[DMoriarty]

That's a nice statement and it sounds good and is good unless of course you and others don't back it up with some concrete actions on here. So what do you plan to recommend and do on that score?

THAT is a serious question, by the way, and one not to be avoided or ignored or rationalized away on here by anyone; and if anyone participating in this stuff seriously tries to avoid it, ignore it or rationalize it away then my suggestion is for you and anyone else on here who wants to be serious with these subjects on here such as Merion, Myopia and Shinnecock et al to go after them with both barrels. I don't have much doubt that you know who I'm speaking of so the question is do you and the rest have the guts to do that on here?

Does everyone understand this?

TEPaul and Mike have decided that my work on Shinnecock, above, is a great example of what is wrong with this website.  

And you all ought to do something about it.   What are  you going to do?

Here is a suggestion . . .  If you think my post on Shinnecock is the kind of "National Enquirer" hatchet job, or a "combo of "News of the World" and WikiLeaks, and that such posts ought to be banned from the website, then please, as TEPaul instructs, COME AFTER ME WITH BOTH BARRELS.  Call Ran.  Call the USGA.  Or go over their heads and call TEPaul himself!

I deserve it.  How dare I bring down the website with my gossipy and trashy contributions.   Tell Ran to boot me.  MacWood, too.  Then TEPaul and his lapdog can get back to telling you all what to believe.





      

[Mike Cirba]

Actually, none of these old newspaper accounts and materials would have been possible if Joe Bausch hadn't shared the Fulton Public Library site here a few months back which has a ton of old newspapers digitized and searchable online, so I think someone should at least credit Joe for the assist.

It's a terrific site, and I think it's invaluable for finding corroborating evidence.  

And as long as this thread was simply about "here's what I found...here's what I think it means...what do others think?" as it seemed in the beginning I was encouraged and even thanked David for presenting it here, so I guess I'm his lapdog too.

It quickly however became a "here's what I found...why didn't Tom and Wayne who are so familiar with Shinnecock find it...I know what it means and need no further input...why didn't Tom and Wayne who are so familiar with Shinnecock find it", which makes one wonder if that's what was intended all along.

At one early point, Tom Paul wrote this;

David:

I did indeed realize that even having just sort of cursorially read your posts. I will definitely reread them very carefully, though. I also just sent you an IM and email about this. I think we have a pretty good track and file on the entire architectural evolution from the beginning of Shinnecock and all their architectural iterations, and I think Shinnecock feels we do too, and not just on the Flynn course. The whole thing with Shinnecock is in the book (I guess that's one of the reasons the book turned into 2,178 pages and counting Wink).

If you want our help with any of this you can have it, at this time, and I sure don't want to see this course and this subject devolve into another Merion or Myopia situation on here. So, I am putting you on notice on this post and on an IM and email just sent that if you want our help on this subject at this time, you've got it.

COLLABORATION!! It really can be a beautiful thing with this stuff we all do and talk about on here!


Sounded like an olive branch to me, but the response was this...

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.  


This seemed to me to be pretty over-the-top response based on finding a few news articles that only recently became available and easily searchable online and that Joe Bausch was primarily responsible for....

I'm not sure why these things fall into screaming matches, but I think we need to consider the history, so to speak.

[Mike Cirba]

David/Tom Paul,

I have no interest in going after anyone with "both barrels".

I'm interested in seeing these threads stop devolving into shouting matches.

I thought the thread was a good one, if the purpose was as originally stated...to present the materials, to ask whether we thought this was a good theory and ask what others thought.

Once it stopped being that, it became a "ninny ninny poo poo" thread of "here's what I found, why didn't you" again, which is ridiculous, especially since a few of us who know that site know that these materials were never available until very recently, and also only available because Joe Bausch was kind enough to share it here.

I complimented David originally on his efforts at putting together a good story here, which was well presented.  

I don't think Tom Paul's offer of assistance or "collaboration" should have been returned with a punch in the face, that's all.

If that's what you guys want to do, just fight...I want no part of it at all.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike Cirba,

Want to see where the "ninny ninny poo poo" began? Look no further than Reply #4.

David's topic was headed for devolution for reasons you know well.    


edit: If I haven't already thanked Joe for sharing the Fulton site I do so now. It's been fun and enlightening on many fronts.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think Tom Paul's offer of assistance or "collaboration" should have been returned with a punch in the face, that's all.
If that's what you guys want to do, just fight...I want no part of it at all."



Yes, what about that offer of "collaboration" (Reply #8) and the response to it? What does that tell you? Does that response sound like someone who wants to have a good discussion about the early history of Shinnecock or does it sound like someone who wants to fight about it, particularly if I participate? Since I'm the only one on here who seems to have Shinnecock's latest and best historical account of the entire history of Shinnecock Hills, I just felt that my participation might be appropriate and helpful.

So again, if anyone has any questions about the details of that latest and best historical account, or even how it may differ from David Moriarty's "version" on here,  just fire away and I would be glad to help out with the answers to your questions.

[Keith OHalloran]

Mr. Paul,
In regard to questions about Mr. Goddard's book, is there a Bibliography that sites the sources he used in his research? If so, can you share?

[Eric Smith]

I have a copy of a neat little book, originally penned in 1895 by James P. Lee, called Golf In America. My copy is a 2001 reprint with a forward written by President George H.W. Bush, where he mentions that the author was the nephew of S. L. Parrish. The introduction, written by Wally Armstrong, notes that Lee was a member at Shinnecock Hills.

Not sure if this helps move the discussion forward or not, but I hope it may shed a tiny bit of light, so I scanned a few pages below where the author writes about the formation of the club and golf course.







I would be surprised if Mr. Goddard didn't reference this book, among a great many other resources, surely, when compiling research for his history book.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Let’s forget about Tom's and David's problems with each other. Tom has been quite disrespectful on this thread to others as well. Consider how he treated me. Go back to my post #60. There had been discussions back and forth on a few points, including some made by you, and so I simply looked up some newspaper accounts to see what they would say. Surprisingly they contradicted what Tom stated about the information that Goddard's book contained. From that point onward he began getting rude toward me eventually accusing me of showing disrespect for Wayne on this. Of course the ONLY time I mentioned Wayne was AFTER Tom brought his name up and when I pointed it out to him he acknowledged that was so. That was not the only issue and if you read through every one of my responses to him you'll see that I treated him with nothing but respect, after which he stated that he "had lost respect for me."

Now that's fine and is his right, but I have since noticed that he has removed that part of his post and removed others parts from other posts that I mentioned to him. Why would he feel the need to do that?

Going back to post #4, which is what I was alluding to when I stated in response to you that the "train wreck" that you saw happening could be laid directly at Tom's feet, Tom has done nothing that would even begin to show that his offer of "collaboration" with David was anything close to genuine. Did David over-react? YES! But frankly, for one who claimed that he wanted to work with David on this in a “professional” manner, Tom treated him with nothing close to one at all.

Mike, we both know that this crap has to end and it all comes down to three people stopping. Each of them is on a crusade to avenge constantly growing old wounds and issues.

One other point and this also goes back to Tom’s post #4. Geoff Childs is a great guy, but he hasn’t been a member on here for several years. WHAT was the purpose in bringing his name into this discussion at all, especially as it apparently was a private conversation that he had with him? That was wrong to do. Whether Geoff agrees with him or not he is not in a position to defend his thoughts and statements as Tom portrayed them. In other words, in my opinion, he placed Geoff in a very bad and unfair position by doing so.

Tom had every opportunity to have a good discussion on here about David’s views and chose to do the exact opposite. If Tom feels so strongly that Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard should be approached first before discussing any of this that leads to 2 questions:

1-   WHY does he participate in the discussion then?
2-   WHY does he believe that before even that is done that Wayne and he should be consulted when they are not members of Shinnecock and they had nothing to do with the writing of the information that is being questioned?

I’m sorry, but I have supported Tom on a number of positions that he has taken on many different threads and been strongly criticized for doing so, and still I stood up both to the criticism and for him. For Tom to have disrespected what I wrote and asked about in the manner that he did speaks far more about him on this issue than anyone else.

One other point. He knows that he is the only person on here who has Mr. Goddard’s book, yet when asked to provide direct information from it he refuses to. I understand that he evidently doesn’t know how to scan a page and then upload it to the site, but he certainly knows how to transcribe what it says. He has been asked pointed questions about the book by others than David and Tom Macwood and yet he refuses to do this. No one is asking him to post private information or Club documents; rather they are asking for publicly published information that he could quite easily share if he actually wanted anyone to “collaborate” with on this discussion and he refuses to do so.

Mike, on this one Tom is wrong.

[TEPaul]

"I would be surprised if Mr. Goddard didn't reference this book, among a great many other resources, surely, when compiling research for his history book."


Eric:

That's intuitive of you. Goddard did indeed both mention James P. Lee's arrival in Southampton, the property he purchased and from whom, some of his interests as well as the 1895 book you mentioned and showed above, which was written by his son, James P. Lee. I am not sure of the accuracy of his statement but Goddard mentioned that book was the first written on golf by an American. Lee, the senior, was a banker, a Southerner who moved to New York and a direct relation to Gen. Robert E. Lee. As I have mentioned on here a number of times, in my opinion, Goddard's 1999 work on Shinnecock, "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" is comprehensive, really well researched with excellent footnoting and referencing within it.

[Tom MacWood]

This isn't directly related to the origin of the course, but it is interesting. In 1895 Willie Park Jr. visited Shinnecock during his American tour and made arrangements to become the club's professional starting in 1896. Unfortunately his scheduled 1896 visit was delayed, and they eventually went another direction. One wonders how golf architecture history would have changed had he taken the job.

[Matt Dupre]

I haven't seen a mention of the Ross Goodner history of Shinnecock which was published sometime in the '60s I think.  I saw a copy in their clubhouse, but it was presented as more of a museum piece than something that could be thumbed through, and I have no idea as to what's in it.

David - did this book ever pop up in your research?

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood,  I had read that.   I have a recollection of TEPaul erroneously suggesting that his occurred in 1893, but I see he edited that post, so who knows?

__________________________

Matt,

My research focused on contemporaneous accounts and the accounts of those who were there.  Consequently I did not come across any Shinnecock history book, unless one considers Parrish's writing to be Shinnecock's first history book.   

I rarely focus on secondary sources in my research.   I did mention the Whitten article and his discussion of a Shinnecock history book, but that was really more to present the current state of knowledge than anything else.   

[TEPaul]

As for the early professionals at Shinnecock, the most currenct history, "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" (1999), explains that after their original pro Willie Davis had designed a nine hole course for men and then added three holes to it to make twelve (Parrish mentioned that may've been done for economic reasons with the thought to eighteen later) and built a short woman's course and perhaps moved it to the north of the clubhouse) he left to go to Newport GC and design the original nine hole course there. 

The book says there is no mention from the club's  records (contemporaneous) of a golf pro in 1892 and 1893 even though the club did have William Platt, a club steward, at that time.

In February, 1893 Parrish wrote Henry White (the Marquis of Granby and the editor of GOLF) in London asking for advice on golf pros. White recommended Robert Foulis whose brother, James Foulis, had gone to Chicago Golf Club but it appears Robert Foulis went to Onwentsia in Chicago at that time.

In 1894 and 1895 Willie Dunn was the professional and he added six more holes to the White Course to make it eighteen. In 1896 Dunn moved on to Ardsley Casino.

In 1895 it appears from a letter to Thomas Barber from Old Tom Morris that Andrew Kirkaldy would join Dunn at Shinnecock but that fell through when Kirkaldy accepted a challenge match abroad against J.H. Taylor who he had just defeated in the British Open.

In 1896, John Duncan Dunn, Willie Dunn's nephew, who had been recommended to Thomas Barber by Henry White wrote two letters to Barber and the second one shows a favorable notation by Parrish but the club has no record of John Duncan Dunn's presence.

Willie Park is asked to be the Shinnecock pro in 1896 but he claimed to have obligations that would keep him abroad.

An R.B. Wilson is shown via USGA records as competing for Shinnecock in 1896 and 1897 and apparently took over Willie Dunn's responsibilities.

In 1898 Willie Smith is confirmed as the pro but he did not return in 1899, apparently going to Midlothian.

In 1900 Tom Hutchinson is shown by USGA records as playing in the Open for Shinnecock but the club has no other record of him.

Jack Ventner was employed by the club as their club maker in 1900 and remained until 1903.

Quite a succession of golf pros in the early days but in 1908 Charlie Thom would come to Shinnecock and other than a brief hiatus in the early teens Charlie Thom was at Shinnecock for very close to sixty years! He was followed by Don Macdougal who was there over thirty years and he was followed by Jack Druga who is still there.

As of a less than a week ago, even though these are not the best of times, the club, in a burst of social consciousness and charity, has proposed hiring a couple of mentally challenged people they heard about on a Internet Website. One of them, a man by the name of Moriarty, will hand pick the balls on the range the sweeper missed, and the other one, apparently named MacWood, will be asked to grub for Shinnecock Indian arrows at night. If all goes well in the first two or three years these two will be allowed to look at the old records and archives although they will not be allowed to touch them or read them or actually to enter all the way into the Archives Room. But if they pass muster for at least five years the latter reward of actually being able to touch them and read them may become a possibility. Of course, if they are ever caught copying, scanning or photographing them they will be taken out to the obsoleted Biarritz behind the Maintenance department and in an even greater act of human kindness and eusthanasia, summarily shot!!! At some point following that it would be expected that either Shinnecock historian, David Goddard, or perhaps their architectural consultants, Morrison and Paul, will write up a single page notation history entitled "The Shooting in Shinnecock Hills" and reposit it in Shinnecock's historical archives.

[Keith OHalloran]

TePaul,
You wrote that is 1900 Tom Hitchinson appeared in USGA records to have played in an open from Shinnecock,  but the club records do not mention him? (if i read that correctly). If that is the case, how does the book come down on that issue?  In other words, do they assume the USGA was right, or that the absence of mention in the Shinnecock record is indication that he was never at the club?
Thanks Keith

[DMoriarty]

As of a less than a week ago, even though these are not the best of times, the club, in a burst of social consciousness and charity, has proposed hiring a couple of mentally challenged people they heard about on a Internet Website. One of them, a man by the name of Moriarty, will hand pick the balls on the range the sweeper missed, and the other one, apparently named MacWood, will be asked to grub for Shinnecock Indian arrows at night. If all goes well in the first two or three years these two will be allowed to look at the old records and archives although they will not be allowed to touch them of read them. But if they pass muster for at least five years the latter reward may become a possibility.

You prove once again that you are all class.

--------------------------------------

Whether Goddard or any other source lists it, Dunn was the professional there in 1893.  You should stop repesenting otherwise.

You now admit that the club records do not list a pro for 1892.  So why did you state it was Davis?

Given these pros were not even discussed in the records, it seems you have nothing to support your claims about the early course.  

I guess that explains why you won't answer my questions.

[TEPaul]

Keith:

I wish I could but I'm afraid I can't the answer that question, at least not to the level that would pass this site's requirements of "verifiable" evidence and proof. Perhaps some of the "old newspaper article" moles/uber researchers on here can find the answer to that one, which we can all argue about for the next twelve months and perhaps come to some agreement on it and then in a massive act of GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com collaboration we can all wrap the answer in a pretty box with yellow paper and a red ribbon and give it to Shinny next year for Christmas.

[Keith OHalloran]

So you do not know how the book dealt with this? Or you can't answer? I feel like I am a child caught between two divorced and fighting parents!

[TEPaul]

"So you do not know how the book dealt with this? Or you can't answer? I feel like I am a child caught between two divorced and fighting parents!"


Keith:

You should not feel like a child caught between two divorced and fighting parents with this stuff. It's not like that at all. This kind of stuff is in the context of "public domain" material and/or "private" material. I am no lawyer or copyrightist but I do know what the people that I've known for years in some of these clubs expect of me and what I can do with their private material I have read or copied and what they would rather that I not do with it.

If you care that much about your question, call me up and I will read it to you. I guess that is OK with them. This has gotten to be some tricky business on here with some of this information. I never expected it to come to this pass and I am sad to see that it has become such an issue on this website with some. I don't include you in that but certainly Moriarty is the most egregious on this website in this vein---in my opinion, of course!

However, I have learned not to try to speak for his opinion on this kind of thing on here and so I defer to him on what his opinion is on it of course. But if he offers his opinion on it, of course I have every good right and reason to agree or disagree with him about it on here or otherwise, such as with a golf club!

[Phil_the_Author]

Shivas,

The answers can be found in the second half...

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Regarding your #144 and particularly the second half of it, of course it could be possible that Dunn came to Shinnecock at the end of 1893 but the club is not aware of that and as far as architectural changes are concerned it doesn't matter if he came at the end of 1893 instead of in 1894. They are aware he came to them in 1894 and stayed through 1895. As far as architecture it isn't possible that Dunn or anyone else changed the course and added six holes to be ready for the start of the 1894 season because the club records make it very clear and in detail that they did not even consider changing and expanding the the course from 12 to 18 holes until mid-summer of 1894. They hadn't even talked about procuring the land that those new six holes went into before that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think I understand part of the problem.  Whether I can solve it remains to be seen.

David and/or Tom initiate a thread on Merion or Shinnecock or Myopia based on the research they've done.

TEPaul refutes the work or points out errors based on his access to that particular club's archives.

When TEPaul is asked to cite/quote the source documents, he declines, indicating instead that the club doesn't want that information made public.

So, David and everyone else are left to accept or reject a position on faith or the lack of it.

TEPaul is under instructions from the particular club not to reveal the details of their archives.
If he breached that understanding it would compromise his standing with that club.

I understand all of this perfectly well.
Many, if not most clubs, don't want their private archives opened up to public scrutiny, so, I understand his dilema.

On the other hand, what I don't understand is the following:

Why would a club want to conceal it's historical record ?
What purpose would that serve ?

It's not like anyone is publishing Board Minutes or confidential memos.

I came to a few conclusions, which may or may not be flawed.

# 1  If a club has an "accepted" history, they may not want the facts to get in the way of a romantic or political narrative

# 2  The club's history may be "shakey", unconfirmed or in the formative stages.

I can't figure out why a club would treat their history as a confidential record, it doesn't make any sense.

So, a secondary and/or reasonable conclusion would seem to be as follows.

You/we HAVE to ACCEPT David Moriarty's treatise until documented evidence is brought forward that refutes it.

You can't refute his research without producing source documentation that contradicts or corrects it.
Even if TEPaul has the refuting evidence, but, can't release it, you have to accept David's researched treatise until such time as the source docmumentation refuting his work is produced.

If a club desires to keep their version of their history a secret, so be it, there's nothing you can do about that, except additional research to try to make your position as rock solid as possible.

Again, I can't understand why a club would treat their history as "top secret"  it doesn't make any sense, especially at a club of note, a club that's part of the fabric of golf in America.

So, to TEPaul, I say this, you're better off remaining silent on the issue until such time that you're authorized to release the information that would refute or correct David's work

[JMEvensky]

Many, if not most clubs, don't want their private archives opened up to public scrutiny, so, I understand his dilema.

I may not understand the subtext of the respective pissing contests,but this seems to be all that really matters.

These aren't publicly held corporations nor government agencies--they're private clubs.They can publish or not publish whatever they want.It's not anyone else's business.

If someone is that concerned with a particular club's historical past,they can pay the initiation fee and join.

Not everyone is entitled to know something just because they want to know it.

[Kevin Lynch]

Patrick -

Are you available to travel to Palestine?  There's a small skirmish over there which could use a rational voice.  

Very impressive summary which shouldn't (here's hoping) flare up too many emotions.  Please keep it handy - it may be needed again in the future!  


As a type of "compromise" I have been kicking around the following thought (and apologize if this suggestion was made and overlooked by me):


Tom - I understand that the club may not want you to release Goddard's written history or internal documents (certainly within their prerogative).

However, would the club have a problem with just releasing the Bibliography?  You referenced earlier in this thread that the Goddard book was well-referenced and documented, so I'm assuming there must be a bibliography.

To the extent that there are "external" sources used in Goddard's history, wouldn't that be helpful for outside historians to further their knowledge while still maintaining the club's "privacy" over internal documentation?  If most of the Bibliography refers only to internal minutes, then I suppose we would be back at the point where Patrick left us.  However, even without showing the internal documents, releasing the Bibliography would certainly give outsiders a better idea where the information came from.

Would that help further the discussion beyond the "stalemate" noted by Pat?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many, if not most clubs, don't want their private archives opened up to public scrutiny, so, I understand his dilema.

I may not understand the subtext of the respective pissing contests,but this seems to be all that really matters.

These aren't publicly held corporations nor government agencies--they're private clubs.They can publish or not publish whatever they want.It's not anyone else's business.

If someone is that concerned with a particular club's historical past,they can pay the initiation fee and join.

Not everyone is entitled to know something just because they want to know it.

JM,

We're not talking about Board Minutes, Confidential memos or proprietary information, we're talking about a club's history.
Why would you research and craft a club history if you didn't want it made public, it makes NO sense.

Other factors are in play here but I can't figure out what they are at present.

Ask yourself, why would a club that's gone to the trouble to research and publish its history, want to keep it a closely guarded secret ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Most of these old-line clubs are not looking for limelight and are bastions away from the real world for their members.   They are self-contained, and most could care less that there are a group of golf course nerds debating their origins on the Internet.

The better question is, why should they?

I also question your premise that we just have to ACCEPT anything, in lieu of official club records.   If something makes no sense to us, or is based on questionable facts and faulty reasoning that isn't consistent with our own interpretations we can and should discuss and debate it here, civilly and with respect.

While I understand that it's frustrating on multiple levels to have some unknown, unseen set of primary source documents and facts viewable only to one or a few who then aren't permitted and/or able to disseminate them to a wider audience here, nobody is going into these matters without knowing those realities.  

In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()