Tom MacWood only sprouts the facts he wants you to hear, he believes he knows all about the fundamental re the 1890 architects, yet the most important item he has never mention or even suggested, why because he missed it, he does not have any idea how theses early architects worked.
He stated on this site that the average course around 1900 took 3 months
(as I also mentioned), yet when he talks of OTM course he credits Old Tom courses being open in two weeks or sooner. Seems something is wrong there, something not quite right, shouts of double standards, or being honest, his total lack of understanding.
He loves trying to belittle me by making statements about OTM, being accredited by a club for using the rest room, or OTM was on holiday when he went to Lahinch, yet he cannot offer one tiny bit of proof to support his lies and insults. Remember it’s my family he reports to know all about.
My search and if anyone bothered to read my words relates to courses connected with OTM. I am not saying he is the only one designer, but I do say he had a design input into these courses whether they are still there or not or his work survives or not. Its part of the history of the course and each mod should be recorded with its designer to give us the full picture. Yes, OTM was involved. One singel frame does not make a motion picture its the collection of the frames that give us the whole picture.
Lahinch, the records state OTM did no make any RADICAL changes. OK who ever said he redesigned the whole course, I have always said he modified it with the work by McKenna. What McKenna did before or in later years is open to whatever approach one wants, but it does not take away that OTM modified the course in 1894. I also find it interesting that a report from the Limerick Chronicle states McKenna just worked the summers of 1894 & 5. They state that James McKenna was only employed at Lahinch for the summer of 1894 at 18 shillings a week plus 2 shillings a round for instruction. At the end of the summers, he went back to Limerick and returned to Lahinch for the summer of 1895. Not my find, but interesting, yet the truth is that Shaw trust OTM to modify the course. Its fine making statements but saying ‘not OTM’ and that he is taking credit for the work of others is total bollocks. If MacWood is saying that in 1894 it was McKenna who designed the modifications and not OTM because Old Tom was on a paid holiday courtesy of Shaw, then that not confirmed in any report, but OTM mods are. His determination to undermine OTM is what drives him, why, you have to ask him but don’t tell me it’s because OTM was wrongly accredited for some design/modification work.
Paul Daly in his interview some years ago on GCA.com actually made the opposite statement that others were being accredited for OTM work. So who is right?
Lahinch was modified by OTM, certainly not a full redesign, it was not that radical. The ‘not radical’ statement is furnished by MacW and the article he printed. Yet it clearly states OTM was there, He arrived on the 29th of April 1894 and left for Dublin on the 5th of May 1894. OTM went around the course on at least two occasions making recommendations. He would not do the actual construction/modification work but expect the Club Professional would, who was McKenna. I make no claim but that OTM modified Lahinch in 1894 as confirmed by the same article MacWood stated. The real problem in that no formal report was published or apparently published on what were OTM actual suggestion. There are more reports of OTM modifying the course at Lahinch in 1894 in the Scotsman (1902) and in the book (1907) by Tullock confirming his trip to Lahinch. OTM on his return stayed in Dublin for a few days playing a couple of matched at Dollymount with Brown and others before returning to St Andrews. Oh, yes, just for your information a few years earlier OTM was proposed for the design Dollymount, but due to the clubs finances it was done in-house.
Cruden Bay, OTM was commissioned to do the work in 25th September 1894 to lay out a new course for the Great Northern Scottish Railways. This was not the 9 hole Port Erroll course which was closed in 1895 to make way for the new GNSR station complex, but their new resort. The Design was completed and according to some reports an 18 hole course was actually laid out, but was changed when the addition requirement of a 9 hole course was added, this being the St Olaf’s Course opened with the main course in 1899. The design and routing by OTM but the whole construction managed and overseen by Simpson. However, MacW with all this information states that Simpson was the designer. No comment on the fact that Simpson was local while OTM was based at St Andrews, just too obvious an explanation, and of course in the eyes of some just pure fantasy as it does not fit in with their opinions. Reports from 1896 & 7 into 1899 advise of OTM involvement, but
again this is not good enough for some.
I for all my failings, do try to seek the truth, there are at times when we seek to join the dots and a little conjecture/speculation may allow the dots to join. But of course, that is not proof, yet that works both ways. Nevertheless, the only way to actually discover the truth and accredit all the designers involved in some of our great and smaller courses is to try to come together and work for the common good. I have tried but failed at each fence, others seem more than happy to take the piss, to try to redirect the story, stating that of course they are seeking the truth.
I never though I would accept defeat, but I do so regards GCA.com and with some of its members. The truth is the first casualty and seems to matter very little to some, yet that is all we have to link our lives to past and future generations.
The Askernish web site states exactly what and how they proceeded yet the likes of Mark & Kalen on the back of MacWood, have swallowed his various statements, yet appear not to have read the web site.
MacWood, has his own opinions and states them, but does not want to adjust his viewpoint no matter what may be found. However, to be fair to him, he has maintained his position throughout even in the face of alternative evidence or explanation to the reports he publishes.
Jim K, in most of his posts seems very bitter towards me, my opinions and his latest statement:-
“It never ceases to amaze me that the most vociferous objections to his scholarship come from people who have ulterior motives, such as books they have written, books they might be writing, golf clubs they represent, famous relatives whose name they are trading on, etc..”
I find this most objectionable, it shows what this site is becoming , full of lies, no consideration for others or their point of view. The harm it is doing is unbelievable, instead of working with each other to give others a quality viewpoint we offer bickering, unfinished debates, leaving things more unresolved than before the debates were started. As for Jim’s comment, trading on famous names, I have not received one penny, not taken the courtesy of one course or freeloaded drink, food or any item nor do I live off their names. Again, just see how low some on this site will stoop to try to make some untrue point or other, however the most telling is yet again there is no proof to back up his statement, just nasty self-centred crap from someone who should know better.
I am totally guilty of sharing as much information as I can, of providing contacts, of arranging close to 100 courtesy of the course for others and where possible of just trying to help.
I am not leaving, but have decided not to share any of my finds, which I wanted to first publish on this site. I expect the debates will go on but I wonder to what standard they will finally sink to.
Melvyn