the photograph you referenced is wrong.  There was no sand other than a few formalized fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers prior to 1927.  Macdonald was out of the club and Raynor was dead.  You should be more careful with the dates of photographs.  You should also contact the club and speak to someone who knows the course history 1000x better than you do.  You wouldn't make so many mistakes.  And I can prove you wrong, courtesy of my good friend, a valuable resource you fail to acknowledge.

My photo is not wrong. It was published in a magazine, and I don't believe TE's time machine had been invented yet.

Here's a clue for you to provide all the proof you need to realize how wrong you are.  Tennis courts.

What tennis courts? I don't see them.

[wsmorrison]

What magazine was this aerial published in?  Could the photo you have be made during construction?  If you have a 1923/1924 photograph showing sand in the areas you indicated, you ought to bring it to the attention of the club.

In 1926 there was no sand in the area between 9 and 12 and also along 13 and 14.  Of course the 10th hole, being on the beach had sand around it as did the 11th green.

Tennis courts were built for the club to the left of the 5th green in 1927.  There are multiple sources to confirm this.  Also the beach road was not yet put in where it is today.  The dating of our photograph (we do not have permission to post it due in part to copyright issues) is clearly sometime prior to 1927 and Flynn's work.  Again, the aerial photograph that shows no sand between 9 and 12 and along 13 and 14 and is certainly prior to the tennis courts being built.

[TEPaul]

"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910.   After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed  the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works.    
Funny isn't it?   Hutchinson and Macdonald visit Myopia, and as a result of their single visit Myopia immediately began making changes to to the course based on Hutchinson's criticisms.   Sounds to me like Leeds was the one being influenced by Hutchinson and his like-minded traveling companion, not the other way around."




No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?

This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?

[Thomas MacWood]

What magazine was this aerial published in?  Could the photo you have be made during construction?  If you have a 1923/1924 photograph showing sand in the areas you indicated, you ought to bring it to the attention of the club.

In 1926 there was no sand in the area between 9 and 12 and also along 13 and 14.  Of course the 10th hole, being on the beach had sand around it as did the 11th green.

Tennis courts were built for the club to the left of the 5th green in 1927.  There are multiple sources to confirm this.  Also the beach road was not yet put in where it is today.  The dating of our photograph (we do not have permission to post it due in part to copyright issues) is clearly sometime prior to 1927 and Flynn's work.  Again, the aerial photograph that shows no sand between 9 and 12 and along 13 and 14 and is certainly prior to the tennis courts being built.

Wayne
There are no tennis courts in my aerial. Basically everything is sand beyond the fairways and greens at 9, 12, 13 and 14. I just noticed what appear to be wooden bridges over the sand connecting the 12th and 13th tees to their fairways.

Its kind of cool the way the creek cuts through the sand between 13 and 14, and then turns toward the 13th green. #13 must have been something else back then.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil - thanks much for that post. It was very useful on a lot of fronts, including re: Old Tom's influence (on Tillie for example), which I'd been wondering about. The last paragraph from your last post articulates a reasonable view of Macdonald's and NGLA's influence, IMHO.

David - we must be misunderstanding eachother, and talking about different (an increasingly different) things as the thread progressed. That's too bad - I think a question like what happened to an awareness of fundamental principles during the so-called dark ages is worth asking (even if others already know the answer) -- but maybe not on this thread.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time? 
How can you call NGLA "very unfinished" at this point in time?  What is your basis for your claim?  Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?"



"By the way, when Horace Hutchinson visited America on Lord Brasseys yacht in 1910 he spent a week with me at Roslyn and three or four days at Southampton. Together we made a study of the National, and I received much valuable advice. I listened attentively to everything he suggested----where the bunkers should be placed, where undulations should be created on the putting greens, etc, etc. I know he impressed on me that the human mind could not devise undulations superior to those of nature, saying that if I wished to make undulations on the greens to take a number of pebbles in my hand and drop them on a minuature space representing a putting green on a small scale, releasing them, and as they dropped on the diagram, place the undulations according to their fall. This I did for some of the National greens where I had no copies of the original undulations which nature had made on the great greens of the world."


How can one call NGLA "very unfinished" in 1909, Mr. Moriarty??

One simple way would be to read Macdonald's own words including the appropriate dates regarding his own words very carefully and consider what they mean. Maybe you consider a golf course "finished" and ready to be opened for play before green surface undulations are designed and created, including the necessary app one year to allow the grass to "grow in" on those greens but obviously Macdonald didn't and I doubt anyone else did or would who has even a modicum of commonsense and logic! 

Oh don't worry, I have every confidence you will think of something to rationalize away how mistaken you are. Isn't the most important thing on here to never have to admit you're incorrect?  It is not really us who's showing you don't have much crediblilty with the things you say on here----you continue to do an excellent job of showing why that is yourself.

[Thomas MacWood]

Who inspired Tilly to want to design golf courses? The answer is Old Tom Morris. After tilly came back from the 2nd of his trips to the UK (St. Andrews was but one of his stops) he wrote about the close relationship that he developed with Old Tom. He published this in the earliest known, and what may actually be his first, published articles in his writing career in 1898. Yet it was what happened when he came back that summer before he wrote his article in GOLF magazine that also contains photographs of Old Tom, St. Andrews and other players and places that speaks to this influence. For when he came back, Tilly designed and built his first golf course.

Phil
Tilly was clearly impressed with Old Tom the golf icon, but did he equate golf architecture with Old Tom? Tell us the story about Tilly's first course (perhaps its own thread so as not to sidetrack this one).

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Are you going to tell the Creek Club where they can obtain the 1923/1924 aerial photograph and I assume accompanying article or not?  I asked you where the photograph was published.  You did not answer.  You don't have to tell me or anyone associated with me, but I know for certain having spoken to a member there that they would be very interested in obtaining a copy of the photograph.  In fact, the gentleman I spoke with assisted you in your visit to the Creek Club.  Perhaps you will repay the consideration.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Wayne Morrison asked you what magazine you claim that 1923-4 aerial of The Creek is in? Are you going to consider answering that or are you going to ignore it and launch into another of your cat and mouse games as you have with Myopia and your claim that Willie Campbell designed their original nine?

If that really is an aerial from around 1923 or 1924 and it shows sand in the areas you describe the club would like to know about it, as it might help solve something of a riddle we have just discovered with the discovery of another aerial from apparently 1926.

I realize with this ridiculous "Pledge" you've made you may not want to help me on this issue but I am working on this course with Gil Hanse for the club. If you don't want to make this information available to me or the club maybe you'd consider doing it for Gil Hanse. If you want his contact information, I'd be happy to provide it. Or you might want to consider providing it to Craig Disher who works with us on the USGA Architecture Archive and on The Creek for aerial analysis. I'd be glad to provide you his contact info too.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mr. MacWood:

Wayne Morrison asked you what magazine you claim that 1923-4 aerial of The Creek is in? Are you going to consider answering that or are you going to ignore it and launch into another of your cat and mouse games as you have with Myopia and your claim that Willie Campbell designed their original nine?

If that really is an aerial from around 1923 or 1924 and it shows sand in the areas you describe the club would like to know about it, as it might help solve something of a riddle we have just discovered with the discovery of another aerial from apparently 1926.

I realize with this ridiculous "Pledge" you've made you may not want to help me on this issue but I am working on this course with Gil Hanse for the club. If you don't want to make this information available to me or the club maybe you'd consider doing it for Gil Hanse. If you want his contact information, I'd be happy to provide it. Or you might want to consider providing it to Craig Disher who works with us on the USGA Architecture Archive and on The Creek for aerial analysis. I'd be glad to provide you his contact info too.

TE
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
You said to David: No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?

How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag54j.pdf

[DMoriarty]

It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here.   No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position.  I wish a long lost relative of CBM (or at least zealous supporter of all he ever did) would show up and unreasonably stand his ground despite the facts just so he could be on equal footing.   

Phillip,

I agree that Tillinghast turned out to be a terrific designer and was a major force in gca in America.   As you say, within a few years after Shawnee he was a design muckity-muck.   But he wasnt in 1906-1907 when just idea of NGLA was already being covered on two continents.   He wasn't in 1909, when they started golfing at NGLA.  He wasnt in in 1911 when, with the completion of the clubhouse, NGLA was "formally" opened.

Shawnee and NGLA were not designed and built "at the same time."  NGLA was designed and built first, and they were golfing on NGLA before AWT started building Shawnee.   Surely in 1909 and 1910 Tillie was considering more than just the contours of the ground around Shawnee.   He of all people was not living in a design vacuum.

It is imprecise and innacurate just to expand the dates to your liking then say they were all equally responsible for the change in direction of golf in the US.  There was a chronology, and you are mis-using the "formal" opening date of NGLA to blur that chronology and make it appear that Tillie and Macdonald were doing their thing at the exact same time, as you do when you write . . .

. . . The question then is, was the design of Shawnee influenced by Macdonald and NGLA?

Besides the obvious answer being that it would have been pretty near impossible for it to have for the simple fact that it was designed and built at the same time and officially opened some 4 months before the NGLA, consider Tilly's own words on the matter.

It was not "pretty near impossible."   NGLA was designed and built (not successfully grown in, but built) before Tillie did a thing at Shawnee.  You can't just pretend that they were simultaneous events based on the "formal" opening date.

I asked you twice when NGLA became influential in golf design.   You did not answer but instead asked me questions about Oakmont. 

When did NGLA first become influential in golf design?    Before or after Tillinghast built Shawnee?

You state "I DO KNOW that whenever [AWT] first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least…"

Such a thing would be impossible for you to "KNOW" unless you were Tillie, and maybe even impossible then.   You are not Tillinghast.   You don't know.   

As I should realize more around this nut-house, oftentimes we are more influenced by our adversaries than our allies.  This is especially true when like Tillie one is trying to create an independent name for himself.  But whether he knew it or not Tillie owed CBM bigtime.   They all did.

And if you think that Tillie and CBM were really that far apart in their views in this very early period, then I suggest you don't understand CBM as well as you apparently think you do.

______________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I don't care who was golfing at NGLA in 1909.   My understanding of the historical record is that Macdonald and others were golfing on NGLA's course in 1909.    Surely I can reasonably come to this understanding without having to produce scorecards for you.   Try Macdonald's own book, for example.   Or his other writings on the subject.   Or Bahto's book. 

You ask if Bahto's book is wrong?  Not where he says they were golfing at NGLA in 1909.    There were plenty of reviews of NGLA prior to its "formal opening."   You've even posted at least one of them.

As for the 14th month wait before the "formal opening" of the club,  my understanding is that the club was not formally opened until the clubhouse was completed.   But the golf course had been around for a few years before then.

Besides, what is your point?    You seem to be denying that he course and designer were hugely influential before the "formal" opening of the club.   Such a denial is untenable.

_________________________

TEPaul,

You are wrong about the timing and impetus for the work at Myopia.   Just read the source material.

As for NGLA,  Macdonald was in contact with Hutchinson, receiving advice throughout.  Not just at the 1910 visit.   They were playing on the course in 1909 and in 1910.   Revisions were already being made.   But you act as if it was still under major construction.   This is not the case.     

[JMorgan]

Just because I came across this article this morning en route to other topics ...

American Golfer, August 1910

"Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.

"At the invitation of some of the founders, a number of players took part in a tournament which informally marked the opening of the course on July 2, 3 and 4, and some grand golf was witnessed.  At present the greens are a little on the rough side, as is naturally to be expected, seeing that they are only a little over two years old, but they are sufficiently advanced to compare favorably with many others which have been down for years, and in the course of another season or two will unquestionably approximate perfection.  With the exception of one or two holes the fair green is also good, and it is only a question of another season before these will be brought into prime shape and the whole course in first class condition."



Can you name the participants?

[DMoriarty]

No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?

This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?

All this is wrong.    You are simply wrong about your information.

Why go into such hysterics when you clearly do not have your facts straight?


_____________________________________________

JMorgan,

Thanks for bringing up that article again.

It seems everyone has an agenda for pushing back NGLA's history, and it is nice to be reminded of the facts occasionally.

As for the participants,  I think I see Lynn Shackelford and Patrick Mucci.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David

Please turn to pages 68 + 69 in George's book and re-read.

I've typed it before on another thread and am on a blackberry so typing is a bit of a chore.

It starts, "On July 2 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational tournament was held for a select groip of founders and friends invited to participate."

If you're going to contend that NGLA was hugely influential prior to then, I think its only fair to tell us who played it before then.

[Thomas MacWood]

JM
I see Macdonald and Travis sitting next to each other, and Dev Emmet in short sleeves and no tie. He was obviously about forty years ahead of his time. One of those guys - middle back row - is Max Berh I think. And to the right in the background are two shadowy figures, one appears to be holding a glass of Merlot and the other is urinating.

[Sean_A]

Unfortunately, as Peter intimates, this thread has taken a turn for the worse.  There are a handful of guys who just can't let anything go and it is plainly clear that the motives are more personal than instructive.  Is there really much point in squabbling over days, weeks, months in these debates?  Given the obviously large gaps in nearly all the records, I find it remarkable that such bickering could continue.  Personally, I think Peter's question(s) is more apt for a discussion. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
You are wrong about the timing and impetus for the work at Myopia.   Just read the source material."


Mr. Moriarty:

No sir, you're the one who is wrong. The impetus for the design and construction of what is Myopia's eighteen holes (today's eighteen holes) was as a result of the 1898 US Open which was played on what was referred to as "the Long Nine" and Leeds' desire for a proper eighteen after the US Open of 1898. The eighteen hole course was complete by the spring of 1900 and was tested in the spring of 1900 by British stars Taylor and Vardon. As a result of this Myopia was awarded the 1901 US Open which was played on the eighteen that is today's course. Two additional US Opens were played on this course by 1908.

That you still try to deny this clear fact is additional reason for your rapidly declining crediblity as a researcher and golf architecture analysis of this interesting era, Mr. Moriarty. I expected you to try to rationalize this away somehow but I didn't really expect you to deny something this obvious. You are doing this to yourself, Mr. Moriarty, there is no question about it. It has nothing to do with any of us. We are merely pointing out the facts, as we have done with both Merion and NGLA!

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you will probably find that not even Mr. MacWood will support you on this with Myopia, Mr. Moriarty, but I would certainly not stipulate to even that at this point, seeing as how Mr. MacWood continues to play his cat and mouse games on all these subjects and all their threads, apparently now including Macdonald/Raynor's The Creek Club! Quite a pair of "independent, expert" researchers  you two are! 

[Mike_Cirba]

David

JMorgan's quoting of the article is consistent with George's book and what I wrote when he mentions the soft opening tournament in July 1910.

All of the major reviews...Travis, Darwin, Hutchinson, etal came 1910 or later.

What is it about the article that supports your position of the course being open for play in 1909?

[JMorgan]

Damn, I knew I should have posted the Liberty Bell Ball pics instead ...

[DMoriarty]

Tom, why the digression?   We are discussing the changes made to the course.   Here is what you wrote:

No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?

This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?

The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms.   
________________________________

Mike Cirba,

In his book, Macdonald wrote that they began playing over the course tentatively in 1909.   Bahto wrote the same thing in his book.   

You mistakenly assume that the August 1910 tourney was some sort of inaugural play.  It was not.

___________________________

Sean,  I don't know why we are squabbling over the dates either.   There is no legitimate dispute about the dates.

[TEPaul]

"How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:"


JimK:


Let me ask you how familiar you are with the architecture of Myopia? After that let's talk about what that article really says about the details of those changes to the course after Hutchinson's 1910 visit. When you say above how do I explain how that article says 'many of those changes' happened in that timeframe, perhaps you should go back and read the article again as to what that article said those changes really were.

I think one of the most important aspects of that article is what it's author actually had to say about the nature of Horace Hutchinson's course critques of Myopia and GCGC. I think that can most certainly give us a pretty interesting contemporaneous glimpse of what an apparently important golf and architecture writer of that time thought of Hutchinson's critiques on American architecture. That he felt they were inconsistent is pretty crystal clear, to say the least.

On the other hand, that particular article is one of the very best contemporaneous ones I've ever seen regarding the importance of the so-called "amateur/sportman" architect compared to the Scottish professionals over here in that early time. The article is also very enlightening on the importance and significance of Myopia Hunt Club's course in that early time! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Myopia was not the only course that was changed after Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit. Brookline & Essex County undertook major redesigns shortly after Hutchinson's critique. And in 1910 Donald Ross of Essex traveled to the UK for the expressed purpose of studying British golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, why the digression?   We are discussing the changes made to the course.   Here is what you wrote:
The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms."



Mr. Moriarty:

No digression intended at all.

Then let's discuss the nature and detail of those changes apparently made following Hutchinson's 1910 visit to Myopia.

Do you feel you are sufficiently familiar with the details of what those changes were since you've never been to Myopia, have never observed any of its holes, have never stood on any of its holes to comment on the meaning of what was described by Bunker Hill in his article?

Furthermore, how do you feel about "Bunker Hills'" comments on the nature of Hutchinson's architectural critiques of Myopia and GCGC?

How do you feel about Hutchinson saying Myopia had too many blind shots when the fact is it never had as many as NGLA did and does now? Do you think perhaps Macdonald misunderstood Hutchinson and thought he said perhaps Myopia and NGLA did not have ENOUGH blind shots?  

Nevertheless, Bunker Hill's article most certainly does give us a most important contemporaneous glimpse of what American golf architectural analysts thought of the crtiques of some one from the other side such as Horace Hutchinson.

Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that American architects also began to criticize some of the things about Macdonald's architecture and to perhaps even attempt to marginalize Macdonald himself in the directions a number of them decided to go.

I, for one, believe and have always believed Macdonald to be a most important contributor to the history and evolution of American golf course architecture. What I'm getting really tired of, though, is your unsupportable attempts to exaggerate him and his legacy into something that everyone over here paid everlasting homage to in everything he said and did in architecture over here.

Bunker Hills article in American Golfer is excellent testimony to precisely what I mean by that. Perhaps you should read it again a few more times and begin to appreciate better what it really says and what it really means regarding this important era!  

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

You've never seen Myopia either, have you? Consequently, do you believe you are capable of really discussing the nature and detail of those changes to Myopia following Hutchinson's 1910 visit? If you've never seen the course, please tell me why and how you feel you're capable of understanding or contributing productively to such a discussion?


And what about Wayne Morrison's and my question to you regarding this 1923-24 aerial of The Creek Club you've recently mentioned on here? Are you going to just avoid and ignore that too and play another of your cat and mouse games of claiming you have something without producing it or explaining where the club or even architect Gil Hanse might find it?