News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #125 on: December 28, 2010, 03:10:38 PM »
Pat (and others),

   Recently I was approached by an architect looking at a potential renovation of a Philly area club to see what articles I had on the club, which goes back many years.  1900ish.

   I have a copy of their history book from a few years back and noticed the architectural evolution was incomplete.  I provided the archie with many, many articles and he has since showed them to some members there.  Well, at least a few of those members are not happy at all that their history book has errors in it and is missing some rather key information.

   I don't think the identity of the club is really needed, as it could take this informative thread off the tracks (!), but PM me if you wish to know the name.

@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Mike Cirba

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #126 on: December 28, 2010, 03:15:49 PM »
Pat and others,

I should mention that in a perfect world, I would personally love to see all the club documents out in the historical public arena for our dissemination and understanding.

I just know that's not the reality we face collectively, so I think we have to work within those parameters.  

I also think some of us might find reasons to debate vigorously the meaning of all of those original documents even if they were posted here for everyone to see, but perhaps I'm just jaded from watching/participating in too much rancor around these issues.  

One thing I do know...the type of dog fights and processes that have taken place over some of the club histories here over the years is certainly not something that would attract any clubs to want to participate or open their doors or records to our collective desire for knowledge.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 03:18:06 PM by MCirba »

Keith OHalloran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #127 on: December 28, 2010, 03:28:41 PM »
Mike,
If these clubs are "self contained" and not concerned with Golf Nerds on a web site, why would they engage with a Non member who has over 10,000 posts on this web site?

Also,
Te Paul posted this yesterday,

"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"

Since then, many have asked questions that have not been answered because the material can not be disseminated. What do you think happened between that post and the questions that inevitably followed (and could not eb answered?)

Keith

Phil_the_Author

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #128 on: December 28, 2010, 03:37:57 PM »
Pat,

Sorry, but I disagree with some of your conclusions based completely on personal experience with club's and their histories.

To JM you stated:

“Why would you research and craft a club history if you didn't want it made public, it makes NO sense.” First of all the fact is that many club’s do exactly that. There are a number of club’s that desire complete anonymity to the public. Part of the reasoning is based upon personal privacy while another is based upon the PRINCIPAL of public privacy, that being that if they can and do put into the public domain some private information they may be forced in the future, for whatever reasons, to have to divulge other, sensitive private information they want kept private no matter what. That EXACT reason has been stated to me at three different clubs and is part of signed agreements I have with them that allowed them to hire me to research at them and on their behalf.

“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 ?” Once again, there is that privacy issue. Since a number of clubs actually do it, a question such as the one you ask is moot. That some, such as yourself, can’t understand or think their reasons for doing so are valid have no bearing on it.

From your original post:

“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….”

First off, there are several points where Tom’s statements have been refuted. For example, Tom stated “Above Moriarty mentioned I claimed (or Shinnecock claimed via Goddard) that Dunn did not come to America until 1894. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Shinnecock's presentation of their Dunn architectural history is that he came to work on that golf course in 1894 and 1895 and not in 1893…” Yet beginning in my reply #60 I posted a copy of an 1895 newspaper account where it clearly puts Dunn at Shinnecock from the beginning of 1893. This was just one example of contemporaneous proofs shown by myself and others on this point.

Now maybe Shinnecock has proof that he wasn’t hired and brought aboard until 1894, but there are simply too many examples cited that prevent one from simply accepting what Tom says is Shinnecock’s official history on faith. One might do so on TRUST, but not on faith. Yet no one can blame someone for disagreeing with it based upon the cold-hard accounts presented from contemporaneous articles.



 “On the other hand, what I don't understand is the following: Why would a club want to conceal its historical record? What purpose would that serve?” As I said above, as there are a number of clubs who take this stance your question is moot. That you don’t understand the “WHY” behind it is of no concern to them as explaining it would expose those same records they want kept private.

“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.”

No, Pat, one does not, and here is why. David (and myself as well) is working from SECONDARY sources and not PRIMARY sources. If you stated that one should give credence that David has made a strong case to disprove the “accepted history” of Shinnecock, I would agree. But he hasn’t made any real case to disprove it at all since he can only do so by referencing the PRIMARY source material.

This is not a case of disproving what an outside person to the club (Tom) has stated as what the clubs own private documents state to be true, rather it is a challenge to what the club states it is based upon a semi-official or official club history that has been referenced.

On that point Tom is correct. David, or anyone else for that matter, needs access to the primary source material in order to research the question before their conclusions “must be accepted.”

That is why your statement that “You can't refute his research without producing source documentation that contradicts or corrects it…” has no validity for it is David’s job (or anyone else for that matter) to FIRST prove his conclusions to actually disprove what Shinnecock claims before anyone else needs to produce documentation to dis[prove David. You even agree with this, if only without realizing it when you stated, “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.”

You concluded with an interesting comment. “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.”

That seems so reasonable, but then ever since the first club that told me why I could not reveal private information of theirs that dealt only with the architectural history of the golf course, I have come to appreciate that, even though some such as yourself may not “understand” the “why” that it is far more than simply a quirky approach they may have to privacy and that in each case their reasons turn out to be sound and understandably justifiable. And in each case I could only come to that conclusion AFTER the information was shared with me.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #129 on: December 28, 2010, 03:39:56 PM »
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.

That's pure bull shit in the context of getting the historical facts right


The better question is, why should they?

Because THEY, more than anyone else, want their history to be ACCURATE, and not the result of sloppy research.


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.

What do you mean, "it makes no sense to you" ?  How would you know ?  How would you refute the presentation if it's backed up by source documentation ?


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.  

Nonsense.
This is a matter of getting the record straight, accurate, not in protecting faulty or shoddy research


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.

Mike, you're just parroting others.

Reach out ?  Give me a break.  You know that most private clubs aren't going to open their doors, let alone their archives to strangers.

And, why wouldn't you champion independent research rather than plagiarizing a club's version of their history.

We know that PV, Merion and other clubs erred in their club histories.

On a tangential issue, I don't want TEPaul or anyone else acting as a filter for information, I"d rather that the research be done independent of all others.


Kevein Lynch's suggestion is an excellent one, just have the bibiographies made available.

There's NO reason for a club to hide those, is there ?


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #130 on: December 28, 2010, 03:43:10 PM »
Philip Young,

You're more off base on this than you were on the play of the 3rd hole at Baltusrol. ;D

If the club's wanted their histories kept so secretive, why do they sell them to members and guests in the pro shop or club office ?

These histories aren't "classified".  They ARE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, IF THEY WEREN'T, THEY WOULDN'T BE PUBLISHED.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #131 on: December 28, 2010, 03:43:27 PM »
Keith,

Tom Paul's personal associations with most of the clubs in question and his friendships with various members precedes the birth of Golf Club Atlas by about 40 years, on average.   I trust that is self-explanatory.

He also offered to paraphrase Goddard's book here, which goes to your other question.

Phil Young also posted something very good and relevant to the question.

I too wish all this stuff was just out there for our perusal and shared learning, but that's not the reality at present, and likely will remain that way, unfortunately.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #132 on: December 28, 2010, 03:49:07 PM »
Joe,

That's my point, I would think that club's would welcome additions and/or corrections to their histories.


Pat (and others),

   Recently I was approached by an architect looking at a potential renovation of a Philly area club to see what articles I had on the club, which goes back many years.  1900ish.

   I have a copy of their history book from a few years back and noticed the architectural evolution was incomplete.  I provided the archie with many, many articles and he has since showed them to some members there.  Well, at least a few of those members are not happy at all that their history book has errors in it and is missing some rather key information.

   I don't think the identity of the club is really needed, as it could take this informative thread off the tracks (!), but PM me if you wish to know the name.



Phil_the_Author

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #133 on: December 28, 2010, 03:51:13 PM »
Pat,

Just as you were way off-base with your dirves at Baltusrol, you are wrong on this.

Not all clubs sell their histories in their pro shops or to non-members. Secondly, there is a great difference between a club history and PRIMARY source material which is to what I referred. There are clubs that understand that information in previous club histories were either incorrect or, in some ways far worse, poorly written so that the wrong understanding of what was actually meant is caused. I am currently working on a new history for a club with that very problem.

Your problem is two-fold. First that you are attempting to apply a standard of reasoning that appears to make sense to all cases, the fact that it doesn't notwithstanding. Secondly you keep missing the fact that there are a number of clubs that take this very stance toward privacy again making your questioning and belief's of what should be moot.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2010, 03:54:28 PM »
Philip,

Below is part of our previous exchange.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but, tell me this, WHY didn't they want the FACTS surrounding their architectural history made public ?

WHY keep it a secret ?

You concluded with an interesting comment. “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.”

That seems so reasonable, but then ever since the first club that told me why I could not reveal private information of theirs that dealt only with the architectural history of the golf course, I have come to appreciate that, even though some such as yourself may not “understand” the “why” that it is far more than simply a quirky approach they may have to privacy and that in each case their reasons turn out to be sound and understandably justifiable. And in each case I could only come to that conclusion AFTER the information was shared with me.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #135 on: December 28, 2010, 03:55:20 PM »
David Moriarty,

Have you made any progress in getting a copy of Goddard's book ?

The publisher ?

Keith OHalloran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #136 on: December 28, 2010, 03:56:15 PM »
Mike,
As far as Tom Paul's association and Phil Young's response. Point taken, I had not thought of either issue before I posted.
However as far as paraphrasing the history, I am not on the same page as you.  I, and Kevin Lynch asked for a Bibliography, and that has not been responded to. I asked about the book's interpretation of some information that TePaul typed and was told that he can not answer. It just seems that the information is being selectively given. If some information can be paraphrased, why isn't all the information available.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #137 on: December 28, 2010, 04:00:26 PM »
Pat,

Just as you were way off-base with your dirves at Baltusrol, you are wrong on this.

There's not a jury of your peers in all of golf that would agree with you on that one.


Not all clubs sell their histories in their pro shops or to non-members.


MOST DO.
Can you name five (5) that don't.

Why publish them if you don't want them in the public domain ?
We all know that they'll find their way to the public domain in one way or another.


Secondly, there is a great difference between a club history and PRIMARY source material which is to what I referred. There are clubs that understand that information in previous club histories were either incorrect or, in some ways far worse, poorly written so that the wrong understanding of what was actually meant is caused. I am currently working on a new history for a club with that very problem.

Your problem is two-fold. First that you are attempting to apply a standard of reasoning that appears to make sense to all cases, the fact that it doesn't notwithstanding. Secondly you keep missing the fact that there are a number of clubs that take this very stance toward privacy again making your questioning and belief's of what should be moot.

Phil, ONCE a club PUBLISHES their history, it inherently becomes part of the public domain.


Phil_the_Author

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #138 on: December 28, 2010, 04:10:29 PM »
Pat,

I have yet to be told by a club that they weren't appreciative to learn new historical information about themselves. The problem lay in getting it officially recognized even at the club level. For example, the person who wrote the club history may have deep sentimental ties with the club and so they may not want to "harm that persosns reputation" over what, to them, may be a small matter. On the other hand, when a club pays someone a great deal of money to write a large and quite expensive history and the tale of how the club got its name turns out to be incorrect (actual case) this also may lead to both thankfullness to learn the truth and a hard stance against producing a new one because of the cost, thereby perpetuating the incorrect history.

The key to enabling change is in the approach to the club. Relationships don't happen; they must be built over time and, unfortunately for a number of well-meaning researchers/historians, simply will not happen for them because of how they approached the club to "correct" what they percieve as an historical "wrong."

Mike Cirba

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #139 on: December 28, 2010, 04:14:21 PM »
Keith,

I can't answer those questions for Tom but can tell you he's not the most computer savvy.

Plus, last time he transcribed something lengthy here he was accused of altering documents over a phrase he neglected to type, so I'm sure he's reticent to type out any other documentation he may have in his posession.

Phil_the_Author

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #140 on: December 28, 2010, 04:15:15 PM »
Pat,

Just as you were way off-base with your dirves at Baltusrol, you are wrong on this.

There's not a jury of your peers in all of golf that would agree with you on that one.

But there are at least two people at Baltusrol who would!Not all clubs sell their histories in their pro shops or to non-members.

MOST DO.
Can you name five (5) that don't.

Yes, but I won’t because several involve clubs that have asked me to keep certain information private.

Why publish them if you don't want them in the public domain ?
We all know that they'll find their way to the public domain in one way or another.

That reasoning make sense, yet you know there are clubs that produce history books for their members only. That years later an estate sells them and they get out is inevitable, but the club itself does not give them to the public and therein lay the difference.

Secondly, there is a great difference between a club history and PRIMARY source material which is to what I referred. There are clubs that understand that information in previous club histories were either incorrect or, in some ways far worse, poorly written so that the wrong understanding of what was actually meant is caused. I am currently working on a new history for a club with that very problem.

Your problem is two-fold. First that you are attempting to apply a standard of reasoning that appears to make sense to all cases, the fact that it doesn't notwithstanding. Secondly you keep missing the fact that there are a number of clubs that take this very stance toward privacy again making your questioning and belief's of what should be moot.

Phil, ONCE a club PUBLISHES their history, it inherently becomes part of the public domain.

That’s incorrect Pat. Once a club publishes and then SELLS IT or GIVES IT TO THE PUBLIC, then and ONLY THEN, is it “public domain.” Even then it may not necessarily be “public domain” when it comes to quoting from it in another publicly published work.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #141 on: December 28, 2010, 04:31:05 PM »
Pat,

I have yet to be told by a club that they weren't appreciative to learn new historical information about themselves. The problem lay in getting it officially recognized even at the club level.

For example, the person who wrote the club history may have deep sentimental ties with the club and so they may not want to "harm that persosns reputation" over what, to them, may be a small matter.


So, the club would rather LIE and MISREPRESENT that which they know is untrue to protect a member who got it wrong ?

Yes, I've seen that practice at clubs and it's an unhealthy one.
Where does the lying and deceit begin and end.



 On the other hand, when a club pays someone a great deal of money to write a large and quite expensive history and the tale of how the club got its name turns out to be incorrect (actual case) this also may lead to both thankfullness to learn the truth and a hard stance against producing a new one because of the cost, thereby perpetuating the incorrect history.

Again, the club would rather lie and perpetuate a misrepresentation than tell the truth.

I have NO sympathy or respect for any organization that would do that.
It's quite common to add an addendum correcting the error/s


The key to enabling change is in the approach to the club. Relationships don't happen; they must be built over time and, unfortunately for a number of well-meaning researchers/historians, simply will not happen for them because of how they approached the club to "correct" what they percieve as an historical "wrong."

Understood.

But, if independent, documented research is at odds with the club's history, isn't it the club's obligation to get it right ?


Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #142 on: December 28, 2010, 04:56:42 PM »
Interesting debate - a whole page without of comments without a direct personal insult (a few blue words notwithstanding).  I am heartened to see actual dialog.

****************

It seems like some may be getting hung up on Patrick's statement (paraphrased) that we have to ACCEPT David's Treatise unless refuted by presented evidence.  ACCEPT is a bit of a strong word.  

Patrick - forgive me if I misrepresent you, but I think you essentially meant that the Evidence David used to develop his treatise must be given credence unless contrary evidence is provided.  It's not enough to say "I have documentation that says otherwise, but I can't show it to you."  That statement may or may not be true, but it really doesn't help the discussion and can't be relied upon (except through Faith / Trust or the extent it is corroborated by other sources that are presented).  Which is why giving a Bibliography may be helpful, since it may help provide corroboration through external evidence that wouldn't be within the domain of "retaining privacy".


I agree with Philip that it is difficult to provide a complete history without access to internal Club Documents, but their absence shouldn't categorically refute David's findings based on secondary information.  

I've been an auditor for almost 20 years, and there are many different types of evidence available when I'm completing an audit, whether it be inquiry, corroboration, direct confirmation, etc.  I imagine there is a corollary to the types of evidence used by historians (Primary Club Records vs. Contemporary Accounts / Other External Accounts).

To an auditor, direct confirmation signed by a customer is the ideal evidence to support an accounts receivable balance.  But if I don't have those, I don't just pack up shop and say I can't prove anything.  I have a list of alternative procedures I can perform, which, while not ideal, can still provide me the evidence I need.


If you want to provide a disclaimer that David's conclusions were reached without reference to Internal Club Documents - Fine.  Duly noted.

But that doesn't mean his conclusions aren't supportable based on the available evidence (or available AND disclosed evidence).  You want to challenge his on some assumptions made or interpretations - Fine, have a healthy debate about it.

But this notion of "blanket dismissal" because there was no access granted or requested to Club Records is oversimplified nonsense.


Phil_the_Author

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #143 on: December 28, 2010, 05:45:59 PM »
Kevin,

Understand that I am NOT saying that David's essay and the conclusions it reach should not be accepted as important and POTENTIALLY able to correct a mistaken understanding in Shinnecock's history. I am saying that tacit acceptance and "credence" are both mistaken words and descriptions of how it should be viewed against Shinnecock's understanding.

I am most definitely saying that he has presented enough evidence that one would hope if it was properly presented to the Board at Shinnecock that they might allow a "second look," as it were, into its documents to see if the conclusions drawn are correct. This "second look" could be done by anyone from a board member to Mr. Goddard to Wayne and Tom or even David.

If they allow it they can simply either announce a correction or relase a statement to the members (it doesn't have to be public at all) saying that a further study was done and that Mr. Goddard's historical document is correct.

TEPaul

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #144 on: December 28, 2010, 07:33:18 PM »
Kevin and Keith:

I think you two have asked some very good questions in that last day or so or the last page or so about someone like me making information from a club available on here and how to do that. Since then I have had a pretty good "copyright," "public domain" and "privacy" 101 education from near a half dozen very fine lawyers on this subject and some very good ones in NYC (Shinnecock's state). On that note, I should add that in their opinions, the world of the Internet is at this time a bit undefined and unprecedented legally compared to the older fashioned worlds of the traditional print or even video mediums.

That is essentially dealing with the basic legality of it. For the rest, I pretty much have and would like to just deal with these clubs on a one by one and individual basis about how they would like me to treat their material that I have or have read on here that is not in the public domain, and I recognize (as I hope others will) that they are not necessarily of one mind or opinion on this.

I think this is both a necessary and hopefully very beneficial subject for us on here, and one well worth discussing civillly and sanely because either fortunately or unfortunately it really has come to this.

As for what the procedure or protocol for this kind of thing is or should be in the future in just the context and realm of GOLFCLUBALTAS.com obviously this is all a very open question with undefined answers at this time or we wouldn't be having this discussion at this time and in this way.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:44:14 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick Hodgdon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #145 on: December 28, 2010, 07:47:03 PM »
Pat,

I have do doubt that the "1902" date is a typo. All it would take are a pair of single digits to have been misplaced. As he had come down from Canada in 1891 it would make sense that he had returned there when his work laying out the course was finished and that he would then "return" as the article states in 1892 instead of 1900.

Here is another article that confirms the 1891 date as being correct. Interestingly it is a piece of a brief article that the columnist states that the then President of Shinnecock Hills wanted published by the paper. Note what he states about the design of the course and when Davis did it. There was no mention of Dunn or his work in the article at all. It is taken from the 7/21/1923 issue of the New York Evening Telegraph:


A very interesting thread once one gets past the barbs.

Did anyone else notice this article Phillip posted has what I assume is a mis attribution of "Willie Dunn" coming from Montreal to Shinnecock rather than Davis? Perhaps this is a result of Parrish's memory?

Also in a couple of posts David writes Davis' name as Willie D. Davis when a couple of the articles posted have it as Willie F. Davis. David was that a typo on your part or are there articles that show him as Willie D. Davis and not Willie F.?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 07:50:00 PM by Patrick Hodgdon »
Did you know World Woods has the best burger I've ever had in my entire life? I'm planning a trip back just for another one between rounds.

"I would love to be a woman golfer." -JC Jones

TEPaul

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #146 on: December 28, 2010, 08:51:25 PM »
Patrick:

I think anyone who has followed this thread or has a good familiarity with the early history of Shinnecock has noticed that Samuel Parrish in his 1923 Reminiscences CLEARLY identified the actual pro and creator of the original twelve holes of Shinnecock, Willie Davis, as Willie Dunn.

I think the confusion with Willie Davis's middle initial is pretty irrelevent in all this----eg most all recognize it was the same Willie Davis!

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #147 on: December 28, 2010, 09:48:33 PM »
 8)  So what do the SH folks think about the old books on Shinnecock that are apparently collector items, i.e, Goodner, Peper, Parrish, and Lee?  Will the Goddard book be placed in the came classification in the future?

http://valuablebook.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/long-island-golf-clubs-shinnecock-maidstone-the-national-golf-links/

Shinnecock Hills

Shinnecock Hills written by Ross Goodner in a limited edition of 500 copies was published in 1966. One of the most expensive of all golf club histories, it is only 48 pages. The book is blue with gilt and the Shinnecock logo of an Indian head. The book itself is actually not one of the better golf club histories but is valuable due to its scarcity and the special place that Shinnecock holds in the golfing world. The most interesting feature of the book in our view is the translucent dust jacket. It is made of a very unusual fabric. It is generally referred to as the “spider web” jacket because the motif is of a spider web with spiders crawling. The jacket material is fragile and rips easily so it is quite difficult to find this book with a good jacket present.

Shinnecock Hills 1891-1991 was edited by George Peper and was issued in a limited edition of 1,000. It is based on the original text by Ross Goodner and contains 88 pages, including many illustrations. The cover is a green plastic and gilt lettering and has an illustration of the Shinnecock Indian head.

A much rarer item is Some Facts, Reflections, and Personal Reminiscences connected with the introduction of the game of golf in the United States more especially associated with the formation of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This was written by Samuel L. Parrish a former president of the club and is 20 pages and softcover. It contains a picture of the clubhouse in 1923 and an 1892 sketch by McKim, Mead and White.

Another book that covers Shinnecock extensively is Golf in America by James Lee, written in 1895. Although not only about Shinnecock, Lee was a member of the club and he reviews the original, now changed, course in detail.

Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

TEPaul

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #148 on: December 28, 2010, 09:58:19 PM »
Steve:

I would say that that most recent Shinnecock account----"The Story of Shinnecock Hills" (1999,D. Goddard) is extremely comprehensive on the entire history of Shinnecock GC and also deals very well with all the factual and historical mistakes that were made in the histories of the club that preceded that 1999 account. Of course, there is some pretty important stuff that took place with the club and the course since----eg 1999-2010, the most important being their vaguely controversial US Open of 2004 and all that surrounded it.

TEPaul

Re: The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History
« Reply #149 on: December 29, 2010, 09:16:45 AM »
"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."




Pat:

When clubs publish and sell history books I don't see that as concealing their historical record.

On the other hand, you just said above that you understand that most clubs do not want their private archives opened to public scrutiny, so how do you recommend I deal with my dilemma which you also say you understand?


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back