The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History

[Mike Cirba]

David,

That's some very good research and a very interesting story.   Thanks for sharing it here.

[TEPaul]

I suppose I had only read a part of David Goddard's 1999 Shinnecock history book---"The Story of Shinnecock Hills," before this or maybe I'm thinking of a preparatory article he wrote for the club before it but I am reading through it now. I do have his Maidstone history book and it's excellent. This book by Goddard on Shinnecock Hills is without question the most comprehensively researched and written book on a golf club I have ever seen before and by a factor of about five. Just the research work he did involving the 19th century development of the entire area is amazing, but the history and evolution of the club, the clubhouse, and the courses is just amazing in its research and detail. So is the history of the professionals of the club (the combined tenures of two back to back pros, Charlie Thom and Don Macdougal spanned over ninety years). The early course's evolution and iterations is amazing as is the lead-in to the Macdonald/Raynor course. That's as far as I've gotten so far. To say the parceling together over time of the land that is today Shinnecock is complex is putting it mildly.

There was one hole (Ben Nevis) in the later evolution of the old course (the White Course) that had to be the longest hole in the world at the time at 603 yards and uphill.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

If you want to give us running updates on what you have finally gotten around to reading, perhaps you should start your own thread for that.  

That said, I am a bit surprised that you are just now getting around to reading Mr. Goddard's book, and am also surprised that Mr. Goddard's book is obviously your only source of information on the origins of golf at the club.  And if you are only parroting Goddard, a source you hadn't even yet bothered to thoroughly read, then I don't understand a few of your representations:

-  What happened to that USGA article you claimed you had?  The one that supposedly had covered all of this and figured it all out?  

-  Why did you hold Wayne and yourself out as some sort of experts on the early origins of Shinnecock, claiming that your unpublished manuscript accurately covered the early origins of the course?  It is obvious that you are just parroting Goddard.  

-  Why did you insist that I should have come to you guys for help before posting above?  After the crap you guys have pulled, you have the nerve to claim I should have come to you guys about Shinnecock?  A course to which neither of you even belong?  And about a portion of the history that you only know from someone else's book?Preposterous.

- And same goes for your supposed offer to help me, and your pleas for "COLLABORATION." While you worked hard to create the impression otherwise, you obviously haven't done any research of your own.  So what help could you possibly offer me?  Were you going to read me portions of Goddard's book?   Were you going to blindly state Mr. Goddards' conclusions as if they were Gospel?  Sorry Tom, but I prefer to go straight to the source material, so your parroting someone else's hard work as if it was your own would have been of no real help to me, and is by no means "COLLABORATION."  Representing it as such is embarrassing.

Buying a club history in a pro shop does not make you an expert on the history of that club, especially when you haven't even bothered to read it.  

As for Mr. Goddard, I have no doubt that generally his history of Shinnecock is excellent.   But surely Mr. Goddard understands that sometimes new information becomes available, and such information often leads to a different but more accurate understanding of what really happened.   In fact any self respecting researcher and/or historian must necessarily realize this, as it is the basis of what they do.   Yet you obviously do not believe it or understand it.    You'd rather just cling to your various club histories as  infallible sources of absolute and final truths. 

[Mike Cirba]

I had so hoped I was wrong this time...

Oh well...

And to all a good night.

[TEPaul]

"As for Mr. Goddard, I have no doubt that generally his history of Shinnecock is excellent.   But surely Mr. Goddard understands that sometimes new information becomes available, and such information often leads to a different but more accurate understanding of what really happened."



Knowing Mr. Goddard I'm quite sure he does understand that being the excellent historian he is but what new information on the history of Shinnecock GC has become available that is not in Goddard's 1999 book "The Story of Shinnecock Hills?"

[TEPaul]

What new information on the origins of golf in the Shinnecock Hills has become available that Shinnecock GC or David Goddard's account of it should address?

There had been two major architectural mis-attributions regarding Shinnecock's courses that were inaccurate.

1. The Willie Davis and Willie Dunn attribution
2. The attribution of the present course to Dick Wilson

Goddard's account that was generated by the club has corrected those two mis-attributions and set the Shinnecock record and history straight on them in some considerable detail.

[Chris Shaida]

DMoriarity,

I very much enjoyed reading your post.  How about a picture of Willie Dunn for 'color'



and how about a picture of Willie's clubmaking shop at Ardsley circa 1898

[Chris Shaida]

(sorry about the different sizes of the pictures above)

here is another one of Willie laying out a hole at Ardsley in 1897



(btw, there were similar willie shenanigans at Ardsley immeidately after the period described above, since WIllie Dunn became the professional at Ardsley in 1896-7 and it's pretty clear that he layed out both the original 9 and then the additional 9 a year later.  Willie Tucker showed up several years later to replace Dunn as professional and kept tinkering with the holes until 10 years later the course was materially different.  Ah well...)

[Chris Shaida]

a bigger version of the picture of Willie Dunn

[TEPaul]

To begin to check the accuracy and credibility of Willie Dunn's own account of his involvement with Shinnecock, a basic timeline should be put into place comparing the dates and timing of his account against the dates and timing of the development of the Shinnecock Club itself.

One irony of this is that Willie Dunn may never have actually done that since he wrote his own account of his involvement with Shinnecock many years after the fact.

And there are probably some other timeline events that could be compared.

For instance, it has been reported over time that Mead and Cryder and perhaps W.K. Vanderbilt as well first met and saw Willie Dunn give a demonstration of golf at the Chasm Hole at Biarritz France in the winter of 1890-91. But yet Dunn's account of his arrival at Shinnecock at the behest of Vanderbilt is given as March, 1890.

So, when exactly did Mead and Cryder and perhaps W.K. Vanderbilt actually meet Willie Dunn to watch him give that demonstration of golf at the Chasm Hole in Biarritz France? Goddard's account say the winter of 1890-91. Willie Dunn's account does not seem to be particularly date specific other than to say it was just after he completed the Biarritz golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Chris,

I am glad you enjoyed the posts, and thanks for posting the old pictures.   

Dunn's Ardsley Park project sounds very interesting.   I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell it may have been the first ever large scale, costs-be-damned construction project in America.

I was actually considering starting a thread on this but hope to get a chance to do a bit more research first.

Again thanks for the photos and the kind words.

- DM
_______________________________________________


TEPaul,

You should really stop this foolishness and simply read what I have written above.  It will answer your questions about the differences between my account and Mr. Goddard's, as well as when Dunn came to Shinnecock.

While you claim (based on Goddard) that Dunn did not come to Shinnecock until 1894, it was actually 1893, which is when DUNN (not Davis) laid out the 12 hole course, using a few holes (or at least corridors) from the previous Davis nine hole course.  Dunn laid out a new women's course as well.

While you claim (again based on Goddard) that it was Davis who laid out the 12 course, multiple contemporaneous sources indicate that the Davis course was a 9-hole course.   Some of it was abandoned when Dunn laid out the 12 hole course you erroneously attribute to Dunn.   Likewise, while you seem to think that Davis returned to Shinnecock in 1892 and laid out the women's course marked off on the 1893 map, the first women's course was reportedly laid out by Davis on the other side of the railroad tracks in 1891. 

As for Dunn's account.  He has the date of his arrival wrong but three years.  He reportedly came over in 1893, not 1890.

As for the timing of the trips, you obviously haven't haven't even bothered to look at Parrish's first hand account of these events either.  Because he also places Mead's trip to Le Phare in the winter of 1890-1891 and notes that he too was overseas (in Italy) at the same time.   Mead was a frequent traveler and was in France both that winter and the next, returning in May both years.  Vanderbuilt sailed back from Portugal in the May of 1891.   Parrish returned earlier in the spring of that year, and was abroad again in 1893.   

This is really ridiculous TEPaul.   

You insert yourself into these things, claiming some sort of expertise, yet you haven't even bothered to do even the most basic research or to even read what I wrote.  Are you really so shockingly insecure that must try to tear down my what you HAVEN'T EVEN READ, and take over the thread?

It is really pathetic.



seems that Dunn's worl

[TEPaul]

Regarding your #38, it is true that the Shinnecock presentation (Goddard's) disagrees with you that it was Dunn who laid out the original twelve hole course. Shinnecock's presentation is that Willie Davis laid out nine holes in 1891 for men and a short course for women and that Davis laid out an additional three holes for the men's course in 1892 making the men's course twelve holes and perhaps moved the women's course from south of the railroad tracks to north of the clubhouse. Shinnecock believes Davis moved to Newport in 1892 and laid out their original nine hole course (which Dunn actually took credit for as well). They do not believe they had a golf professional in 1893 even though they did have a couple of possibilities lined up such as Robert Foulis but that fell through. They believe Dunn came to Shinnecock in 1894 and added six more holes to make the men's course (White course) eighteen holes.

You asked in your post what others felt about your version and the above is how some of it does not square with Shinnecock's (Goddard's) presentation of the history of that time in their architectural development.

If you didn't want to know and understand that then what is it you want to know and understand about Shinnecock's golf origins and its architectural history?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Had you ever read my presentation above, you would know what my purposes are.  

One of my purposes was to figure out the roles played by Willie Dunn and Willie Davis in the early origins of golf Shinnecock.   Another was to point out how these things become confused over the years, and how sometimes even sources that one would expect to be extremely reliable might still get important points wrong.

As for the former, I am confident that the version I have presented above is what actually happened at Shinnecock, but I am always willing to consider additional contemporaneous source material.  You obviously have nothing to offer on this front.

As to the latter, you help make my case for me by confirming that even Mr. Goddard, who by reputation is an excellent researcher and writer, was mistaken about a number of details.  Beyond that you have nothing to contribute, except that you continue to provide a perfect example of how NOT to approach historical research.  

As for what you call "Shinnecock's presentation of their history," don't you mean your presentation of Shinnecock's history, based on a book you bought in the pro shop?   Because I have absolutely zero interest in that.  

When it comes to which Willie did what and when, and figuring if Dunn or Davis designed the dozen, I know what happened at Shinnecock, because I have put in the time and effort to figure it out for myself.    I know this is a foreign concept to you but it is called historical research and analysis.  You should try it some time.  

If I want to know more about how Shinnecock views their own history, then I will track down Mr. Goddard, or some actual expert at the club.  Or if I want to know more about Goddard's book, I'll either find someone more trust worthy and less pompous to tell me about it, or I will obtain the book myself.   But at this point, there is no need.   Because when it comes to the issue about which I was curious, I figured it out for myself.  

But TEPaul, what are you trying to accomplish on this thread?   So far as I can tell it involves undermining my presentation above (even though you haven't even read it) and holding yourself out as an expert on Shinnecock when you are obviously not.    That and your usual insecurity that causes you to inject yourself into the middle of everything no matter how inappropriate that may be.  

[TEPaul]

"As to the latter, you help make my case for me by confirming that even Mr. Goddard, who by reputation is an excellent researcher and writer, was mistaken about a number of details."


What details do you think Goddard is mistaken about?

[DMoriarty]

Regarding your #38, it is true that the Shinnecock presentation (Goddard's) disagrees with you that it was Dunn who laid out the original twelve hole course. Shinnecock's presentation is that Willie Davis laid out nine holes in 1891 for men and a short course for women and that Davis laid out an additional three holes for the men's course in 1892 making the men's course twelve holes and perhaps moved the women's course from south of the railroad tracks to north of the clubhouse. Shinnecock believes Davis moved to Newport in 1892 and laid out their original nine hole course (which Dunn actually took credit for as well). They do not believe they had a golf professional in 1893 even though they did have a couple of possibilities lined up such as Robert Foulis but that fell through. They believe Dunn came to Shinnecock in 1894 and added six more holes to make the men's course (White course) eighteen holes.

You asked in your post what others felt about your version and the above is how some of it does not square with Shinnecock's (Goddard's) presentation of the history of that time in their architectural development.

If you didn't want to know and understand that then what is it you want to know and understand about Shinnecock's golf origins and its architectural history?

Part of the problem with your presentation of information is that you never quite give the exact and accurate version version of what you are claiming to present, and it is impossible to tell what is real and what you have embellished. Remember how you posted a phony quote from Myopia's history, when you thought no one else had that history?  Remember how you embellished what you claimed you saw in Myopia's records?  Well I have no faith that what you have just written is even an accurate depiction of what Goddard wrote, at least not all of it.  

I am done arguing with what you claim other books, people and records say.  Either come up with the actual text or get lost.  

[TEPaul]

"Is my version correct?   Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."



David Moriarty:


The above is the way you ended your version of Shinnecock's Davis/Dunn story.

Why did you ask that question if you didn't want responses on this thread? What was it you had in mind when you presented your version and then asked that question at the end of it? Was that question supposed to be rhetorical and did you just expect that we all just accept your version without some of us explaining to you what we know about Shinnecock's presentation of its history that is at variance with your version of it?

[TEPaul]

"Part of the problem with your presentation of information is that you never quite give the exact and accurate version version of what you are claiming to present, and it is impossible to tell what is real and what you have embellished. Remember how you posted a phony quote from Myopia's history, when you thought no one else had that history?  Remember how you embellished what you claimed you saw in Myopia's records?  Well I have no faith that what you have just written is even an accurate depiction of what Goddard wrote, at least not all of it."



David Moriarty:

I didn't post any phony quote from Merion's history and if I wrote something incorrectly or made a typo and such at some point from Merion's history and you were concerned about it you could've asked me about it and if it was wrong I am more than willing to check it and correct it and make it right if there was anything wrong with it. And the same goes for what I have reported on here about Myopia's history. It is no different with Shinnecock's history. If you wish to vet or check what I have reported on here about the architectural histories of those clubs, you are certainly free to go to them and check any of their presentations or archives against what I have reported on here. 

[TEPaul]

"I am done arguing with what you claim other books, people and records say.  Either come up with the actual text or get lost."




David Moriarty:

Absolutely not. You're the only one on here who demands that contributors to this website must put copies of actual material on this website or not even express their opinion about it and what they know about it, particularly after having read it. I do not subscribe to that philosophy on here and I never have. Frankly, I don't even know how to post those things and that certainly should not preclude me from expressing my opinions on what I know about what I have seen and read at and from these clubs.

Again, if you want to vet or check what I say about that material then go to those clubs as I have and read it yourself. What you seem to be trying to do is get me to produce research material for you that you are either too lazy or too unwilling to do yourself. With your long-term attitude on this website, I will never do something like that for you or MacWood either who, like you, also seems unwilling to go do his own research work at these clubs.  

[DMoriarty]

TepauI don't want to vet or check what you say.  I already know that most everything you say is completely undeniable.

This thread is about what really happened, and given that you have no idea what really happened you have no role here, and should take your schtick somewher else.

[TEPaul]

Well, I guess anyone can just claim they know what really happened, as you are on this thread, but if they've never even been to these clubs and looked at their history's source material, those people who do things that way, as you do, will never have any credibilty. The fact is there are some differences in your version and Shinnecock's version and if you don't even know what their version is, or odder still, you don't even want to know what their version is, you sure aren't much a researcher or much of an analyst or historian with these subjects.

Of course you can just continue to deny that and claim otherwise but very few if any are likely to believe you or that you have any credibility.

[DMoriarty]

What a an absolute joke you are.  You bought a club history in the pro shop and you didnt even bother to read it.  Yet you have the nerve to lecture me as if you have scoured the club records.  Pathetic.

If you have verifiable information that contradicts my presentation then feel free to post the texts.  Otherwise get lost.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

You sure don't know much about Shinnecock do you? You don't even seem to know what Goddard did. It is not some book you can buy in the pro shop, so it's interesting you'd even say that. Actually, this thng you seem to be up to with Shinnecock on here is even more ridiculous than what you tried to do with Merion on here although perhaps not quite as ridiculous as what you tried to do with Myopia on here.




"If you have verifiable information that contradicts my presentation then feel free to post the texts.  Otherwise get lost."


I have verifiable information,  I'm going to continue to report it on here, I am not going to post the text and I'm certainly not going to get lost. 
 
 
 

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

You sure don't know much about Shinnecock do you?

I know a bit about the origins of golf at Shinnecock, if that is what you are asking.  If you ever get around to reading what I wrote you might learn something.

As for your Goddard book, I don't really care where you got it.  Owning a book you had never even read doesn't make you an expert.  

Give it a rest, why don't you.  Surely even you has something better to do on Christmas Eve that to cynically try to tear me down before you have even bothered to read and consider what I wrote.  

Or maybe not.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you have to ask yourself, if anyone other than David Moriarty wrote this treatise, would you have responded in similar fashion.

David,

If anyone other than TEPaul questioned your article, would you have responded in a similar fashion.



I think David has a valid point, if you have information refuting or correcting his piece, present it.

[TEPaul]

"I think David has a valid point, if you have information refuting or correcting his piece, present it."


Pat:

I did that. I presented it on #40 but as you can see from the rest of his ensuing posts the information I presented from Shinnecock's version only promoted him to tell me he didn't think I should participate on this thread.