[Steve_ Shaffer]

@Tom MacW

Please respond specifically to post#2 above.

Also, what sources have you visited personally to view documents pertaining to your possible claim of another attribution?

Why don't you just write an "In My Opinion" piece and get this matter where it belongs?

[Ian Larson]

Tom Macwood,

If you have NO idea who did what. Then what is your motive or basis for starting the thread. To debunk Tilly as the designer or find out who else did what? And please just answer the simple question...

You state that you did all of this digging. Yet you say you have no idea who did what. And you question Phil with his understanding of Tilly at Shawnee. So your either lying and dug something up to show Tilly wasn't by himself or this is a show of golf architecture dorks whipping their dicks out to see who's is bigger by having unseen documents and bluffing each other. So if you've got nothing and know you can't measure up to Phil just keep your junk in your pants so you don't embarrass yourself in front of us. But if your packing a roll of cookie dough just get on with whipping it out and put Phil to shame. If not why the hell start this thread?

If you just want to know who else was involved on site then don't name a thread "Who designed Shawnee". Because I think we all know you're just trying to challenge Phil into posting all his research that you may want to have yourself because you've hit a dead end and won't go to these clubs yourself to do your own research.

I began my study of golf course architecture after a summer at Ridgewood and obviously started with Tilly. I then moved to Marshalls Creek to work at Great Bear right down the road. I attended the Tilly meetings, played and studied Shawnee ALOT and spent many evenings with the owners families that lived in some of the small houses adjacent to the property. I looked at alot of old original pictures and documents. 9 years later I have nothing to throw into this thread but I will say that if I saw ANY evidence of another person having a big hand in the design of Shawnee I would have immediately made a mental note and want to research it more myself. But there was no evidence of that from what I had access to. So I don't think your conquest of Shawnee is going to turn anything unfound up except the owners contracting Tilly, Tilly designing and constructing it and with a crew under him. So unless you have something saying otherwise this is pointless.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim that TM was calling AWT a liar.  As for the rest, TomM answered for himself.
_____________________________________________
 

Moriarty if this threads intent was to discover who may have been on site assisting the design, routing, construction and grow-in then fine I'd agree with you. But as I read the title and the first post I interpreted it as another Merion thread with questioning if Tilly was even the true designer. It struck me as Macwood wanting to be provocative and stir the pot. Not to initiate discussion as to who else was on site and who did what. If what is being insinuated is true then let's stop talking and actually throw some hard evidence on the table to prove so. If Macwood or yourself don't do so then you're wasting everyones time.

Mr. Larson,
I can't be held responsible for your mistaken interpretations as to the purposes of these thread .  As for the Merion threads your barking up the wrong tree.  Those weren't my threads.  Everything I've done with Merion has been geared toward figuring out what happened.

As for me, I have no idea who did what at Shawnee except to say that AWT certainly seems to have been very involved, and was pumping up the project at about every opportunity.   But I don't know if he was working alone or with Worthington or someone else.   It was after all CC Worthington's course.   I'd like to learn more about the development of the course, so I wish that Phil and TomM would lay their cards on the table.  
_____________________________________________
  
Paul Thomas,

You state that AWT was the architect of record at the time.    In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start.
____________________________________________

Mike your post makes no sense.   TM is asking "who else was involved."   Phil is the one claiming it had to be AWT and no one else, and then refusing to discusss it.    Surely that sounds familiar.

As for the National thread, Phil was not asking "who else was involved?"  He was propping up your ridiculous notion those early articles should be taken literally, and that therefore Travis and Emmet should get equal credit with NGLA.  He claims he was doing so only to point out how we shouldn't misinterpret limited information.  In other words, he was making a fool of you and your reliance on those 1906 articles, and using you as an example of shoddy research and bogus conclusions.   But as your post here demonstrates it obviously backfired and he definitely did more to muddle NGLA's history than clarify it.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

To answer your original question, Cornish and Whitten credit Tillie in both books.  And you know Ron isn't bashful about assigning co credit on Tillie courses, a la Bethpage.

[Phil_the_Author]

After once again having my character attacked by both Tom Macwood and David Moriarity I've decided to give a response.

David, you stated, "But it is absolute nonsense for Phil to accuse TomM of calling AWT or anyone else a liar just because they have different interpretations of what happened."

Don't be absurd, because that is EXACTLY what Tom Macwood did. How do I know, he admits it in this very thread when he states "If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post." Or is there another "bluffing/accusation post" that I am unaware of that he admits making?

Tom Macwood, you stated, "Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all...."

First of all, I DO have the DOCUMENTATION. I am not allowed to share it because it is the private materials of Shawnee and is being used for the book that the OWNER of Shawnee has hired me to write. I am prevented by contract, ethics and honor to publish or divulge anything until AFTER the book comes out. Too bad that you don't like that.

Secondly, you keep stating phrases such as "I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging..."
and "I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"

Then you obviously haven't done either nearly as much as you would lead us to believe, or you research efforts don't include early issues of the American Golfer magazine or you simply don't understand what you are reading. But before I go into that, let's remind everyone the breadth of research that I have done on this subject, 95% of which was done in the last three months:

From Tom Macwood's post #180 on the Top Courses thread. This is where he called me a liar also:

Quote from: Philip Young on September 14, 2010, 09:20:15 PM

You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.
The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.

I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee.

So Tom, now let me answer your question. You asked, "Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?"

YES TO ALL THREE!

Articles. How about this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer: Correction, I made a mistake and had it mislabelled. It was from the Philadelphia Evening Telegraph.


Well how can we trust someone like Alex Findlay? How could he know anything?

What about A.W. Tillinghast Himself? You obviously must have missed this one in your incredible great amount of reading and research on the subject. It's from his advertising booklet "Planning A Golf Course" But then this is one of those pesky "other sources" and you probably never thought to look for something like this. After all the entire document, which is a scanned copy of one of four known copies to exist can be found on the Tillinghast Association website as part of the Shawnee information. But why would a researcher one want to waste his time looking there?:


I can understand that you won't accept that. After all the person who scanned that image is the person you have several times accused of being a liar, so he probably just photo shopped it in.

Also, it was written five years after the fact, so maybe it isn't an altered document. Tilly must not have been able to remember properly after all that time. How about this one that TILLY HIMSELF wrote for the American Golfer in December 1912:


Yeah but that's still a year and a half after it opened. I know, how about this advertising brochure that TILLY wrote for the club and was published the MONTH BEFORE it was opened:


Then we have this corroboration from the American Golfer from November 1910:


And another cute story from the spring of 1911 from the American Golfer:



So Tom, it appears you missed some quite definitive articles and other sources on this. There are plenty more where these came from. Go look them up yourself.

You owe me an apology...

Davaid, back to you... you stated, and I'm writing this inresponse to what you posted after I put this up, You state, "that AWT was the architect of record at the time.    In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start."

If you've gotten this far in reading my response you'll see a number of "records of the time" that were quoted from.

[PThomas]

TMac,

To answer your original question, Cornish and Whitten credit Tillie in both books.  And you know Ron isn't bashful about assigning co credit on Tillie courses, a la Bethpage.

thanks Jeff - I dont keep my copy of the C/W book in the office..

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Only you could twist what I wrote in such a bizarre way.  You are truly amazing.

I'm at a loss as well to understand your reading of Phil's point on the NGLA thread. 

I would ask you to point out one erroneous fact in that article at the time it was written, but I'm sure we won't agree so don't waste our respective time. 

If you think Phil was trying to make a fool of me in that thread you really are an odd duck.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Mike speaks from DIRECT knowledge as I emailed him as to what i was interested in discussing and that it was in no way an attack, even an implied one, upon him. he could have mentioned that little point but chose not to.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

I haven't read your post above.  I wanted to get this posted before I lose it.
_______________________________________________________

Mike, I have told you repeatedly and for years now the inaccuracies in those 1906 NGLA articles, you just ignore them and continue on your merry way.  Whether Phil intended it or not his NGLA thread was aimed squarely at you, as you were the only one who was trying to use the NGLA articles as if they were completely reliable.  Those that understand what happened at NGLA knew better.  
_______________________________________________________________________

As for the substance of what happened at Shawnee, here are some early accounts of Shawnee, mostly by "Hazard" in AG.  Hazard is considered to be Tillinghast.   I apologize for any duplications of what Phil produced above.  The diagram Phil posted is the same one as in the Dec. 1912 AG article, and goes with the two photos from the Jan 1913 article as well.    
- Note that a few time starting in 1912, "Hazard"  calls Tillinghast the "architect" of the course.
- Some may find it interesting that the mentions come pretty regularly through May 1911.  In June 1911 "Far and Sure" replaced Hazard for a while with the Eastern PA column.   Mentions begin again when Hazard again starts in on the column later in 1912.  

August 1910.
The work on the eighteen-hole course at Shawnee-on-Delaware is progressing most favorably. The greens, which were made in April, have already been subjected to cutting and light rolling. The sandy sub-soil is admirably suited to the require- ments of the game and is quite differ- ent from that usually found on in- land courses. The Green Committee of the Shawnee Club announce that the course will be ready for opening next May and, although the general plan of the new links has not as yet been made public, those who have seen them and know of the very un- usual natural advantages of this sec- tion of the upper Delaware Valley, assert that this new course will be a genuine revelation to the golfing pil- grim. Some of the pits have already been placed, but this work will be al- lowed to take its place at the end— for the present the labor is being de- voted to the perfection of the putting greens and the development of the
fairway.

September 1910
I have several times referred to the course which is being constructed at Shawnee-on-Delaware by the Shawnee Country Club, but as yet I have at- tempted no real description of the new links. However, inasmuch as there exists no course in the entire State of Pennsylvania (outside the im- mediate vicinities of Pittsburg and Philadelphia) which approaches cham- pionship requirements, the work at Shawnee must of necessity be of intempt has been made to trap the efforts of the mediocre player but rather the nearly-good strokes of the expert; courage finds its reward when com- bined with accuracy but there is al- ways a safe route for the conservative golfer, even though it does demand an additional stroke.
The tees are quite large with aver- age dimensions of 20 by 30 feet, and, of course, the size of the greens is determined by the length of the hole. The short fifth hole is provided withan undulating green protected by no less than two large side pits and thirty irregular mounds just beyond. The long seventh offers a sloping green which has an area of nearly a half acre, but a large pit in the lower cor- ner gathers in the third which throws too much from the line.
The distances follow:
1   313
2 . . .370
3   457
4   377
5. . . 102
6   444
7   522
8   400
9      165
10   .339
11   440
12   326
13   126
14   421
15   197
16   246
17   375
18    391
Out, 3,150; in, 2,861; total, 6,011.

Little can be gleaned from these figures for on paper the distance of 246 does not impress the critic—but that sixteenth offers a safe path to the cup after a long, well-placed drive and one that demands courage, while the pits close up to the green spell "Stop, Look and Listen" before you play, if the stroke from the tee has been under-hit or off-line.

Photo from same issue captioned: "Beginning work on a pot bunker at the Shawnee Country Club."


Nov. 1910, Hazard
For the first time in many years Mr. A. W. Tillinghast has absented himself from the tournaments, but he has been very actively engaged in the development of the new course of the Shawnee Country Club. He returned to town for the St. Martins tourna- ment and was successful in the handi- cap, winning the gross score prize.

Dec. 1910, Hazard
Most interesting has been the work on the new golf course at Shawnee-on-Delaware, not only because of the fas- cination in the building of a course, but in this instance by reason of a most unusual condition.
The laborers are constantly unearth- ing ancient relics of the American In- dian. A great portion of the course is located on an island which the Lenapes called Shawano. It was here that the Minsi Indians had a great village and around which they cultivated the soil and hunted. His- tory tells us that here, too, they battled with the Iroquois or Five Nations, who came down upon them in this beautiful valley home from their vil- lages in Northern New York.
As the work on the golf course pro- gresses great quantities of arrow heads (fashioned both for hunting and war) are thrown up from the pits. Stone   hatchets,   war-club   heads, spears, celts, pounders, corn grinders and mills, bits of pottery and beads— all from the pits where in the future the niblick will reign supreme.

March 1911, Hazard
The Shawnee Country Club has engaged as professional and club- maker, Bob Hobens, brother of Jack Hobens, of the Englewood Golf Club. Hobens is a new arrival in this coun- try and he comes over to take the new green on May 1st. He is reputed to be a very fine player. The club at Shawnee-on-Delaware has affiliated with the United States Golf Associa- tion and the Pennsylvania State Association.

April 1911, Hazard
The Shawnee Country Club formal- ly opens the season on Saturday, May 27th. A number of prominent players will be invited to be present to inspect the new course, which has been widely discussed.

May 1911, Hazard
Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, who for the past year has devoted most of his time to the work on the new course of The Shawnee Country Club, tells of a rather remarkable happening there which illustrates the very remarkable quality of the soil so far inland. Eleven of the holes are located on the Island of Shawna. Late last fall a number of guarding pits were dug about the greens, located at one end of the island.   Water came on before sand could be dug for them. When the ice cleared from the river this spring, Mr. Tillinghast visited the island to find out how it had wintered.  Greatly to his amazement he found all his new pits filled with fine white sand. Nature had been working for him. The winter winds had blown the sand into the pits to a depth of two feet.

August 1912 (Unattributed)

The 13th Hole at the Shawnee Country Club is one of the very best short holes in the country. The tee is on a bluff overlooking a branch of the Delaware River, the green being on the other side. During the pro- fessional tournament one of the pro's, while waiting his turn to play, re- marked to Mr. Tillinghast, the archi- tect of the course: "This is a gr-raund   hole."   "Yes,"   assented   Mr. Tillinghast, with becoming modesty, "It isn't bad." The pro's tee shot found the willows at the edge of the opposite bank. As this is treated as a water hazard, he played another, which found the middle of the stream; his third went clear over the green. A "gr-raund hole," quizzically re- marked Mr. Tillinghast, as the pro was retreating down the steps to cross the river. "I'm thinking," retorted the pro, "It is nae such a gr-raund hole after all."

Sept. 1912 (Hazard)
Don't speak to me of ingratitude," says Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, as he tells this story on himself. Recently a friend visited him at Shawnee. He never had been a good player but such strokes as he had were abso- lutely gone and consequently he asked "Tilly" to look over his swing and endeavor to correct his faults. They took themselves off to the island where the Shawnee man had a gang of workmen constructing pits along the long seventh hole and where two birds could be killed with one stone,viz.: bunker building and drive doctoring.

Dec. 1912 (Hazard)
In developing the 10th hole at Shawnee, Mr. A. W. Tillinghast, the architect of the course, has worked out a teeing ground which is very unique. It is built into the side of a ridge and extends diagonally across the line of play. Owing to the length —90 feet—the tee-plates can be shifted with reference to the wind in such a manner as to make the carry of the "Alps" as difficult or as easy as may be desired. It will be observed from the sketch that the moving of the plates not only changes the distance but the direction as well. The dis-tances marked from B-B roughly indi- cate the carries of various sections of the "Alps." Obviously the shot from A-A would be easier and from C-C, much more difficult. The way around the "Alps" is quite open but a sliced ball renders a second shot to the green a particularly trying one. The hole measures 339 yards and owing to the throw of the ground the green should be approached dead-on or slightly from the left. A straight carry of the "Alps" is the keystone of success. The teeing ground has been shaped to naturally conform with the slopes on every side and the severe lines of a terrace have been carefully avoided.

January 1913 (Hazard)

MID-SURREY IN PENNSYLVANIA.
The Mid-Surrey scheme of break- ing up the fairway and rough into miniature ranges of mountain and valley, has been attempted at Shawnee on probably a larger scale than any- where in America. Strangely enough the idea of grass hollows and mounds was conceived there three years ago, before the Alpinisation at Richmond was known. The photographs show newly made ridges on the 10th fair- way, before the seeding. The plan of this hole was sketched in the last is- sue of THE AMERICAN GOLFER, and in this connection the illustrations are of particular interest. The height of the greatest of the mounds, in Fig. 2, may be gauged by comparison with the man standing among them.





June 1913 (Hazard)
The Shawnee Country Club is con- templating the erection of a foot- bridge across the Binniekill, to take the place of the ferry which has been used for the past two years. The short trip in the ferry-boat always has been a pleasing feature, but whenever a large gallery follows the play, the delay in getting everyone across is unavoidable.

The Shawnee greens are coming along beautifully, notably the new ones on numbers 2, 3, 6 and 11, which were remade last fall, and the course generally will be in excellent condi- tion for the season's events.

Photos from Golf Illustrated, 1916 Women's US Am Championship

[Dan Herrmann]

Sigh...

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I am truly amazed at what you were obviously able to find ine the 1:45:15 between when you stated "In what record of the time is AWT the "architect of record?" Because if such a record exists that seems like a terrific place to start" and all these wonderful records which prove Tilly as the architect even some that state it in exactly those words!

I can't imagine what you may have been able to find if you had spent as much time at it as Tom Macwood did... yet he can't find any?

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Larson,
Everything I've done with Merion has been geared toward figuring out what happened."


Ian:

That remark just may be the most unadulterated bullshit this website has ever seen, even from David Moriarty!  

I would just love to see the IMs and emails between Moriarty and MacWood on what goes on between them on this website on some of these subjects like NGLA or Merion or any of the others they gratuitously question architectural attribution on. I suspect they are all a collection of real beauties. On the other hand, sometimes real rats make for interesting relationships. On that note you should have seen how MacWood tried to disassociate himself from Moriarty and his essay on Merion when MacWood was trying to get Merion and MCC to just send him copies of their original administrative records of Merion East in 1910 and 1911. With friends like MacWood I doubt Moriarty needs any enemies in the competitive GCA research business!  


But I really am glad to see so many finally calling these two uber-argumentative characters out on their years long MO on this website with some significant clubs and their course architectural histories.


On the other hand, that Post #35 of Moriarty's looks impressive and he should be congratulated for taking the time to organize and put all that information and the photos and such on a post on this website. However, that kind of thing should never be considered to be some kind of original research material or some kind of informational discovery that bears on the actual subject of this thread. Every photograph and every article on that post has been on my computer for maybe half a decade or more! 

Does it say anything about Tillinghast not being the solo architect of Shawnee?

Of course not, but apparently the likes of Moriarty and MacWood seem to think if they just put a ton of photographs and quotes and such on here (what they call "research" someone might actually think so!  

[DMoriarty]

Phil,

You accuse me of attacking your character.  I haven't.   I am not sure why you insist on taking anything resembling a question or challenge about your work to be a personal attack.  Likewise, I am not sure why you think your conclusions should be treated as beyond dispute or question. 

But I am glad you finally began to explain the reasons for your conclusions above, but I could do without your defensiveness and sarcasm, which add nothing to the discussion.

As for my post, I didn't time myself but definitely did not take me that full time to put together that information.  That is why I am so perplexed that you have refused to address my requests for you to support your argument.   

This stuff isn't rocket science.  If people spent more time researching and less time posturing or opining we'd all be a lot better off.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

TM/DM

Please post an "In My Opinion" piece and stop the nonsense already.

[DMoriarty]

Steve Shaffer,

What nonsense?  

Is posting excerpts from magazine articles which address the origins of Shawnee nonsense?  
Is posting old photos of the course nonsense?   How so?

As for an IMO, I have no strong opinion about Shawnee, and I've expressed no opinion on who might have been involved in the design.  But I have posted a few article excerpts that indicate that AWT called himself the "architect."  

Is posting article excerpts which indicate that AWT considered himself the "architect" of the course nonsense?  How so?  

On the past thread I was curious enough to ask Phil some questions and he became indignant and refused to answer.  Is it nonsense to ask Phil questions about his supposed area of expertise?

Did you actually bother to read any of my posts, of did you just jump on the bandwagon and assume it must all be nonsense?    Don't bother to answer, your post above says it all.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

DM

See my post #27 above.

Why don't you wait until Phil Young's book is published? Why is this being raised now?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

I think I understand what you are saying, but to me you make a very good case for threads addressing these issues. There is often more to the  story than is commonly known and while I agree that we shouldn't pretend anyone's role is more significant than the person has been given credit for, we also shouldn't pretend that the person who gets all the credit was a complete one man show either.   That is part of why I think these arguments over who gets credit are largely political and pointless rather than historical and productive.   It is much more productive to try and tell the whole story than posture to protect or disparage anyone involved.  

So to the extent that this thread is just too guys posturing, I agree that the thread is pointless. Phil's posturing about his level of expertise get us no closer to knowing the whole story.  Nor does TomMac's challenging that expertise.   Both should make their case, but with facts and analysis, not posturing or emotional accusations.   If they'd come forward and actually discuss what happened at Shawnee, it could be pretty interesting thread.


Dan Herrman, if some of the routing was inherited from Fazio then that is an important part of the that course's history and lineage, so I hope that even in 2069 anyone truly interested in Stonewall's history would be interested in bringing that information forward, rather than becoming indignant at the very thought anyone other than Doak might have some responsibility for some aspect of the course -- whether it be good or bad.    Hopefully there is a record of what was left over and what was changed, so they won't have to argue about it decades later.

David:

I agree with most of what you say above.  If it were just generally accepted that NO course is really the product of one mind, and every architect benefits from outside help [some or most of which he brings to the table and pays for], then these threads could be put into proper context and would not generate 1/10 of the controversy [and bandwidth] that they do.

However, if that is Tom MacWood's real goal, then why the hell would he title his own thread "Who Designed Shawnee?" instead of "Who Helped Tillinghast at Shawnee?"

Regarding your Stonewall example, I've never had any trouble sharing the story of how I wound up with the job, and what I changed from Mr. Fazio's routing for the project.  Still, context is important ... you made it sound as if I depended on Mr. Fazio for most of the heavy lifting, when in truth, I would have preferred to look at other options, but the permits had already been pulled and I would not have been able to change any more of the routing without a significant delay that would never have been considered.  Indeed, the main reason we got the job was that I convinced them that Gil and I could get the course built on a very fast track schedule and for a very tight budget.

[Phil_the_Author]

Lets be real David, YOU stated that Tom didn't call me a liar. Whebn he again did so and admitted that he had made the "accusation" you won't own up to having been at least wrong.

And lets be real about another thing. You didn't ask me to "address my requests for you to support your argument" you asked me to do exactly what you attacked Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison for doing on the Merion Threads and have also criticized Mike for doing on others, that is, revealing privileged information from the board minutes and other documents and not sharing them with all when they shouldn't have and then not posting them on here.

You also didn't and weren't simply "curious enough to ask Phil some questions and he became indignant and refused to answer" on the other thread. Again, I refused to provide you the proofs that you were demanding because I cannot and told you and Tom over and over.

You didn't just ask me what I knew, you asked me AFTER I posted that I had been given access to everything and ALSO stated that that I would honor my agreement with owner and club and not reveal or publish any of their contents until given permission to do which will be after the book comes out. You and Tom won't accept that I am doing the right and honorable thing y the club and owner. Sorry, but neither of you have gone to them and asked for permission to examine their archives now have you? So Tom calls me a liar and you describe me as disingenuous for not postinmg what I shouldn't and therefore becoming a liar to those who trusted me.

You are convenient in your views.

"Is it nonsense to ask Phil questions about his supposed area of expertise?"

No it isn't. There are times, such as the above, where I am prevented from answering. There are other occasions, such as those where tom demanded i provide proof of things and Irefused to because it invovled projects that I was/am working on that are not yet ready for publishing. Don't take offense at that david, because you yourself refused to publish your Merion IMO piece until you were ready to do so. I asked for an advance peak via email and you tuirned me down for that very reason. The least you can do is show me the same respect you expect shown to you, that when a no is given that it be accepted with good faith by the one it was given to.

David, feel very free to ask me any question about Tilly at Shawnee that you'd like on this thread. I'll answer it. That you may not like my answer is quite possible, but I will answer and and all.

I won't do that for Tom Macwood. I will not answer a single question of his until he apologizes for calling me a liar numerous times when I never did. I am CLEARLY owed that from him... By the way, ask him why he never responded to my proof on the other thread where he stated that he hadn't been reading any of my posts and had been purposefully ignoring them yet somehow seemed to respond to all of them? He needs to apologize for that pile of nonsense as well...

Finally David, I have no problem ever admitting when I am wrong, especially as it happens far too often. As I started with above you were definitely wrong in your insistence that Tom did not accuse me of lying. He did and admitted that he had made that accusation after you made your post. Admit you were wrong in that David, you owe me that...

[DMoriarty]

Phil,  I don't know what your problem is, but I'm sure it hasn't much to do with me.   
-- I don't think Tom MacWood called you a liar, but he can speak for himself on the issue.
-- I did NOT ask you to divulge anything.  I asked you to explain.  Surely you are allowed to discuss these documents, are you not?  If not, then you have no business saying a single word about Shawnee here or anywhere else.
-- I was curious and remain curious.  Why do you suppose I pulled up all those snippets if I wasn't curious?

You are out of line Phil, and just making crap up and attributing motives to me that aren't mine.  If you've got a problem with Tom MacWood that is between the two of you.  On this thread and with this issue I've done nothing remotely like what you describe.  If anything, I've done much more to support your conclusions than you, which is pretty sad.

So get off your high horse.   

___________________________

Tom,

I can't speak for TomM, but I think the issue of Tillinghast's involvement at Shawnee is worth discussing.   

As for the Stonewall example, I didn't intend to imply that you depended on Fazio for the heavy lifting or that you weren't interested in other options.   As for you being locked into certain aspects of the routing because of permitting and such, that too is a relevant part of the story.  Either you had told me this before or I read it somewhere, but others may not have been aware of it so thanks for clarifying. 

Did you see that photo of the bunker construction I posted above?    Is that how your guys build bunkers. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Revisionist historians are not necessarily good historians.  Guess what, most of the time, published history is correct.

I doubt anybody has doubted the history of Shawnee in 100 years.  Why start now?

OK - I'm off my high horse.

000000000000000
One thing that I find amazing his how they built the golf course over all the archeologically significant grounds.  They would never be alllowed to build such a course, at least as long as the relics were still present.  (See David's post 35 above with the extract from 1910).

[Ian Larson]

Dmoriarty

The stuff you posted is good stuff and it only supports Tillys position at Shawnee. But it's nothing new with anyone who has looked into Tilly and Shawnee. Phil is not on a high horse. I think it just royally pisses TMacwood and maybe, or maybe not, yourself that he has access to the records at Shawnee and is respecting the club by not divulging everything he has on a public forum especially before the history book he's contracted to write is done. If you and TMacwood are adults and professionals hopefully your not too dense to understand that he's not giving it up as he is being professional and respectful to the club. Is that too hard for you guys to understand? Do you guys feel like your entitled to the records he has that you would like to see? Because you guys don't even exist in the clubs eyes. They could care less and would tell you to read the book when it comes out. And that's what your going to have to be satisfied with. And Phil doesn't deserve harassment because he is not giving in to something you guys are demanding. Why would he? Who the hell are you guys? The [self proclaimed] golf architecture history police? Nobody cares what you guys feel you need to know. So accept it or drop it.


TMacwood

*crickets* Bueller? Bueller? Where are you? Shouldn't you be arguing against the proof that has been thrown out on the thread? Or harassing Phil for not giving you what you want or feel you're entitled to? Phil is doing the history book. You can read it when it's done and try to accept the fact that you won't be seeing the clubs records he has access to. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that he is respecting the clubs wishes by not throwing it all out there. Just read the book.


I find it crazy that you are truly doubting yet another clubs history and trying your best to debunk it. And let's be honest, that's what your doing here and that's why you titled the thread what you did.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We all say we are seekers of truth here. And I think we all know that we can only achieve a reasonable degree of certainty with a fragmented record.  I got to thinking how we could determine who wins this arguement, i.e., what the truth is by simply scoring it like a football game, based on the number of primary references actually posted here.  Thanks to Phil and David for most of the material. That kind of post makes gca.com a great resource.

Even that system is not 100% perfect - I leave out the CW reference because they likely used some of the primary references already posted to draw their conclusion.  But, I include Phil as one reference, trusting that he wouldn't outright lie, as some suggest, knowing that when his book comes out, he would be found out.

The system also covers the possibility that one document may be untrue for any number of reasons, in assuming that most of what was written was basically correct, and that there may be a few incorrect ones.  In other words, it presumes mistakes in reporting may be made about equally on both sides of the fence.

So far, the score is:

Tillie - 11
Others - 0

Tillie is pitching a shutout against TMac so far, but I trust its very early in the game.

What will coach MacWood do to bring his team back into the game?

[Ian Larson]

I think TMac made a call to his bullpen to try to bring in a solid closer....or he just gave up. Which is unlikely, but will be interesting...

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

"Phil,  I don't know what your problem is, but I'm sure it hasn't much to do with me..."

Evidently you don't read what you state to me with great care. You've been highly disrespectful and more than a bit arrogant, which I'm sure you'll say about me as well.
  
"-- I don't think Tom MacWood called you a liar, but he can speak for himself on the issue."

You are right, he can, yet YOU chose to speak on it and stated that he hadn't called me a liar. After doing so a number of others on this thread called you to task for doing just that. Yet I'm not allowed to point out that you were clearly wrong to do so and cite as proof Tom's OWN WORDS that he had made the "accusation?" And still you won't simply admit that you were wrong? But you're not the arguing type...

"-- I did NOT ask you to divulge anything.  I asked you to explain.  Surely you are allowed to discuss these documents, are you not?"
Now you are playing with words for how can I "discuss" the documents if I am prevented from revealing what they say? I can only state what they generally contain (that I am allowed to do) and when I had done so am vilified by you and Tom for not giving sum and substance of what they stated. All can go back and look what you posted on the other thread and decide whether what I have stated is true or not.

"If not, then you have no business saying a single word about Shawnee here or anywhere else." That's a pile of CRAP and you know it. I published a brief evolution history of Shawnee earlier this year in Tillinghast Illustrated. Why wasn't this subject brought up then? This all happened because I cited Tilly at Shawnee as an example that contadicted Tom's absolute statement that no serious owner would hire an untested and inexperienced person to design a golf course in 1910. Tilly was both. You asked me about Tilly's other experience obviously as player and writer that would have given him this. You deny that I answered you when in reality you simply didn't like my answer as it was an illustration to explain the word "no."

I shouldn't say a single word about Shawnee? Sorry David, even before the research on the book started there were very few out there who had researched Tilly's work there as much as I had. If ANYONE should comment on Shawnee it is me.

"-- I was curious and remain curious.  Why do you suppose I pulled up all those snippets if I wasn't curious?" I'm glad you are curious. It is an exciting story and one that will surprise many when they read about it next May. By the way, after pulling up all those snippets from the time period, why do you still not refer to Tilly as the "architect" since a number of them, including ones that he wrote, call him that very thing. Or don't you believe what you yourself write when you challenged that any information from the day should be put out here? Why else do you continue to refer to Tilly's INVOLVEMENT as if it wasn't substantial and that he wasn't the architect?

"You are out of line Phil, and just making crap up and attributing motives to me that aren't mine." So now YOU are calling me a LIAR? "Making crap up..." Sorry David, but YOU did say that Tom didn't call me or anyone else a liar. I didn't make that up. Tom did admit that he had made that "accusation" and even said that If I revealed the Shawnee information that I am not allowed to he would "withdraw it". I didn't make that up. I pointed out that you were wrong on what you said, and you were and you are. Yet I am simply making CRAP up? That's pathetic even for you.

"If you've got a problem with Tom MacWood that is between the two of you." I agree with you... So why did YOU INSERT YOURSELF INTO IT? See above...

"On this thread and with this issue I've done nothing remotely like what you describe.  If anything, I've done much more to support your conclusions than you, which is pretty sad." Sorry David, but this also is Crap. Until your post, which came AFTER MINE you had not posted a single thing that supported Tilly as being the architect of Shawnee. And even after having done so and providing actual proof you still won't refer to him as such.

David, my horse isn't high, drunk or even mildly inebriated but that last bit makes me wonder as to what fence you are trying to straddle...








 

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
Why not post the Country Club Life article from July 18, 1914 written by Tilly? Isn't that the best account of the project?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()