[TEPaul]

Ed:

I saw KevinM at Winged Foot a couple of weeks ago and I mentioned this whole "Far and Sure" identity thing to him and how it was being discussed on here. We talked about it and his response seemed to be that he had no real idea about a lot of the factual info that has been generated on these threads. My recollection is he said he had not idea who "Far and Sure" was nor did Bob Labbance, and if you read his biography of Travis that would seem to be the case.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe Bausch went back and looked more closely at the "American Cricketer" articles written by Tillinghast, and in December 1912, a month before the Tillinghast review of Merion in that same magazine, Tillinghast wrote;

"On the bulletin board in the new golf house at Merion hangs a withered thing which measures about six inches across.   Under it is this legend;  "This divot was not replaced."   It reminds one of the head of the executed Chinese malefactors exposed to the public gaze as a warning to evildoers."

In January 1913, a few months after Tillinghast played Merion for the first time, he reviewed the course for "American Cricketer" and that same month "Far and Sure" also reviewed Merion for "American Golfer".   Coincidentally, "Far and Sure" had also played Merion for the first time a few months prior. 

In that same January 1913 issue of "American Golfer" was another related blurb written by "Far and Sure;

In the Merion clubhouse, on the bulletin board, hangs a withered thing which measures about six inches across.   Under it is this legend:
        "This divot was NOT replaced."
Like the gruesome severed head of the Chinese malefactor, it is exposed to view as a warning to others."


Now...one could reasonably suggest that two different writers saw the same divot hanging at Merion, and one could even plausibly argue that two different writers would choose to write about it in the same month a number of months after playing the course...

There is also probably a one in a hundred-thousand chance that both of those writers would use the same term, "hangs a withered thing that measures about six inches across.  Under it is this legend:".    

However, there is not a chance in a gadzillion that two different writers would both compare a six inch long hanging divot to the severed head of a Chinese malefactor!!!!!    

It's time to change the title of this thread...WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN...or more precisely, a "withered thing". 

We indeed have our man, once and forever.

"Far and Sure" was absolutely, 100%, unadulterated Mr. Albert Warren Tillinghast!   

Nice job, Joe!

I'd also be remiss to fail to mention to any "Guests" still playing along at home that this fortunate and fabulous finding finally drives the death knail into the Merion revisionist history coffin. 

Much like the aforementioned gruesome severed heads of the Chinese Malefactors pungently rotting in a public forum, those half-baked theories have withered, weathered, wrinkled, and warped under the stark sunlight of serious, studious scrutiny.  

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba (and Joe Bausch):

I have a couple of observations on the over-all meaning of your last post. First of all, most people on this website, and elsewhere, might be asking themselves, at this point, what it even means in the broad scheme of things, that the pen name writer “Far and Sure” (at least in this instance) actually was A.W. Tillinghast?

Personally, I think it means a lot if one is interested in the potential interconnection of some of the golf newspaper reporting but particularly the golf periodicals (magazines) of that time. It probably also goes to the heart of the credibility of what was reported. We all know who Tillinghast was and what he was around here---eg really closely connected personally to a pretty good number of the premier clubs around here such as Pine Valley and the people of Merion who essentially ran the Golf Association of Philadelphia at that time. This may even say something about the need for pen name writing as otherwise the perception amongst the general readership of a lack of objectivity may be raised and might become an issue with these periodicals.

The next item, at least in my mind, goes to the subject of plagiarism amongst and between different writers. I’ve never been sure what passes the test of true plagiarism, academically or commercially, but I’d have to say if those two articles don’t pass the test of plagiarism if they really were from two different writers from two different periodicals, I just can’t imagine what it would be that could pass the test of plagiarism. Of course if the identity of the writer of the two different articles and periodicals was the same it would not be an issue at all.

As for what this has to do with the design attribution of Merion East golf course, again, I’m pretty sure most will not see the connection but it is certainly there.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Yes, I agree that most on here probably haven't been following and likely have little idea what we're discussing and why we think it's important.

Probably most on here have no idea that proving that A.W. Tillinghast was "Far and Sure" would also prove in and of itself that Hugh Wilson and his Committee designed Merion, because Tillinghast was a contemporaneous, expert eye-witness to those events and wrote specifically before, during, and after the building of the golf course and had even seen the pre-construction plans.

That's absolutely fine;   like many threads in here, and golf in general, it's a great big world as you always say.

I can also understand those who were completely turned off by the general contentious tone of the Merion threads over the years and the amount of information, the amount of discord, and the seeming lack of conclusive evidence.

That's fine and understandable.

However, for those who ARE interested, and for those who HAVE been keeping up with the evidence trail, including former participants (now guests) and the general public at large, you and I and Joe and others know that what this latest thread finally makes clear is this;

Even without the publication of the original Merion Cricket Club minutes here (and we all know the reasons those are not being shared in this forum), we now know conclusively that the "legend" that Hugh Wilson and his Committee designed Merion is absolutely factually accurate as had always been believed until the recent publication of a now-fully-refuted counter-theory on this website that cleverly argued that Hugh Wilson was simply a glorified "construction foreman" implementing someone else's plan (either CB Macdonald or HH Barker) for the Merion East golf course.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

As far as this idea of plagiarism, well that would have been a neat mind-reading trick.   

The reason I say that is simply because although both "Merion divot" articles came out in two different publications in subsequent months, the respective reviews of Merion that came out in both "American Golfer" and "American Cricketer" had the exact same publication and release month of January 1913!   

The fact that those two articles are so remarkably similar and even identical in places in tone, sub-topics, wording, style, and opinion is what raised this whole topic of discussion in the first place.

"Far and Sure" would have had to know exactly what Tillinghast was going to write and then write it himself almost verbatim at the exact same time!     

[Joe Bausch]

The reference source for information these days, Wikipedia , includes this on pen name:

Occasionally a pen name is employed to avoid overexposure. Prolific authors for pulp magazines often had two and sometimes three short stories appearing in one issue of a magazine; the editor would create several fictitious author names to hide this from readers. Robert A. Heinlein wrote stories under pseudonyms so that more of his works in could be published in a single magazine. Sometimes a pen name is used because an author believes that their name does not suit the genre they are writing in.

[TEPaul]

"The fact that those two articles are so remarkably similar and even identical in places in tone, sub-topics, wording, style, and opinion is what raised this whole topic of discussion in the first place.

"Far and Sure" would have had to know exactly what Tillinghast was going to write and then write it himself almost verbatim at the exact same time!    "


Mike Cirba:

I agree and the fact that ALL of this really does add up to the patently obvious about who was doing the writing, it also brings up an interesting point, at least to me, about pen name writing generally. And that is obviously Tillinghast was apparently not very concerned about totally covering up his identity as a writer using pen names. Apparently he most certainly understood that a good number of people understood who the pen name writer was (his friends and other interviewees he was writing about) and that fact and the need for ultimate secrecy obviously did not exactly concern him.

As I've been saying for a while it was obviously nothing more than just a literary game! After-all those pen name writers were exactly trying to act like spies!

[TEPaul]

"Even without the publication of the original Merion Cricket Club minutes here (and we all know the reasons those are not being shared in this forum), we now know conclusively that the "legend" that Hugh Wilson and his Committee designed Merion is absolutely factually accurate as had always been believed until the recent publication of a now-fully-refuted counter-theory on this website that cleverly argued that Hugh Wilson was simply a glorified "construction foreman" implementing someone else's plan (either CB Macdonald or HH Barker) for the Merion East golf course."


Mike Cirba:

I realize that only a few people on here have actually read those MCC board minutes but they really do confirm (or vice versa) some of what Tillinghast wrote in those articles about Merion, Wilson and his committee and even Macdonald/Whigam's part.

The long and short of all this is there never was any issue or question or mystery of who designed Merion East. A couple of guys on here with way less than complete information just tried to make it look like there was some issue, question or mystery. They made a mountain out of pretty much nothing.

The thing I'd like to see, at this point, is that they stop taking it so personally that this has been determined as it has been, and that they stop accusing us of taking it personally and acting defensively. I guess it probably is true to say that in the end the truth will always find its own way of winning out.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I think you make a very strong case. But it's interesting: while reading through this thread over the days, I think the reason I questioned if Tillinghast was Far and Sure was precisely because of the similarities in the articles you quote. That is, I figured that if we could spot those similarities 90 years later, the magic 400 back then (i.e. the golfers, club members, designers who all seemed to know eachother) would've seen right through the ruse right away....Which is to say, for Tilly to be Far and Sure, it seems that he couldn't have been using the pseudonym in the way I think of pseudonyms being traditionally used - more like an inside joke for his friends.  Anyway, as I say - I think you make a compelling (and historically important) case...

Peter

[Kirk Gill]

The long and short of all this is there never was any issue or question or mystery of who designed Merion East. A couple of guys on here with way less than complete information just tried to make it look like there was some issue, question or mystery. They made a mountain out of pretty much nothing.

The thing I'd like to see, at this point, is that they stop taking it so personally that this has been determined as it has been, and that they stop accusing us of taking it personally and acting defensively. I guess it probably is true to say that in the end the truth will always find its own way of winning out.

Tom, I'd disagree with the notion that there was "no question" about the design attribution of Merion. The fact that the question appears to have been answered conclusively doesn't negate the fact that the question was there to be asked, and that there was enough uncertainty about it to at least make it worth examining.

I may have not agreed with the conclusions posited by David Moriarty, but his positions were interesting, and provocative. The discussion of those conclusions was most interesting to me, outside of the quantity of high dudgeon instigated by the discussion.

And would I be an ass to mention that perhaps Tillinghast wrote that particular "Far and Sure" bit that exactly replicates what was written in The American Cricketer, but didn't someone mention earlier on this thread that sometimes a number of people might write under the same pseudonym?

]

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

Good point, but here's the rub.

The American Cricketer magazine that Tillinghast wrote for under his own name was about 1 page or so at best related to golf.  The other 50 or so monthly pages were almost all Cricket news, pictures and scores, with a small dollop of lawn tennis and such thrown in.

The odds of someone having a subscription to both American Cricketer and American Golfer were very slim as they had different target audiences and areas of specialization.   And, when one considers the "same 400 golfers" that you mentioned, I think it's unlikely that many who weren't really close to Tillinghast and the "insider" publishing world would have caught on to the dueling doppelgangers. 

[Mike_Cirba]

And would I be an ass to mention that perhaps Tillinghast wrote that particular "Far and Sure" bit that exactly replicates what was written in The American Cricketer, but didn't someone mention earlier on this thread that sometimes a number of people might write under the same pseudonym?

Kirk,

Not at all because that particular "Far and Sure" bit that exactly replicates what was written in The American Cricketer was the same article where he wrote that Macdonald and Whigham "advised" and that the holes and the problem of the holes were conceived by Hugh Wilson and Committee.

Now, if all that had appeared under a separate "Far and Sure" article, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be an ass, but it probably wouldn't be too far-fetched if some people thought you were being a bit of a d*ck.   

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I'd disagree with the notion that there was "no question" about the design attribution of Merion. The fact that the question appears to have been answered conclusively doesn't negate the fact that the question was there to be asked, and that there was enough uncertainty about it to at least make it worth examining."


Kirk:

Clearly there were questions generated on this website in the last five years or so by two people about the design attribution of Merion but there never has been any question before that as far as I know.

One started it off with two newspaper articles he found that mentioned Macdonald/Whigam advised and made some suggestions on a visit to the site in June 1910, a visit by the committee to NGLA and then another day's visit by Macdonald/Whigam in April 1911. Apparently, he thought he'd found something that was theretorfore unknown or unconsidered and that it might've meant Macdonald designed the course but it always had been known and considered that Macdonald/Whigam advised and made some suggestions on three occasions over about ten months. But those newspaper articles he found had been in the club probably since they were published. We've known about them for years. Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions were prevalently mentioned by both Hugh Wilson and his brother Alan as well as in MCC committee and board minutes in 1910 and 1911. It never was a mystery to the club and those board meeting minutes mentioned Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions but they also went on to explain in some detail who routed and desgined Merion East, and it was not Macdonald/Whigam which was suggested by those two on here; it was Wilson and his committee and that has always been known to the club and to us here.

On this website they made a mountain of an issue over it out of just about nothing. It was basically a non-issue but I do understand that most on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com did not understand that and still may not understand it. There never was a Macdonald routing in 1910 as the essay on here claimed. There was never a Macdonald routing at any time. The H.H. Barker "rough drawing" Barker mentioned in a letter to a real estate developer and mentioned in an MCC committee report in July 1910 was never again mentioned by MCC.

It was further complicated by that whole 1910 or 1912 trip abroad story. A lot was made out of that on here but it was discovered this year that the 1910 trip story did not come within half a century of the creation of Merion East, so that story and the big deal that was made by those two that if it was wrong that therefore meant Wilson and his committee could not have routed and designed Merion East was also a total non-issue. I'm sorry they were unwilling to admit to the obviousness of that as it sure would've saved a lot of time on this website.

[TEPaul]

Peter and Mike:

In one of those American Cricketers I recall reading that the periodical thought it had a basic readership of about 5,000. Of that number I'd bet less than 100 knew positively that Tillinghast wrote as Far and Sure and Hazard for American Golfer. I think that's a number any pen name writer could probably live with. 

American Cricketer did refer to itself as "the literary arm of the Golf Association of Philadelphia." At that time I'd estimate that GAP had around 25-30 member clubs and if an average club was aound 300 members, for American Cricketer to assume it may've had basically 5,000 readers would probably be pretty logical.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just to add a bit to what Tom is saying I think David Moriarty and Tom MacWood found some very interesting tidbits in their research, including the 1912 Shipping Manifest.   

I also think they made a very understandable error in leaping to their conclusion that the course must have been routed by either Barker or Macdonald/Whigham because they assumed the combination of the Macdonald 1910 letter (which they also assumed MUST have a routing included) along with that late 1910 property drawing which showed the upside down V at the north end of the property as already part of the initial purchase meant that all of this had to have been settled and routed PRIOR to Hugh Wilson and his committee being assigned to "construct" in early 1911.

The fundamental error they made is simply that they didn't understand that the "V" on the north end of the property wasn't what later became known as the "Francis Land Swap".    They also made the classic very human mistake of accentuating and overplaying the new pieces of evidence that supported their theory while over-rationalizing and too easily dismissing the large body of accumulated evidence that didn't.

I think it was a very, very interesting, very educational, and very challenging puzzle, and now that it's finally solved, when one considers the body count, it's sort of a sad, pyrrhic, but ultimately historically important victory, at least in the Kingdom of Architectural Nerdland where we all seem destined to dwell.      

[Kirk Gill]

Mike, I'm capable of being an ass, a dick, and a host of other naughty bits on any given day. Of course, you could have meant duck, which would have offended me deeply.

The point I agree with the most from you last post is the pyrrhic nature of the "victory." I remember with real delight the day that Wayne posted about finding the Macdonald letter. It was incredibly cool to vicariously enjoy his moment, and equally sad that his perspective can no longer be found on the site.

And Tom, you're certainly right, in retrospect, and for those who had been close to Merion and its history I'm sure the whole exercise seemed futile. But I do remember that when DM first posted his essay there were a lot of people who agreed with his conclusions. For the likes of me (a new citizen of Nerdland), the ensuing discussions were most interesting.

[TEPaul]

"And Tom, you're certainly right, in retrospect, and for those who had been close to Merion and its history I'm sure the whole exercise seemed futile. But I do remember that when DM first posted his essay there were a lot of people who agreed with his conclusions. For the likes of me (a new citizen of Nerdland), the ensuing discussions were most interesting."


Kirk:

Actually, the exercise did not seem futile at all to us or to Merion, certainly not at first. As one can see (from the thread in the back pages) Tom MacWood started a thread in 2003 entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion". Tom MacWood said he had found two articles that stated Macdonald/Whigam had advised and made suggestions to MCC on the move to Ardmore and what would become the East Course. Apparently Tom MacWood thought he'd discovered previously unknown or unconsidered information about Macdonald/Whigam’s part in the design of Merion East and he asked what that (“advised and made suggestions”) specifically meant as to Macdonald/Whigam's part in the design of Merion East.

At first I responded that I did not think there was any detailed information in the archives of Merion as to who specifically did what with the design of the course and its individual holes (other than that interesting Richard Francis story about the solution to #15 green and #16 tee (which came to be known as the "upsidedown V" story in which Francis bicycled to see Lloyd late one night)). Then Wayne came on with a long post stating that the specifics of who did what was not recorded only that Wilson and his committee designed the course with advice and suggestions from Macdonald/Whigam and that the club has always known that as it was contained in the reports of the Wilson brothers.

At that response Tom MacWood seemed to take some umbrage with Wayne's post telling him he did not need a lesson in researching. After that things began to get contentious on that thread and some other Merion threads.

Later, David Moriarty came on with some other threads of his own basically questioning the accuracy of some of the historical information from Merion like the description of #10, the lengths on the holes of the course, and the tees on #18 and such, and then those threads became contentious as he was pretty generally disagreed with by some of us here.

At some point around 2007 I think MacWood and Moriarty left this website for around a year. In early 2008 Pat Mucci sent out a humorous group email that had nothing to do with Merion with a bunch of people on it including me and Moriarty and MacWood. Through that email exchange it seems both Pat Mucci and me asked both Moriarty and MacWood to come back on the website. After some resistance they did that. In the process Moriarty said he had previously unknown material basically proving that Macdonald/Whigam designed Merion East (or were the driving forces behind the design), that Wilson did not go abroad in 1910 but in 1912, that an independent real estate developer was the one who generated the move to Ardmore etc, etc. He said he had been doing a report to that effect and he felt that both we and Merion probably wouldn't be able to handle it and that we would try to deny it or something to that effect and for that reason he said he felt things would get contentious again if he made it public. There is also no question at all that just about any time we offered information that was contrary to their theories they would accuse us of being defensive, frustrated, or trying to cover something up to protect the “Legend” of Hugh Wilson with the design of Merion West which they both seemed to state or imply was somehow historically inaccurate! All that certainly did lead to plenty of contentiousness.

At first we assured David Moriarty that would not happen with his essay if there really was new and reliable information that neither we nor the club had ever been aware of. So after a month or two it was put on here. I can assure you that both we and particularly Merion were pretty excited to learn if Macdonald really had been far more responsible for their course than the club had theretofore ever known (MacWood and Moriarty’s constant contention that both we and the club were only interested in doing everything possible to prevent that kind of new information was simply never true, not even close).

And then the essay came out and those of us, including those who run Merion and do have a far better understanding of ALL the details of Merion’s history than most anyone on here read it and were pretty mystified. Almost without exception they all basically said the essay was a series of tortured premises and logic with information the club had always known to reach a preconceived conclusion. Then we all set about looking into the details of MCC before and during the move and as we believe it showed precisely what Merion has always said about Merion East’s design---eg that Wilson and his committee routed and designed the course with advice and suggestions from Macdonald/Whigam on three separate occasions lasting about a day each over a period of about ten months.

The background board minutes information had probably not been considered for many, many decades because for well over half a century Merion Cricket Club has been separate from Merion GC and those records were never transferred to Merion GC. But now we know of them and what they say and they confirm the architectural attribution of Merion East as the club has always presented it.

This thread on “Far and Sure” and Tillinghast is simply a sort of ancillary subject to that entire Merion East story, but a fairly important one in the broad scheme of it all.

Some might see this post as a regeneration of the whole Merion debate but I don’t think so. I know how interested you’ve always been in it, Kirk, and this is for you at least and I don’t see that anyone on here should object to that simply because this subject once became so contentious.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I found the essay quite interesting and did not get the impression that they were trying to rewrite history. What I took away from it was the thought "Hmm... interesting observations, needs more study." I also read some of the Tillie / Hazard / Far and Sure debate and thought the same. It is unfortunate that many people seem to be entrenched in their views this way or that, to the point of where they become defensive and emotional. I see that on both sides.

It reminds me of the debate who invented Golf - surely a far more contentious topic. I was - and to an extent still am - extremely sceptical towards the "Dutch theory". I'm more of a Scot in that regard, as conventional wisdom has always had it. The Dutch theory was extremely flawed at the beginning, shooting a puck on ice towards a hole wasn't very convincing. A supporter even managed to get the theory as "consensus among experts" into the Encyclopedia Britannica and the German Golf Association's centenary book. He did it by sourcing his claims to his own books! Compared to these shenanigans the Merion article is rock-hard science. And yet, from modest beginnings the Dutch theory has come far: look in the newest World Atlas of Golf, it has convinced some of our most eminent experts here at GCA

Lesson: it takes time and sometimes progress starts out very modestly. Research is a good thing, discovering flaws in research is also good. If a new theory in the long run turns out be complete nonsense, then why get all worked up over it today? It will not stand anyway, so why kill a perfectly good researcher in the process?

If all else fails, just remember this: it can never be as ludicrous as the Dutch inventing Golf and bringing it to Scotland

Ulrich

[Ed Homsey]

From TEPaul:  "My recollection is he said he had not idea who "Far and Sure" was nor did Bob Labbance, and if you read his biography of Travis that would seem to be the case."

Your post was several days ago, so this is old stuff and doesn't really contribute to the thread.  I'm Archivist for the Travis Society.  So, I've read Bob's biography.  In fact, I worked closely with him in the writing of it, providing Travis information, images, and making arrangements for Bob to visit as many Travis courses as possible.   And, I had the privilege of reviewing his draft manuscripts.  More important than that, he and I discussed the pseudonyms used in AG on many occasions.  Neither of us had any information that would confirm the identity of any of those writers using pseudonyms.  I recall that Bob speculated that the pseudonyms were used to protect the authors amateur status--much like what has been discussed throughout this thread.

In all of his writings, the closest Travis came to addressing who writes what in his magazine was in a January 1910 article where he seemed rather defensive in regards to his perceived general belief that he is but "a mere figurehead in The American Golfer".  He goes on to point out that he is responsible for all editorial matter, the column "around the 19th hole", "and the various articles which have appeared from time to time under my name".  He only refers to "regular correspondents in various parts of the country, Canada and England".  He doesn't identify them, or discuss pseudonyms.

As someone early on in this thread suggested, we're left to our on imagination and speculation.  I can tell you that is has intrigued me since I first opened an American Golfer.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

Thanks for your post and nice to know you're the archivist for the Travis Society.

As to the actual identity of the pen name or pseudonym writers for American Golfer obviously Travis is a central figure since he was the magazine's editor. I also think I read somewhere that Travis may've handed out the pen names to his regional writers.

I guess it's fair enough to ask what difference it really makes what the pen name writers identities were and I've asked myself that at one point. But it is interesting and probably important to know as I think it does go to the credibility to some extent of what they wrote, particularly the details if they were truly familiar with or good friends of the people they wrote about or their clubs and courses which became subjects of their articles.

It's also just interesting in the literary game part of it, at least it is to me.

One of the differences with Tillinghast compared to some other pen name writers is he did write for other newspapers and periodicals under his own name so it is easier to compare and contrast those articles to some of the pen name articles in American Golfer that we think he used.

I guess Tillinghast was "Hazard" and as you can see it looks to some of us for numerous reasons like he used the pen name "Far and Sure" too.

But if someone is looking for actual proof he was "Far and Sure" that might be hard to provide. On the other hand, I'm not sure I've ever seen actual proof he was "Hazard" either.

A few times on here I've asked Phil Young what those two other articles were where he mentioned Tillinghast said he was "Hazard" but I don't think he answered those questions. Phil Young said Tillinghast admitted who he was in the "Hazard" article on the death of his father, but if one reads that article carefully it doesn't look like he actually said that. He said B.G. Tillinghast died and he said his son found some of his last writing and he said his son was an architect but I don't believe he said he was that architect or that he ("Hazard") was A.W. Tillinghast.

Of course one can always say that it just seems obvious Tilly was Hazard and I can see that but it's also pretty obvious to some of us for numerous reasons that he also used the pen name "Far and Sure". I wouldn't say we can actually prove it but it does seem pretty obvious.

Where is actual proof he was even "Hazard?"

[Mike_Cirba]

"Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses in the country, but every new course is "one of the best in the country" and one must see to believe after trying it out." - "Far and Sure" - January 1913

"For the space of a year or more golfers have been curious about the new course which is being developed by the Pine Valley Golf Club at Sumner, New Jersey.   Much as been written about it and every one who has visited the spot has spoken highly about the possibilities there, but this is true of so many new courses, for each is "one of the best in the country", until it is played over and found to be wanting."  - Albert Warren Tillinghast - November 1917

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I suppose your point in that last post is that the wording in the "Far and Sure" article and in the Tillinghast article is very similar.

I think Philip Young already responded to that by saying he feels two writers reporting on the same subject tend to report the same kind of thing.

However, in the examples you cited it isn't even the same subject---eg one's Merion and the other is Pine Valley.

Again, I am still having a very hard time understanding why Philip Young is having such a problem considering (or even admitting) that Tillinghast wrote as "Far and Sure." We may not have complete proof that Tilly was "Far and Sure" but I think the question, at this point, is what exactly is Phil Young's proof that Tillinghast wrote under the pen name "Hazard"? 

I've asked him for those articles by "Hazard" where he says he admits he's Tillinghast but I have yet to see what those articles are.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

One or two of these "coincidences" would strongly suggest that "Far and Sure" was indeed Tillinghast.

6983 of them later and for everyone but Phil we're probably just pounding a dead horse into glue and feathers.     

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "is what exactly is Phil Young's proof that Tillinghast wrote under the pen name "Hazard"?... I've asked him for those articles by "Hazard" where he says he admits he's Tillinghast but I have yet to see what those articles are."

I am sorry that I am taking entirely too long to provide those "proofs" but as I stated earlier, there are several times that questions written in to AG were asked of "Hazard" directly and which Tilly answered under his own name and referred to the article that HE WROTE.
 
I also stated that I had to go back and look them up. I haven't done so, though I have begun looking. It is not a simple process to find them. As my favorite author wrote, "Logistics are the assassins of ideas." In this case the logistics are that since I don't remember the exact issues I have to go through every single one of them and search from cover-to-cover as they were not in "Hazard's" columns, but were in other locations in the magazines.

I have many copies, but not all, of the AG from issue #1 in 1908 through Tilly's last article for the magazine in 1919 on my computer. Those that I lack on my computer I have physical copies of in my files.

This is a large endeavor to go through them all and you are welcome to make the journey of researching them yourself rather than relying on either me to do so and my time frames or simply accept it as true and established as you have already written that you believe it to be so.

Otherwise you will have to simply wait...

You also wrote, "Again, I am still having a very hard time understanding why Philip Young is having such a problem considering (or even admitting) that Tillinghast wrote as "Far and Sure.""

I'm sorry that I am providing you with such difficulty, but the reason is a very simple one... I have seen NOTHING offered so far that even begins to give me consideration that Tilly was "Far and Sure." I have said this over and over, and despite the "coincidences" that Mike sees at every turn, I don't.

I accept that you believe Tilly was "Far and Sure" and that is your perogative. But at no time do you see me writing "I am still having a very hard time understanding why Tom Paul is having such a problem considering (or even admitting) that Tillinghast didn't write as "Far and Sure."" By simply accepting that you do there is no reason to do so and there is really no reason for you to wonder about my conclusion on this.

Secondly your mentioning in this regard that I may even be refusing to admit [see above where you stated (or even admitting)] implies that I actually believe it and am simply refusing to say so. Sorry Tom, that may explain why you don't understand my stance as it clearly shows you have no understanding of me at all for you to even suggest such a thing.

I write what I believe to be true.  When I am wrong or incorrect I openly admit it and have done so on other occasions in other discussions. When I am uncertain about something I admit that, something I have also done on GCA. When I believe something I state that and stand my ground. This too is something that I have done on here.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

In a December 1912 "American Cricketer", Tillinghast wrote;

"On the bulletin board in the new golf house at Merion hangs a withered thing which measures about six inches across.   Under it is this legend;  "This divot was not replaced."   It reminds one of the head of the executed Chinese malefactors exposed to the public gaze as a warning to evildoers."

In the January 1913 American Golfer, "Far and Sure" wrote; 

In the Merion clubhouse, on the bulletin board, hangs a withered thing which measures about six inches across.   Under it is this legend:
        "This divot was NOT replaced."
Like the gruesome severed head of the Chinese malefactor, it is exposed to view as a warning to others."


Are you really contending that these were written by two separate individuals for two separate magazines?   With all due respect, there is less chance of that than there is of earth spinning out of its orbit and colliding with the sun in the next 24 hours.  

I'm trying to be considerate in calling them "coincidences".   

There are only two possibilities here, Phil.   

Either "Far and Sure" was AW Tillinghast, or "Far and Sure" was the biggest plagiarist in the history of the game, and possibly in all of American periodical literature.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()