[Tom MacWood]

Every green was reshaped, each tee relocated, fairways were either re-shaped or moved entirely, the course was lengthened and 76 bunkers were added to a layout that already had more than 100 on it.  Every aspect of the original design other than a basic routing was changed. But of course this doesn't clear anything up for you.

Jamie
That is called a redesign; arguably the routing is the most important aspect of any design. And I think the article may have exaggerated what actually took place in 1924. This is what Sean Tully found in his research:

"1924-Tillinghast is onsite and making a number of changes to the course
1.adding new bunkers(61 new bunkers)(GIJUNE1924)
2.changes to the greens at the 7th, 8th, and 11th
3. some lengthing of the course, par stays at 71"

If you compare the 1920 plan to the 1924 plan obviously all the tees were not moved, nor were there many changes in the position of the greens or fairways. Tilly himself said he personally oversaw the contouring of 'several' greens. Does that mean he re-contoured all of them? Whatever the case it was a significant redesign, but a redesign none the less. Let us give credit where credit is due, this was group effort of Locke, Tilly and Bell. Without the important contribution of all these gentlemen the course would not be what it is today.

I prefer facts to fiction and there is a lot of fiction in this article.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Every green was reshaped, each tee relocated, fairways were either re-shaped or moved entirely, the course was lengthened and 76 bunkers were added to a layout that already had more than 100 on it.  Every aspect of the original design other than a basic routing was changed. But of course this doesn't clear anything up for you.

Jamie
That is called a redesign; arguably the routing is the most important aspect of any design. And I think the article may have exaggerated what actually took place in 1924. This is what Sean Tully found in his research:

"1924-Tillinghast is onsite and making a number of changes to the course
1.adding new bunkers(61 new bunkers)(GIJUNE1924)
2.changes to the greens at the 7th, 8th, and 11th
3. some lengthing of the course, par stays at 71"

If you compare the 1920 plan to the 1924 plan obviously all the tees were not moved, nor were there many changes in the position of the greens or fairways. Tilly himself said he personally oversaw the contouring of 'several' greens. Does that mean he re-contoured all of them? Whatever the case it was a significant redesign, but a redesign none the less. Let us give credit where credit is due, this was group effort of Locke, Tilly and Bell. Without the important contribution of all these gentlemen the course would not be what it is today.

I prefer facts to fiction and there is a lot of fiction in this article.

It might be redesign, but in the same way that Pinehurst #4 was "redesigned" ten or so years ago by Tom Fazio, keeping only the bones of the original routing, and changing everything else, that course is no longer Donald Ross's work, it is Fazio's. Same at SFGC. You are trying to assign credit to one designer when every part of his work was stripped away and a new work put down on top of it. The original team deserves no credit here. As far as fiction, I would ask you to show us all, with links to original source documentation, that part of this article is false. Stop spouting off at the mouth and prove something.

[Tom MacWood]

Jamie
I think you have tendency to exaggerate yourself.

"You are trying to assign credit to one designer when every part of his work was stripped away and a new work put down on top of it."

I don't believe I assigned credit to one designer. I said it was a group effort of Locke, Tilly and Bell, and without the important contribution of all these men the course would not be what it is today. Golf architecture is not a zero sum game, you can give credit to Locke and Bell without diminishing Tilly's contributions.

Every part of the work was stripped away? How much of Locke's work was stripped away in 1920? Did the course remain mostly Locke's or was entirely Tilly's at that point.

Did Bell strip away the work of Tilly in 1930?

[Tom MacWood]

I'm curious why Findlay felt the Olympic site was unsuitable. Too steep and hilly? The article claims the fate of two of the world's great courses was affected. Actually three courses if you include the Ocean course at Olympic. The original Ocean course was arguably the greatest of the three before it went tumbling into the sea. So in effect they got two great courses out of the site Findlay thought was unsuitable.

Findlay recommended the club look at a site running south and west of the auxiliary pump station. The main pump station was near the south end of the lake. The current SFGC is not south and west of that station. I believe the auxiliary station was up by the upper lake. The land south and west of that is where Harding Park GC is now located.

I find it odd there is a page and half written about Findlay the architect, who had no design impact, and there is one very breif mention of Locke, who at the very least deserves credit for routing the course. Locke was one of the more important architects in the Bay area, designing California GC of SF, Lake Merced, Lake Chabot, Seascape, Stockton (w/ Whiting), Encinal and Stanislaus. I'd like to know more about him.

[Bill Ward]

I would also be interested to know why the Olympic Property or even Hardings was rejected.  Whether they were even available.   

In reading a little about Olympic, the times both courses were built seems to overlap--a course called lakeside was opened in 1917 then taken over and replaced by both the lake and ocean courses in 1924.  It seems like there may be a lot more to that part of the story and the author never gets back to it.  Maybe I just missed that part.  Sounds as if Findlay had his pick of any land he wanted but that may not have been the case.



 

[Tim Nugent]

Jamie and Tom,  the basis of your disagreement seems to be whether or not the Routing is part and parcel to the design.

Should one never list as a new design anything that was built over an existing course that used thst courses routing?  Or does it come down to percentages?   Now, where it becomes dicey is where a large amount of an existing route is discarded and only a few corridors are utilized.

I experienced this on a design (del Lago) near Tucson.  Originally, Bob Von Hagge had built a 36-hole course that was being grown in when a huge 500-yr flood destroyed the course to such an extent that it could never be rebuilt.  Fast forward over a decade later and I'm called in to design an 18-hole course on the same property.  Since some of holes could only be routed in the gullies (the side-slopes being much too steep), we used those. But since there was practically no simularity between the ill-fate course routing and the final design, this was in effect a new routing and design.

However, there have also been times when a couple of new holes have been added and others chopped up/ extendedbut use essentially the same corridors and although the entire course has been redone, it is still just a redesign.

I gues it just comes down to symantics.

[Garland Bayley]

I have to thank Tom MacWood for making me realize that a piece like this should have footnotes and bibliography to be taken seriously. Without that, I suspect I have to view it as a nice tale, possible fiction.

[Sean Leary]

I have to thank Tom MacWood for making me realize that a piece like this should have footnotes and bibliography to be taken seriously. Without that, I suspect I have to view it as a nice tale, possible fiction.

Why do you say that?

[Tom MacWood]

Locke was the first pro at Sequoyah before coming over to SFGC, but its unclear if he was involved in the design of that course or not.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

Maybe you have the reason Findlay thought the Ocean Course site was unsuitable.   If a course tumbles into the sea I would think the land is unsuitable for this purpose - no? 

Ciao 

[Tom MacWood]

A few years later William Watson, Raynor, and Fowler thought the site was fabulous so I kind of doubt Findlay would have picked up on something they could not, but who knows.

[Garland Bayley]

I have to thank Tom MacWood for making me realize that a piece like this should have footnotes and bibliography to be taken seriously. Without that, I suspect I have to view it as a nice tale, possible fiction.

Why do you say that?

Because it answers all the "How do you know that questions".
Besides that's what they drummed into me a school.

[Sean Leary]

I have to thank Tom MacWood for making me realize that a piece like this should have footnotes and bibliography to be taken seriously. Without that, I suspect I have to view it as a nice tale, possible fiction.

Why do you say that?

Because it answers all the "How do you know that questions".
Besides that's what they drummed into me a school.

Perhaps. But sometimes it isn't possible to provide all of that info, depending on your sources. But in this circumstance, I give Phil the benefit of the doubt due to his track record.

[DMoriarty]

Perhaps. But sometimes it isn't possible to provide all of that info, depending on your sources. But in this circumstance, I give Phil the benefit of the doubt due to his track record.

I don't get this post.  As I understand "Phil's track record" this certainly isn't the first time he has made claims about AWT then then failed to produce the documentation backing them up. 

I think that most who have long read Phillip's posts realize that he is largely an advocate for AWT and his reputation.  AWT was a great designer and deserves recognition, but I am not so sure zealous advocacy is compatible with accurately portraying history.  But I am sure that, whether in a political spin room or in an article on the history of a course, when an advocate starts making claims I want to know what (if anything) is backing up those claims. 

Along these lines, while Phillip's article was well written and entertaining, in it he makes a number of claims without backing them up.  More than that, some of his claims seem to be contradict what others such as Sean Tully have come up with in the past, and also conflict with what we can see with our own eyes --AWT left most of the pre-existing routing intact.   

So without getting to caught up in the details, I think the article begs the questions regarding the accuracy of various of Phillip's claims.  No doubt he believes them to be accurate, but that really isn't for him to say.  He has to make his case and he has not.  I think all the TomM is doing is drawing attention to the fact that Phil has not made his case.   While I enjoyed the article, thought the same thing.

Sean,

You and others have launched some rather pointed and ad hominem attacks on Tom MacWood in these threads, apparently because of TomM going after Phillip in the past.  Did it ever occur to you that TomM might have good reason for going after Phillip on these types of issues in the past?   As I mentioned above, not properly sourcing his claims has become fairly common for Phillip. 

If you don't believe me then try to answer some of the questions TomM has asked using Phillip's paper.  But try to do so without solely relying on Phillip's unsupported conclusions.   

Anyway, it's something for you and others to consider, I hope.

[Sean Leary]

Perhaps. But sometimes it isn't possible to provide all of that info, depending on your sources. But in this circumstance, I give Phil the benefit of the doubt due to his track record.

I don't get this post.  As I understand "Phil's track record" this certainly isn't the first time he has made claims about AWT then then failed to produce the documentation backing them up.  

I think that most who have long read Phillip's posts realize that he is largely an advocate for AWT and his reputation.  AWT was a great designer and deserves recognition, but I am not so sure zealous advocacy is compatible with accurately portraying history.  But I am sure that, whether in a political spin room or in an article on the history of a course, when an advocate starts making claims I want to know what (if anything) is backing up those claims.  

Along these lines, while Phillip's article was well written and entertaining, in it he makes a number of claims without backing them up.  More than that, some of his claims seem to be contradict what others such as Sean Tully have come up with in the past, and also conflict with what we can see with our own eyes --AWT left most of the pre-existing routing intact.    

So without getting to caught up in the details, I think the article begs the questions regarding the accuracy of various of Phillip's claims.  No doubt he believes them to be accurate, but that really isn't for him to say.  He has to make his case and he has not.  I think all the TomM is doing is drawing attention to the fact that Phil has not made his case.   While I enjoyed the article, thought the same thing.

Sean,

You and others have launched some rather pointed and ad hominem attacks on Tom MacWood in these threads, apparently because of TomM going after Phillip in the past.  Did it ever occur to you that TomM might have good reason for going after Phillip on these types of issues in the past?   As I mentioned above, not properly sourcing his claims has become fairly common for Phillip.  

If you don't believe me then try to answer some of the questions TomM has asked using Phillip's paper.  But try to do so without solely relying on Phillip's unsupported conclusions.    

Anyway, it's something for you and others to consider, I hope.

Hi David,

I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.

Is Phil perfect, probably not. Has he made mistakes, I am sure he has. Do I think that Phil tells the truth and doesn't purposely mislead others, I do. You disagree, fine. I give him the benefit of the doubt, partially because I have seen him own up and admit when he has been wrong about something. I used to give Tom Mac thesame benefit of the doubt as well. But Tom always accused people of making things up for their own purpose and benefit and was unbelievably arrogant and mean spirited in doing so. If ANYBODY else on this website did what Tom did with his made up list (even you), I do not believe that it would have been anywhere near as big a deal, nor create the hostility that people have people have shown towards Tom. Maybe that isn't fair, but its the truth. So when he calls people out on EVERYTHING with red herrings of doubt, especially Phil, it pisses people off, me included, because it feels like he is doing it to be a jerk. Some of his questions above most likely have merit. But because of his actions, people can't distinguish that from the fact that he will disparage Phil at every opportunity.

I only engaged with Tom on this thread because I felt that it was an important one and I didn't want to see it ruined. Nowhere else (that I can remember anyway I am sure Tom will find it if I did) have I taken him to task, and even here on this one I stopped engaging him because I felt it would take away from the topic at hand.

Tom is an unbelievable researcher and has done many wonderful things for this site. But he has lost his credibility with many, so when he gets involved on a topic such as this one, it only hurts the thread.

Hope you are well.

[DMoriarty]

I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.

I don't know Sean.  This seems to be the common refrain these days and it seems a pretty darn effective way to escape the kind of critical review that leads to a more accurate historical record.  I am not sure much good can come from a writer dictating his version or interpretation of what happened and then insisting that everyone simply take his word for it.   This is especially so when both the writer and the club have strong interests in promoting an AWT-centric version of the history.

Is Phil perfect, probably not. Has he made mistakes, I am sure he has. Do I think that Phil tells the truth and doesn't purposely mislead others, I do. You disagree, fine.

I didn't say he purposefully misleads others and I don't think he does.  But he writes from the perspective of an advocate, and as an advocate he is a true believer.  And as a true believer he sees everything through Tillie-colored glasses (I prefer the early spelling.)  Intention has nothing to do with it. Mistakes are bound to happen, especially when one has a vested interest in a particular outcome.

I give him the benefit of the doubt, partially because I have seen him own up and admit when he has been wrong about something.

My experience is that depending upon who is pointing out those mistakes, Phil can be pretty stubborn about admitting his mistakes.  But set that aside. How will we (or he) know if he made mistakes if no one can vet his sources or check his analysis?  
____________________________
As for all the unsavory business about TomMacWood, with respect, it really as no place in this thread or any other.  Ran and TomM made a mistake, but their mistake pales in comparison to the positive contributions they have made to this website.  More importantly, it really has nothing to do with whether TomM's questions and concerns are valid. Tom can post on any thread he likes, and he is certainly qualified to critique Phillip's article.  Few others are, so I am glad he is here.  You say that you didn't want to see the thread ruined, but I don't think the damage is being done by TomM.  He is trying to discuss the article.

Again with respect I guess I just don't think it is your place (or Mr. Van Gisbergen's or anyone else's) to try and shut him down or run him off.  Ran wants him here whether you do or not. If you think he has "lost his credibility" then ignore him, but please don't ruin these threads by trying to run him off. Because some of us might feel differently.  

Thanks.  

[Sean Leary]

I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.

I don't know Sean.  This seems to be the common refrain these days and it seems a pretty darn effective way to escape the kind of critical review that leads to a more accurate historical record.  I am not sure much good can come from a writer dictating his version or interpretation of what happened and then insisting that everyone simply take his word for it.   This is especially so when both the writer and the club have strong interests in promoting an AWT-centric version of the history.

Or David, it is simply the truth. I don't think SFGC has a master conspiricy plan to make it more Tillified, so to speak. I am pretty sure of all clubs, THAT one is comfortable in its own skin with regards to who and what they are

Is Phil perfect, probably not. Has he made mistakes, I am sure he has. Do I think that Phil tells the truth and doesn't purposely mislead others, I do. You disagree, fine.

I didn't say he purposefully misleads others and I don't think he does.  But he writes from the perspective of an advocate, and as an advocate he is a true believer.  And as a true believer he sees everything through Tillie-colored glasses (I prefer the early spelling.)  Intention has nothing to do with it. Mistakes are bound to happen, especially when one has a vested interest in a particular outcome.

Bound to happen seems to strong for me here. Whenever you are piecing together a history, there is certainly interpretation. But often times things like board minutes and following the money make it rather clear

I give him the benefit of the doubt, partially because I have seen him own up and admit when he has been wrong about something.

My experience is that depending upon who is pointing out those mistakes, Phil can be pretty stubborn about admitting his mistakes.  But set that aside. How will we (or he) know if he made mistakes if no one can vet his sources or check his analysis?  

What make you think that he didn't have people vet his sources or check his analysis
____________________________
As for all the unsavory business about TomMacWood, with respect, it really as no place in this thread or any other.  Ran and TomM made a mistake, but their mistake pales in comparison to the positive contributions they have made to this website.  More importantly, it really has nothing to do with whether TomM's questions and concerns are valid. Tom can post on any thread he likes, and he is certainly qualified to critique Phillip's article.  Few others are, so I am glad he is here.  You say that you didn't want to see the thread ruined, but I don't think the damage is being done by TomM.  He is trying to discuss the article.

Anything valid that Tom says or questions on a thread about a piece done by Phil is outweighed by the fact that the other most of us think he has it out for Phil and will disparage him no matter what. Perhaps it is not true in this case, but I have no reason to believe otherwise based upon his track record.

Again with respect I guess I just don't think it is your place (or Mr. Van Gisbergen's or anyone else's) to try and shut him down or run him off.  Ran wants him here whether you do or not. If you think he has "lost his credibility" then ignore him, but please don't ruin these threads by trying to run him off. Because some of us might feel differently.  

Thanks.  

As far as I can remember, this is the only place I addressed his mistake. As for Ran wanting him here, I am sure he does. He has been an outstanding contributor in the past. Ran also would have to kick himself off if he were to do so since he was complicit. As soon as ruining these threads, I don't think I did. I asked him to bow out because in my opinion and I would guess many others, that Tom's involvement would hinder it. I then stopped engaging him after he did not (which is his right), as you can see. But now no one else will post and I am guessing that it is not because I am one of the posters

[Mike Cirba]

While I'm starting to regret originating this thread to bring attention to Phil's fine work, I continue in the belief that most here with an interest in SFGC have found it of great value.

That being said, I'd mention two things;

First, it is my understanding that Phil was given unfettered access to all of the internal SFCG club records.   I would think those who criticize his research might find that to be a fundamental and necessary step in the attribution process when deeming to research the origins of any club or course, at least common sense would seem to suggest so to me.

Second, I have great respect for Sean Tully and his research and don't know that anything he has posted here in the past or believes now is in disagreement with the facts as presented in Phil Young's article.    If there is, I would hope Sean might take the opportunity to point that out here himself, but I suspect that won't happen.

In either case, I do hope most folks here enjoyed the article and found it of value.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

[Sean Leary]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

What if it is info from club minutes or other club owned information?

[Garland Bayley]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

What if it is club minutes?

The bibliographic entry simple says something along the lines of "club minutes dated x/y/z". If the club forbids him from doing that, I would posit that the club is perhaps engaging in phony marketing.

[Sean Leary]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

What if it is club minutes?

The bibliographic entry simple says something along the lines of "club minutes dated x/y/z". If the club forbids him from doing that, I would posit that the club is perhaps engaging in phony marketing.

What percentage of magazine articles post a bibliograpghy and footnotes? This is a magazine article remember.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - I enjoyed the article and found it of value!

[Garland Bayley]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

What if it is club minutes?

The bibliographic entry simple says something along the lines of "club minutes dated x/y/z". If the club forbids him from doing that, I would posit that the club is perhaps engaging in phony marketing.

What percentage of magazine articles post a bibliograpghy and footnotes? This is a magazine article remember.

Is it a magazine or a journal of a historical society. My thought was it was the latter. I would say the vast majority of the latter do.
It certainly isn't a wide interest magazine like Golf Digest.

[Sean Leary]

...
I certainly understand where you are coming from. However there are circumstances where information is not available for public view due to the owner of such information not wanting it to be so. Would you not agree? So should Phil not do a topic like this because he cannot completely properly annotate all of the information he has? I think that doesn't help anybody, and many interesting things may never come to light.
...

I guess I don't understand this. I have seen research with footnotes to "personal correspondence to author dated x/y/z". The request is not to reproduce all the materials for public consumption, but just to say what they are. If he is forbidden from annotating his sources by the source, then he should not use it. That source would seem to be a little less that truly forthright.

What if it is club minutes?

The bibliographic entry simple says something along the lines of "club minutes dated x/y/z". If the club forbids him from doing that, I would posit that the club is perhaps engaging in phony marketing.

What percentage of magazine articles post a bibliograpghy and footnotes? This is a magazine article remember.

Is it a magazine or a journal of a historical society. My thought was it was the latter. I would say the vast majority of the latter do.
It certainly isn't a wide interest magazine like Golf Digest.

Certainly not GD, but it is a newsletter type.

Not everyone that reads these things is trying to solely trying to picks holes in the research.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()