[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

We are not talking about Merion here.  But you have done my research and analysis a terrible disservice by once again misrepresenting it.  
1.  The timing of that trip was surely a premise.  It was originally conceived of my analysis of the Wilson Chapter and then researched and the facts backed it up.  Like in all these situations the ridiculous argument against the premise continued for years after it was proven by any reasonable standard.  (I initially came up with the premise around this time (2006-2007.)
2. Unless we think TEPaul is still in the midst of an extremely long lasting, cynical, and convoluted scheme to make be look foolish by lying about the supposed Drexel documents, then every single one of my major premises about Merion has been proven accurate.   I TEPaul was lying (and if he is still lying, since he has never come clean) then all but one has been proven correct, and that one is still being debated.  I am very comfortable with where we stand on that one and on my work on Merion in general, as the facts are clearly in my corner.  I have more to add, but won't be doing so until I get clarification on whether or not TEPaul is lying about the Drexel documents, and a few other issues are taken care of.   It is only by their blatant manipulation and obfuscation of the source material, as well as the near endless attacks on me, that Merion continues to be a confusing issue.
_________________________________________


As for your other comments on this thread, I wish everyone would just ignore them.  Your posts themselves suggest that you writing out of some sort of hostility and personal animosity, and without much knowledge of the underlying facts.

I find it hard to believe that you could have read my posts on Shinnecock and still made some of the claims you have made.  Frankly, I am hesitant to ask if you actually read them, because if you did the posts are even more off base and insulting that I thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If it was a premise, then I was wrong and I apolgize.  I typed from memory.

There is no doubt the debate about the Wilson trip lingered in some quarters long after it was reasonably settled and that TePaul tried to discredit you.  

There is also no doubt that TePaul was joshing you on the Drexel papers (he has told me so) and has over time tried hard to make you look bad.

Specifically regarding the unproven points of Merion, I refer to you contention that the routing was completed prior to November 1910.  I believe many people still contest that notion based on club reports presented.  As to the interpretation issues, I specifically believe that we generally agree CBM was an important element, but that he was always credited by Merion, and there are differences in opinion as to how much more, if any, he should be credited, semantics if you will.

I already stated that I have not made a thorough review of your arguments and TePaul's counter arguments (even if they consist only of supporting Goddard)  I don't care to get embroiled in another one.  I have apologized and the only reason I responded on this thread is because TMac made a deragatory comment about me which sort of crossed over between this and they Myopia comments.

I stand by my comments that its ideal and usually better to have club records as part of historical analysis, given they are contemporaneous and written specifically to record what was happening at the time.  I also stand by the fact that I am entitled to have an opinion and that there is no way any of that insults you.

Lastly, why chastise me?  Pat Mucci brought Merion into this thread and I simply responded, once again, mostly agreeing with your side of things.

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul,

My collection of golf architecture books and club histories includes David Goddard’s history of Maidstone but not his Shinnecock book.

Honestly, Goddard’s Maidstone book is a bit disappointing because it is much more focused on the history of the club and the influence of different factions within the club than the architecture of the golf course. That’s fine for club members, but not so interesting for golf architecture nuts like us.

I remember Geoff Shackelford telling me Cypress Point agreed to help with his wonderful CP book provided that Geoff agreed to stay away from club history and just focus on Alister Mackenzie and the golf course.

How would you summarize Goddard’s Shinnecock book? Is it like his Maidstone effort or Geoff’s CP book?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

1.  I'd hardly say that setting the record straight regarding Merion was chastising you.  As for your latest post, your recollection about the state of the record at Merion is still seriously flawed, but as I said this thread is not about Merion.

2.  As for TEPaul "joshing" me, that is hardly the word for it, if what you are saying is true.  It would mean that he not only lied about these documents initially, but that he continued on with his convoluted and cynical lies for months, lying repeatedly about it to me, ignoring various requests that he come clean.   And it would mean that he repeatedly tried to use his lies as a bargaining tool and to try and get me to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops.   And as I recall he claimed he could not show us the documents because he had to work it out with the club first, that it was again an issue of club privacy and proper respect showing proper respect for the club.

Such behavior would be unbelievably dishonest, despicable, and creepy, even for TEPaul.  It would mean that he is just playing a cynical and nihilistic multi-month game for his own entertainment, that his dishonesty and manipulation know no bounds, and that he has little respect gca.com mission or for Ran. Either that or he has lost it, and is unable to control his own outrageous behavior.

So you should think long and hard before claiming that he told you it was all a big lie.  I for one hope that maybe you misunderstood him.  

3. Your explanation above sounds like a vague and longwinded way of saying that you never even bothered to read my initial posts before opining on this thread.   If so that is pretty weak, no matter what your excuse for posting on this thread initially.   You should read my initial posts, it might put some of your comments in perspective.

4. You wrote that you are entitled to your opinion and that there is no way that what you have written was insulting to me.   You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but one would hope you would base it on some semblance of fact.   Unfortunately, as is so often the case with you, you just assumed facts into existence to make your point.   And they don't exactly paint an accurate picture of my methodology here or elsewhere.   For example;
- You suggested that I failed in my “obligation to present a reasonably thought out position.”
- And that my research and analysis "can't be given much credence."
- And that I am somehow relying on something other than contemporaneous source material.
- And that I expected my position to have been “presume[d] to be accurate until proven otherwise.”  
- And that I was "passing off logic and presumption" as fact.
- And that my endeavor to get this tiny aspect of the history correct "was basically worthless."
- And that to I have "failed to take responsibility for [my] own writing and background[sic.]"

I don't know, that all seems pretty insulting to me, if only because it has nothing to do with my methodology generally or specifically regarding Shinnecock. But don't worry about it.  I have thicker skin than you think.  

Like I have written many times, if you have to make things up or manipulate or misstate the record to make your point, then you should reconsider your position.  And you really should here.  

Surely you will respond that you were speaking generally and that you were mixing this and Myopia, but not a single claim is true about Myopia either.  Or Merion.  Or anything I have done.   As for your apology, despite your acknowledgement that you were basically talking out of the wrong end of your body, you kept right on doing it.  So the apology has little meaning to me.   It'd mean more if you would read the initial posts, and then set the record straight regarding my methodology.

It is ironic that you chastise me about the source material on which I rely, yet here you are, apparently just making up your facts to support some big picture notion of how you envision things.   You posted around 10 times on a thread, AND YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NO IDEA EVEN WHAT I CLAIMED.  Anyway, if you ever finish up pontificating about the problems with my methodology, you should take the time to read what I wrote about Shinnecock.  It is not only the SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS THREAD, it is also interesting, if I say so myself.

You could have read it five times over in the amount of time you have devoted to blindly criticizing it here.  

Happy New Year.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dear John David,

I apologized for mixing up my thoughts on Myopia in this thread.  Common manners and decency says that when someone apologizes, you say thank you, or reject it if you must, but it’s considered bad manners to use another thousand word diatribe to further describe all the ways you think I am inadequate. 

Remember you made a joke about being like arguing with my ex a few weeks ago?  Mike Cirba jumped in to tell you it was another inappropriate comment by you, but I understood, it was clever and we laughed?  Now, it’s no joke.  You really are like my ex.  It’s the same old crap she pulled and it is simply very unpleasant and demeaning for others around you, although you never seem to care. 

Whether I have disagreed, agreed, supported, apologized, joked, or insulted you, the result is exactly the same – a lengthy, point by point rebuttal, which oddly berates me even when I agree with you.  It’s clear that you have decided that nothing I do will be acceptable.  I have decided that as 2011 dawns,   I must get a new start in a David free, or at least David non adjacent world.

I tried to dedicate this weekend to starting over, but you haven’t changed.  I guess I am naïve.  How many times do people go into relationships of this nature expecting to be able to change the other person, only to be dismayed by the lack of results?

To quote an old Dave Mason song, “There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy, it’s just you and me and we just disagree.”  We just aren’t a good match, and need to part ways for both our sakes.

Don’t worry, David. It’s not you.  It’s me.  Perhaps, it is a major flaw in my character, but I just can’t deal with the more difficult aspects of your personality, such as your constant need to be right at all costs, refusal to budge an inch, and their kissing cousins, constant arguing, insulting, name calling and use of lengthy and logically questionable arguments solely to avoid ever having to say you are sorry or say you were wrong.

I want you to know that I will always have fond memories of our time together.  When some other internet troll chides me, I will imagine his spittle all over his monitor, much like I imagine yours when you become agitated.  I will imagine them with your sinister cackle as you type out yet another hate filled, logic adjacent post!  If I see an old newspaper, or new logic book, unopened in its original wrapper, I will think of you!  If I hear a politician or lawyer parse common phrases and words well beyond their typical meanings to suit their own causes, I will think of you! And I doubt I will ever find another with whom I shall regularly experience “multiple contemporaneous accounts!”

If we should happen to meet by chance in these forums, please do feel free to say hello, even if with your constant companion, Tom MacWood.  We can all be civil in limited situations.

I’m trying to let you down gently David, because for all that has gone wrong between us, I do respect you.  It’s just time to move on to the next phase of our lives.  I wish you well in your future endeavors, except of course, your perversion of trying to sully society maidens, for which I truly hope you will get help.

Yours truly,

Jeff

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

PS - At the risk of exhibiting poor manners, may I add "drama queen" to the list of things I find difficult to deal with you?  Whle "joshing" is too light a word for TePaul's post, your months later portrayal of his attempt at humor at your expense, despite it being discussed on that thread as being a prank, despite some private messages to you that it was a prank, and just the plain obviousness of it having been a prank to anyone with reasonable intelligence and a modicum of social skills should be able to see through, is way over the top.  To feign indignation on this point, after the entire series of exchanges between you two is as dishonest as anything I have witnessed in these pointless debates.  

I may as well add "victim mentality" to the list, since you are obviously ignoring large chunks of reality in to portray yourself as a victim. Yeah, you remind me of my ex more and more each day, and I am sorry if that is the crulest cut of all!

And in light of your apparent inability to understand any form of humor, I will point out, in case you missed the smiley and crossed out "John", this post started out as a prank, a humorous attempt to disengage myself from you to the largest degree possible, while staying at least on casually friendly terms for the good of this website.

At least I blame myself for any of the barbs thrown my way for 1) being dumb enough to allow myself to get involved with these threads, and 2) allowing myself to sink to a childish level along with others and 3) sadly, using insults, name calling and pranks against you when I disagree with you.  

I also blame myself for marrying poorly, and having some character flaws that contributed to the split, but that is a topic that I might be inclined to take on for 40 pages, once I got started, and even without your constant rebuttles, so we won't go there......

Cheers.

  

 

 

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer.

I think in your last post you protest a bit too much. You had misrepresented my methods in post after post without ever bothering to even read what I wrote, and then you had the nerve to tell me that none of your misrepresentations were insulting.   Surely I am allowed to respond to this without you lashing out at me with some misdirected and bizarre marital flashback.

That said, if it means that you will quit blindly pontificating about my methods, then the post is indeed welcome news.

_____________________________________________

Regarding the Drexel Documents, you claim that TEPaul is playing a long-running, cynical, and dishonest game to try and make me look bad, and then you have the nerve to say that I am being dishonest for giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Interesting logic there.   It would be funny if it weren't so absurd and offensive.   Or maybe the absurdity and offensiveness is what I find funny.

1.    I don't play games with the source material and have no duty to guess at whether TEPaul's story du jour about source material is true or false.  It is up to him to present it truthfully, and if his "joshing" or if his story is misconstrued, it is up to him to set the record straight.   He has had ample opportunity to do so, yet he has not only continued on with the story, he has added to it.  

2.   It is ironic that you of all people would scold me for taking TEPaul's word for the existence of these documents.   This is exactly what you and he and Mike Cirba demand of TomM and me in all of these conversations.   You demand that we take TEPaul's word for the existence and even the substance of the source material.   All I have done is to take his word for their existence, but have indicated I need to see them before I evaluate the substance.

3.  Whether or not he has the documents backing it up, TEPaul's story about CBM and Lloyd communicating about the design of the golf course in the fall of 1910 is much more likely (and supported) than most of TEPaul's stories that you guys insist are true.  

As for your IM and other IM's and and posts SPECULATING that TEPaul was lying, you should know by now that I don't accept speculation as if it were proven fact.   Now you claim it is not speculation, but rather that TEPaul admitted that it was all a big lie?  Odd you haven't mentioned that.  And odder still that he would keep the lie going and add to it.  Did you ask him why he is keeping the lie going?  Did you ask him why we was adding to it?

Bottom line is that TEPaul is obviously lying to one of us. But with TEPaul, how can you tell whether he is lying to you or whether he is lying to me?   It seems he would have strong motivation either way.   And we all know how much trouble he has coming forward with relevant source material when it cuts against his agenda.

Whatever the truth, he should have publicly set the record straight long ago.

[John Foley]

Wow - Didn't check in for a while and see this - David that is some very good work - just a shame that it turned into the train wreck it did.

A few questions for the group

Does a routing map of the MacDonald / Raynor course exists? Have not seen one and was curious.

Goddard's book appears to be very rare - Never seen it and a search and looking at some of the rare book places, shows no details. I have Peppers club history book which is pretty weak - but have never seen nor heard of this one. Is it as in depth on the architectural changes on the course over time as the Goddard's Maidstone book?

[DMoriarty]

Thanks John.  I agree about the train wreck.  It certainly wasn't what I had in mind when I posted. 

I don't know anything about the Goddard Shinnecock book, but others have said that it contains quite a bit of detail about the Flynn changes to the course.   
____________________________________________

For those interested, here is the Article written by Willie Dunn and published in the September 1934 Golf Illustrated:

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

This article is an example of Tilly as Editor. He evidently agreed with everything that Willie Dunn wrote, otherwise he would neither have allowed its publication nor would he have written the end page Editorial Note.

What very few are aware of, is this photograph was most likely taken by Tilly himself.

[DMoriarty]

While Tillie may have agreed with him on what he wrote regarding the courses and what Dunn had done, there are a few mistakes in the article that Tillie surely was not aware of one way or another.   That said the article is more accurate than people had long thought,  and I am not so sure that Dunn deserves 'the biggest liar ever' label as one poster gave him earlier in the thread.   

I think Dunn's major mistake concerns the date on which he first came over.   Dunn recollects that it was 1890, but he also recollects that he had just finished completing the Le Phare course at Biarritz.    According to the British version of Golf, the new 18 hole course at Biarritz opened for play on December 7, 1892, which is consistent with Dunn coming over in the spring of 1893. 

There is also the matter of him not mentioning that there was already a 9 hole course at Shinnecock when he got there, and this is harder to understand.   

[Mike Cirba]

Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...

If there is a trainwreck it is only because your mentor (and now you) are sabotaging the tracks.  

I found out some interesting information and so I thought I'd share it.  I don't have to answer to you, TEPaul, or any other self-annointed guardian of history to post here.  
_________________________________
Now Mike Cirba, why don't you ask yourself the same questions for all of the clubs you have posted about over the years.

How about all your various bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history? Did you go to NGLA before you posted those? If not, then why the double standard?
____________________________

David,

I somehow missed this...and really just can't let it stand without trying to understand what exactly you're talking about here and trying to respond.

I don't really want to revisit this thread, but can you tell me precisely what "bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history", I've promulgated here?

I have no idea what contentions of mine you are referring to about the history of NGLA that would not be included in detail in the club's records.

Pray tell?

If you don't want to clutter this thread, I'd be willing to start a new one and hopefully we can discuss the matter.

Thank you.

[TEPaul]

We have been in touch with the club regarding how they would like to make information about their most recent historical work (Goddard) available or if they would like to do that. I believe that recent work is most comprehensive about the details of the entire architectural evolutionary details of their courses from 1891 until 1999 including the details of the mistaken Davis/Dunn attribution. That work is quite detailed in its explanations and in its notes and citations to the source material that was used in that most recent Shinnecock history production.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I somehow missed this...and really just can't let it stand without trying to understand what exactly you're talking about here and trying to respond.

I don't really want to revisit this thread, but can you tell me precisely what "bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history", I've promulgated here?

I have no idea what contentions of mine you are referring to about the history of NGLA that would not be included in detail in the club's records.

Pray tell?

If you don't want to clutter this thread, I'd be willing to start a new one and hopefully we can discuss the matter.

Thank you.

Mike I missed your your post above.   Your hypocrisy speaks for itself throughout all your wild goose chases regarding NGLA, and loudly.    Go back and read any number of your attempts to rewrite NGLA's history, and then tell me again how you always be sure you have your facts straight and always go to the clubs before posting.  What a joke.

Start a new thread if you like, but I have nothing more to say on the matter.   If you cannot see the hypocrisy here, then you truly are a lost cause.  

Good Luck.

[TEPaul]

It appears that club Trustee minutes show that in the late fall of 1891 monies were approved to give up three holes of the original White Course nine that were on James Parrish's and William Hoyt's land and move them onto the club property. At this point (perhaps the early spring of 1892) three more holes were added to the White Course making it a twelve hole course and the Red Course nine holes was moved to basically north and west of the clubhouse. This work was done by professional Willie Davis. That made 21 total holes on Shinnecock land and the club records show that the 12 hole White Course was used by the members in 1892, 1893 and 1894. It appears the motivation was to get all the club's golf holes onto the land that Shinnecock GC owned at that time.

[TEPaul]

I had not previously appreciated how much the Shinnecock White Course changed between the course used for the 1896 US Mens Amateur Championship (4,400) and 1897 (5,500). They added about 1,000 yards to the course. The US Women's Amateur of 1900 was played on the expanded White Course. In what Goddard called a delicious irony that meant that the women played on a course 1,000 yards longer in the 1900 US Amateur than the course the men played on in the 1896 US Amateur.

By the way, Philadelphian Frances Griscom of Merion (sister of Rodman Griscom, member of Hugh Wilson's committee that designed Merion East and West, and the first president of Merion GC in 1942, and daughter of Clement Griscom who owned half the land of the original MCC Haverford course) won that 1900 US Amateur at Shinnecock.

I was speaking yesterday with the world's greatest golf writer, Jeff Silverman of Philly, about how dedicated and competitive some of those early championship women were. He was telling me to get ready for the 1900 Amateur Frances and Rodman went abroad to spend at least a month with Frances under the tutelage of George Sayers and when she came back her mother rented a house in Southampton for the express purpose of allowing Frances to practice at Shinnecock for two solid weeks before the championship.

Obviously it paid off!

[Niall C]

....and she was playing in the Amateur championship ? (insert smiley with cheesey grin)

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Rodman Griscom's golf trip overseas at that time is particularly interesting from another aspect.

Last year we came across an article from 1900 that suggested Griscom had prior experience in laying out and maintaining golf courses.   This article was in conjunction with his appointment (along with Samuel Heebner (who designed Philly Cricket Club) and George Fowle (who largeley designed the first Philly Country Club) and others to a Golf Association of Philadelphia Committee charged with bringing a public golf course to the city.   They evidently planned a golf course, but it never materialized back then.   The articles below refer to the men appointed and the work accomplished.






As you know, Rodman Griscom was the head of the Green Committee at Merion from the inception of the first course there back in 1896, and served for many years, including through the creation of the second nine holes on their original golf course.   We also know that this second nine holes was on his father's farm.

The first nine or the original Merion course was designed by Willie Campbell in 1896 and the second nine that opened in 1901 was designed by...the Merion Green Committee.   That would certainly explain where his "experience" came from.    

By 1903, also serving on the Merion Green Committee was one Horatio Gates Lloyd.   I'm trying to figure out whether he was also there at the turn of the century when the second nine of the original course was designed and built.
 
We also know that Dr. H. Toulmin was one of three men who designed the first course at Belmont, which became Aronimink.  Coincidentally, this would have been the same timeframe that Hugh Wilson served on the Princeton GC Greeen Committee, which was building a Willie Dunn designed course at the time.

Interesting stuff.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You may have missed the title, but his thread is about the Origins of Golf at Shinnecock, not Merion.   If you want to visit with your mentor about Merion, kindly start your own thread.  Thanks. 

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, threads like this one need to have a certain amount of on-going "house-keeping" or they tend to confuse and throw off the analyses of the people reading them.

I did not go through this whole thread and check for it but the caption date for that voluminous New York Herald article that is most all of Post #2 has the year of its date wrong. The caption by Moriarty on top of the article in Post #2 gives it as Aug. 30, 1894 but the article was actually published on Aug. 30, 1891. In his Post #1 he refers to the same article and gives the correct date but in Post #2 that caption needs to be corrected to show Aug. 30, 1891, not 1894.

Goddard refers to and quotes a piece of that same article in his Shinnecock history book and he lists the date of that article correctly.



At the end of his Post #1 Moriarty asked this question----"Is my version correct?"

I don't really know if it is correct or not but I do know it it makes a few conclusions that vary from Shinnecock's latest history. Some of those variations include Dunn being responsible for the 12 hole course (or three additional holes of the original nine hole Davis course). The Shinnecock history appears to conclude that the original twelve hole course was in play from 1892 until perhaps late in 1894 or early 1895 and that Davis was responsible for those original twelve holes.

The Goddard book also seems to indicate that Shinnecock has no record of Willie Dunn being in the employee of Shinnecock in 1893. The book states that the club is not aware that it had a golf professional in 1892 and 1893. It does mention that they employed a steward in 1892 and the book supplies his name, a Mr. William Platt. There is no mention in the Shinnecock history book of a professional by the name of Cuthbert in 1893 or at any time either. And the book does go into a certain amount of detail about correspondences between Shinnecock and abroad (Henry White, the Marquis of Granby---the editor of GOLF) to employee a professional, including Robert Foulis, but the club is not aware that one was actually employed in 1892 and 1893 or after Willie Davis left at some point in the latter half of 1892 to go to Newport GC to lay out their original course (a layout Willie Dunn later also took credit for from Davis, leading Davis to write a letter to the press correcting the mistake).

Others on this thread have supplied a number of newspaper articles that refer to this time and to various people such as Willie Dunn, but on a review of those newspaper articles there is no question some of them have all kinds of inaccuracies with their dates and such. Whether they are factual inaccuracies or typos or both I don't know. All I know is they most certainly are confusing and misleading.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Davis actually wrote to the paper to correct Dunn's claim that he did Newport?!

Are you saying these attribution wars started way back then??

Was Dunn a protectionist or a revisionist in your estimation? 

[TEPaul]

“Tom,
Davis actually wrote to the paper to correct Dunn's claim that he did Newport?!
Are you saying these attribution wars started way back then??”


What I’m saying is the most recent history book mentions that Davis wrote an indignant letter to GOLF claiming that he, not Dunn, created the original Newport course. It says Davis claimed that Dunn only came to Newport “in search of trade.”

It does not give a date of his letter or which GOLF he wrote to. Davis died in 1902 so it had to be before that obviously. It may’ve been to GOLF in England because Shinnecock or Goddard does offer some pretty detailed info on correspondence in 1893 between Samuel Parrish (and Mead) and Henry White, Marquis of Granby, and the editor of GOLF in which the club (Parrish) was looking to secure a golf professional from abroad. The book says Robert Foulis was contacted and corresponded with as was Willie Park Jr in 1893. It also mentions a letter between Old Tom Morris and Shinnecock's Thomas Barber about Andrew Kirkaldy joining Willie Dunn as the professional in 1895. In 1896 there is the mention of correspondence with John Duncan Dunn about coming to Shinnecock as well.

I have no idea what Willie Dunn was with some of claims of architectural attribution but he most certainly is on record for claiming to have done a ton of stuff that he may not have done, including some things that have pretty much been proven later that he didn't do.

[Mike Cirba]

Dunn must have been everywhere.  When the first nine holes opened at Merion in 1896 one account mentioned that the nine was laid out by Willie Campbell with subsequent revisions prior to opening by Willie Dunn.

I'm also not sure what was being done to prepare the property but those news accounts made it appear that the work of opening a newly laid out course took a few months, not days.  They also sometimes spoke of playing on a "temporary course" while the permanent one was being prepared, which may mean temporary greens, I'm not sure.

We also know Dunn designed the nine hole Princeton GC around 1900 and that pro James Swan had also made revisions prior to opening, back when Hugh Wilson was on the Green Committee there.

I'm starting to think that the itinerant nature of these early pros was at least partially responsible for some of this attribution confusion, as each sought to develop and enhance their own reputations in a quickly growing but increasingly competitive market.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

It appears to me that the coterie of early immigrant pros in those ultra rudimentary years of late 19th century golf and architecture in America were definitely men on the move and very rapidly. But we have always known that, haven't we?

I am not aware of much of anything that endured or remains of what they did back then and that is probably the ultimate testimony to and story of the actual and historical significance of the quality of their architecture, or more accurately, lack of it.

My sense has long been that even given that, it may not be fair to them or appropriate historically to also conclude that they were men with no architectural talent; only that they just were not afforded the necessary time and the necessary opportunity to do more or do better.

I think it is completely provable historically that the very best of the architecture of that early time was done by a rather small and defined group of "amateur/sportsmen" who unlike those early immigrant pros did have the time, the opportunity and the money to do better. And they most definitely took that time which the immigrant pro contingent did not and could not do in those early years.

I don't think it was until the beginning of the teens that the immigrant professional contingent began to rid themselves of their secondary and tertiary jobs and dedicate themselves solely to golf architecture that they first began to shine with their achitecture.

Shinnecock's architectural history is actually quite interesting in that between about 1896 and about 1917 the club did a ton of things to their golf course architecturally but it seems only with people from within the club. In that vein, this man now identified in Shinnecock's most recent history, Chester Griswold, could be most interesting. He apparently offered some very comprehensive plans which unfortunately are just not preserved in detail. I also suspect that even though it is not well recorded by the club that towards the latter years of the 1890s Willie Park Jr just may've done more there than we know or perhaps will ever know.  

And with that last bit I would definitely caution all to try not to just excessively speculate and consequently try to make things up from times and people about which we will probably never be able to know that much more about than we do now (or Goddard does).

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

That last sentence is interesating and to me sounds very much like what happened at TCC in Brookline.

I've been wanting to start a thread about the evolution of that course for some time, but...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()