Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 09:02:13 PM
-
I’d always been somewhat confused at the origins and early evolution of Shinnecock Hills, so I decided to take a look. Namely, I was interested in sorting out the involvement of William Dunn, who was an early professional at Shinnecock, and William Davis, the professional at Royal Montreal, in the early 1890’s and who became the professional at Newport in 1893. Each has been credited for creating the original 12 hole course at Shinnecock. Which Willie did what and when? Did Davis design the dozen, or Dunn?
To me at least, the answer to the questions is only part of the story. What I found interesting is how much confusion there has been over this issue, and the surprising sources who may have inadvertently created some of the confusion. To my mind this issue provides a very good example of just how these stories can get a bit mixed up over the years, even by what ought to be the most reliable sources.
I’ll start by briefly mentioning what Robert Whitten called “Shinnecock’s club history”. I haven’t read the history, but according to Whitten, the history credited Dunn with laying out the original course of a dozen holes. So in a 2004 Golf Digest article Whitten attempted to set the record straight, describing the creation of the course as follows:
The original 12-hole course of Shinnecock Hills was designed in 1891 by Willie Davis, a Brit who had emigrated to Montreal in 1890 and was summoned to Long Island by Shinnecock's founders. Shinnecock's club history, which credits the original design to young Willie Dunn, has it wrong. Willie Dunn was brought in after Davis moved on to lay out Newport (R.I.) Country Club in 1894. Dunn remodeled and expanded the original course to an 18-hole layout in 1895. (Dunn had previously added a nine-hole ladies course, called the Red Course.) As the New York Times reported on March 8, 1896, "After Willie Davis went to Newport, Willie Dunn, one of the most celebrated Scotch professionals that has ever come to America, was secured to take charge of the grounds, and a great deal of the excellence which they possess today, as well as some of their most characteristic features, are due to Willie Dunn's ideas."
Whitten’s explanation seemed straight forward enough, yet I recalled having read a detailed description of Willie Dunn creating the course. The account appeared in a September 1934 article in Golf Illustrated titled “Early Courses of the United States” and was written by Willie Dunn himself. Here are excerpts of Willie Dunn’s recollections regarding the creation of Shinnecock:
The Shinnecock course owes its beginning not to Scotland, where the game originated, but to France. It was in France that three American sportsmen, W. K. Vanderbilt, Edward S. Meade, and Duncan Cryder, first became interested in the game and got the idea of building a course in the States.
In 1889 I was engaged in laying out an 18 hole course at Biarritz, France. Biarritz at that time was a small village, and there were few tourists from America. I had nearly completed the Biarritz links when I met Vanderbilt, Meade and Cryder. They showed real interest in the game from the beginning; I remember the first demonstration I gave them. We chose the famous Chasm hole — about 225 yards and featuring a deep canyon cleared with the tee shot; I teed up several balls and laid them all on the green, close to the flag. Vanderbilt turned to his friends and said, "Gentlemen, this beats rifle shooting distance and accuracy." Soon afterwards these men asked me to come to America and build a golf course there. I was very pleased and sailed as soon as the now world-famous Biarritz links was completed.
I arrived in March of 1890, and Vanderbilt took me out to Long Island to the site of the proposed course. It was in Shinnecock Hills, just two miles from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation and three miles from Southampton. The land was rolling and sandy, with thick growths of blueberry bushes in some places. I laid out plans for twelve holes and started work with one hundred and fifty Indians from the reservation, the only available labor. Except for several horse drawn road scrapers, all the work was done by hand. The fairways were cleared off, and the natural grass left in; the rough was very rough –with clothes-ripping blueberries, large boulders and many small gullies.
The place was dotted with Indian burial mounds and we left some of these as bunkers in front of the holes. Others we scooped out and made into yawning bunkers, and sand-traps. It was in these traps that the Indian workemen would bury their empty whiskey bottles. We did not find out this until later when playing the course. One never knew what an explosion shot out the sand trap would bring out a couple of fire-water flasks, or perhaps a bone or two.
The greens were made with sod taken from neighboring estates, using just ordinary lawn grass. Watering the greens was accomplished by placing a barrel on a wagon, tapping at the bottom with a sprinkler attached hose, and squeezing the barrel until the last drop was forced out. These green averaged about forty feet square and were placed on little slopes or in slight hollows, so that some masterful pitching and chip shots were required. The first clubhouse resembled a road-side hot dog stand, and I trained little Indian boys for caddies. These little red-skins took great delight in chasing out skunks, which were very abundant in that locality, often rendering certain holes unplayable for several hours at a time. During one friendly practice game, I remember, one of my drives made a direct hit on a skunk who immediately released a cloud of poisonous gas and refused to move away from the ball; I conceded the hole to my opponent, Eddie Bell – a New York socialite and also a crack sprinter. Another natural hazard was provided by huge bald eagles who would sometimes pick up balls and carry them out over the bay.
The first members of this club were a group of New Yorkers. General Thomas H. Barber was the president, Samuel L. Parrish, the first secretary.
. . .
Did the Shinnecock club history have had it right, and Whitten wrong? After all, this was written by Willie Dunn himself, and Dunn not only claimed to have created the twelve-hole course, he described the process in great detail. Of course a few of his facts may not be quite right, for example his date seems off. According to a number of contemporaneous accounts, golf began at Shinnecock in 1891, not 1890. Also, Dunn’s description intimates that W.K. Vanderbilt was involved in the creation of the club. (Possibly because of this, many of the more recent accounts also include Vanderbilt as having been involved.) But W. K. Vanderbilt was not listed as one of the founding members, and I have yet to find any contemporaneous mention of Vanderbilt having been involved with the creation of the either the golf course or club. So far as I know Vanderbilt was closely associated with the creation of the Newport Country Club in 1893. [Not 1894 as is sometimes given as the date.]
But surely mistakes with a date and possibly a with name are understandable. After all, Dunn was in his seventies when he wrote this, and was recalling events that had happened over 30 years prior. So I don’t think we can discount his recollection easily, especially because he not only remembers designing and building the 12-hole course, he recalls it in great detail. Still though, something did not quite add up. I had always read that Willie Dunn did not come to the United States until 1893. For example, the usually reliable Golf Book of East Lothian, written in 1896 by John Kerr, reported on pages 336-337, “In 1893 [Dunn] left England for America to act as professional to Shinnecock Golf Club, the most important of the among the new clubs started in America.” And I have been unable to find any record of him coming over before 1893, not even a travel manifest. And the first newspaper accounts I have found mentioning Dunn in America are from 1893, including those 1893 accounts of his money match play against – you guessed it – W.D. (“Willie”) Davis, the professional at Newport Country Club.
But then perhaps he was here and I just I haven’t been able find record of it. There were a plenty of Dunns who came over around then, and one of them might have been him. And given that golf was almost completely unknown over here, who knows what they would have listed as his occupation. So maybe I just haven’t found the evidence that he was here. After all, given his detailed description of creating the twelve-hole course, how could it not have been Dunn? Especially because Samuel L. Parrish, who was mentioned above by Dunn and who served as the first Club Secretary of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, seemed to think so.
Around 1923, the President of the club, de Lancey Koutnze, apparently asked Mr. Parrish to write down his recollections of the origins of golf in America, and more particularly, the origins of golf Shinnecock Hills. Mr. Parrish was originally from Pennsylvania and had been a prominent attorney in Philadelphia before moving his successful practice to New York. He had a strong interest in Italian Art, summered in Southampton, created what would become the Parrish Art Museum to house his personal collection, and was actively involved in the administration of Shinnecock Hills and as well as the USGA. If anyone should know what happened at Shinnecock it was Samuel L. Parrish.
By the time Parrish wrote his reflections on Shinnecock, he was around 73 years old, and was the only surviving member of the original Shinnecock Board of Trustees, and one of only four surviving of the original seventeen who met in 1891 and decided to form the golf club. Still, given his age, Mr. Parrish’s account is remarkably informative and detailed, especially given that it was written 32 years after the fact. It is also quite entertaining and included a number of personal anecdotes such as his description of the first time a golf ball was struck at Shinnecock, his story of an early driving contest of sorts, a contast producing perhaps the earliest American example of a ridiculously long drive. It can be read in full by following this thread. Here, though, I am primarily interested in Parrish’s description of the creation and evolution of the golf courses, which Parrish briefly summarized as follows:
The original course, as laid out by Willie Dunn in the summer
of 1891, consisted of 12 holes, the object of selecting that number instead of eighteen having been, as I remember, for the purpose
of conserving our resources in the interest of improving both the
fair green and the putting greens. Shortly thereafter, the links
having become somewhat congested, an additional nine-hole
course was constructed for the exclusive use of the women players. This distinction between men and women players having created a certain amount of dissatisfaction, the new nine-hole
course was soon abandoned in favor of a single eighteen-hole course. Later on, still further changes were made when all the
kind south of the railroad track was abandoned in favor of the
present links, situated exclusively north of the railroad.
Jackpot! Samuel L. Parrish clearly stated that Willie Dunn designed the original golf course of twelve holes in the summer of 1891. And remember, Parrish had been the original Secretary of the club when it was formed 1891, so surely he ought to have known who created the original course. And he remembered it in vivid detail. For example, as you will see in the extended quote below, Parrish didn’t just identify Willie Dunn as the one who created the original course, he also provided many details surrounding the creation of the course, many of which seem to corroborate Willie Dunn’s later account. For instance, Parrish briefly mentioned the now famous trip to Biarritz taken by a few of his friends, where those friends were first exposed to the game. This was presumably the same trip that would later be described by Dunn. And Parrish also noted that he himself first took Dunn out into the Shinnecock Hills and they eventually find a site suitable for golf among the bushes and sand hills. As mentioned above, he even described hitting the first golf ball on what would become the golf links of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. And while their versions differed slightly (Dunn included Vanderbuilt, Parrish did not; Dunn said 1890, Parrish 1891,) the two seem to have been on the same page regarding Dunn’s creation of the original course.
[Continued In Next Post]
-
[Continued from Above]
So Willie Dunn and the club secretary at the time, Samuel L. Parrish, both recalled that Willie Dunn created the original course at Shinnecock. Mystery solved? Not quite. Perhaps a few of you might have already noticed a yellow flag or two in Parrish’s summary recollection. And upon reading a more complete version of Parrish’s account those familiar with Whitten’s version of Shinnecock’s history will notice what else seems amiss. Here again are Parrish’s recollections, including the above quote, but with also the description of events surrounding the creation of the original golf course:
It was then, while traveling in Italy in the Spring of 1891,
that I received a letter from Biarritz, France, from my friend,
the late Duncan Cryder, a summer resident of Southampton, in
which he stated that he and our mutual friend, the late Edward
S. Mead, were passing the winter at Biarritz and that they had
both become greatly interested in a game called "golf," (my first introduction to the word) which they thought might be successfully introduced at Southampton, and played, possibly, on the Shinnecock Hills.
I replied that I was very sorry, but that all my plans had been made to pass the spring in travel with friends in Italy, but
that as Mr. Mead and I were both about to return home we could
talk the matter over at Southampton. Upon meeting there in
the early summer of 1891, Mr. Mead so successfully communicated his enthusiasm for the game to the late General Thomas H.
Barber and myself that we asked the late Charles L. Atterbury, who was about to visit Montreal on a business trip, if he would
interview the authorities of the Royal Montreal Golf Club (organized in 1873, the oldest golf club in Canada, and therefore in the western hemisphere), and arrange with them to have their professional come to Southampton and look the ground over. As the result of this interview, the Scotch Canadian professional, Willie Dunn by name, arrived at Southampton with clubs and balls in the early part of July, 1891, consigned to me.
Immediately upon his arrival we drove out to the Shinnecock
Hills, but had proceeded only a few hundred yards beyond the
site of the present Art Village, where the brush then was and
still is very thick, when Dunn turned to me and remarked in a somewhat crestfallen manner that he was sorry that we had been
put to so much trouble and expense, but that no golf course could
be made on land of that character. We had already turned our faces homeward toward Southampton when I said to Dunn:
"Well, Dunn, what do you want?" thinking perhaps that trees or other natural obstacles were needed for the ground, my knowledge of the requirements of a golf course being at that time
exceedingly hazy. He then explained that ground capable of
being turned into some sort of turf was necessary, whereat my face brightened into a smile, for I knew every section of the 4,000
acres of the Hills, having often ridden over them, riding, bicycling, and lawn tennis having been at that time almost the only active outdoor exercises in our community. I then drove him to a spot
in the valley lying between the low hills now occupied by the houses of James C. Parrish and Arthur B. Claflin, the valley then, as now, being composed of a sandy soil comparatively free from brush, and capable of some sort of treatment appropriate for golf
at a reasonable outlay of time and money.
Dunn then teed up a ball (one of the old-fashioned gutta-
percha kind) and handed me a driver. By some fortunate dispensation of Providence, I happened to make a drive (all but too
frequently failing since of repetition in my thirty-two years of
golf), and the ball went sailing over the embankment of the
railroad track at what used to be the old seventh hole, while we
still played on the south side of the railroad, this then having been
the first golf ball ever struck on the Shinnecock Hills.
It is needless to recall here the experience of thousands, and
perhaps hundreds of thousands, of American golfers since July,
1891, when I say that I at once became a convert to, and devoted ollower of, the game. Upon Mead's return to Southampton at
the end of that week (he was a very busy man) I related to him my
experience, and that of others who had taken advantage of Dunn's
presence in Southampton to try their hands at the drive, with a
result similar in each case to my own, and, with General Barber
and George R. Schieffelin as driving forces in seconding Mead's
enthusiastic interest, it was decided that we should start in to
raise at least the sum of three thousand dollars for the purpose
of clearing the land, making simple putting greens and constructing such primitive accommodations for the players, including a
horse shed, as our means would permit. . .
At a meeting of the Trustees held on September 5, 1891,
the officers of the Club were authorized to accept the offer of the
Long Island Improvement Co. to sell from 75 to 80 acres of land,
on the Shinnecock Hills for the sum of $2500, the golf course having been already laid out on the land.
At a meeting of the Trustees held on September 7, 1891, the
House Committee was authorized to proceed with the erection of the Club House in accordance with the plans submitted by
Stanford White. The original course, as laid out by Willie Dunn in the summer
of 1891, consisted of 12 holes, the object of selecting that number
instead of eighteen having been, as I remember, for the purpose
of conserving our resources in the interest of improving both the
fair green and the putting greens. Shortly thereafter, the links
having become somewhat congested, an additional nine-hole
course was constructed for the exclusive use of the women players.
This distinction between men and women players having
created a certain amount of dissatisfaction, the new nine-hole
course was soon abandoned in favor of a single eighteen-hole
course. Later on, still further changes were made when all the
kind south of the railroad track was abandoned in favor of the
present links, situated exclusively north of the railroad.
Those familiar with the story about how Davis created the original course at Shinnecock have surely caught on. Parrish recalled that club member Charles L. Atterbury traveled to Montreal on business and brought back “a Scotch Canadian Professional, Willie Dunn by name.” Willie Dunn, the professional at Royal Montreal in 1891? I don’t think so and have found no record of it. W.D. Davis was the professional at Royal Montreal in 1891. It seems that the professional described by Parish was not Willie Dunn, but rather he the Scottish (not “Scotch Canadian”) professional at Royal Montreal named William D. Davis. Did Parrish get his Scottish professionals confused, and credit the wrong Willie with introducing golf to Shinnecock?
It seems quite possible. After all, both Dunn and Davis were reportedly there early on. And surely many of us have been similarly confused when trying to keep track of these early Scottish professionals, many of whom shared the same first name, usually “Willie,” and had relatives in the industry. (Consider just the Dunn family, with Old Willie, his twin Jamie, Tom, Young Willie, Seymour, and John.) I know I have mixed up the various early Scottish professionals from time to time, so surely it is understandable if Parrish did, especially because his recollection was written over thirty years after the fact, when Mr. Parrish was in his seventies.
But I find it odd that, throughout his reminiscence, Parrish provided many precise details, such as the exact dates and details from various 1891 meetings, as if he was relying on the club records, records that as Secretary he most likely would have created. Yet he has the name wrong? Is it possible that Shinnecock never recorded the name of the person who created their original golf course in their records? Perhaps. given the original course was reportedly laid out in the summer of 1891 and the club was not incorporated until that September. Also, if Dunn and Davis each were there early on, and if they each did something to the golf courses, then why does Parrish only mention one early professional? Perhaps he just did not see fit to mention that there were others, or perhaps he had combined them in his mind into sort of a composite character with a Scottish brogue. Or maybe either he or the club records (or both) did not concern themselves with such things as recording the names of the hired help at Shinnecock. Regardless, Parrish seems to have been confused as to the name. And so it looks as if W.D. Davis must have designed he original course of twelve holes.
So we seem to have come full circle, and we are back to Whitten’s version, with Davis designing the original twelve hole course, and then Dunn expanding it to eighteen a few years later. Yet what of Dunn’s description of designing the twelve hole course? Was he embellishing? Was he confused, and really describing the eighteen hole course? Or is the mystery still not yet resolved?
As an aside, I hope you are starting to get a sense of just how confusing and ambiguous these histories can become, and how what would seem to be the most reliable sources might not be, especially when interests are reputations might be involved, or when the source is trying to make a coherent story out of facts that he or she may not quite know or remember. We all like a good narrative story, especially one that makes sense and makes us or ours look good. And those writing these narratives usually go into it with some idea of what they think happened and how the story should come out. Apparently, sometimes in the process putting the puzzle together, the facts get bent, confused, mixed up, and changed for the sake of creating a compelling and coherent narrative. I don’t think this is done intentionally, but rather subconsciously, a product of our deep desire to make sense of things even though we might not have all the information. First we figure out what makes sense to us in the big picture, and then we see the facts through that lens, unintentionally nudging them here and there so that it all fits in the end.
As for what really happened at Shinnecock, if you want to know well then you should develop a relationship with the club and then go there and read their records. Just kidding. Before I get to what really happened, I want to point out the one consistency throughout these accounts and of many more not discussed. All agree that whoever designed Shinnecock’s original course, it was a twelve hole course, and that twelve hole course was eventually replaced with a course of eighteen holes. Dunn said so. So did Parrish, and Whitten agrees, and while I haven’t seen it presumably the club history noted the original course was twelve holes as well. So at least we know that the original course must have been twelve holes, right?
Below is what I generally think happened, based upon various contemporaneous newspaper articles including a terrific article from the August 30, 1891 New York Herald. As should be expected by now, even this begins with a bit of confusion.
- In the spring or summer of 1891, golf apparently became a hot topic of conversation around Southampton, but there are two different stories about how this came to be. Mrs. Johnson, the keeper of the Shinnecock Inn, reportedly insisted that golf was brought to Southampton by her sister, who had traveled to Scotland to visit relatives and came back with eloquent descriptions of the game, and that she somehow convinced some of the founders, Charles Atterbury in particular, to bring the game to Southamption. The other story is the one about Duncan Cryder and Edward Mead (the publisher) traveling to Biarritz and witnessing the game (reportedly as played by Willie Dunn) and falling for it instantly, then convincing others back home that they should try to bring the game to Southampton. While the latter story is the one that seems to have survived, it could be that both Mrs. Johnson’s sister and the Biarritz trip both played a part.
- Despite the stories about Vanderbilt having been involved, I have found no contemporaneous reports of his involvement.
- Anyway whatever his impetus, when Charles Atterbury traveled to Montreal for business that summer, he convinced Royal Montreal’s golf professional, W.D. Davis, to come down to Southampton to lay out a golf course and to and teach those interested how to play golf.
- W.D. Davis came to Southampton in July 1891 and apparently stayed about a month. While in Southampton he gave lessons and laid out two golf courses. The men’s course was nine holes, with lengths of 258, 187, 395, 275, 412, 297, 265, 228, and 242 yards. Following is a map of the golf course from before mid-August 1891.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18910815Map.png?t=1292726802)
- At around the same time (before mid-August 1891) W.D. Davis also designed a shorter women’s course, reportedly located across the Railroad tracks from the future location of the clubhouse. The course was reportedly easier and about a mile in length total. Presumably the course was also nine holes, although I have yet to confirm this presumption. If it was nine holes, then this would mean that Shinnecock was the first club in the United States to have eighteen holes, although the two courses were apparently not played as a single round.
- On August 22, 1891, the organizers met to form the club, adopt the club’s Constitution, and elect the Trustees. By mid-September, the club had reportedly purchased eighty acres of land on which the golf course had already been laid out. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club was incorporated on September 22, 1894, and work began on the clubhouse soon thereafter, and the clubhouse was open by July of 1892. (Mr. Parrish’s account provides many more details and is worth a read for those interested.)
- For the summer of 1892, Shinnecock reportedly hired a Scottish professional of their own, John Cuthbert of St. Andrews. I don’t know much about Cuthbert, except that he appears to have become a professional shortly before coming to Southampton. He played as an amateur in the 1891 Open, and apparently did not play in the Open again until 1894, when was no longer listed as an amateur. I don’t know where Cuthbert was in 1894. In fact, I had never heard of Cuthbert, even though was apparently one of the earliest Scottish professionals working in the United States. Does anyone know anything about him?
- It seems unlikely that Cuthbert made any major changes to the layout. As of July of 1892, the yardages on the nine-hole long course were reportedly the same as laid out by Davis the year before.
- Sometime in the spring of 1893 Willie Dunn came to Southhampton. It was then that he must have created the twelve hole course. As one can see by comparing the map below to the 1891 map above, Willie Dunn’s course apparently kept holes approximating four of the previous holes. Something like the original 1st hole remained Dunn’s first hole, something like the original 2nd hole became Dunn’s 5th hole, something like the original 6th hole became Dunn’s 9th, and something like the original 7th hole became Dunn’s 10th hole. (Note that this 1893 map contains contour lines.)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1893Shinnecockwcontours.jpg?t=1292726880)
- Additionally, Dunn apparently designed a new nine hole women’s course, as the previous Women’s course was reportedly located on the other side of the railroad tracks.
The history continues on from there, with Dunn expanding the twelve hole course to eighteen holes in the spring of 1895, and at this time Shinnecock had both an 18 hole men’s course, and a 9 hole women’s course. By summer of 1895 Dunn was reportedly so busy playing money matches and designing courses that Shinnecock sent for Andrew Kirkaldy to split Dunn's duties at Shinnecock. Below is a map of the two Shinnecock courses in 1895. And surely that is more than enough of the early history for now.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/ShinnecockMap1895.jpg?t=1292820301)
And what of the various versions of the history? It seems that most of them were partially correct, but also seriously flawed. Club Secretary Samuel Parrish’s version apparently confused Dunn and Davis, or somehow combined them into one man. Parrish also apparently forgot that there had been a nine-hole course for two seasons before the twelve hole course was laid out. And if the newspaper account of the location of the women’s course is correct, then Parrish also forgot that there were at least two different women’s courses, including one laid out in 1891. Willie Dunn’s version of the history was apparently correct to the extent that Dunn recalled laying out the twelve-hole course, but Dunn neglected to mention that there was already a nine-hole course and a Women’s course already in existence. Also he inexplicably included a Vanderbilt in the mix, and apparently has his years off by a few. I haven’t seen the Shinnecock Club history, but apparently it correctly credits Dunn with laying out twelve-hole course, but incorrectly portrays this as the original course. Whitten correctly noted that Davis was the first to design a course at Shinnecock, but mistakenly thought it was the twelve hole course that was designed a few years later. All these accounts pretty much treat the women’s course as an after thought, as does my version, to a degree.
Is my version correct? Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find.
-
Here is a link to the Parrish work, which can be read online: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;id=njp.32101013501083;size=75;page=root;seq=3 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;id=njp.32101013501083;size=75;page=root;seq=3)
Here is the August 30, 1891 New York Herald Article, mentioned above. [EDITED TO CORRECT WRONG DATE]
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18910830Davis1.jpg?t=1292798585)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18910830Davis2.jpg?t=1292798585)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18910830Davis3.jpg?t=1292798585)
-
David,
I find this write up to be very well researched, very informative and very intriguing. Congratulations to you for putting this together.
-
JC Jones,
Thank you. I appreciate it.
___________________________________
Geoff Childs, it was good to speak with you today. Your prediction was right on the money and your timing was incredibly accurate. I mean we're talking here timing in a matter of hours. You predicted Shinnecock and I predicted Oakmont. You're good, my friend, but I've always known that!
TEPaul,
This isn't about you. So please do not derail the thread with petty posts about how you and your lackeys try to keep tabs on me.
Thanks.
-
"Is my version correct? Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."
I'll have to look through my files that include a lot of research (basically on Wayne's part) of the entire architectural evolution of golf and golf courses at Shinnecock, but off the top of my head I recall that Shinnecock apparently had the Davis/Dunn story pretty mixed up and backwards. It seems one of the other of them really wasn't accurate in what he said about his involvement with Shinnecock. I recall the historically inaccurate representation got rewritten and rewritten in articles and such for years and then finally someone at the USGA relatively recently figured the whole mystery out and pretty much precisely both why and when it first happened.
If I can find that revelatory article by that person at the USGA I will refer to it here. Maybe tomorrow.
Shinnecock has had problems with architectural attribution for years. For a number of decades they actually thought Dick Wilson did their present course because he came up there and told them that himself in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
On a more minor Shinnecock evolutionary architectural note, the other day GeorgeB referred to the 7th hole at Shinnecock as an original Raynor redan. The green is in the same place as it was on the Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock course but we believe Flynn entirely redesigned and rebuilt the entire green placement into what it is today when he created the present Shinnecock course. Do we have any "verifiable evidence" ;) of that? Well, we think so, even though it may need some more investigation and checking. One source is the itemized cost Flynn charged to do it which was completely consistent with his redesign and rebuild charge and the other and probably more interesting source is he actually used a topo contour map of the existing course. Therefore all one would need to do is check that green and its site contour lines today against what the contour lines on his preconstruction topo were to see if they are different and how different they are from the over-all contour lines on that green's over-all placement site.
-
TEPaul,
If you read the posts you might have noticed that my focus is entirely on Shinnecock's earliest origins and it has absolutely nothing to do with CBM, Raynor, or Flynn, or any hole current golf hole. If you want yet another conversation about those things then please start your own thread. Thanks.
-
"TEPaul,
If you read the posts you might have noticed that my focus is entirely on Shinnecock's earliest origins and it has absolutely nothing to do with CBM, Raynor, or Flynn, or any hole current golf hole."
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 ;)).
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!
-
David, Nice research and very interesting readng about one of my favorite courses.
-
Very interesting. I knew there has been confusion about Willie Dunn and Willie Davis but I had no insight on the facts.
-
"Beyond this, I have no interest in discussing this with you further until you at least bother to read what I wrote."
Will do. Did you find that article by that USGA guy on the Davis/Dunn mystery or is he Whitten?
As an addendum, my suggestion would be for anyone interested in the historically accurate facts and events in Shinnecock's early golf history with Willie Davis and Willie Dunn to refer to David Goddard's 1999 book entitled "The History of Shinnecock Hills." It is unbelievably voluminously and well researched not just with the history of Shinnecock GC but the entire history of Shinnecock Hills and the town of Southampton. Goddard did the same thing earlier for Maidstone with the history book he produced for them. Goddard also references how the Davis/Dunn attribution mystery was unraveled. It was by the USGA staff when they were preparing for the US Open in I think 1985-6. If someone on here wants to try to prove Goddard's book on Shinnecock Hills GC wrong somehow then go for it but I'm afraid they will be in for a real uphill battle trying to do that. But save yourself some investigative work, and read Goddard's book first.
-
Goddard also references how the Davis/Dunn attribution mystery was unraveled. It was by the USGA staff when they were preparing for the US Open in I think 1985-6. If someone on here wants to try to prove Goddard's book on Shinnecock Hills GC wrong somehow then go for it but I'm afraid they will be in for a real uphill battle trying to do that. But save yourself some investigative work, and read Goddard's book first.
For those of us who don't have the Goddard book, how does his unraveling of the Davis/Dunn mystery compare to David's analysis above?
-
Will do. Did you find that article by that USGA guy on the Davis/Dunn mystery or is he Whitten?
Did I find that article? You are the one who claimed you had an article where someone at the USGA figured it all out and "precisely" described what had happened. So I guess the question is, did you find the article? There were a few articles in the USGA's old Golf Journal that partially unraveled what happened and came up with about the same version as Whitten's later, but if you ever actually read what I wrote you will see that this was not quite right.
If someone on here wants to try to prove Goddard's book on Shinnecock Hills GC wrong somehow then go for it but I'm afraid they will be in for a real uphill battle trying to do that. But save yourself some investigative work, and read Goddard's book first.
I did not set out to prove Mr. Goddard or anyone else wrong. I am aware of Mr. Goddard's work by reputation only, and it sounds like he does tremendous work and is certainly not afraid to get his hands a bit dirty by digging deeply into the primary source material.
My purpose was simply to make sense out of what to me was a confusing story, and hopefully I have done that.
-
Goddard also references how the Davis/Dunn attribution mystery was unraveled. It was by the USGA staff when they were preparing for the US Open in I think 1985-6. If someone on here wants to try to prove Goddard's book on Shinnecock Hills GC wrong somehow then go for it but I'm afraid they will be in for a real uphill battle trying to do that. But save yourself some investigative work, and read Goddard's book first.
For those of us who don't have the Goddard book, how does his unraveling of the Davis/Dunn mystery compare to David's analysis above?
_______________________________________________
George, That is a good question. As I said in the text above, I don't have the Shinnecock history book. Was Whitten referring to the Goddard book?
-
"For those of us who don't have the Goddard book, how does his unraveling of the Davis/Dunn mystery compare to David's analysis above?"
George:
It seems to me more often than not David Moriarty tells others on here they are misrepresenting what he has said or is trying to say so I will not presume to tell you or even to tell you that I know what his analysis of this is even though I did read in detail what he wrote above.
As for Goddard and his Shinnecock history book I would say he went into a lot more detail and with more supporting evidence regarding Davis and Dunn and what either of them did at Shinnecock and when. If you have any specific questions about any of it as presented by Goddard just ask away because I have his book right here.
-
Did you get that George? Whatever I might have written above, It cannot possibly be as accurate as Mr. Goddard's coverage of the same issue.
Including his addendum TEPaul has now posted six times on this thread, yet he has still not bothered to begin to address anything about happened at Shinnecock almost 120 years ago. More than that, he has repeatedly suggested that whatever I may have written, the real story must be found in various other versions of the historty, including a USGA article, the Goddard history, and/or his and Wayne's voluminous yet unpublished manuscript. He has even told me (in the message he referenced above) that I should have come to him and Wayne before even posting this.
So far as I can tell he is not here to discuss what I have written or what actually happened. His purpose seems only to convince others that whatever really might have happened at Shinnecock, it couldn't possibly have been me who figured it out.
Given his reputation, it would not surprise me a bit if Mr. Goddard had already gotten to the bottom of all this confusion. And if Mr. Goddard or anyone else had already figured all this out, then terrific. Good work! I am glad to have independently confirmed the findings, if that is all I have done.
________________________________________________________________
TEPaul, last month your version of the history was close to that of Whitten's, in that you apparently thought that Willie Davis laid out the first twelve holes at Shinnecock, and then the next year Dunn added a nine hole women's course, and at some point Dunn apparently added six holes to Davis' twelve hole course.
Is that the same version from Goddard's history? If not, how exactly does Goddard's version differ.
Thanks.
-
David,
This is a very well-written and thought out essay. I have no idea as to whether the conclusions you have drawn are correct or not, but what you have written certainly inspires one to want to find out.
Very good job...
-
"TEPaul, last month your version of the history was close to that of Whitten's, in that you apparently thought that Willie Davis laid out the first twelve holes at Shinnecock,"
David:
I've never been that familiar with Whitten's version of Shinnecock or Whitten's version of the Davis/Dunn Shinnecock mystery or question but I have been familiar with Goddard's. We've known him at and through Shinnecock for over a decade and we were there when he was doing or had just finished his book. Goddard's version is that Davis did lay out twelve holes when he was there in 1891 and 1892 and he did do a Ladies course too. Goddard's book also maintains that Willie Dunn did not even come to Shinnecock until 1894 despite what Dunn wrote. I sort of hate to say it but it's long enough ago now so who cares, but there doesn't seem to be much question that Willie Dunn was about the world's biggest embelisher or even liar about what he actually did do and not just about Shinnecock but other clubs as well. With Davis he could probably get away with it to some extent after a while (even though Davis apparently wrote a letter to Golf magazine telling them that it was not true that Dunn had laid out Newport as he claimed) because Dunn actually outlived Davis by fifty years (Davis died in 1902 and Dunn in 1952). Dunn also claimed he came to Shinnecock in 189o or 1891 which he didn't and he apparently claimed W.K. Vanderbilt brought him there for the club. Vanderbilt never even belonged to Shinnecock. The story has some good detail and really good factual support in Goddard's book and that isn't all of it.
-
TEPaul,
- According to Goddard, what year did Davis lay out the women's course?
- If you disbelieve Dunn then why did you recently tell me that Vanderbilt saw Dunn golf at Biarritz? Didn't that story come from Dunn, originally?
- There are a number of differences between Goddard's account (your version of it) and my account. It is all in the text, yet from your response to me it is apparent that you haven't bothered to read it.
- Although there were plenty of inaccuracies in Dunn's account, I am not comfortable calling him "the world's biggest embelisher or even liar" based on what he said happened at Shinnecock. As I explained in the text, some of what he was thought to have been lying about was actually true.
- Samuel L. Parrish got plenty wrong in his description of what happened at Shinnecock, but I am not comfortable calling him a liar either. Do you consider Parrish to be "the world's biggest embelisher or even liar?"
-
"If you disbelieve Dunn then why did you recently tell me that Vanderbilt saw Dunn golf at Biarritz?"
Because apparently Vanderbilt was at Biarritz with a few Shinnecock guys and they did see Dunn. Do you find something odd about that? Do you think perhaps Vanderbilt shouldn't have been or couldn't have been at Biarritz with some friends from Shinnecock because Vanderbilt didn't belong to Shinnecock? ::)
"Didn't that story come from Dunn, originally?"
I don't know; maybe it came from Vanderbilt or one of the other guys with him at Biarritz from Shinnecock. But it could've come from Dunn and he sure did mention it later. I said it looks like Dunn was a world class embellisher; I didn't exactly say everything that came out of his mouth was a lie, did I? ???
-
"- There are a number of differences between Goddard's account (your version of it) and my account. It is all in the text, yet from your response to me it is apparent that you haven't bothered to read it.
- Although there were plenty of inaccuracies in Dunn's account, I am not comfortable calling him "the world's biggest embelisher or even liar" based on what he said happened at Shinnecock. As I explained in the text, some of what he was thought to have been lying about was actually true.
- Samuel L. Parrish got plenty wrong in his description of what happened at Shinnecock, but I am not comfortable calling him a liar either. Do you consider Parrish to be "the world's biggest embelisher or even liar?"
David:
As for all of that above there is no good reason for you to try to grill me like that and question what I've said. I'm the only one on this website who has Goddard's book and so if you want to know what it says then you better do something about your God-damned attitude and like right now. Actually an apology wouldn't be out of order.
Otherwise you can just speculate until the cows come home what really happened at Shinnecock and what Shinnecock's presentation of it is now via Goddard et al. Because frankly I don't really give a damn what you think about Shinnecock's history or what you're not comfortable with!!
-
Grill you? I provided my take on your post and asked a question. Hardly a grilling. As for your latest threat to withhold information unless I apologize, you can file with all your other unreasonable threats and demands.
I didn't introduce Mr. Goddard into this conversation, you did, along with a bunch of baloney about some mysterious USGA article and the superiority of your own voluminous unpublished manuscript. Well if any of that actually casts doubt on anything in the text above, then bring it forward and make your case. Enough of these vague allusions to superior information that you cannot or will not even come up with.
And Tom, I don't have "to speculate until the cows come home about what happened at Shinnecock," because I did the research and figured it out for myself. To address your other thread, that is what historical research is all about.
-
David - thanks. One of the many interesting things is a related question (that I thought might provde fruitful): after the 1891 purchase of 80 acres (on which a men's 9 hole course and a women's 9 hole course had already been built), there seems to be no mention of any additional acreage being purchased, even though in the next 4 years (up until 1895) the men's 9 hole course went to 12 and then 18 holes, and a new 9 hole course for women was added (the one on the other side of the tracks being abandoned). I can't imagine 27 holes fitting into 80 acres...and even just 18 holes would be tight (though I'm sure 18 holes at a private club in 1895 wouldn't have taken nearly as much space, for a lot of reasons, as something today). Is there any record of additional land being purchased/leased, and if so when? I'm thinkng that if there was such a record, it might help determine more focussed 'timelines' for the expansion of the course to a full 18....and thus provide more details on who did what.
Peter
-
Peter,
I am sorry if I left some confusion about when the course was expanded from 12 to 18 holes. Dunn expanded his 12 hole course to 18 holes in the spring of 1895. Shinnecock had reportedly purchased an additional 30 acres for the expansion. (The purchase was reported on January 6, 1895.)
Here is a description of the expansion from the New York Sun, June 16, 1895:
The Shinnecock Hills Club, has two courses, a 9-hole links near the clubhouse, on which the play is chiefly in the open, which is used by the women, and the "white course" a playful allusion to the outcropping sand bunkers, which is for the men. It has 18 holes, six having been added this spring, so as to bring into the course "Ben Nevis," the highest of the Shinnecock Hills, appropriately named after the highest mountain in Scotland. The hole is on the very top of "Ben Nevis," and as a reward for the uphill struggle to reach it, and make the two preceding holes, the player has a glorious panorama of the dark and deep blue ocean and, on the land side, the silvery waters of the bay, backed by the green clad hills.
There is a map of the course from 1895 above.
Here is an article from the March 8, 1896 New York Times describing the early creation of the course. Note that while the article properly credits Davis with designing the first course, it does not mention that the course was only nine holes, or that it was Dunn who built the twelve hole course using only part of the Davis nine. Note also that the article covers some of the same ground (notably the Biarritz trip and finding the ground) as Parrish told thirty years later.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18960308NYT1.jpg?t=1293078851)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock189603082.jpg?t=1293078890)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecoci18960308NYT3.jpg?t=1293078938)
-
"One of the many interesting things is a related question (that I thought might provde fruitful): after the 1891 purchase of 80 acres (on which a men's 9 hole course and a women's 9 hole course had already been built), there seems to be no mention of any additional acreage being purchased, even though in the next 4 years (up until 1895) the men's 9 hole course went to 12 and then 18 holes, and a new 9 hole course for women was added (the one on the other side of the tracks being abandoned). I can't imagine 27 holes fitting into 80 acres...and even just 18 holes would be tight (though I'm sure 18 holes at a private club in 1895 wouldn't have taken nearly as much space, for a lot of reasons, as something today). Is there any record of additional land being purchased/leased, and if so when? I'm thinkng that if there was such a record, it might help determine more focussed 'timelines' for the expansion of the course to a full 18....and thus provide more details on who did what."
Peter:
To your question above, yes there are records of lands purchased or utilized (or even parceled out) in various agreements and arrangements from the beginning. They are contained in the 1999 history book entitled "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" by David Goddard. I preface anything I report on this post or thread by stating that is the source I'm using. As far as any mistakes in the past with the history of the club and its golf courses and architecture it is my sincere belief that this book is the club's official presentation of its entire history at this time that also serves to correct any historical mistakes presented in the past.
Like a number of early American clubs and courses that include Shinnecock, Merion, Myopia etc the land uses and arrangements and purchases are a rather complex cobbling together of land parcels over the years. With the original 1891 and 1892 twelve hole men's course (so-called the White) by Willie Davis and the original nine hole ladies course (so-called the Red) also by Davis the holes were not necessarily all on the original 75 acres (perhaps up to 80) of the club's. Some of them were on contiguous land owned at that time by James Parrish and William Hoyt.
-
David,
That's some very good research and a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing it here.
-
I suppose I had only read a part of David Goddard's 1999 Shinnecock history book---"The Story of Shinnecock Hills," before this or maybe I'm thinking of a preparatory article he wrote for the club before it but I am reading through it now. I do have his Maidstone history book and it's excellent. This book by Goddard on Shinnecock Hills is without question the most comprehensively researched and written book on a golf club I have ever seen before and by a factor of about five. Just the research work he did involving the 19th century development of the entire area is amazing, but the history and evolution of the club, the clubhouse, and the courses is just amazing in its research and detail. So is the history of the professionals of the club (the combined tenures of two back to back pros, Charlie Thom and Don Macdougal spanned over ninety years). The early course's evolution and iterations is amazing as is the lead-in to the Macdonald/Raynor course. That's as far as I've gotten so far. To say the parceling together over time of the land that is today Shinnecock is complex is putting it mildly.
There was one hole (Ben Nevis) in the later evolution of the old course (the White Course) that had to be the longest hole in the world at the time at 603 yards and uphill.
-
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.
-
I had so hoped I was wrong this time...
Oh well...
And to all a good night.
-
"As for Mr. Goddard, I have no doubt that generally his history of Shinnecock is excellent. But surely Mr. Goddard understands that sometimes new information becomes available, and such information often leads to a different but more accurate understanding of what really happened."
Knowing Mr. Goddard I'm quite sure he does understand that being the excellent historian he is but what new information on the history of Shinnecock GC has become available that is not in Goddard's 1999 book "The Story of Shinnecock Hills?"
-
What new information on the origins of golf in the Shinnecock Hills has become available that Shinnecock GC or David Goddard's account of it should address?
There had been two major architectural mis-attributions regarding Shinnecock's courses that were inaccurate.
1. The Willie Davis and Willie Dunn attribution
2. The attribution of the present course to Dick Wilson
Goddard's account that was generated by the club has corrected those two mis-attributions and set the Shinnecock record and history straight on them in some considerable detail.
-
DMoriarity,
I very much enjoyed reading your post. How about a picture of Willie Dunn for 'color'
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8c_fDmOpSoA/TOfQAonYwLI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/oYpjfyMw-ac/s128/acc%201897%20willie%20dunn.jpg)
and how about a picture of Willie's clubmaking shop at Ardsley circa 1898
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8c_fDmOpSoA/TOfQdoDOYrI/AAAAAAAAAKs/qZ9cXJWHbko/s912/acc%201898%20willie%20dunn%20shop.jpg)
-
(sorry about the different sizes of the pictures above)
here is another one of Willie laying out a hole at Ardsley in 1897
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8c_fDmOpSoA/TOfQAY_lX1I/AAAAAAAAAJw/-EJXKngeTO8/s800/acc%201897%20site%20for%20new%20tee%20east%20of%20bway.jpg)
(btw, there were similar willie shenanigans at Ardsley immeidately after the period described above, since WIllie Dunn became the professional at Ardsley in 1896-7 and it's pretty clear that he layed out both the original 9 and then the additional 9 a year later. Willie Tucker showed up several years later to replace Dunn as professional and kept tinkering with the holes until 10 years later the course was materially different. Ah well...)
-
a bigger version of the picture of Willie Dunn
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8c_fDmOpSoA/TOfQAonYwLI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/oYpjfyMw-ac/s576/acc%201897%20willie%20dunn.jpg)
-
To begin to check the accuracy and credibility of Willie Dunn's own account of his involvement with Shinnecock, a basic timeline should be put into place comparing the dates and timing of his account against the dates and timing of the development of the Shinnecock Club itself.
One irony of this is that Willie Dunn may never have actually done that since he wrote his own account of his involvement with Shinnecock many years after the fact.
And there are probably some other timeline events that could be compared.
For instance, it has been reported over time that Mead and Cryder and perhaps W.K. Vanderbilt as well first met and saw Willie Dunn give a demonstration of golf at the Chasm Hole at Biarritz France in the winter of 1890-91. But yet Dunn's account of his arrival at Shinnecock at the behest of Vanderbilt is given as March, 1890.
So, when exactly did Mead and Cryder and perhaps W.K. Vanderbilt actually meet Willie Dunn to watch him give that demonstration of golf at the Chasm Hole in Biarritz France? Goddard's account say the winter of 1890-91. Willie Dunn's account does not seem to be particularly date specific other than to say it was just after he completed the Biarritz golf course.
-
Chris,
I am glad you enjoyed the posts, and thanks for posting the old pictures.
Dunn's Ardsley Park project sounds very interesting. I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I can tell it may have been the first ever large scale, costs-be-damned construction project in America.
I was actually considering starting a thread on this but hope to get a chance to do a bit more research first.
Again thanks for the photos and the kind words.
- DM
_______________________________________________
TEPaul,
You should really stop this foolishness and simply read what I have written above. It will answer your questions about the differences between my account and Mr. Goddard's, as well as when Dunn came to Shinnecock.
While you claim (based on Goddard) that Dunn did not come to Shinnecock until 1894, it was actually 1893, which is when DUNN (not Davis) laid out the 12 hole course, using a few holes (or at least corridors) from the previous Davis nine hole course. Dunn laid out a new women's course as well.
While you claim (again based on Goddard) that it was Davis who laid out the 12 course, multiple contemporaneous sources indicate that the Davis course was a 9-hole course. Some of it was abandoned when Dunn laid out the 12 hole course you erroneously attribute to Dunn. Likewise, while you seem to think that Davis returned to Shinnecock in 1892 and laid out the women's course marked off on the 1893 map, the first women's course was reportedly laid out by Davis on the other side of the railroad tracks in 1891.
As for Dunn's account. He has the date of his arrival wrong but three years. He reportedly came over in 1893, not 1890.
As for the timing of the trips, you obviously haven't haven't even bothered to look at Parrish's first hand account of these events either. Because he also places Mead's trip to Le Phare in the winter of 1890-1891 and notes that he too was overseas (in Italy) at the same time. Mead was a frequent traveler and was in France both that winter and the next, returning in May both years. Vanderbuilt sailed back from Portugal in the May of 1891. Parrish returned earlier in the spring of that year, and was abroad again in 1893.
This is really ridiculous TEPaul.
You insert yourself into these things, claiming some sort of expertise, yet you haven't even bothered to do even the most basic research or to even read what I wrote. Are you really so shockingly insecure that must try to tear down my what you HAVEN'T EVEN READ, and take over the thread?
It is really pathetic.
seems that Dunn's worl
-
Regarding your #38, it is true that the Shinnecock presentation (Goddard's) disagrees with you that it was Dunn who laid out the original twelve hole course. Shinnecock's presentation is that Willie Davis laid out nine holes in 1891 for men and a short course for women and that Davis laid out an additional three holes for the men's course in 1892 making the men's course twelve holes and perhaps moved the women's course from south of the railroad tracks to north of the clubhouse. Shinnecock believes Davis moved to Newport in 1892 and laid out their original nine hole course (which Dunn actually took credit for as well). They do not believe they had a golf professional in 1893 even though they did have a couple of possibilities lined up such as Robert Foulis but that fell through. They believe Dunn came to Shinnecock in 1894 and added six more holes to make the men's course (White course) eighteen holes.
You asked in your post what others felt about your version and the above is how some of it does not square with Shinnecock's (Goddard's) presentation of the history of that time in their architectural development.
If you didn't want to know and understand that then what is it you want to know and understand about Shinnecock's golf origins and its architectural history?
-
TEPaul,
Had you ever read my presentation above, you would know what my purposes are.
One of my purposes was to figure out the roles played by Willie Dunn and Willie Davis in the early origins of golf Shinnecock. Another was to point out how these things become confused over the years, and how sometimes even sources that one would expect to be extremely reliable might still get important points wrong.
As for the former, I am confident that the version I have presented above is what actually happened at Shinnecock, but I am always willing to consider additional contemporaneous source material. You obviously have nothing to offer on this front.
As to the latter, you help make my case for me by confirming that even Mr. Goddard, who by reputation is an excellent researcher and writer, was mistaken about a number of details. Beyond that you have nothing to contribute, except that you continue to provide a perfect example of how NOT to approach historical research.
As for what you call "Shinnecock's presentation of their history," don't you mean your presentation of Shinnecock's history, based on a book you bought in the pro shop? Because I have absolutely zero interest in that.
When it comes to which Willie did what and when, and figuring if Dunn or Davis designed the dozen, I know what happened at Shinnecock, because I have put in the time and effort to figure it out for myself. I know this is a foreign concept to you but it is called historical research and analysis. You should try it some time.
If I want to know more about how Shinnecock views their own history, then I will track down Mr. Goddard, or some actual expert at the club. Or if I want to know more about Goddard's book, I'll either find someone more trust worthy and less pompous to tell me about it, or I will obtain the book myself. But at this point, there is no need. Because when it comes to the issue about which I was curious, I figured it out for myself.
But TEPaul, what are you trying to accomplish on this thread? So far as I can tell it involves undermining my presentation above (even though you haven't even read it) and holding yourself out as an expert on Shinnecock when you are obviously not. That and your usual insecurity that causes you to inject yourself into the middle of everything no matter how inappropriate that may be.
-
"As to the latter, you help make my case for me by confirming that even Mr. Goddard, who by reputation is an excellent researcher and writer, was mistaken about a number of details."
What details do you think Goddard is mistaken about?
-
Regarding your #38, it is true that the Shinnecock presentation (Goddard's) disagrees with you that it was Dunn who laid out the original twelve hole course. Shinnecock's presentation is that Willie Davis laid out nine holes in 1891 for men and a short course for women and that Davis laid out an additional three holes for the men's course in 1892 making the men's course twelve holes and perhaps moved the women's course from south of the railroad tracks to north of the clubhouse. Shinnecock believes Davis moved to Newport in 1892 and laid out their original nine hole course (which Dunn actually took credit for as well). They do not believe they had a golf professional in 1893 even though they did have a couple of possibilities lined up such as Robert Foulis but that fell through. They believe Dunn came to Shinnecock in 1894 and added six more holes to make the men's course (White course) eighteen holes.
You asked in your post what others felt about your version and the above is how some of it does not square with Shinnecock's (Goddard's) presentation of the history of that time in their architectural development.
If you didn't want to know and understand that then what is it you want to know and understand about Shinnecock's golf origins and its architectural history?
Part of the problem with your presentation of information is that you never quite give the exact and accurate version version of what you are claiming to present, and it is impossible to tell what is real and what you have embellished. Remember how you posted a phony quote from Myopia's history, when you thought no one else had that history? Remember how you embellished what you claimed you saw in Myopia's records? Well I have no faith that what you have just written is even an accurate depiction of what Goddard wrote, at least not all of it.
I am done arguing with what you claim other books, people and records say. Either come up with the actual text or get lost.
-
"Is my version correct? Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."
David Moriarty:
The above is the way you ended your version of Shinnecock's Davis/Dunn story.
Why did you ask that question if you didn't want responses on this thread? What was it you had in mind when you presented your version and then asked that question at the end of it? Was that question supposed to be rhetorical and did you just expect that we all just accept your version without some of us explaining to you what we know about Shinnecock's presentation of its history that is at variance with your version of it?
-
"Part of the problem with your presentation of information is that you never quite give the exact and accurate version version of what you are claiming to present, and it is impossible to tell what is real and what you have embellished. Remember how you posted a phony quote from Myopia's history, when you thought no one else had that history? Remember how you embellished what you claimed you saw in Myopia's records? Well I have no faith that what you have just written is even an accurate depiction of what Goddard wrote, at least not all of it."
David Moriarty:
I didn't post any phony quote from Merion's history and if I wrote something incorrectly or made a typo and such at some point from Merion's history and you were concerned about it you could've asked me about it and if it was wrong I am more than willing to check it and correct it and make it right if there was anything wrong with it. And the same goes for what I have reported on here about Myopia's history. It is no different with Shinnecock's history. If you wish to vet or check what I have reported on here about the architectural histories of those clubs, you are certainly free to go to them and check any of their presentations or archives against what I have reported on here.
-
"I am done arguing with what you claim other books, people and records say. Either come up with the actual text or get lost."
David Moriarty:
Absolutely not. You're the only one on here who demands that contributors to this website must put copies of actual material on this website or not even express their opinion about it and what they know about it, particularly after having read it. I do not subscribe to that philosophy on here and I never have. Frankly, I don't even know how to post those things and that certainly should not preclude me from expressing my opinions on what I know about what I have seen and read at and from these clubs.
Again, if you want to vet or check what I say about that material then go to those clubs as I have and read it yourself. What you seem to be trying to do is get me to produce research material for you that you are either too lazy or too unwilling to do yourself. With your long-term attitude on this website, I will never do something like that for you or MacWood either who, like you, also seems unwilling to go do his own research work at these clubs.
-
TepauI don't want to vet or check what you say. I already know that most everything you say is completely undeniable.
This thread is about what really happened, and given that you have no idea what really happened you have no role here, and should take your schtick somewher else.
-
Well, I guess anyone can just claim they know what really happened, as you are on this thread, but if they've never even been to these clubs and looked at their history's source material, those people who do things that way, as you do, will never have any credibilty. The fact is there are some differences in your version and Shinnecock's version and if you don't even know what their version is, or odder still, you don't even want to know what their version is, you sure aren't much a researcher or much of an analyst or historian with these subjects.
Of course you can just continue to deny that and claim otherwise but very few if any are likely to believe you or that you have any credibility.
-
What a an absolute joke you are. You bought a club history in the pro shop and you didnt even bother to read it. Yet you have the nerve to lecture me as if you have scoured the club records. Pathetic.
If you have verifiable information that contradicts my presentation then feel free to post the texts. Otherwise get lost.
-
David Moriarty:
You sure don't know much about Shinnecock do you? You don't even seem to know what Goddard did. It is not some book you can buy in the pro shop, so it's interesting you'd even say that. Actually, this thng you seem to be up to with Shinnecock on here is even more ridiculous than what you tried to do with Merion on here although perhaps not quite as ridiculous as what you tried to do with Myopia on here.
"If you have verifiable information that contradicts my presentation then feel free to post the texts. Otherwise get lost."
I have verifiable information, I'm going to continue to report it on here, I am not going to post the text and I'm certainly not going to get lost.
-
David Moriarty:
You sure don't know much about Shinnecock do you?
I know a bit about the origins of golf at Shinnecock, if that is what you are asking. If you ever get around to reading what I wrote you might learn something.
As for your Goddard book, I don't really care where you got it. Owning a book you had never even read doesn't make you an expert.
Give it a rest, why don't you. Surely even you has something better to do on Christmas Eve that to cynically try to tear me down before you have even bothered to read and consider what I wrote.
Or maybe not.
-
TEPaul,
I think you have to ask yourself, if anyone other than David Moriarty wrote this treatise, would you have responded in similar fashion.
David,
If anyone other than TEPaul questioned your article, would you have responded in a similar fashion.
I think David has a valid point, if you have information refuting or correcting his piece, present it.
-
"I think David has a valid point, if you have information refuting or correcting his piece, present it."
Pat:
I did that. I presented it on #40 but as you can see from the rest of his ensuing posts the information I presented from Shinnecock's version only promoted him to tell me he didn't think I should participate on this thread.
-
David Moriarty:
I did read what you wrote a couple of times and very carefully. At the end of what you wrote about the Davis/Dunn question you asked the following;
"Is my version correct? Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."
And so I simply responded to it with what I know and have read of Shinnecock's version of the Davis/Dunn question. There's more to Shinnecock's version but you certainly don't seem interested in hearing or knowing what it is, so why did you start this thread and ask that question at the end of it?
-
Hi Patrick,
I hope you and yours are having a wonderful Christmas.
David,
If anyone other than TEPaul questioned your article, would you have responded in a similar fashion.
Questioned my article? TEPaul posted a dozen or more times before he even read it. How could he question something he hadn't even bothered to read?
Questioning what I wrote would have been fine, but instead of questioning it he just launched into all his same old insecure garbage, spouting nonsense . . .
. . . about how one of his lackeys tipped him off about what I was writing . . .
. . . about how he and Wayne were experts on the origins of Shinnecock . . .
. . . about how their unpublished and unpublishable manuscript covered the origins in great detail . . .
. . . about how a mysterious USGA article covered it all before
. . . about how I NEEDED TO COME TO HIM AND WAYNE BEFORE I POSTED . . .
Can you imagine? TEPaul demanding that I come to him and Wayne (Wayne?) before I post about Shinnecock? Just who do they think they are? Am I to treat him with reverence just because he owns and parrots some club histories? It is insulting to me and should be embarrassing and insulting for the entire website for have him behave like this, and for him to immaturely and cynically go after posts and threads he hasn't even bothered to read.
My intention wasn't to challenge Goddard or anyone else. It was to figure out the history for myself. And I have.
If TEPaul or anyone one else wants to challenge anything I have written, then terrific. But he hasn't beyond some unreliable recitation of claims Goddard may or may not have made. If TEPaul can source these supposed claims of Goddard's, then I'd be glad to consider them, but if not then I have no interest whatsoever in what TEPaul thinks on this issue.
Again Patrick, Merry Christmas!
-
"If TEPaul or anyone one else wants to challenge anything I have written, then terrific."
David Moriarty:
Thank you; very good then!
In "your version" of Shinnecock's Davis/Dunn era you said:
1. Davis put in nine holes in the summer of 1891 for men and perhaps nine holes for women in perhaps a month.
2. Dunn came in the spring of 1893 and put in three more holes to make twelve.
Shinnecock’s version*
1. Davis came from Montreal in July 1891 and put in nine men’s holes and a women’s course of about a mile and either stayed through the winter or returned to Montreal and came back to Shinnecock in the spring of 1892 and stayed through the season, added three more holes to the men’s course (and perhaps altered some of the existing holes he'd done in 1891) to make twelve (White course) and perhaps moved the woman’s course (Red course) to the north of the clubhouse in 1892.
2. Dunn came to Shinnecock in 1894 and 1895 and redid the course, added six holes making it an eighteen hole men’s course (White course).
* "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" (1999, D. Goddard)
-
TEPaul & David Moriarty,
It would seem reasonable to conclude that differing versions of Shinnecock's early years would be confirmed or refuted by reverifying the underlying evidence that supports each position.
Surely, the underlying evidence can't support two conflicting opinions.
I don't think that one version should automatically be deemed more accurate than the other if both parties provided supporting evidence that a prudent person would normally accept as reasonable.
We've seen errors in club histories and we've seen errors in positions that are contrary to club histories.
Neither is infallible.
So, it would appear that both versions would need to have their underlying facts reverified in order to ascertain which is the more accurate version.
Is that too much to ask ?
-
No that is not too much to ask, but given that TEPaul is simply parroting someone else's book I have no idea what he could add to such a conversation. But perhaps Mr. Goddard provided detailed sources, so I guess TEPaul could at least provide us with that. He hasn't so far though, so it is not really a matter of "confirming" or "reverifying" anything on his part, because so far we have nothing to confirm or reverify.
As for the particular claims TEPaul has made, I have no faith that those are actually Mr. Goddard's conclusions, but if TEPaul wants to come up with the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE for the claims, whatever their source, then by all means let's see the EVIDENCE
For example, TEPaul claims that Dunn did not come to the United States until 1894. I'd like to see the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE for that claim, because there are numerous contemporaneous reports of Dunn at Shinnecock in 1893. I don't have have my sources available, but I can tell you off the top of my head that . . .
- Dunn and Davis played a match in Newport in or around July of 1893, in the rain, and that the match was mentioned in the New York and Rhode Island papers. This was discussed in the text above, but TEPaul apparently skipped that part.
- I can also tell you that sometime near the beginning of the summer 1893 season (May?) the New York Times reported that the course was almost ready, and and that "Mr. Dum" of Biarritz was in charge and would act as greenskeeper, club maker, and instructor.
- I can also tell you that there are other accounts of Dunn as the pro at Shinnecock, including one mentioning that he had accidently taken the key to the building in which the golf lockers were located with him to Shinnecock, and another mentioning that Dunn lengthened the course for 1893.
All of these are for 1893, so I have no idea why TEPaul would try to claim that Dunn was not even there until 1894. (Actually I have a good idea why he might claim this, but it has nothing to do with verifiable facts.)
Likewise, I'd love to see the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE that Davis was the pro at Shinnecock in 1892, and that he expanded the course to twelve holes that season. It was reported in at least one of the NY papers that John Cuthbert of St. Andrews was the pro at Shinnecock in 1892, not Davis. And another report indicateD that the course was 9 holes in 1892, and the listing of the yardages indicate that they were the same as in the map above.
In fact, I'd like to see the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE for anything and everything TEPaul has claimed. But there is little chance of that happening.
Just watch.
-
"So, it would appear that both versions would need to have their underlying facts reverified in order to ascertain which is the more accurate version. Is that too much to ask ?"
Pat:
That's the question you asked at the end of your #57 (others please read Pat's #57).
No, I wouldn’t think that’s too much to ask depending on what exactly you, or anyone else on this website, would like to see reverified. It also probably depends on what you mean when you mentioned ‘both versions’ or ‘which is the more accurate version.’
What or whose are those two versions in your opinion?
-
Here are two newspaper accounts that speak to points that are in contention. The first is when did Willie Dunn arrive in America and also when did he go to Shinnecock?
This is taken from an article in the December 30, 1895 issue of the Auburn Bulletin [NY]:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Dunn12301895AuburnBulletin.jpg)
This clearly states that Dunn was in America in 1893 (possibly even late 1892 depending on how far one stretches the meaning of "3 years" and had come for the purpose "to take charge of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club..."
This is taken form an article in the New York Sun and dated November 14,1910. It states that, "Willie Davis went to Southampton, LI, in July, 1891, and laid out the first short course of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club..."
-
it seems pretty clear Dunn was here in 93.
Might he have finished his course work in 94?
-
The question to me, at this point, is not when Dunn first came to America, it is when he first came to Shinnecock and worked on the architecture of that golf course. This thread is about the origins of golf at Shinnecock Hills and if its history is confused and not just about when Dunn came to America! ;)
Above Moriarty mentioned that 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.
-
I didn't realize that the second article didn't attach itself. Especially in line with Tom paul's comments that followed it I think it is important. This is taken form an article in the New York Sun and dated November 14,1910. It states that, "Willie Davis went to Southampton, LI, in July, 1891, and laid out the first short course of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club..." :
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/WillieDavis11141910NYSun.jpg)
-
Tom,
I think that the 1895 article certainly seems to be strongly implying that Willie Dunn began working on the Shinnecock course in 1893 as it states that he came to "take charge" of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club at that time.
-
Phil:
Maybe that article does strongly imply to you that Dunn came to Shinnecock to work on their architecture in 1893 but my point is that Shinnecock's current presentation of their architectural development (Goddard, 1999) does not reflect that. Their current presentation is that in the end of 1892 (after Davis left) they only had a William Platt, a club steward, and that in 1893 they did not have a golf professional. They maintain that Willie Dunn did not come to their club to develop architecture until 1894 and by that point the club had a twelve hole men's course (White course) that was done by Davis putting in nine holes in 1891 and three more to the White course in 1892; of course they also believe Davis put in a short women's course as well in 1891 and moved it in 1892.
However, Phil, even if Dunn did come to Shinnecock in 1893 and Goddard's presentation is mistaken when it says he came in 1894 and that the club does not believe any golf professional was there in 1893, that really does not have any impact on the actual and factual sequence of events with the architectural development with Willie Davis and Willie Dunn at Shinnecock since in 1893 Willie Davis had left Shinnecock and was at Newport GC anyway.
And those newspaper articles certainly are at variance with what Dunn himself said he did at Shinnecock and when some forty years later! ;)
I think we all who have looked into this, which certainly includes Goddard, can tell what went wrong with the Davis/Dunn attribution, both when, how and why.
-
Tom,
I understand that is the club's current understanding and stance. Yet that article is a contemporaneous account that clearly states that Dunn went to Shinnecock in 1893 to "take charge." Now that may only mean as professional, but even if that's the case and that his architectural work would come later, that alone shows the accepted club history to be probably incorrect on that point.
I think you should put aside the club history for a moment and ask what else could that newspaper article possibly be refering to other than that he "took charge" of either the professional duties or the architectural ones or BOTH in 1893. I have a hard time seeing it as a typo as the number 3 was spelled out and not enumerated. If the article read "3 years" I could accept that it might be a typo, but simply can't since it is written "three years." NO typesetter in those days, and remember these were hand set type for the newspapers at that time, would have put "three" instead of "two."
I think this article needs to be accepted at face value then and that Dunn was at Shinnecock in at least some capacity that the club is unaware of in 1893...
-
I didn't realize that the second article didn't attach itself. Especially in line with Tom paul's comments that followed it I think it is important. This is taken form an article in the New York Sun and dated November 14,1910. It states that, "Willie Davis went to Southampton, LI, in July, 1891, and laid out the first short course of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club..." :
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/WillieDavis11141910NYSun.jpg)
Philip,
The article seems to contradict itself, it says he came here in May, 1902 and stayed until 1900.
So one, or more of the dates has to be incorrect.
This may be a reason to question the accuracy of Newspaper articles
-
Pat,
Good morning and nice catch.
Using the Tom MacWood theory of one error means everything is in doubt, I now declare all newspaper articles to be totally unreliable......which frankly, is an opinion I have held for a while based on current experience anyway.
-
"I think you should put aside the club history for a moment and ask what else could that newspaper article possibly be refering to other than that he "took charge" of either the professional duties or the architectural ones or BOTH in 1893. I have a hard time seeing it as a typo as the number 3 was spelled out and not enumerated. If the article read "3 years" I could accept that it might be a typo, but simply can't since it is written "three years." NO typesetter in those days, and remember these were hand set type for the newspapers at that time, would have put "three" instead of "two."
I think this article needs to be accepted at face value then and that Dunn was at Shinnecock in at least some capacity that the club is unaware of in 1893..."
Well, Phil, if you think that then why don't you try to take it up with Shinnecock's latest history writer, David Goddard or the club? Perhaps they will let you look at the club records and newspaper articles and other informational material sources Goddard claims he referred to in his book when he wrote that Shinnecock did not have a golf professional in 1893 and that Willie Davis created the original nine holes of the White course in 1891 and three more in 1892 to make the original twelve hole men's course.
-
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:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shinny721923NYEveningTelegram-1.jpg)
-
TEPaul,
Inaccuracy isn't a function of expression.
"3" or "Three" are equally incorrect if the number of years was one (1) or two (2)
If one adheres to the "false in one, false in many" creed, you have to look, with enlightened suspicion at many newspaper accounts.
Newspaper articles are written by third parties, sometimes far removed from the individuals, events and dates being reported.
I think more fact finding is in order.
-
Tom,
I would love to speak with both the club and Mr. Goddard about his work. Can you make the introductions for me?
Here is another article that confirms both the 1891 date for Davis and the following 1892 date when he came back to the states that I believe was the typo in the other article. It also contains confirmation of the 1893 date for Dunn at Shinnecock. It is taken from the July 3, 1908, NY Evening Post:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/DavisandDunn731908NYEveningPost-1.jpg)
Tom, I think there are certainly more than enough separate articles to call into question the accuracy of the currently accepted and understood history of Shinnecock. This is NOT a slight on the person or work done by Mr. Goddard. I can personally attest to the difficulties in obtaining accurate dating information as I've made changes to both past dates for Tilly's work for clubs and from some of my own.
I would think that Mr. Goddard would be thrilled to find out about these articles. I know that if I had written their history and these were shown to me later that I would be...
-
Pat,
That is EXACTLY what I've just been saying. I am fairly certain, though, that my interpretation of the "typo" is correct based upon the other articles that I've posted. This is based upon the "they can't all be wrong" creed. ;D
-
"Tom, I think there are certainly more than enough separate articles to call into question the accuracy of the currently accepted and understood history of Shinnecock. This is NOT a slight on the person or work done by Mr. Goddard."
Philip:
Oh, I don't know about that and I also have no idea how much you know about that early history of Shinnecock. But for starters, given the articles you posted this morning, are you beginning to get some inkling of both how and why and when the Davis/Dunn story got so messed up over time? ;)
In my opinion, Goddard did a very fine job of unraveling the whole thing and setting the historical record of Shinnecock's courses straight. But if you want to question Goddard's account of any of it then be my guest. If that's what you want to do you should state it specifically, I guess. As for Moriarty, I'm still not sure what he thinks he's trying to do with Shinnecock's history other than to perhaps use it as another example of how clubs can get their history wrong. He probably used Shinnecock and this thread to try to get others to accept that the crap he has written on here about Merion and Myopia's history has some merit. Maybe he can convince some on here of that who don't know much about any of the histories of these clubs but he isn't going to convince me and he isn't going to convince Merion, Myopia or Shinnecock either but maybe that isn't what he wants to do. Who knows what he really wants to do on here (although I could certainly quote for you from what he wrote on this thread to give you some inkling of what he apparently wants to do with this thread ;) ), and frankly, who really cares?
-
Tom,
You either believe me or not, but it is NOT a slight against Mr. Goddard.
Frankly, I don't understand how you can't see that there have been more than enough contemporaneous articles that call into question the dates published. It doesn't automatically mean that Mr. Goddard was incorrect, but there certainly are enough of them that would give pause to reconsider how he had arrived at them.
For example, if he used dated board minutes then there is no question that he got it right and all the newspaper accounts are wrong. As I have no access to the board minutes or Mr. Goddard's research I can't say for certain if he is correct or not. I also can't say if he is wrong either. I do believe that he and the club would want to be made aware of this information, so I once again ask if you can or would make the introductions for me?
If the answer is no that is fine. I'll contact the club on my own.
-
TEP
At least you are consistent.
-
Phil:
This is a free country and you can do whatever you want to with Shinnecock but if you are at all concerned about what some occasionally refer to as "professional courtesy" my suggestion would be that you call Wayne Morrison before you call Shinnecock or Goddard. Goddard has been their historian as long as we've been involved with the club but primarily about the Flynn course. If Wayne Morrison thought he found something about San Francisco GC like newspaper articles or whatnot that shed some light on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the architectural history of that club, what would you want him to do----contact you about it first or just go right to the club himself? ;)
"For example, if he used dated board minutes then there is no question that he got it right and all the newspaper accounts are wrong."
Phil, as I'm sure you know from personal experience with me and my postion on that, I think you are absolutely right about that. ;)
And I completely understand what you said about Goddard. What you said about him is in no way at all disrespectful. If you do this kind of stuff long enough anyone is going to make mistakes with facts or interpretations or whatnot----the key is that you just hope it is not central enough to take you down the entirely wrong road in what you are assuming and perhaps concluding. I do have a lot of respect for David Goddard and his history books on Maidstone and Shinnecock but I did find one mistake he made in his history of Shinnecock even though it is minor in nature because it is about Davis before he ever came to Shinnecock.
-
Tom,
If anyone found out something of interest to the San Francisco Golf Club they should DEFINITELY go to the Club FIRST. I am not a member of the club and the work that I did for them is not, as yet, in the view of the public. I would, of course, love to be cc'ed but that isn't necessary at all. It is THEIR history after all and not mine.
As far as contacting Wayne first, I'm sorry, but I won't be doing that. He, at least as far as I am aware, is not a member and so my first approaches on this, now that it has come up, is to the club and Mr. Goddard. If the club wants me to contact Wayne I will be more than happy to do so if I haven't already done it by that time.
-
Phil:
I'm not so sure what this member protocol thing is you mentioned. Moriarty tried to mention that all the time on this website with me and Merion and Myopia. Are you aware of some kind of general "member protocol" thing that researchers and historians need to be aware of before they approach a club, that I'm not aware of?
To me it's more a matter of commonsense and basic respect. If you know as many people in these clubs I talk about this way on here as I do and have for as long as I have, it's not a matter of being a member, but for some reason some on here who have never even been to some of these clubs just seem to assume that. Neither Wayne nor I nor David Goddard, for that matter, is a member of Shinnecock but all three of us certainly have worked with them with their history and architecture in one way or another and whatnot for quite a time. I'm proud of that frankly, and I'm actually getting more than a bit amused that that seems to be eternally frustrating galling to David Moriarty, at least. The same is the case with Merion and Myopia.
-
Tom,
I can't speak for any other historian/researcher/writer/author as far as it being a "member protocol" thing, but it is a Phil Young Ethical thing.
I simply think that approaching Shinnecock with the information and then Mr. Goddard before I would approach anyone else privately is proper. Shinnecock because it is their history and Mr. Goddard because evidently he was enabled by Shinnecock to write their official history book and so it is only proper that I send it along to him. By the way, there are a number of other newspaper accounts from the same time period that I didn't post as it just becomes redundant. I will send these along to both Club and Mr. Goddard.
As for Wayne, I am quite certain that he has already seen these articles as I am quite certain that he is following along in this discussion. ;)
-
Phil:
You do whatever you think best about sending on newspaper articles to Shinnecock or Goddard or whatever. I would remind you however, that if they are just about Dunn coming to Shinnecock in 1893 instead of 1894 as Goddard mentioned in his book, that may have some passing interest to Goddard and Shinnecock but it would not really change the course of events with Davis creating the original nine holes in 1891 for men and perhaps a short course for women and then adding three more holes to make the original twelve in 1892 and to have also perhaps moved the woman's course north of the clubhouse in 1892 before leaving Shinnecock to go design the first course for Newport GC.
And I'm wondering if you are aware, at this point, what it was and when and how that messed up the story of that particular series of events with those two early Shinnecock architects. Goddard dealt with all that too in his 1999 book. If you want to get involved in Shinnecock's history I would suggest when you send those newspaper articles to Goddard or Shinnecock you also ask either of them if they would let you see Goddard's 1999 history book. :-X ;)
-
Every time TEPaul writes out his supposed 'Goddard version' of Shinnecock's history, he changes it slightly. Naturally.
And isn't it fascinating how TEPaul insisted over and over that Dunn was not the pro at Shinnecock in 1893 and was not even in the country in 1893, and twice listed this as one of the key points where Goddard viewed the history differently, yet now that even he must realize this is obviously wrong, suddenly it is of no importance whatsoever?
________________________
Let's return to Patrick Mucci's reasonable request that we examine the "UNDERLYING EVIDENCE."
1. TEPaul claimed that Dunn was not the professional at Shinnecock in 1893, and was not even in the country until 1894. There are numerous contemporaneous reports that Dunn was in fact the professional at Shinnecock for the 1893 season. Here are just a few:
- On May 27, 1893, the NYTimes reported that “Mr. Dum [sic] of the Biarritz Golf Club” had been engaged by Shinnecock as a green keeper, and that he was also an experienced teacher, and clubmaker.
- On July 9, 1893, the NYTimes reported that Dunn was the greenkeeper and teacher at Shinnecock, and that the links had been lengthened that year and several hazards put on the links.
- On July 22, 1893, the Newport Mercury, reported: "A game of golf will be played on the Golf coub grounds Monday afternoon between Mr. William Dunn of the Shinnecock Club, Southampton, L.I. and Mr. William F Davis of the Newport Club."
TEPaul: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN WAS NOT THE PROFESSIONAL AT SHINNECOCK IN 1893?
2. While his claim is a bit wishy-washy, TEPaul concludes that W.D. Davis was the professional at Shinnecock in 1892, and that he added three holes to the nine hole golf course that year and had "perhaps" built a women's course in 1891 and that this course was a mile long, and "perhaps" Davis moved built a different women's course in 1892, and "perhaps" Davis also made changes the nine hole course in 1892.
- According to the NY Evening Post, July 18, 1892, Shinnecock hired John Cuthbert, of St. Andrews, to act as their golf professional for the summer of 1892.
- According to the "Gotham Gossip" column, June 15, 1892, Shinnecock's course was still nine-holes in 1892, with identical hole distances as the course in 1891:
"In Scotland there are generally eighteen of these greens, the links being spread over from three to four miles. At Shinnecock there are nine putting greens and the links extend over about two miles. . . . The exact measurement of the several links is 258, 187, 395, 275, 412, 297, 265, 228, and 242 yards respectively. There are a separate links for women which extend about a mile, the course, naturally, being less difficult than that for the men."
TEPaul:
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS WAS SHINNECOCK'S PROFESSIONAL IN 1892?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS ADDED THREE HOLES IN 1892? AND "PERHAPS" ALTERED THE NINE HOLE COURSE IN 1892? AND PERHAPS MOVED THE WOMEN'S COURSE IN 1892?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS "PERHAPS" DESIGNED A WOMEN'S COURSE IN 1891?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS WOMEN'S COURSE WAS "PERHAPS" A MILE LONG IN 1891?
3. TEPaul claimed that Dunn extended Shinnecock's course in 1894. There are multiple reports that Dunn extended the course to 18 holes in the spring of 1895.
TEPaul, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN EXTENDED SHINNECOCK'S COURSE TO 18 HOLES IN 1894?
4. TEPaul claimed that Davis designed Newport's course in 1892. There are multiple reports that the club in Newport was created in January, 1893, and that the course was laid out in 1893. For example, on January 29, 1893, the New York Herald announced, "Newport to Have a Golf Club" and reported that they would golf on leased land and that, "A professional golf player from Montreal has been engaged to take charge of the grounds and instruct the members." Likewise, in mid-April 1893, multiple papers announced that land had been leased on Ocean Avenue, and that the club would at once make "improvements" necessary for the game.
TEPaul, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN EXTENDED SHINNECOCK'S COURSE TO 18 HOLES IN 1894?
There is more, but that should be a good start.
TEPaul, can you please explain the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE supporting these claims? Because so far as I can tell, the underlying evidence is to the contrary.
And please do not answer that MR. Goddard's book is your underlying evidence, because that only begs the question as to his underlying evidence.
_______________________________________
I don't know Mr. Goddard except by reputation, but reading what TEPaul wrote above, I feel the need to come to his defense. TEPaul, it an insult to Mr. Goddard and all legitimate researchers when you place yourself and Wayne in his category. Surely Mr. Goddard doesn't rely totally on another's club history for his research, and surely he has no need to pass off phony quotes as real, or to manipulate, control, and obfuscate the source material for petty and personal reasons.
-
Yes, good point;
Pat, what are those two versions you mentioned in your #57 that I asked you about in #59?
David Moriarty:
Judging from your posts to me on this thread, particularly your last one, it appears you've become a bit more than a little hysterical. Why is that? I've told you and everyone else on this thread that my source of the information I've put on here on Shinnecock's Davis/Dunn architectural history is David Goddard's book on Shinnecock's history, "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" (1999).
If you have some problem with what I've said, which it seems from your hysterical posts on here that you might, then maybe you should explain what that problem is and I'll try to clear it up for you. But if it is just that it is me who is explaining it to you, then what you should probably do is try to find someone else who has Goddard's book and has read it to explain it to you or else get it yourself and read it carefully, including its preface (its acknowledgements that mentions some of his source material) and its footnotes, and then you can explain your version of it and what it says to everyone else on this thread and what you think any differences are in it compared to "your version" of Shinnecock's history. ;) ::)
-
David Moriarty:
If you don't know any good psychiatrists out there in Southern California I'm pretty sure I could help you out or that someone on here could. I'm not too sure what your problem is on here, particularly recently and with all your repetitiveness and all this "Internet capitalized textual screaming", but I think one of those creative SoCal shrinks might be able to help you out in that vein.
-
TEPaul,
Can you clarify what Wayne Morrison's involvement is for me please? You have mentioned Mr. Goddard's book on the history of the club and have stated that it is very complete. I believe that you also stated that, since your involvement, Mr. Goddard has been the historian primarliy for the Flynn course, which I assume is after 1931. My question is, what is Wayne Morrison's involvement, and why would Mr. Young show his research to Mr. Morisson before Mr. Goddard and Shinnecock?
Thanks
-
Keith:
I'm sorry but the way this thread has gone, particularly recently with Moriarty's hysterics, I would rather not explain that on this thread, other than to say that it's been no secret on here over the years that Wayne and I have consulted with the club on restoration items and such on the Flynn course in the last decade or a bit less. Other than that I'd rather not comment about that, other than to say that Phil Young can do whatever he wants with Shinnecock and any articles he may have, as far as I'm concerned, but I really do feel he showed some bad judgement to say what he did on this thread today about Wayne or me or what he would prefer to do about that. I think something like that does not belong on this DG. Maybe in a private email but not on this DG. Phil did ask me something along those lines about Myopia recently but at least he did it in an email just to me. That he would put what he did no here about that today makes me lose a certain amount of respect for Phil Young as a fellow researcher/writer with some of these clubs.
Sorry, Keith; I hope you understand.
Thanks
-
Tom,
I'm sorry that you have "lost some respect for me" but let me remind you that it was YOU in your post #69 who suggested that I contact Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard and that I didn't mention Wayne at all until YOU told me that I should contact him first.
If anything, I have shown a great deal of respect to you and all involved in this thread. Frankly, David is correct. There has been agreat deal of information preoduced that calls into question what you have stated to be in Mr. Goddards book. As we (David and myself) do not have copies of it we must rely soley upon what you have stated it contains within its pages. Based SOLELY upon what YOU have written, I have produced a number of contemporaneous newspaper accounts that clearly disagree with your statements. In what possible way has that been a mistreatment of you and Wayne? If anyone has shown "bad judgement" in this area it is YOU because YOU were the one who made all of those original mentions. I simply commented as to what YOU stated.
I'm sorry, but despite the work that you and Wayne have done on behalf of Shinnecock, the information is theirs and Mr. Goddard's since he wrote the book. To believe that you and Wayne have a priority on recieving it before either of them do is incorrect. It is YOU, by your very act of insisting on that, who is showing disrespect to Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard.
What is so difficult about your having seen all of these articles and simply acknowledging that it provides a moments pause and that another examination of the history and what it is based upon may be in order? Also, what is the harm in your making an introduction for me to either Shinnecock and/or Mr. Goddard on this? If you had a question about a Tilly club that you felt I couldn't answer I would have no problem at all in making an introduction for you. The fact is that I have actually done that very thing for several people in the past.
-
"Tom,
I'm sorry that you have "lost some respect for me" but let me remind you that it was YOU in your post #69 who suggested that I contact Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard and that I didn't mention Wayne at all until YOU told me that I should contact him first."
Phil:
Well, thank you for that. I certainly accept that and perhaps I shouldn't have said a thing about any relationship that Wayne Morrison and I have had with Shinnecock or Goddard or any of it. I guess I said that because I just really do feel that anyone on this website that goes about questioning the histories of these clubs as MacWood and Moriarty have done for years should just try to establish a relationship with these clubs before they do that on here. Obviously the reason I say that is I just can't understand why they wouldn't try to do that if they say they are as interested in these clubs' histories as they say they are. Why should they just put this kind of speculative stuff on here with a few newspaper articles and then if someone like me questions them or corrects them with the history of a club from its own records they demand I hand over private club material to them or not be allowed to answer or respond on here.
I know you understand this Phil because we have talked about it at length and you seem to agree with me because your experiences with the clubs you know and study have been somewhat the same as mine that way. I feel that with anyone, even you, if you may not know a club like Shinnecock. Just go to the people on here that you know have relationships and collaborate with them with the clubs is my philosophy.
-
I see a lot of rewrites in Messrs. Paul & Morrison's future. ;D
-
TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries? I'm having a hard time understanding your underlying philosophy. This new information fascinates me, I don't understand why you react so negatively. Is it a case of objecting to all research beyond club records? I don't know any competent historical researcher who would limit his search to one source.
Are there certain clubs, like Merion, Shinnecock, and Myopia, you feel should be off limits because of their reputation or perhaps some connection you may have (or would like to believe you have), or are you just uncomfortable with all new discoveries. I don't recall you reacting negatively when new information was brought to light with White Bear Yacht, SFGC, Pocono Manor, Olympia Fields, and all the Mackenzie courses Neil Crafter & Co have uncovered.
Is it personal, in other words if your mortal enemies Moriarty or MacWood are making the discoveries you take particular offense? Is there some kind of insecurity at work here, realizing you will never be able to make similar discoveries because of your limited research abilities. I'm not a psychologist though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I agree with your friends who tell you have plenty to do with architecture. Your not tied down to a job, you don't have a family to worry about, you are reasonably intelligent, you have excellent contacts and I'm guessing financially sound. You should be running circles around all of us when it comes to research and uncovering what really happened in the history of golf architecture. Instead you seem to have your head buried in the sand fighting everyone who is doing what you should be doing.
-
TEPaul,
Can you clarify what Wayne Morrison's involvement is for me please? You have mentioned Mr. Goddard's book on the history of the club and have stated that it is very complete. I believe that you also stated that, since your involvement, Mr. Goddard has been the historian primarliy for the Flynn course, which I assume is after 1931. My question is, what is Wayne Morrison's involvement, and why would Mr. Young show his research to Mr. Morisson before Mr. Goddard and Shinnecock?
Thanks
I think these are very good questions. When I first posted this thread, TEPaul informed me in no uncertain terms that I should have contacted him and Wayne prior to posting what I did. Nothing about the Club or Mr. Goddard; rather I needed to have contacted Wayne and TEPaul. Wayne and TEPaul?
Why on earth should any of us have to contact Wayne and TEPaul before posting on Shinnecock? (Indeed, why should any of us have to contact anyone of these clubs about events that happened almost 120 years ago?) I just can't get over the arrogance of the demand, especially given that Wayne and TEPaul know very little about the origins. The information TEPaul gave me less than a month ago was far from correct. As for Wayne, here he is on the subject from a thread in 2006:
. . .
Willie Davis arrived in Southampton in 1891 and laid out the first 12 holes at Shinnecock Hills. The holes were completed in a relatively short time and were fascinating examples of the geometric era. Sometime later the course was becoming congested and a nine hole course, the Red Course was laid out for the ladies. This is probably the origin of the color red for most forward tees. After a short time, the two course concept was abandoned and a single 18-hole layout was put into play around 1893.
Willie Dunn came to town in 1895 and did some redesign work, lengthening the course to over 5000 yards. . . .
Interesting version, one consistent with what TEPaul told me last month, but a version not supported by the facts with which I am familiar. I wonder where he got this information? One would think that such an expert on Shinnecock who was working with Goddard would have been familiar with Goddard's account, but this version is different than what TEPaul is now claiming.
TEPaul, where did you get your information for the version you told me last month? And why is your version and Wayne's version different that what you have represented as Goddard's version?
AND WHY DID YOU INFORM ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE CONTACTED YOU AND WAYNE BEFORE POSTING?
DOES SHINNECOCK KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE HOLDING YOURSELVES OUT AS SHINNECOCK'S REPRESENTATIVES AND INSISTING THAT THOSE INTERESTED IN ITS HISTORY COME TO YOU TWO FIRST?
TEPaul, I know you two have pulled this gatekeeper garbage at Merion, but at least Wayne is a member there. It seems pretty arrogant and presumptuous to appoint yourselves as the gatekeepers at clubs where you don't even belong.
_______________________________
And TEPaul, what of my questions above?
Where are the underlying facts?
-
"TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries?"
Tom MacWood:
I suppose the only way to try to proceed intelligently on threads or discussions like this one is to take it in very small bites. That's why I only quoted the above! What new discoveries are you speaking about and where have I said I was disgusted with any of them if in fact they even exist?
-
Patrick,
If you are out there, please help us out here. You suggested that we present the evidence underlying our claims, and that seemed a reasonably way to proceed. So far as I can tell, TEPaul has not presented anything.
Can you see why these conversations bog down?
Can you explain to your pal why generally referencing someone else's history does not advance the conversation?
-
I seem to have been completely pummelled by endless questions from Tom MacWood and David Moriarty about all kinds of things that they claim I said, many of them which I never have said. How in the world does anyone on here expect that I should keep up with them or even expect that I could? To even try to do that is overwhelming and so if anyone would actually like to speak to me about it I will put my telephone # on here for a time.
Feel free to call me about any of this before my fingers fall off typing. ;)
Barn/Office=610-353-0568
If no one bothers to call I cannot help but think they don't really care about any of this or getting to the bottom of the history of Shinnecock or it's present presentation of it by David Goddard.
PS:
I will put what I consider to be a truly revelatory note on here-----eg I would absolutely not expect either Moriarty or MacWood to ever even DARE to call me about any of this! If they don't what do you suspect THAT means??? ;)
Thanks
-
"TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries?"
Tom MacWood:
I suppose the only way to try to proceed intelligently on threads or discussions like this one is to take it in very small bites. That's why I only quoted the above! What new discoveries are you speaking about and where have I said I was disgusted with any of them if in fact they even exist?
You react as if you are disgusted. Campbell's involvement at Myopia in 1894 and 1896, Wilson not going abroad in 1910, and now the new info regarding Shinnecock...not to mention Crump's suicide and Flynn's role at Hartwellville.
-
So if I don't call TEPaul at his command, then it means that "I don't really care about any of this or getting to the bottom of the history of Shinnecock" . . . ? TEPaul's delusions of grandeur seem to be on the uptick.
TEPaul,
For the record, I will not call you because I like to have a record of our conversations. That way that you cannot misrepresent them as you have in the past (see the Campbell thread, for example.) Also, I think others would be interested in your answers to the questions. I would think they might be interested in your refusal to answer as well.
But that is a pretty funny notion about you, with your tens of thousands of posts, not being able to manage to answer a few reasonable questions.
Just provide your evidence for the various claims you have made. And explain why you insisted I should have called you before posting. I think we are all curious as to the answers.
Thanks.
-
8) TEP its late and I'm going to bed so I won't call, but I am interested in how historians get confused..
Regards from the 30th parallel
-
Is the Goddard book only available to members?
Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?
Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?
Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote? Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?
Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves? Why do we find that so difficult?
Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...
-
"Is the Goddard book only available to members?"
MikeC:
I don't know about that. Goddard calls it a book but it could be in loose-left form with only a few copies printed to date.
"Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?"
That's a good question! I sure do doubt Moriarty who started this thread has. He doesn't really contact clubs before he tells them and the world on the Internet that he knows better than they do why their histories are wrong. The same seems to go for that Tom MacWood who seems to me to be about as dumb as a stump!
"Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?"
That to me is the ultimate question on this website and on threads like this one. I'm glad you asked it again because I sure have. What is your feeling about it MichaelC?
"Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote? Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?"
You don't need me if anyone else on here had it or bothered to get it. They apparently haven't and my question is----why is that?
"Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves? Why do we find that so difficult?"
That! THAT!!! is the real question on here and I have been asking it for years!!! Why are so few, to none on here, providing an answer to that question????
-
Mike,
I can only answer for myself:
Is the Goddard book only available to members? I have no ides.
Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history? As my questions on this just came up in the past two days I felt that it would be improper as a stranger to reach out to both club and Mr. Goddard until after they passed. I intend on doing so.
Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy? The availability of it will be among my first questions.
Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote? Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there? If one doesn't have the book and the questions arise BECAUSE Tom Paul has stated what is in the book without even quoting from it, it seems only natural to ask him to do so. I can't answer for David's critical analysis, but mine began after I read David's and felt that his presentation showed signs of validity. This was followed by Tom Paul criticizing his theory by stating about Goddard's book. That increased my interest. I then did a simple search for contemporaneous newspaper articles that dealt with several of the issues and was quite surprised how they both disagreed with what Tom Paul said that Goddard's book contained and agreed with much of what David had conjectured. So, no, in this case, at least for me, the "critical analysis" would not have started with the club.
Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves? Why do we find that so difficult? I have no aversion. What is Tom Paul's aversion for others doing so since he insisted that I FIRST contact he and Wayne who, despite the work they may have done for the club, are not members of ot nor do they speak for Mr. Goddard.
Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks... Mike, I honestly think that this train wreck can be put at Tom's feet.
-
Phil,
As you know, I do a lot of newspaper and periodical research myself and I guess in these situations I ask myself what I would do if I found something conflicting a known course/club history, or what I would like to see done if I was a member or resident historian out of simple respect and consideration.
For what it's worth, I think the approach you took in the case of SFGC is the right way to do things. Sean Tully also had similar good judgment and discretion in dealing with the same club.
Unless we here on GCA see ourselves as sort of the "National Enquirer", or perhaps more appropriately, the combo of "News of the World" and WikiLeaks, then I think we'll get a lot better, more accurate, and less contentious information by including the clubs themselves in this process, rather than setting up some de facto adversarial relationship.
-
Is the Goddard book only available to members?
I have no idea.
Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?
I've never claimed anything about his book. How could I when I haven't even read it? My goal wasn't to debate another club history.
Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?
Because I am capable of figuring it myself using contemporaneous information.
Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote?
We don't. TEPaul inserted himself and Goddard into this conversation, and has insisted on trying to make this about Goddard. (And you are playing along like any good lapdog would.) It isn't about Goddard. It is about what happened at Shinnecock. If TEPaul wants to make claims about what happened at Shinnecock (whether from Goddard or his own imagination) he should back the claims.
Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?
I've made no critical analysis of Goddard's version of the history. My critical analysis is of what actually happened, compared to what Parrish, Dunn, and Whitten claimed happened. It is all above if you are interested.
Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves? Why do we find that so difficult? Because there is no need to bother them with something as trivial as this. Because it is very unlikely that many there even give a damn. Because they haven't asked for my opinion. Because I value my independence, and getting involved with a club could potentially threaten that. Because I am not a member of their club. Because this just wasn't that big a deal to me. Because I abhor the politics that necessarily accompany such dealings. Because no one owns history. Because it is a matter of general interest. And a host of other reasons.
Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...
If there is a trainwreck it is only because your mentor (and now you) are sabotaging the tracks.
I found out some interesting information and so I thought I'd share it. I don't have to answer to you, TEPaul, or any other self-annointed guardian of history to post here.
_________________________________
Now Mike Cirba, why don't you ask yourself the same questions for all of the clubs you have posted about over the years.
How about all your various bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history? Did you go to NGLA before you posted those? If not, then why the double standard?
____________________________
TEPaul,
I see you have time to answer questions in writing. Great. So how about some answers?
-
"Unless we here on GCA see ourselves as sort of the "National Enquirer", or perhaps more appropriately, the combo of "News of the World" and WikiLeaks, then I think we'll get a lot better, more accurate, and less contentious information by including the clubs themselves in this process, rather than setting up some de facto adversarial relationship."
Mike Cirba:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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?
-
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.
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/random%20tasks/371dc481.jpg?t=1293464729)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/random%20tasks/89f4103c.jpg?t=1293465278)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/random%20tasks/5c937e70.jpg?t=1293465348)
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
"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!
-
Shivas,
The answers can be found in the second half...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Patrick -
Are you available to travel to Palestine? There's a small skirmish over there which could use a rational voice. :D
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! :D
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?
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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,
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
David Moriarty,
Have you made any progress in getting a copy of Goddard's book ?
The publisher ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Shinny721923NYEveningTelegram-1.jpg)
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.?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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?
-
Pat,
I posted this on another thread, but I believe they believe (like Woody Hayes and te pass) that its more likely that bad stuff can happen.
-
Jeffrey:
When you wrote that did you have any particular club in mind or were you thinking and speaking generally?
-
TEPaul,
Being snowbound may be making me dense, but I have to ask another question. On this thread, you have discussed an inability to divulge what is in the Goddard book, and even mentioned speaking to Intellectual property attorneys in that regard.
Yet you started another thread related to the history of Shinnecock and on that thread, you are able to reference the material in the book, and at one point you even seem to quote it.
What is your position? Can we ask questions about the book? I.E. How did it treat the situation where the USGA had a golfer registered from Shinnecock when Shinnecock itself does not have material to reflect that golfer had been there? Or is the book off limits?
Thanks Keith
-
Keith:
I'm glad you asked that. I've been trying to explain that on here for over a year or more but apparently I have not been successful in getting many to understand it. My position with Shinnecock and its Goddard book is the same as my position with some other clubs I've known well for years that include Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia, Shinnecock and a number of other clubs like that. Over the years they've shared some of their private club material with me. Most of this material is not in the public domain and they consider it to be private. I've spoken to all of them about it and their feeling has always been that I can talk about whatever I have read or whatever I have of this private material but they would prefer that I not scan it and post it onto a Internet website like this one. Of course sometimes it can get a bit hard to tell what is private club material and what is public domain material or basically considered to be, such as a club history book which has been sold publicly and so forth. Some of the latter is actually under copyright protection to the club but it has found its way on here in a scanned and copy form from others on this site who have come into possession of it. I have never done that primarily because I don't even know how to post copies on this website but even if I did know how I would not do it. But I have no restriction from any of these clubs about talking about what I know from any of this material and so if you have any questions on it I would be happy to answer them but I'm not going to copy it on here. Some on here have demanded I do that but I'm not going to do it. My philosophy is that if they want to read it personally or copy it for their own use or even challenge me on the validity and veracity of what I say about it on here they will need to make their own arrangements to do that with those clubs as I have over the years.
I hope that helps and clears up this seeming on-going misunderstanding and confusion.
-
Tom,
I understand the delicate balancing act you are trying to pull off with respect to honoring the "privacy" of the material you were granted access to.
However, it still leaves us in an unfortunate predicament when some evidence is uncovered that may APPEAR to contradict what you are relaying. It's not a matter of questioning your veracity, but leaves things in a position where possible contradictions cannot be pursued for resolution.
I'm not saying that any of us have a "right" to get that resolution - a private club has the right to keep this information as they wish. But at the same time, the club does not have a right to be offended when people are making honest efforts (not wreckless or slanderous) to formulate opinions off of the information that is readily available.
It does not make sense to "summarily dismiss" some of the findings that David may have simply because it contradicts someone like Goddard, who had access to internal documents. You alluded earlier to the fact that Goddard's book "corrected" or "clarified" previous Club Histories, presumably written by people who also had access to internal records - so it seems helpful to keep an open mind to any new information and see if it can be synthesized with whatever is already known.
Which is the biggest reason why I think it would be helpful to know what sources Goddard used. If Goddard referenced an external newspaper article or public contemporary account in compiling his history, that would be very helpful to people trying to synthesize an understanding, especially if they had not come across it. I fail to see how saying "Goddard used this public article dated December XX, XXXX" would have anything to do with sacrificing the privacy of the club's internal records.
If even that would still be considered a sacrifice of privacy, I suppose that is their right. But like I stated earlier, it's not their right to be offended when people are doing the best they can with available information.
-
TePaul,
I had no particular club in mind, but any of the old line clubs probably face the possibility (even at 1% why would they bother?) of the IRS questioning their tax exempt status, a Martha Burk type activist trying to look into their membership practices, a newspaper using their history as an example of "class warfare", etc.
I can see where it is not worth their risk to have someone like TMac or David Moriarity rifling through their records. First, what standing or level of trust would any amateur historian have with these clubs? Probably none, like it or not. Second, and more practically speaking, if they give them complete access, they may write something they don't need to have written, and if they limit ceratain portions, they are open to natural questions of what are they hiding, just as you have been.
In all, I can see why private clubs generally like to lay low.
-
Pat:
When clubs publish and sell history books I don't see that as concealing their historical record.
Then why should any information regarding their history be deemed "top secret"
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?
Quite simply, I would suggest that you don't respond to a thread where you know something is incorrect or inaccurate, where you can't offer source documentation to support your position because of the constraints that particular club has placed on you.
NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE is going to accept your "take my word for it, I've seen the documents" defense.
So, If you're under a "GAG" order, don't say anything.
It's "THE" club's responsibility to set the record straight.
If they want to allow an inaccurate account of their history, that's their business.
IF they want to CORRECT an inaccurate account of their history, they can easily do so through emissaries such as yourself..
-
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."
Kevin,
That's correct
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".
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
OK, but, remember, the club documents may or may not be as extensive as David's research documents
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.
Agreed
-
Patrick,
I think it was Phil Young who said that it was "ideal" to have the club records, but not absolutely necessary. Who could disagree with that?
I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.
I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public? If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?
You say club documents may not be as extensive as David's material. That is true enough, as many have been lost in fires, etc. But when available, I believe they should be used as an important part of any club history. After all, they were written specifically to record what actually happened, albeit they can be maddeningly vague, since club secretaries often think that its only the current members who need to know.
In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul. To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me. Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no? I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise. I tend to think its the other way around. And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.
-
I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.
Patrick
It appears there is one person who accepts TEP's "take my word for it, I've seen the documents" defense.
-
TMac,
I accidentally posted this over in the Myopia thread. Its not worth a double post, but just in case you missed it there. While being pithy in my remarks below, I think the real problem with your post is found in our discussion of black/white thinking. In this case, its "if you don't agree with me, you agree with TePaul" when in reality, I may only agree with TePaul slightly more than I agree with you. Or, that if I don't accept David's theories completely, that it constitutes a blanket dismissal of his theories.
And as background, on this thread, I haven't even taken the time to read the details over and over to get it clear in my mind. As mentioned above, somehow I must have thought your last comment was based on my comments and those of TePaul on Myopia. I do understand that he is taking a similar position on Shinny.
Even with that said, is it really a stretch to ask David to take responsibility for his own writing and background? Is everything wrong in the world TePaul's fault? Here is the post on the Myopia thread, in case you care:
You are either tweaking me in your not so pithy way, misrepresenting me, or just plain dumb as a stump. I doubt its the latter, really, but just in case, I will type very slowly on this post to help you read it more clearly!
I do not believe you need to take either the Weeks history or TePaul's take on it as gospel. However, I do believe that contemporaneous club records exist, based on TePaul's telling us he has seen them briefly. I do not think he is lying about that. So, even though we don't know what they say, we do know with reasonable certainty that they exist.
So my question is, if you and DM are going to publicly proffer another theory of the design of MH, and do so knowing that you are NOT including information from all contemporaneous records know to exist, how can you say that is good historical research, and/or that your conclusion is sound? In essence, I am agreeing with you that we need to have all the sources at our disposal, which we simply don't have.
Simply put, it may not be reckless research, but it is certainly incomplete research, and not worth 37 pages of vicious debate.
BTW, as to being confused as to what Willie did at Myopia, I think we all are. There is no real record of what he did do there, to the level of specificity any of us would like. However, I will say that the recently posted article from 1897 expansion of Myopia states that it will take from July to next spring to open the new links, which somewhat discounts your theory that courses in that era just took a few weeks to open for play. Granted, the first links in 1894 were described as a improvised course, and the later version was supposed to be permanent, which may have taken more time.......
I don't recall, but did you post the actual articles that you say were your sources for that claim, or did we just have to take your word for it that you had read them somewhere?
Again, happy new year to you and yours.
-
Jeff Brauer
Please remove that post immediately above. It has no place here. This thread is about Shinnecock, not Myopia.
-
TMac,
I accidentally posted this over in the Myopia thread. Its not worth a double post, but just in case you missed it there. While being pithy in my remarks below, I think the real problem with your post is found in our discussion of black/white thinking. In this case, its "if you don't agree with me, you agree with TePaul" when in reality, I may only agree with TePaul slightly more than I agree with you. Or, that if I don't accept David's theories completely, that it constitutes a blanket dismissal of his theories.
Jeff,
I already posted some thoughts on the Myopia Thread - I won't try to repeat it here.
In many ways, I think we're talking about the same danger - "black/white" thinking. On the Myopia thread, I also discussed the dangers of "presumed motivation" which is somewhat related.
I'm not sure if you're confusing some of my comments with TMac, because I think I was using the phrase "blanket dismissal" (but I don't claim exclusivity over it).
I'm concerned a little about the concept of "blanket dismissal" on two different fronts:
First, there's TEPaul's "blanket dismissal" of David's work, which is motivated more by personal disdain, rather than the quality of David's research. Normally, I wouldn't want to presume motivation, but since TEPaul has publicly asserted his motivation on several occasions, I feel comfortable assigning motive. TEPaul could and should be able to "challenge" David's work without it being deemed a 'blanket dismissal" (and it would be great to have constructive challenges from someone with his experience). Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to distinguish given the evidence of personal animus. In some ways, it is ironic. By making his personal disdain and desire to harass David so public, TEPaul has dismissed himself as an effective "critic." Rather, his comments now get relegated to "consider the source / grain of salt" status (some of those "self-inflicted wounds" I discussed in another thread). It's a real loss, and one that could be repaired if TEPaul would drop the blatantly personal crap.
(In the interest of fairness, conversely, I feel that David does himself a disservice on those occasions when he tries a "blanket dismissal" of questions raised by Mike Cirba with charges of "lapdog" and other unnecessary personal stuff. That ties in a little to your "thicker-skin" suggestion).
The second type of "blanket dismissal" is somewhat related to your concerns over incompleteness of research (i.e. your question - "can it be "good" or "sound" if it's incomplete). That's what I was addressing in my response at the Myopia thread. However, to summarize my thoughts, my answer is "Yes, it still can be good, but it's a lot harder."
-
In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul. To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me. Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no? I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise. I tend to think its the other way around. And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.
Jeff,
I'm not sure Patrick was saying TEPaul was under an "obligation" to refute with new facts. I think Patrick was suggesting that TEPaul can't say "I know you're wrong based on things I can't reveal to you."
I think the suggestion is that we can't have these discussions focused on the pieces of evidence that "might exist" but won't be revealed. Rather, the focus needs to be on the information that is available and used as the basis for David's conclusions.
If you don't think there is enough evidence available to make conclusions, then say so. Or if you think some of the interpretations are off, then address that. If there's enough available evidence, you may be able to conclude that a position is reasonable (subject to the possibility that additional information may be considered if made available).
But if we start from a position that David's conclusions "CAN'T" be reasonable because it hasn't encompassed ALL information, that doesn't sound right to me. It would be different if David IGNORED contrary evidence that was presented to him, but that's not the case.
-
Patrick,
I think it was Phil Young who said that it was "ideal" to have the club records, but not absolutely necessary. Who could disagree with that?
I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.
Jeff, I would disagree. If David's position is supported by source and/or contemporaneous documentation the club records may or may not be relevant. You can't dismiss David's premise if he's provided reliable documentation.
I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public? If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?
You say club documents may not be as extensive as David's material. That is true enough, as many have been lost in fires, etc. But when available, I believe they should be used as an important part of any club history. After all, they were written specifically to record what actually happened, albeit they can be maddeningly vague, since club secretaries often think that its only the current members who need to know.
Jeff, If you can't get "access" to them, you can't use them.
That's not David's fault.
If David provides documentation to support his position, NOT having access to club records doesn't automatically make his premise null and void.
In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul. To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me.
I NEVER said that. that's your faulty reading of my posts.
What I said is that you/we can't accept a refutation of David's premise based on a claim that someone has seen the club records and the club records contradict David's premise, but, the club records can't be made public.
1 The club records could be wrong.
2 The claimant could have misread or misinterpreted them
Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no? I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise. I tend to think its the other way around. And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.
Jeff, the exchanges have gone far beyond the realm of passionate debate to unpleasant personal attacks, and both parties are guilty.
David's position seems simple to me. He's presented a premise, provided supporting documentation, welcomes challenge, provided the challenge is substantiated with reliable documentation.
I don't think thats too much to ask.
And, while I'd certainly prefer to have them, don't forget, club records have a history of being flawed or incomplete.
-
As is typical, I'm a late arriver to this thread.
David, I read your piece and it is interesting. The similarity in names is obviously an issue, and you've obviously found a potential crack in the accepted history that is worth exploring. I would of course agree that as a person interested in history, you have to understand that if you are contradicting accepted beliefs, there are those who will hold you to a high standard in your findings. You are providing some evidence that supports your conclusions, and that evidence cannot be dismissed. I found the language you used in this piece to be much more satisfactory than in the Missing Faces of Merion (my opinion) because your logical leaps are tighter and the tenor of your conclusions is less absolute. The evidence you present from contemporaneous accounts is on point. The question is whether or not the accounts provided are absolutely persuasive, and because there are other accounts that differ, there are those who can and will continue to disagree with you.
You can't dismiss what Jeff said earlier on this thread, regardless of the fact that he happened to be talking about Myopia. The issue he raises has nothing to do with any specific club, but with general realities of being an historical researcher. You can't pick and choose your sources, without being accused of bias. There's no reason I can think of to ignore the club itself when researching its history, or to just dismiss an accepted club history because it doesn't agree with what you find, or because debunking accepted histories is in any way a goal.
What you don't want to do, especially when you've got a good, interesting story to tell, is to risk marginalizing your work or yourself because you don't follow through and consider all sources. It is up to you to make your evidence persuade. I'm easily persuaded, because I've never read Goddard, or any other Shinnecock history. But there are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about it, and have a more personal stake in it than I do, and they'll be harder to persuade.
Most interesting thread, David, thanks.
-
Pat,
Good morning. I must say I am somewhat surprised at your responses, but at the same time, it seems I am one of the few here who would ask if an internet discussion board needs a higher standard of posting when presenting what is billed as a historical treastise, even if disguised as a discussion topic. I guess I am wrong on that, at least by overall opinion here, but do appreciate Kirk's support!
Of course, a "new" club history absent of club records COULD BE totally accurate, but I believe the chances of that are much less than otherwise. IMHO, dismissing them reduces chances substantially, and while not a black and white issue, in most cases, I would believe that the chances are reduced so far as to make the endeavor basically worthless. Plus, a lot of this is spin anyway from both sides.
Take authorized and unauthorized biographies, for example. Some folks will believe only the authorized versions, with its access to actual records of the president or celebrity. Others will tend to believe only the unauthorized versions, gleamed from outside sources, because they don't accept the spin of the authorized, more documented version. Is that what is happening between TePaul and the DM/TMac tandem?
And while many club histories have flaws, I am not so sure the club records have displayed that tendency, although some get lost and others still need translation and interpretation.
Its all interesting theoretical discussion to me, even void of the details of each club. And again, I do admit I am still sort of mixing the situation with Myopia and Shinny here, which isn't fair to this discussion topic and David, so I will bow out of this one.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40861736/ns/us_news/
Not really on topic, but a current example that might have relevance. While many reports had the then NM governor offering to pardon Billy the Kid, they searched the actual govt records and couldn't find any real documentation that he did, despite many outside reports that he did.
This just illustrates that there is often the "official" recorded history and the outside history of a particular case. Legends do emerge over time, of course. But those in official capacities (like TePaul as USGA archivist) would tend to follow the official record in making any changes to historical view, while others are more free to speculate as to their veracity and use other sources.
I guess legend does become part of history, and can be debated openly by anyone, and no one else can stop it. But, if a club decides to write or rewrite their history, what sources would they trust most if issuing the offical club history?
-
Jeff,
Part of the problem is that David is being chastized for not obtaining source documentation from the club he's writing about.
Some of those chastizing him would have us believe that if David had only dialed up the club they would have accepted him with open arms and placed the source documentation at his disposal.
Others chastizing him would have us believe that if David had only worked through them, he could have obtain all of the information that was necessary to complete his work.
I reject both of those premises.
In Cancer research, and I guess in other forms of research, teams work independent of one another, pursuing their particular research path.
Sometimes, but not often, the independent parties collaborate, pooling the results and knowledge in an attempt to springboard further along the discovery process..
Would Merion and Shinnecock have opened their archives to David ?
I don't think there was a snowball's chance in HELL of that happening, so please, let's dismiss that fantasy.
Could David have worked through TEPaul, Wayne Morrison and others ?
Possibly, but, I believe that personality conflicts precluded that happening a long while ago.
So, with direct access to Merion and Shinnecock's archives not even a remote possibility , asking David to channel his efforts through Wayne Morrison and TEPaul seems equally impossible.
Having said all that, what's wrong with independent research ?
Secondly, think about this. If David was working with a specific club, what if he came to discover information that conflicted with the accepted club history. What kind of obligation would he be under not to publish that information ?,
AND, please don't say that he wouldn't be under any political pressure to hold back those findings.
Wilson's alleged trip PRIOR to the design of Merion would have presented an enormous conundrum.
I don't think this issue has a simple solution, and certainly not a solution of, "if you'd only come to us.
-
Pat,
I understand and have previously posted that I am pretty sure people like David will not be given access to many if any clubs history. I have no fantasy that this will happen. If it ever would have, the behavior of DM on this site ended it. And to be fair, I wonder if TePaul will face some limitations on access in the future access given clubs will gradually find out how and how often he participates here. He has a bigger dilemma than Dave or TMac.
That said, my question still stands. What is the value of a presumably serious historical piece that ignores some of the known record and makes conclusions without it? Should it even be presented as such? It seems to me that if I would have presented a research piece to a teacher and admitted that I didn't get around to looking at some important documents because they were too hard to find, my grade wouldn't have been very high!
I do understand that this is a discussion board and David should be free to post his theories as discussion points. We can all feel free to discuss them, and I think even TePaul recognizes that as much as clubs might prefer the old way, its a new world out there and they will have to figure out how to deal with guys like us.
I posted the link to the whole bruhaha about pardoning Billy the Kid this morning just to show that some of the fascination of history is the mystery, the conflicting opinions, etc. Someone is always passing down legends, which is what DM and TMac are trying to say in this case that clubs do. However, the official decision on pardoning BK today was the absence of any official documentation of a deal with the governor, while the public outvoted the current gov in approving the pardon. Tough issues and maybe similarities to discussions here.
More specifically to your question, I don't think the political pressure would be the same at every club. We tend to portray old line clubs as a monlith (not too much different than "far right wingers" or some such. But every club was different.
Short version, I don't think there is a simple solution, or a simple answer, other than I think David was right to put that disclaimer in his Merion piece, and could consider doing that moving forward if he starts another search for the truth somewhere else.
Happy New Year!
-
Jeff,
I must disagree with your perception as you stated, "That said, my question still stands. What is the value of a presumably serious historical piece that ignores some of the known record and makes conclusions without it? Should it even be presented as such? It seems to me that if I would have presented a research piece to a teacher and admitted that I didn't get around to looking at some important documents because they were too hard to find, my grade wouldn't have been very high!"
That is not what happened here. Davaid didn't reach a conclusion but rather theorized an explanation for SUPPOSED discrepncies that he has come across to the accepted club history. That can be shown with how he closed out what he wrote with his statement, "Is my version correct? Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."
If I was his teacher before I would have graded his paper i would have asked him why he coukld find nothing else. Being told that he is prevented from both access to the actual documents and even the written document that explained the accepted conclusions, I would have given him an "A" for his work. Now that doesn't mean that I would agree with his theory, but that I would view it as an outstanding product based solely upon what was available to both he and myself as his teacher because the same information would be blocked from my view as well.
My sole point here is that there is nothing wrong with the speculation and theory. David won't be given access, but then again 99% of all legitimate historians would not either. It is the rare one that is. Club's don't owe access to their records to anyone from outside their club and many times don't even allow access to board minutes and documents to many members.
Cultivating and protecting those rare relationships that allow it for an individual is most important. The real bottom line is that there will always be questions to what someone writes. At some point actual faith in the veracity of the writer and what he has written needs to be shown for there will be no more access given...
-
Phil,
Thanks for that explanation, even if I wished you had been my teacher on a few occaisions!
I do realize I am being somewhat unfair to David on this thread, especially, since I am sort of mixing up this and Myopia because I answered a TMac pithy quote here as well as on the Myopia thread.
I do understand that its a discussion board, and it is a place for open discussion on controversial topics. I have always said the strength of these boards and the weakness is both that these discussions shouldn't be limited or directed as to where they go.
Its a fine line in some cases, but I think you are right. This is an appropriate place for speculation. Maybe my real beef is the way some, if not all of us, get into such heated discussions. You and I are both contributors from time to time, and I think most would vote both DM and TePaul as the biggest agitators. Sure, our hands aren't clean either! It just seems that we shouldn't get so embrolied, but maybe we need personality transplants rather than a change to any methodolgy on these boards.
Cheers.
-
Jeff Brauer,
If someone, DM, TM, TEP or anyone else puts forth a premise, supported by differering degrees of verifiable information, the conclusions they draw may or may not be accurate.
Once someone puts forth a reasoned premise, it's open for DISCUSSION.
No one ever conveyed infallibility to any premise presented.
If others have information that contradicts or refutes the premise, they should present the counter argument.
If others have information that solidifies the premise, they should present the supporting information.
Moriarty and MacWood aren't to be treated as subserviant, requiring approval from others prior to presenting their case.
They're free to research and structure any premise that's to their liking.
Please understand, that I've had some passionate, if not heated exchanges with both David and Tom on a number of threads.
But, their position will rise or fall based upon the substance of their facts and reasoning.
I thought some of their premises were well researched and well reasoned.
That doesn't mean that they're flawless.
If there are flaws let them be identified, substantiated and reasoned.
Then, all can make up their own minds as to the relative merits of a particular premise.
Not having club records as a part of their premise may constitute a flaw based on the content of the club's records, OR, the club records may be irrelevent.
As an example, I would cite Wilson's alleged trip to the UK, PRIOR to the design of Merion.
Why would David have to have access to the club records to substantiate his position that Wilson NEVER sailed until after the course was designed ? ? ?
Is his premise NOT VALID because he didn't have access to the club records ?
Or, Is his premise VALID, in spite of the club's records ? ? ? ;D
We now know, through David's independent research, that the club's records were wrong on this issue.
Think about it.
P.S.. Happy and Healthy New Year to everyone and their families
-
Philip and Patrick,
Thanks for the last posts each of you made (#172 & 174 respectively). I completely agree and wish I could have written those.
-
Pat,
I just saw this response, and I did think about it.
David was correct on the Wilson trip. The ship manifests were official records of another type. I think official records are very useful to historic research, whether coming from the club, other sources (tax records, land deeds, etc.)
On this specific point, I think the Wilson item wasn't an actual premise. I think he was researching and made a discovery. From that, and other research, he developed several premises, we did have notable debate, and all came to their own conclusions, without a firm consensus, and certainly not agreement from David or TMac (who drew his own conclusions that differ signifigantly with the rest of us)
I believe that David was right on that point, not proven right in other of his premises, while some are still open to interpretion. I believe club records were of varying help in determining each of those scenarios.
Perhaps my logic is flawed, but in general, I think the best interpretations would ideally have the club records. Of course, every case is definitely different and no general rule can cover every situation that will arise, just as your pointing out one example doesn't indicate the overall picture either. As the old saying goes, the exception may very well prove the rule, no?
-
Jeff Brauer,
We are not talking about Merion here. But you have done my research and analysis a terrible disservice by once again misrepresenting it.
1. The timing of that trip was surely a premise. It was originally conceived of my analysis of the Wilson Chapter and then researched and the facts backed it up. Like in all these situations the ridiculous argument against the premise continued for years after it was proven by any reasonable standard. (I initially came up with the premise around this time (2006-2007.)
2. Unless we think TEPaul is still in the midst of an extremely long lasting, cynical, and convoluted scheme to make be look foolish by lying about the supposed Drexel documents, then every single one of my major premises about Merion has been proven accurate. I TEPaul was lying (and if he is still lying, since he has never come clean) then all but one has been proven correct, and that one is still being debated. I am very comfortable with where we stand on that one and on my work on Merion in general, as the facts are clearly in my corner. I have more to add, but won't be doing so until I get clarification on whether or not TEPaul is lying about the Drexel documents, and a few other issues are taken care of. It is only by their blatant manipulation and obfuscation of the source material, as well as the near endless attacks on me, that Merion continues to be a confusing issue.
_________________________________________
As for your other comments on this thread, I wish everyone would just ignore them. Your posts themselves suggest that you writing out of some sort of hostility and personal animosity, and without much knowledge of the underlying facts.
I find it hard to believe that you could have read my posts on Shinnecock and still made some of the claims you have made. Frankly, I am hesitant to ask if you actually read them, because if you did the posts are even more off base and insulting that I thought.
-
David,
If it was a premise, then I was wrong and I apolgize. I typed from memory.
There is no doubt the debate about the Wilson trip lingered in some quarters long after it was reasonably settled and that TePaul tried to discredit you.
There is also no doubt that TePaul was joshing you on the Drexel papers (he has told me so) and has over time tried hard to make you look bad.
Specifically regarding the unproven points of Merion, I refer to you contention that the routing was completed prior to November 1910. I believe many people still contest that notion based on club reports presented. As to the interpretation issues, I specifically believe that we generally agree CBM was an important element, but that he was always credited by Merion, and there are differences in opinion as to how much more, if any, he should be credited, semantics if you will.
I already stated that I have not made a thorough review of your arguments and TePaul's counter arguments (even if they consist only of supporting Goddard) I don't care to get embroiled in another one. I have apologized and the only reason I responded on this thread is because TMac made a deragatory comment about me which sort of crossed over between this and they Myopia comments.
I stand by my comments that its ideal and usually better to have club records as part of historical analysis, given they are contemporaneous and written specifically to record what was happening at the time. I also stand by the fact that I am entitled to have an opinion and that there is no way any of that insults you.
Lastly, why chastise me? Pat Mucci brought Merion into this thread and I simply responded, once again, mostly agreeing with your side of things.
-
TE Paul,
My collection of golf architecture books and club histories includes David Goddard’s history of Maidstone but not his Shinnecock book.
Honestly, Goddard’s Maidstone book is a bit disappointing because it is much more focused on the history of the club and the influence of different factions within the club than the architecture of the golf course. That’s fine for club members, but not so interesting for golf architecture nuts like us.
I remember Geoff Shackelford telling me Cypress Point agreed to help with his wonderful CP book provided that Geoff agreed to stay away from club history and just focus on Alister Mackenzie and the golf course.
How would you summarize Goddard’s Shinnecock book? Is it like his Maidstone effort or Geoff’s CP book?
-
Jeff Brauer,
1. I'd hardly say that setting the record straight regarding Merion was chastising you. As for your latest post, your recollection about the state of the record at Merion is still seriously flawed, but as I said this thread is not about Merion.
2. As for TEPaul "joshing" me, that is hardly the word for it, if what you are saying is true. It would mean that he not only lied about these documents initially, but that he continued on with his convoluted and cynical lies for months, lying repeatedly about it to me, ignoring various requests that he come clean. And it would mean that he repeatedly tried to use his lies as a bargaining tool and to try and get me to jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops. And as I recall he claimed he could not show us the documents because he had to work it out with the club first, that it was again an issue of club privacy and proper respect showing proper respect for the club.
Such behavior would be unbelievably dishonest, despicable, and creepy, even for TEPaul. It would mean that he is just playing a cynical and nihilistic multi-month game for his own entertainment, that his dishonesty and manipulation know no bounds, and that he has little respect gca.com mission or for Ran. Either that or he has lost it, and is unable to control his own outrageous behavior.
So you should think long and hard before claiming that he told you it was all a big lie. I for one hope that maybe you misunderstood him.
3. Your explanation above sounds like a vague and longwinded way of saying that you never even bothered to read my initial posts before opining on this thread. If so that is pretty weak, no matter what your excuse for posting on this thread initially. You should read my initial posts, it might put some of your comments in perspective.
4. You wrote that you are entitled to your opinion and that there is no way that what you have written was insulting to me. You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but one would hope you would base it on some semblance of fact. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with you, you just assumed facts into existence to make your point. And they don't exactly paint an accurate picture of my methodology here or elsewhere. For example;
- You suggested that I failed in my “obligation to present a reasonably thought out position.”
- And that my research and analysis "can't be given much credence."
- And that I am somehow relying on something other than contemporaneous source material.
- And that I expected my position to have been “presume[d] to be accurate until proven otherwise.”
- And that I was "passing off logic and presumption" as fact.
- And that my endeavor to get this tiny aspect of the history correct "was basically worthless."
- And that to I have "failed to take responsibility for [my] own writing and background[sic.]"
I don't know, that all seems pretty insulting to me, if only because it has nothing to do with my methodology generally or specifically regarding Shinnecock. But don't worry about it. I have thicker skin than you think.
Like I have written many times, if you have to make things up or manipulate or misstate the record to make your point, then you should reconsider your position. And you really should here.
Surely you will respond that you were speaking generally and that you were mixing this and Myopia, but not a single claim is true about Myopia either. Or Merion. Or anything I have done. As for your apology, despite your acknowledgement that you were basically talking out of the wrong end of your body, you kept right on doing it. So the apology has little meaning to me. It'd mean more if you would read the initial posts, and then set the record straight regarding my methodology.
It is ironic that you chastise me about the source material on which I rely, yet here you are, apparently just making up your facts to support some big picture notion of how you envision things. You posted around 10 times on a thread, AND YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NO IDEA EVEN WHAT I CLAIMED. Anyway, if you ever finish up pontificating about the problems with my methodology, you should take the time to read what I wrote about Shinnecock. It is not only the SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS THREAD, it is also interesting, if I say so myself.
You could have read it five times over in the amount of time you have devoted to blindly criticizing it here.
Happy New Year.
-
Dear
John David,
I apologized for mixing up my thoughts on Myopia in this thread. Common manners and decency says that when someone apologizes, you say thank you, or reject it if you must, but it’s considered bad manners to use another thousand word diatribe to further describe all the ways you think I am inadequate.
Remember you made a joke about being like arguing with my ex a few weeks ago? Mike Cirba jumped in to tell you it was another inappropriate comment by you, but I understood, it was clever and we laughed? Now, it’s no joke. You really are like my ex. It’s the same old crap she pulled and it is simply very unpleasant and demeaning for others around you, although you never seem to care.
Whether I have disagreed, agreed, supported, apologized, joked, or insulted you, the result is exactly the same – a lengthy, point by point rebuttal, which oddly berates me even when I agree with you. It’s clear that you have decided that nothing I do will be acceptable. I have decided that as 2011 dawns, I must get a new start in a David free, or at least David non adjacent world.
I tried to dedicate this weekend to starting over, but you haven’t changed. I guess I am naïve. How many times do people go into relationships of this nature expecting to be able to change the other person, only to be dismayed by the lack of results?
To quote an old Dave Mason song, “There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy, it’s just you and me and we just disagree.” We just aren’t a good match, and need to part ways for both our sakes.
Don’t worry, David. It’s not you. It’s me. Perhaps, it is a major flaw in my character, but I just can’t deal with the more difficult aspects of your personality, such as your constant need to be right at all costs, refusal to budge an inch, and their kissing cousins, constant arguing, insulting, name calling and use of lengthy and logically questionable arguments solely to avoid ever having to say you are sorry or say you were wrong.
I want you to know that I will always have fond memories of our time together. When some other internet troll chides me, I will imagine his spittle all over his monitor, much like I imagine yours when you become agitated. I will imagine them with your sinister cackle as you type out yet another hate filled, logic adjacent post! If I see an old newspaper, or new logic book, unopened in its original wrapper, I will think of you! If I hear a politician or lawyer parse common phrases and words well beyond their typical meanings to suit their own causes, I will think of you! And I doubt I will ever find another with whom I shall regularly experience “multiple contemporaneous accounts!”
If we should happen to meet by chance in these forums, please do feel free to say hello, even if with your constant companion, Tom MacWood. We can all be civil in limited situations.
I’m trying to let you down gently David, because for all that has gone wrong between us, I do respect you. It’s just time to move on to the next phase of our lives. I wish you well in your future endeavors, except of course, your perversion of trying to sully society maidens, for which I truly hope you will get help.
Yours truly,
Jeff
:)
-
David,
PS - At the risk of exhibiting poor manners, may I add "drama queen" to the list of things I find difficult to deal with you? Whle "joshing" is too light a word for TePaul's post, your months later portrayal of his attempt at humor at your expense, despite it being discussed on that thread as being a prank, despite some private messages to you that it was a prank, and just the plain obviousness of it having been a prank to anyone with reasonable intelligence and a modicum of social skills should be able to see through, is way over the top. To feign indignation on this point, after the entire series of exchanges between you two is as dishonest as anything I have witnessed in these pointless debates.
I may as well add "victim mentality" to the list, since you are obviously ignoring large chunks of reality in to portray yourself as a victim. Yeah, you remind me of my ex more and more each day, and I am sorry if that is the crulest cut of all!
And in light of your apparent inability to understand any form of humor, I will point out, in case you missed the smiley and crossed out "John", this post started out as a prank, a humorous attempt to disengage myself from you to the largest degree possible, while staying at least on casually friendly terms for the good of this website.
At least I blame myself for any of the barbs thrown my way for 1) being dumb enough to allow myself to get involved with these threads, and 2) allowing myself to sink to a childish level along with others and 3) sadly, using insults, name calling and pranks against you when I disagree with you.
I also blame myself for marrying poorly, and having some character flaws that contributed to the split, but that is a topic that I might be inclined to take on for 40 pages, once I got started, and even without your constant rebuttles, so we won't go there......
Cheers.
;D ;) ::)
:(
-
Jeff Brauer.
I think in your last post you protest a bit too much. You had misrepresented my methods in post after post without ever bothering to even read what I wrote, and then you had the nerve to tell me that none of your misrepresentations were insulting. Surely I am allowed to respond to this without you lashing out at me with some misdirected and bizarre marital flashback.
That said, if it means that you will quit blindly pontificating about my methods, then the post is indeed welcome news.
_____________________________________________
Regarding the Drexel Documents, you claim that TEPaul is playing a long-running, cynical, and dishonest game to try and make me look bad, and then you have the nerve to say that I am being dishonest for giving him the benefit of the doubt? Interesting logic there. It would be funny if it weren't so absurd and offensive. Or maybe the absurdity and offensiveness is what I find funny.
1. I don't play games with the source material and have no duty to guess at whether TEPaul's story du jour about source material is true or false. It is up to him to present it truthfully, and if his "joshing" or if his story is misconstrued, it is up to him to set the record straight. He has had ample opportunity to do so, yet he has not only continued on with the story, he has added to it.
2. It is ironic that you of all people would scold me for taking TEPaul's word for the existence of these documents. This is exactly what you and he and Mike Cirba demand of TomM and me in all of these conversations. You demand that we take TEPaul's word for the existence and even the substance of the source material. All I have done is to take his word for their existence, but have indicated I need to see them before I evaluate the substance.
3. Whether or not he has the documents backing it up, TEPaul's story about CBM and Lloyd communicating about the design of the golf course in the fall of 1910 is much more likely (and supported) than most of TEPaul's stories that you guys insist are true.
As for your IM and other IM's and and posts SPECULATING that TEPaul was lying, you should know by now that I don't accept speculation as if it were proven fact. Now you claim it is not speculation, but rather that TEPaul admitted that it was all a big lie? Odd you haven't mentioned that. And odder still that he would keep the lie going and add to it. Did you ask him why he is keeping the lie going? Did you ask him why we was adding to it?
Bottom line is that TEPaul is obviously lying to one of us. But with TEPaul, how can you tell whether he is lying to you or whether he is lying to me? It seems he would have strong motivation either way. And we all know how much trouble he has coming forward with relevant source material when it cuts against his agenda.
Whatever the truth, he should have publicly set the record straight long ago.
-
Wow - Didn't check in for a while and see this - David that is some very good work - just a shame that it turned into the train wreck it did.
A few questions for the group
Does a routing map of the MacDonald / Raynor course exists? Have not seen one and was curious.
Goddard's book appears to be very rare - Never seen it and a search and looking at some of the rare book places, shows no details. I have Peppers club history book which is pretty weak - but have never seen nor heard of this one. Is it as in depth on the architectural changes on the course over time as the Goddard's Maidstone book?
-
Thanks John. I agree about the train wreck. It certainly wasn't what I had in mind when I posted.
I don't know anything about the Goddard Shinnecock book, but others have said that it contains quite a bit of detail about the Flynn changes to the course.
____________________________________________
For those interested, here is the Article written by Willie Dunn and published in the September 1934 Golf Illustrated:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shinnecock1934DunnG1.jpg?t=1294103294)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shinnecock1934DunnG2.jpg?t=1294103294)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shinnecock1934DunnG3.jpg?t=1294103294)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Shinnecock1934DunnG4.jpg?t=1294103294)
-
David,
This article is an example of Tilly as Editor. He evidently agreed with everything that Willie Dunn wrote, otherwise he would neither have allowed its publication nor would he have written the end page Editorial Note.
What very few are aware of, is this photograph was most likely taken by Tilly himself.
-
While Tillie may have agreed with him on what he wrote regarding the courses and what Dunn had done, there are a few mistakes in the article that Tillie surely was not aware of one way or another. That said the article is more accurate than people had long thought, and I am not so sure that Dunn deserves 'the biggest liar ever' label as one poster gave him earlier in the thread.
I think Dunn's major mistake concerns the date on which he first came over. Dunn recollects that it was 1890, but he also recollects that he had just finished completing the Le Phare course at Biarritz. According to the British version of Golf, the new 18 hole course at Biarritz opened for play on December 7, 1892, which is consistent with Dunn coming over in the spring of 1893.
There is also the matter of him not mentioning that there was already a 9 hole course at Shinnecock when he got there, and this is harder to understand.
-
Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...
If there is a trainwreck it is only because your mentor (and now you) are sabotaging the tracks.
I found out some interesting information and so I thought I'd share it. I don't have to answer to you, TEPaul, or any other self-annointed guardian of history to post here.
_________________________________
Now Mike Cirba, why don't you ask yourself the same questions for all of the clubs you have posted about over the years.
How about all your various bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history? Did you go to NGLA before you posted those? If not, then why the double standard?
____________________________
David,
I somehow missed this...and really just can't let it stand without trying to understand what exactly you're talking about here and trying to respond.
I don't really want to revisit this thread, but can you tell me precisely what "bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history", I've promulgated here?
I have no idea what contentions of mine you are referring to about the history of NGLA that would not be included in detail in the club's records.
Pray tell?
If you don't want to clutter this thread, I'd be willing to start a new one and hopefully we can discuss the matter.
Thank you.
-
We have been in touch with the club regarding how they would like to make information about their most recent historical work (Goddard) available or if they would like to do that. I believe that recent work is most comprehensive about the details of the entire architectural evolutionary details of their courses from 1891 until 1999 including the details of the mistaken Davis/Dunn attribution. That work is quite detailed in its explanations and in its notes and citations to the source material that was used in that most recent Shinnecock history production.
-
David,
I somehow missed this...and really just can't let it stand without trying to understand what exactly you're talking about here and trying to respond.
I don't really want to revisit this thread, but can you tell me precisely what "bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history", I've promulgated here?
I have no idea what contentions of mine you are referring to about the history of NGLA that would not be included in detail in the club's records.
Pray tell?
If you don't want to clutter this thread, I'd be willing to start a new one and hopefully we can discuss the matter.
Thank you.
Mike I missed your your post above. Your hypocrisy speaks for itself throughout all your wild goose chases regarding NGLA, and loudly. Go back and read any number of your attempts to rewrite NGLA's history, and then tell me again how you always be sure you have your facts straight and always go to the clubs before posting. What a joke.
Start a new thread if you like, but I have nothing more to say on the matter. If you cannot see the hypocrisy here, then you truly are a lost cause.
Good Luck.
-
It appears that club Trustee minutes show that in the late fall of 1891 monies were approved to give up three holes of the original White Course nine that were on James Parrish's and William Hoyt's land and move them onto the club property. At this point (perhaps the early spring of 1892) three more holes were added to the White Course making it a twelve hole course and the Red Course nine holes was moved to basically north and west of the clubhouse. This work was done by professional Willie Davis. That made 21 total holes on Shinnecock land and the club records show that the 12 hole White Course was used by the members in 1892, 1893 and 1894. It appears the motivation was to get all the club's golf holes onto the land that Shinnecock GC owned at that time.
-
I had not previously appreciated how much the Shinnecock White Course changed between the course used for the 1896 US Mens Amateur Championship (4,400) and 1897 (5,500). They added about 1,000 yards to the course. The US Women's Amateur of 1900 was played on the expanded White Course. In what Goddard called a delicious irony that meant that the women played on a course 1,000 yards longer in the 1900 US Amateur than the course the men played on in the 1896 US Amateur.
By the way, Philadelphian Frances Griscom of Merion (sister of Rodman Griscom, member of Hugh Wilson's committee that designed Merion East and West, and the first president of Merion GC in 1942, and daughter of Clement Griscom who owned half the land of the original MCC Haverford course) won that 1900 US Amateur at Shinnecock.
I was speaking yesterday with the world's greatest golf writer, Jeff Silverman of Philly, about how dedicated and competitive some of those early championship women were. He was telling me to get ready for the 1900 Amateur Frances and Rodman went abroad to spend at least a month with Frances under the tutelage of George Sayers and when she came back her mother rented a house in Southampton for the express purpose of allowing Frances to practice at Shinnecock for two solid weeks before the championship.
Obviously it paid off!
-
....and she was playing in the Amateur championship ? (insert smiley with cheesey grin)
-
Tom,
Rodman Griscom's golf trip overseas at that time is particularly interesting from another aspect.
Last year we came across an article from 1900 that suggested Griscom had prior experience in laying out and maintaining golf courses. This article was in conjunction with his appointment (along with Samuel Heebner (who designed Philly Cricket Club) and George Fowle (who largeley designed the first Philly Country Club) and others to a Golf Association of Philadelphia Committee charged with bringing a public golf course to the city. They evidently planned a golf course, but it never materialized back then. The articles below refer to the men appointed and the work accomplished.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4272497470_ca325773f0_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4693568970_b4fec151fa_o.jpg)
As you know, Rodman Griscom was the head of the Green Committee at Merion from the inception of the first course there back in 1896, and served for many years, including through the creation of the second nine holes on their original golf course. We also know that this second nine holes was on his father's farm.
The first nine or the original Merion course was designed by Willie Campbell in 1896 and the second nine that opened in 1901 was designed by...the Merion Green Committee. That would certainly explain where his "experience" came from.
By 1903, also serving on the Merion Green Committee was one Horatio Gates Lloyd. I'm trying to figure out whether he was also there at the turn of the century when the second nine of the original course was designed and built.
We also know that Dr. H. Toulmin was one of three men who designed the first course at Belmont, which became Aronimink. Coincidentally, this would have been the same timeframe that Hugh Wilson served on the Princeton GC Greeen Committee, which was building a Willie Dunn designed course at the time.
Interesting stuff.
-
Mike Cirba,
You may have missed the title, but his thread is about the Origins of Golf at Shinnecock, not Merion. If you want to visit with your mentor about Merion, kindly start your own thread. Thanks.
-
In my opinion, threads like this one need to have a certain amount of on-going "house-keeping" or they tend to confuse and throw off the analyses of the people reading them.
I did not go through this whole thread and check for it but the caption date for that voluminous New York Herald article that is most all of Post #2 has the year of its date wrong. The caption by Moriarty on top of the article in Post #2 gives it as Aug. 30, 1894 but the article was actually published on Aug. 30, 1891. In his Post #1 he refers to the same article and gives the correct date but in Post #2 that caption needs to be corrected to show Aug. 30, 1891, not 1894.
Goddard refers to and quotes a piece of that same article in his Shinnecock history book and he lists the date of that article correctly.
At the end of his Post #1 Moriarty asked this question----"Is my version correct?"
I don't really know if it is correct or not but I do know it it makes a few conclusions that vary from Shinnecock's latest history. Some of those variations include Dunn being responsible for the 12 hole course (or three additional holes of the original nine hole Davis course). The Shinnecock history appears to conclude that the original twelve hole course was in play from 1892 until perhaps late in 1894 or early 1895 and that Davis was responsible for those original twelve holes.
The Goddard book also seems to indicate that Shinnecock has no record of Willie Dunn being in the employee of Shinnecock in 1893. The book states that the club is not aware that it had a golf professional in 1892 and 1893. It does mention that they employed a steward in 1892 and the book supplies his name, a Mr. William Platt. There is no mention in the Shinnecock history book of a professional by the name of Cuthbert in 1893 or at any time either. And the book does go into a certain amount of detail about correspondences between Shinnecock and abroad (Henry White, the Marquis of Granby---the editor of GOLF) to employee a professional, including Robert Foulis, but the club is not aware that one was actually employed in 1892 and 1893 or after Willie Davis left at some point in the latter half of 1892 to go to Newport GC to lay out their original course (a layout Willie Dunn later also took credit for from Davis, leading Davis to write a letter to the press correcting the mistake).
Others on this thread have supplied a number of newspaper articles that refer to this time and to various people such as Willie Dunn, but on a review of those newspaper articles there is no question some of them have all kinds of inaccuracies with their dates and such. Whether they are factual inaccuracies or typos or both I don't know. All I know is they most certainly are confusing and misleading.
-
Tom,
Davis actually wrote to the paper to correct Dunn's claim that he did Newport?!
Are you saying these attribution wars started way back then??
Was Dunn a protectionist or a revisionist in your estimation?
-
“Tom,
Davis actually wrote to the paper to correct Dunn's claim that he did Newport?!
Are you saying these attribution wars started way back then??”
What I’m saying is the most recent history book mentions that Davis wrote an indignant letter to GOLF claiming that he, not Dunn, created the original Newport course. It says Davis claimed that Dunn only came to Newport “in search of trade.”
It does not give a date of his letter or which GOLF he wrote to. Davis died in 1902 so it had to be before that obviously. It may’ve been to GOLF in England because Shinnecock or Goddard does offer some pretty detailed info on correspondence in 1893 between Samuel Parrish (and Mead) and Henry White, Marquis of Granby, and the editor of GOLF in which the club (Parrish) was looking to secure a golf professional from abroad. The book says Robert Foulis was contacted and corresponded with as was Willie Park Jr in 1893. It also mentions a letter between Old Tom Morris and Shinnecock's Thomas Barber about Andrew Kirkaldy joining Willie Dunn as the professional in 1895. In 1896 there is the mention of correspondence with John Duncan Dunn about coming to Shinnecock as well.
I have no idea what Willie Dunn was with some of claims of architectural attribution but he most certainly is on record for claiming to have done a ton of stuff that he may not have done, including some things that have pretty much been proven later that he didn't do.
-
Dunn must have been everywhere. When the first nine holes opened at Merion in 1896 one account mentioned that the nine was laid out by Willie Campbell with subsequent revisions prior to opening by Willie Dunn.
I'm also not sure what was being done to prepare the property but those news accounts made it appear that the work of opening a newly laid out course took a few months, not days. They also sometimes spoke of playing on a "temporary course" while the permanent one was being prepared, which may mean temporary greens, I'm not sure.
We also know Dunn designed the nine hole Princeton GC around 1900 and that pro James Swan had also made revisions prior to opening, back when Hugh Wilson was on the Green Committee there.
I'm starting to think that the itinerant nature of these early pros was at least partially responsible for some of this attribution confusion, as each sought to develop and enhance their own reputations in a quickly growing but increasingly competitive market.
-
Mike:
It appears to me that the coterie of early immigrant pros in those ultra rudimentary years of late 19th century golf and architecture in America were definitely men on the move and very rapidly. But we have always known that, haven't we?
I am not aware of much of anything that endured or remains of what they did back then and that is probably the ultimate testimony to and story of the actual and historical significance of the quality of their architecture, or more accurately, lack of it.
My sense has long been that even given that, it may not be fair to them or appropriate historically to also conclude that they were men with no architectural talent; only that they just were not afforded the necessary time and the necessary opportunity to do more or do better.
I think it is completely provable historically that the very best of the architecture of that early time was done by a rather small and defined group of "amateur/sportsmen" who unlike those early immigrant pros did have the time, the opportunity and the money to do better. And they most definitely took that time which the immigrant pro contingent did not and could not do in those early years.
I don't think it was until the beginning of the teens that the immigrant professional contingent began to rid themselves of their secondary and tertiary jobs and dedicate themselves solely to golf architecture that they first began to shine with their achitecture.
Shinnecock's architectural history is actually quite interesting in that between about 1896 and about 1917 the club did a ton of things to their golf course architecturally but it seems only with people from within the club. In that vein, this man now identified in Shinnecock's most recent history, Chester Griswold, could be most interesting. He apparently offered some very comprehensive plans which unfortunately are just not preserved in detail. I also suspect that even though it is not well recorded by the club that towards the latter years of the 1890s Willie Park Jr just may've done more there than we know or perhaps will ever know.
And with that last bit I would definitely caution all to try not to just excessively speculate and consequently try to make things up from times and people about which we will probably never be able to know that much more about than we do now (or Goddard does).
-
Tom,
That last sentence is interesating and to me sounds very much like what happened at TCC in Brookline.
I've been wanting to start a thread about the evolution of that course for some time, but...
-
Mike:
Wayne and I got pretty heavily into the details of the entire architectural evolution of TCC in the last decade and with and without the club's participation. To say the least, it is definitely complicated in certain areas and at certain times.
We did not get so heavily into the details of the architectural evolution of Shinnecock except essentially Flynn's course but as I have said before on here this book of Goddard's is pretty incredible in this way. One of the aspects Goddard really concentrates on is the entire financial and land history of the club and from that both he and others reading the book can definitely suss out some of the architectural evolutionary details heretofore not well known at all.
-
Willie Dunn was the professional at Shinnecock in 1893. That TEPaul would still dispute this is laughable. Surely if Goddard had a handful of articles from 1893 stating that Dunn was the professional, then Mr. Goddard would readily acknowledge this. Yet because Goddard has it wrong, TEPaul must insist that it is otherwise.
This kind of sycophantic devotion to these histories does nothing but embarrass these institutions and the well-meaning authors like Goddard, Weeks, Tolhurst, etc.
Dunn reportedly came to Shinnecock in 1893 and lengthened the course before that season began. That he was there in 1893 cannot be seriously disputed. There is just too much contemporaneous evidence. And I am not referring to the reports brought forward by Phillip from years later. I am talking about reports FROM THAT YEAR. 1893. For example, it was reported in 1893 in the NYTimes that Dunn arrived before the season and lengthened the course, and it was reported in 1893 that he traveled from Shinnecock to Newport for at least one money match against Davis. Etc. It was even reported that he forgot to leave the keys to the equipment shack when he went on an excursion to Newport! For TEPaul to ignore these reports and blindly grasp onto Goddard (a book he hadn't even read until after I started this thread) is perfectly consistent with his mode of operation in all these discussions. Go with the official history at all costs, no matter the source material.
As for the rest, TEPaul keeps trying to finesse this bit about Davis supposedly lengthening the course to twelve holes in 1892, before he supposedly went to Newport that year. But it is becoming more apparent that this is speculation on his part, or possibly was speculation on the part of Mr. Goddard, since as usual TEPaul has done no research of his own and is just chirping what someone else wrote. Whether he is doing so honestly and accurately is doubtful, though, given his past proclivity toward lying about these things. It is possible that Davis expanded the course in 1892, I guess, but I'll certainly not take TEPaul's word for it.
If any source material indicates that Davis was even at Shinnecock (or Newport) in 1892, I'd love to know about it. Likewise, if any source material indicates that Davis lengthened the Shinnecock course to 12 holes in 1892, I'd love to know about it. As it is, all we have is a vague reference to something late in 1891 indicating that Shinnecock would move the course to their own land. We know this happened before the 1893 season, but the questions are when it happened and who did it?
Reportedly, Davis went to Newport in 1893, not 1892. As of yet, I have found no reports of Davis at Shinnecock in the summer of 1892. Reportedly, John Cuthert as the professional at Shinnecock in the Summer 1892, and Shinnecock was still reported to be a 9 hole course, with the same nine holes as were reported from the year before. I guess is it possible that the report of Cuthbert as the professional were just some weird dream by the reporter who reported it, and that the report of the 9 hole course was somehow based on information from a year earlier, but this seems highly unlikely.
TEPaul has repeatedly claimed that Dunn is on record as claiming he designed Newport and numerous other courses, but as of yet he has not sourced this claim. As usual.
___________________________________
The dismissal of these early architects as having "no architectural talent" is naive, as is the claim that their architecture had no significance. Both claims demonstrate a lack of fundamental understanding about this initial period in the development of the game in the United States.
Sure their work didn't survive, but there were very good reasons for this that have little to do with their supposed lack of talent. For one thing, these guys were laying out courses for people who largely had never even played the game before and who were playing in the pre-rubber ball era. As a consequence, out of necessity the early courses were not only simple, they were also extremely short. For another thing, these courses were often laid out on leased or borrowed land, and/or on land which would soon become extremely valuable for other purposes. Even Shinnecock originally planned to lease their land, and even though they ended up purchasing it, their initial course still didn't fit on the land!
There are other reasons and they are worth discussing, but I've no interest in arguing them with these two jokers. Their involvement here is purely rhetorical. Whatever legitimate interest they have in actually learning about the history golf course architecture has long been overwhelmed by their desire to advance their various pet projects and to tear down their pet peeves at any cost.
_____________________________________________________________________
If TEPaul and Wayne didn't get into the details of Shinnecock's early history, then why had TEPaul been claiming otherwise?
And why did he insist that it was all laid out in detail in their unpublishable manuscript?
And why did he insist that I needed to have contacted him and Wayne before even posting on the subject?
And why did he insist that Phillip Young should have contacted Wayne before even posted articles about it?
And why a few months ago was he insisting that the history was much different than the version he is now shilling?
Does him owning a history book written by someone else really make him an expert on the history of Shinnecock? I don't think so. I think this is all about him trying to control everything that is said or written about golf course architecture all along the Eastern Seaboard and who knows where else.
The man has no credibility. Nothing he says should be taken at face value.
-
From Post #200:
“I am not aware of much of anything that endured or remains of what they did back then and that is probably the ultimate testimony to and story of the actual and historical significance of the quality of their architecture, or more accurately, lack of it.
My sense has long been that even given that, it may not be fair to them or appropriate historically to also conclude that they were men with no architectural talent; only that they just were not afforded the necessary time and the necessary opportunity to do more or do better.”
From Post #203:
“The dismissal of these early architects as having "no architectural talent" is naive,……..”
Hmmm. Do I detect from #203 that what we have here is a participant who seems unable or unwilling to correctly read or understand a fairly simple sentence and therefore quotes the exact opposite of what was said in #200?*
*Kindly read the remainder of Post #203 following the quote from it above for additional edification.
Thank you, thank you, thank you vuury muuch. ;)
-
The first two full seasons of play and operations at Shinnecock were
thoroughly successful ones. The clubhouse was open and furnished by June 1892,
and the Trustees held their first meeting in it on June 18. By August, there were
67 elected members with subscriptions to 130 shares ($ 13,000,) and at least an
equal number of subscribers. Golf was played over the twelve holes of the White
Course, running south of the clubhouse and back and forth across the railroad,
with increasing skill and enthusiasm, and the women's course quickly found an
enthusiastic following. The financial operation of the Club ran smoothly. The
land had been appraised at S20,000-'
-
In his post immediately above, TEPaul doesn't properly acknowledge who he is quoting, which is not surprising. If it were something from 1892 or 1893 it would be helpful and clarify a few things. But chances are it is something TEPaul read in Goddard, since he is incapable of actually researching on his own. As I have said, and as I am sure Mr. Goddard would agree, Mr. Goddard's conclusions are only as good as his sources and analysis. Parroting his conclusion does nothing to advance the conversation. Yet TEPaul offers no explanation of how the author of the above passage reached his conclusion that "golf was played over twelve holes."
Plus, the statement is ambiguous. The "first two full seasons" at Shinnecock were summers of 1892 and 1893. There are reports that it was a 12 hole course in 1893, and that Willie Dunn had lengthened it that spring. The question is, what was the course for the 1892 season? Given what TEPaul has claimed, surely Goddard must have written more than just the about it. Otherwise, what is TEPaul's basis for claiming that Davis returned to Shinnecock for 1892? What is his basis for claiming Davis expanded the course to 12 holes that year and moved the women's course? What is his basis for claiming that Davis went to Newport in 1892?
He has indicated that his basis was Goddard's book, but that only begs the question: What is Goddard's basis? Now I am starting to wonder if TEPaul didn't just make up all these little details. That would be pretty despicable, but I have come to expect that from TEPaul.
-
"There are reports that it was a 12 hole course in 1893, and that Willie Dunn had lengthened it that spring."
David Moriarty:
Yes, it was a 12 hole course in 1893, the same 12 hole course in 1892!
Now, if you are going to demand that I supply Goddard's sources for any information in his book, then why don't you begin the excercise by supplying for everyone on here those newspaper clippings that you say claim suggest that Willie Dunn lengthened the Shinnecock course from nine holes to twelve holes? And when you have done THAT, why don't you supply us all with what the SOURCES were for whomever it was who wrote those newspaper clippings? ;)
I will personally call David Goddard and ask him what his sources were for anything or everything he said in that book if you do the same for your newspaper clippings. I doubt I will need to make that call because you can't do that and all you will do is just ignore it and rationalize it away as you do most everything you say on here when asked these kinds of things.
-
Here we go again, another scam by TEPaul where he makes claims that he cannot back up.
If Goddard wrote that Davis returned to Shinnecock and expanded the course in 1892, then why won't TEPaul provide that quote? If Goddard wrote that Dunn was not the professional in 1893, then why hasn't TEPaul provided that quote? Did Goddard even know that the course was originally nine holes, or did TEPaul just make this up as well?
And what of these games? Again demanding I jump through hoops for him? Not going to happen.
As for me, I've have already cited from and quoted a number of articles which provide sound basis for everything I have written. TEPaul apparently didn't bother to read that.
-
"As for me, I've have already cited from and quoted a number of articles which provide sound basis for everything I have written. TEPaul apparently didn't bother to read that."
Yes you have and I have already cited and reported what Goddard wrote in his book. You are asking me to explain to you what Goddard's SOURCES were or to quote you what those SOURCES say. I have already said I would call him and ask him to explain them in detail. But why should I do that if you can't even tell me or this website what the SOURCES were for what was written in those newspaper clippings you cited? Obviously you won't do that because you can't do that because there are no SOURCES cited for what was written in those newspaper clippings. Consequently, they are at face, no more reliable, informationally or otherwise, than what Goddard said in his book, and probably a whole lot less so if Goddard was reporting on detailed information he found in the archives of Shinnecock GC or elsewhere.
I must say that Goddard's history and chronicle of the entire financial history of Shinnecock GC and Shinnecock Hills itself is unbelievable in its detail so it sure would seem pretty safe to say that what he reported on the history and evolution of the club's courses and their pros also has a wealth of detail in those archives. Therefore if he says there is no evidence from or within the club's archives that Shinnecock had a golf pro for most of 1892 and 1893 even though there is ample evidence that they had a steward, and he names him, I take that as very reliable information.
And I would also advise you not to be riding me for reading Goddard's book and providing information from it because it appears you haven't even done that yet and are probably not likely to either. I doubt you were even aware of Goddard's book and its comprehensive history of Shinnecock GC and the entire Shinnecock Hills before you began this particular thread of yours.
To me, this thread of yours is shades of how limited your research was on Merion before you wrote that essay of yours on it. In fairness to you, I doubt you had much if any idea how limited your research and research information was on Merion and MCC when you wrote that essay. But what pisses me off is after others provided that additional research information to you on here, your MO has been to spend the next two years denying that or just playing ridiculous word games and games of fallacious logic and reason with the information that was provided to you on here; information that anybody who can read English can understand what it says and means which is definitely NOT what you've been claiming for a couple of years what it says and means.
Shinnecock had a nine hole golf course in 1891 known as the White Course done by Willie Davis and in 1892 it had a twelve hole golf course by the same name also done by Davis and the members played on it in the season of 1892 and 1893. The club's archives record this clear as a bell. Either towards the end of 1894 or early in 1895 Willie Dunn expanded the White Course to an eighteen hole golf course. Matter of fact, in September 1894 Dunn and Campbell played a notable match on Davis's twelve hole Shinnecock White Course.
-
And by the way, in his book Goddard also said that Willie Dunn also took credit for originally laying out Newport GC, prompting Willie Davis to write GOLF explaining that that was not true. Goddard even put in quotation marks something that Davis said in what he wrote to GOLF.
Frankly, that short quote of what Goddard reported Davis wrote to GOLF about what Willie Dunn was actually after with Newport is one of the most interesting remarks I have ever heard which may help us all understand a lot better how those early English, Scottish immigrant pros over here back in the late 19th century REALLY DID PLY their TRADES, which apparently were various and mulitple and definitely not just about golf course architecture! ;)
-
So far nothing from Goddard has been brought forward even suggesting that Davis returned to Shinnecock in 1892. Nothing from Goddard has been brought forward indicating that Davis lengthened the course to 12 holes that year, before going to Shinnecock. No explanation has been provided as to how Goddard came to the conclusion (if he did) that the course was 12 holes in 1892.
-
TEPaul has treated us to quite a lot of misinformation about what happened at Shinnecock those first few years. As I come across additional accurate information, I'd like to continue to set the record straight. As I do so, I will try to leave Mr. Goddard's book (or whatever it is) out of it as best I can. While I haven't read the work, I have no doubt it is well researched and well written and worthy of careful consideration, and I hope nothing I have written or will write is viewed as an attack on Mr. Goddard or his work. That is not my intention at all. As I have said, I seriously doubt that much of what TEPaul has claimed is actually even in the Goddard book. More likely that TEPaul is just trying to draw conclusions from the material that reasonable researchers wouldn't necessarily draw, and then disingenuously hiding behind Goddard to try and sell us his unsupportable claims. At least this has been his practice on other matters.
TEPaul has repeatedly claimed that Willie Dunn has been proven to have taken credit for a number of courses he did not lay out. His "proof" for this claim is apparently a reference in Goddard's book to a letter written by W.F. Davis to the editor of Golf magazine, wherein Davis sets the record straight after Dunn supposedly claimed to have designed Newport. I don't know whether Willie Dunn ever took credit for laying out Newport, but I have been unable to find where he had done so. That said, I have found the Davis letter which Goddard apparently mentioned, as well as the letter to which Davis was responding. Both appeared in the British publication called Golf in the fall of 1893.
But contrary to TEPaul's claim, while there was a letter stating that Dunn designed Newport along with a number of other American courses, it was not written by Willie Dunn, at least not according to the signature. The letter was written by R.E. Cherrill, of 51 East 23th St., New York. From what I can figure out, Mr. Cherrill was British by birth and was a journalist who had been married to a famous actress and went through a nasty divorce and custody battle suitable for today's tabloids. Reportedly, he had also been the drama critic for one of the morning papers, and judging by the letter he had a flair for dramatic. The following is my transcription of the letter from Golf in November 1893 [NOTE: I HAND COPIED BOTH LETTERS SO IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE MINOR ERRORS]
Sirs --Willie Dunn, well-known in Scotland and Biarritz, has just completed a visit of five months in the United States, and with characteristic energy and pluck has been showing the Yankees a thing or two in Golf, besides accumulating, I hope, a large amount of American dollars for use in England during the winter. When Dunn arrived in America he found three clubs in existence, and when he left there were over forty clubs, all practicing the game hard, and full of enthusiasm. Newport is the golf headquarters of America, and there Dunn was warmly welcomed. He laid out a fine new course for the Newport Golf Club, and inaugurated its completion by playing a game for the Championship of America against William Davis, the Champion of Canada. Dunn easily defeated his opponent, winning by 6 holes. To show the interest taken in the event, I may state that Dunn, instead of having a “laddie” to carry his clubs, was honoured by the attendance of two well known millionaires, who stuck to him all through a heavy thunder and rain storm, and landed him a triumphant and happy victor.
Dunn has laid out courses for Bayard Cutting at Oakdale, Long Island, for W. K. Vanderbilt, at Newport, for Mr. F. Gebhardt at Trixedo, for Sidney Dillon Ripley and the Meadow Brook Club at Hempstead, Long Island, for Mr. W. Mc K. Twombley at New Jersey, and at several other places. At Shinnecock Hill, Long Island, there is a very fine undulating course of two and a-half miles.
The game has become a very fashionable one in America, and many ladies have become experts under the able tuition of Dunn, who has performed wonders for the game in America. He will return to America again next May, and will then play a series of matches. The prospects for Golf are very bright all over the United States.
I am Sir &c., R.E. Cherrill, 51 East 23rd Street, NY, Oct 5th [1893.]
Undoubtedly there is some question about whether Cherrill was shilling for Dunn, or whether he is just an overzealous yet confused journalist. Surely the letter is not enough to indict Dunn as the "world's biggest liar" as TEPaul ironically has. What I find most interesting about the letter are the other courses mentioned and the mention of Shinnecock. One could easily read the letter as indicating that Dunn laid out Shinnecock, but Cherrill skirts the issue and leaves it a bit ambiguous. Given that whatever work Dunn did at Shinnecock was done over the original Davis none, his treatment was probably more honest than not.
Anyway, about a month or so later, Davis responded to set the record straight.
Sir --In your issue of November 10th, there appears to be a letter under the above head, signed by “R.E. Cherrill,” New York. As the statements made therein are very misleading and unjust to myself, I feel in duty bound to explain the situation through your valuable paper.
The idea of starting a Golf Club in Newport, R.I., was first suggested by Mr. Lorilard Spencer, and Mr. H. Mortimer Brooks, one year ago. Mr. Spencer wrote to me about the game, and requested that I should come to Newport and look, for suitable ground for a links. I came to Newport November 10th, 1892, and in company of several gentlemen, looked over all available ground, finally selecting a place on Brentin’s Point, about three-and-a-half miles from Newport, on the shores of the Atlantic. The club was organized on January 12th, 1893. Mr. Theo. A. Havemeyer was elected president, Mr. R Goelet, vice president, Mr. R. J. Gammell, secretary, and Mr. Lorillard Spencer, treasurer. At the same meeting I was engaged as club-maker and instructor, and entered on my duties on March 1st following. I laid out a course of nine holes, and the club opened on June 15th. There were four handsome cups competed for during the summer and much interest taken in the game. To show that my services have been appreciated by the members they have already engaged me for another year, form March 1st next, with a substantial increase to my salary. Before coming to Newport I was engaged with the Royal Montreal Golf Club, Canada; to which club I went out from Hoylake, in 1881. There was never any game played for the championship of Canada; consequently I have no claim to that title. The first heard of W. Dunn in Newport was a letter received by a member asking if they wanted a man to lay out links, and supply clubs and balls. Dunn was then engaged by the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The letter was handed to me, and I wrote him for his prices, offering to give him what I could. He came on a visit to Newport, July 26th, and the club subscribed a purse of $80 to be divided, to play an exhibition game. Dunn declined to play the first day, which was fine; the second day was a rough stormy day, and Dunn found that he must go home that night, so we played the game, with four gentlemen and one lady for spectators. Dunn won the first three holes then held them to the end of the first round, and finally won by 5 and 3 to play. We than ran home, out of the rain. The caddies refused to go more than one round, and two of the members kindly carried or clubs for the remainder of the match. Scores; Dunn -Out, 5 4 4 5 8 5 4 4 6 = 45; in, 6 4 4 5 7 4=30; total 75. Davis – Out; 6 5 5 3 5 5 6 6 = 46; in, 7 5 6 4 5; total 79. I may mention that Dunn is the first professional I have seen in twelve years, and that my time is so taken up in workshop and giving lessons that I have no time to practise the game. As for the statement that Dunn found three clubs in existence and left forty, it is a false statement.
The Newport Club have purchased a fine property and intend putting up a handsome club-house for next season, particulars of which I will send when plans are complete. Trusting you will find room for this in your valuable paper, I am
Sir, &c. W.F. Davis (Professional, Newport Golf Club). Newport R.I, November 26th.
From what I can tell, the letter by Davis is accurate. The only slightly misleading portion may have been his excuses for not being on the top of his game. It was probably true that he was busy and hadn't played a professional in 12 years --he had come to Montreal from Hoylake 12 years before, and there weren't really any professionals over here at that time! But he had played in three high profile matches the fall before, against the top Canadian Amateur at the time, __ Smith of the Quebec club. And Smith held his own, going 1-1-1 against the professional. Whatever his excuses for losing to Dunn, in the various professional matches over the next couple of seasons, it seems that Davis didn't quite have the game of a Willie Dunn or Willie Campbell.
Anyway, the Davis letter ought to put a few more of TEPaul's misrepresentations to rest.
Most obviously, contrary to TEPaul's claims, Dunn was not only in the United States in the summer of 1893, he was engaged by Shinnecock. This is of no surprise. The Davis letter is one of many accounts of Dunn's 1893 tenure at Shinnecock. Yet inexplicably TEPaul refuses to acknowledge even this. Do you suppose he will even believe Davis on the matter?
Additionally, TEPaul has repeatedly claimed that, after coming to Shinnecock in the summer of 1891, Davis either stayed for the winter or returned the next spring, and that spring he expanded the Shinnecock course from 9 holes to 12 holes. Davis supposedly remained at Shinnecock until some point later in 1892, when he went to work as Newport's professional. TEPaul claims he got all this information from Goddard's book, and since I don't have it I cannot say one way or another whether this stuff is in there, but I seriously doubt it. NOTHING brought forward thus far from Goddard's book supports any of this. My guess is that TEPaul just made it up to try and save face and cast doubt on my initial posts.
But whether TEPaul made this up or got it from Goddard, W.F. Davis directly contradicts most of it. According to Davis, while he did visit Newport in November in 1892, but he was not hired as their professional until the next January, and did not begin work there until March 1, 1893. More importantly, prior to going to Newport, Davis was the professional at Royal Montreal, and had been employed since 1881. Davis made no mention of having worked at Shinnecock in 1892, nor does he mention expanding their course.
As is discussed in my initial posts and the articles included therewith, Davis was never the professional at Shinnecock. He was the professional at Montreal, and was essentially on loan to Shinnecock for one month in 1891, during which time he laid out a nine hole course for the men and a nine hole course for the women. As J. Hutton Balfour wrote in this excerpt from his October 26, 1891, "GOLF IN CANADA" contribution to Golf:
"Next request we had was from several gentlemen in Long Island, New York, that we would permit our professional to go there for a month to lay out a green and instruct them; this we gladly did, and a good eighteen holes have been laid out, and there is a fair promise of good players; this club should be a success, there are so may Scotchmen in New York. They are now advertising for a professional. There is also a small club at Yonkers, New York."
Reportedly, Shinnecock hired John Cuthbert as their professional for 1892.
Finally, while Davis was obviously setting the record straight when it came to Dunn, Davis did not even mention having created the original nine holes at Shinnecock, much less the twelve hole course. Given that the Cherrill letter at least creates the impression that Dunn had something to do with Shinnecock, it is noteworthy that Davis did not try to contradict this.
As I wrote above, so far I have nothing in the source material indicating that Davis returned to Shinnecock before the 1892 season to redo his nine hole men's course and create a 12 hole course, or that he moved the women's course. Likewise, nothing has been brought forward from Goddard's book indicating that this was the case.
-
That is fascinating.
-
There is a lengthy article profiling Wilie Dunn in the June 1898 magazine, "The Golfer". I'm not sure it sheds any light or if it has been mentioned here prior, but as regards Shinnecock;
"From Biarritz, in 1893, Willie Dunn was tempted by Mr. Duncan Cryden and Mr. Mead, of Dodd, Mead, and Co. to come to America, where he accepted the post of professional instructor at Shinnecock during the summer. Here, while carrying out many improvements on the dunes, he was the means, by careful coaching, of persuading many ladies and gentlemen to take up the game. Among his early pupils were Mr. Archibald Rogers, Mrs. Brown, ex-lady champion, and Miss Beatrix Hoyt."
"Meainwhile Willie Dunne was laying out a number of principal courses in the neighborhood of New York, including Meadowbrook, Islip, Lakewood, Orange, Easthampton, Oyster Bay, Rockaway, Hunting Club, etc., etc. But by far his greatest achievement in this line, and one that can never be excelled, was the absolute creation of the links at Ardsley. Dunn had to clear away a virgin forest to complete his task, and as we wander today over the glorious expanse of turf we can never forget the herculean efforts that were put forth month after month by Willie in the production of the most varied and picturesque golf course in this country."
"After flying visits to Biarritz in the winter Willie Dunn forsook Shinnecock for the golfer's Utopia he had so well planned, and March, 1896 found him quartered at Ardsley-on-Hudson with his wife and Willie Dunn Jr."
-
Thanks Mike. I was planning on posting the entire article at some point, but your quote may have covered it.
While the article mentions "many improvements" it unfortunately does not say what improvements, it at least further clarifies that Dunn was definitely there in 1893. But we've already beaten that to death.
My guess is that TEPaul's claim (attributed to Goddard, but I doubt that) about how Davis must have come back to expand the course to twelve holes in 1893 was based upon the mistaken conclusion that Shinnecock had no other professional until 1894.
Why else would he stick by this disproven assertion that Dunn was not there in 1893?
-
Not sure if this article helps anyone's case...but came across this NY Sun July 1907 one that talks a little about the evolution of the course.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5443666130_4446a6f543_o.jpg)
-
Not sure I saw this article from Jan 10, 1902 (NY Sun) posted in the nine page thread, but it gives some good info about Willie Davis and others.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/apawamis/Jan10_1902_NYSun.jpg)
-
Interesting find, Joe.
I haven't seen David post in quite awhile, I wonder what his position is on the origins these days.
-
Interesting find, Joe.
I haven't seen David post in quite awhile, I wonder what his position is on the origins these days.
I also find it very interesting George. I found it by accident while looking for early stuff on Apawamis.
'Back in the day' this thread would be another 5 pages long just from that article! ;) ;D
-
Interesting find, Joe.
I haven't seen David post in quite awhile, I wonder what his position is on the origins these days.
George,
Someone on the west coast recently told me that David might be preparing for a TV interview/segment on the upcoming Open in 2013 and that project is taking up all of his time.
-
Interesting find, Joe.
I haven't seen David post in quite awhile, I wonder what his position is on the origins these days.
George,
Someone on the west coast recently told me that David might be preparing for a TV interview/segment on the upcoming Open in 2013 and that project is taking up all of his time.
What does David know about Muirfield and the Open Championship in 2013? I'm all ears. ;D
-
Joe,
Cute.
I suspect that there are those who find David's point of views interesting and meritorious.
-
I suspect that there are those who find David's point of views interesting and meritorious.
I'm quite confident your statement above is correct. This "Dunn vs Davis" Shinny work is excellent.
-
I was reticent to drag this thread off of the scrap heap, due to the heated nature of the exchange it contains. But there's a good deal of measured analysis and solid research here, to which I think the following article contributes.
After reading this thread, the question that stands out is when did Shinnecock go from its first 9 holes (with an additional 9 hole women's course) to its 12 hole iteration, and who was responsible for that work. The 1891 article posted by David early in the thread clearly notes that Davis laid out 9 holes during his first visit (when he was on site for 5 weeks). The 1893 map of the course also posted earlier clearly notes a 12 hole course.
The attached June 20, 1892 article from The Times-Picayune contains a description of the course, which still has 9 holes. Combine this article with the reports that Davis did not come back to Shinnecock after his initial visit (as alluded to in the article posted by Joe Bausch above), and you're left with the conclusion that the additional 3 holes must have been added by Dunn, assumedly prior to the drawing of the 1893 plan. The full 18 hole course would open in 1895, as covered at the time when discussing the famous match between Dunn and Willie Park.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Times-Picayune%20June%2020%201892%201_zpsregzezae.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Times-Picayune%20June%2020%201892%202_zpsqrs0pmal.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Times-Picayune%20June%2020%201892%203_zps9tanpuoh.png)
-
Sven,
I'm not sure I read into the Bausch article that Davis never returned to Shinnecock after his initial stint? Certainly being located in Newport in those years he wasn't all that far away. You may be correct, of course, but I don't see evidence in that specific article. What are you seeing that I'm not? Thanks.
-
Sven,
I'm not sure I read into the Bausch article that Davis never returned to Shinnecock after his initial stint? Certainly being located in Newport in those years he wasn't all that far away. You may be correct, of course, but I don't see evidence in that specific article. What are you seeing that I'm not? Thanks.
I'm seeing that the next time he came back was to go to Newport, around which time Dunn was already at Shinnie.
-
I see, thanks.
Was the 12 hole couse simply an addition of 3 new holes to the existing nine or an entirely different course?
-
Thanks Sven, I was actually going to pull up this thread myself for a different reason, but I'll get to that later.
Somewhere I have an account of the course from July of 1892 which indicates the course was 9 holes and lists hole yardages as identical to the Davis's original 9 hole course. In 1892, John Cuthbert was the professional at Shinnecock (more on this later.)
Then Dunn arrived in the spring of 1893, and laid out his 12 hole course. Dunn's course was not just an addition of three holes. His 12 hole course featured 8 new holes and included only four holes in the same approximate locations as Davis's 9 hole course.
Mike Cirba implies that maybe it was Davis who built the 12 hole course, because "certainly being located in Newport in those years he wasn't all that far away." There is no contemporaneous evidence indicating that Davis ever returned to Shinnecock to replace his original 9 hole course with a 12 hole course.
And Davis was not even in Newport in 1892. He was the professional at Royal Montreal. According to Davis, while he did visit Newport in November in 1892, he did not begin work there until March 1, 1893. In late 1893, Davis wrote of his early history at Newport and his encounters with Dunn, but he made no mention of returning to Shinnecock to revise the course, and, notably he did not take credit for the design at Shinnecock.
Dunn was hired at Shinnecock in the spring of 1893, and he reportedly lengthened the course that spring. Many years later, Dunn described having built the 12 hole course, "I laid out plans for twelve holes and started work with one hundred and fifty Indians from the reservation . . . ."
If there is any contemporaneous evidence that Davis designed and built the 12 hole course, I've never seen it.
-
David,
I'm pretty sure I didn't imply anything other than ask Sven the question of how he determined the author of the 12 hole course from Joe Bausch's Davis obit article. He answered by indicating the timing of Dunn coming to Shinnecock was early 1893, which was information separate from the obit but I now understand how he came to that conclusion.
Based on your additional information related to the 12 hole course, I find it interesting that perhaps more than any other property in the United States Shinnecock has possibly had more differing, distinct golf courses on that land than any other I can think of. There was the Davis 9-hole original course, the Dunn 12-hole course with some Davis in there, and then the first 18 hole course (I'm not familiar enough with the evolution but was that just a 6 hole extension of the 12 hole course or another wholesale revamp?)
Then, the Macdonald Raynor course, which again I'm uncertain whether they used any of the Dunn holes on their course. Finally, the William Flynn almost wholesale revision of the entire course which is what's still there today.
-
I don't have time to examine the routings in detail at this moment, but thought it might be helpful to share the 9 hole 1891 Shinnecock Routing, as well as the 1893 12 hole course and the 1895 expansion to 18.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/728/22846517584_53ae168fa6_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5678/23366402272_1cf27552ce_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/699/23448789876_33f94d1e8c_z.jpg)
-
**EDIT** It's been a long time since I looked at this thread and didn't recall that the map of the 9 hole course was produced on the first page. Hopefully there's some value in looking at the maps together per my previous post.
-
Copied below is the first reference I can find to the course having 12 holes. The article notes the course was lengthened this year (1893), and it is a bit ambiguous as to whether that means it was lengthened to 12 holes, or if it had 12 holes with additional yardage being added thereto.
Additionally, the article confirms Dunn as the "green keeper and teacher of the game this season."
New York Times - July 9, 1893
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20New%20York%20Times%20July%209%201893_zpsxakywbci.png)
-
Sven,
Thanks for the article.
The earliest 1891 articles I've seen indicate that the 9 hole course was 2.5 miles. Today I found one from 1892 indicating a 3 mile course.
I'm not sure if that was meaningful but wonder if the early mile long proposed "Ladies Course" designed in 1891 might not somehow factor into this question?
-
Sven, Thanks for posting. I cited the same article above, in the thread. There is also an earlier NYTimes (May 27) which stated that "Mr. Dum" had been hired, but doesn't mention the changes.
I see what you are saying about the word "lengthened" but given that the course was listed as 9 holes in 1892, and given that Dunn later described planning and building the 12 hole course, and given that we have Dunn's map, dated 1893, I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that Dunn planned and built the 12 hole course in 1893.
-
David:
I think you've described the most "logical" scenario from the information we have available. There are other possibilities, including Dunn claiming the work of others, whether by Davis or John Cuthbert (see below confirming your 1892 date for his hiring). Combining the information in the Davis letter you posted above, the hiring of Cuthbert in 1892 and the information regarding the course still having only 9 holes as of the summer of 1892, the expansion to 12 holes by Davis just doesn't add up.
There are folks who might assert that the time period between Dunn's arrival and the opening of the new course was too short to allow for this to have been his work. I'm not sure if we've exactly pinned down when he first arrived here, which may or may not coincide with when he was hired as Shinnecock's professional.
I'd venture those folks may be overestimating the amount of work that went into building many very early US courses. There are reports of courses being put into shape in very short order, and there are articles describing play on the very rough and unpolished state of early Shinnecock. Even if Dunn did just arrive in late Spring of 1893 (assuming we're not reading a delayed reporting of his hiring), that leaves a time period of around 2 months for the work to have been done, certainly less time than Davis' initial 5 weeks on site.
In any case, I'm hoping that at some point the definitive story comes to light. Shinnecock was the first "professionally" designed course in America, and as such holds a very important place in our understanding of how things were done back then, and is an important piece in figuring out the puzzle of how golf course design evolved in this country.
Sven
July 18, 1892 The Evening Post -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Evening%20Post%20July%2018%201892%201_zpsnbz53fpa.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Evening%20Post%20July%2018%201892%202_zpszbqus9k2.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20The%20Evening%20Post%20July%2018%201892%203_zpsllfpmhwh.png)
-
Sven,
Thanks for the article.
The earliest 1891 articles over seen indicate that the 9 hole course was 2.5 miles. Today I found one from 1892 indicating a 3 mile course.
I'm not sure if that was meaningful but wonder if the early mile long proposed "Ladies Course" designed in 1891 might not somehow factor into this question?
Mike:
I've seen 1894 articles that note the 2 and 1/2 mile distance. Not sure what significance it all holds, but it would be interesting to compare the distances of the holes of the 9 hole course (noted above in one of the articles) with those of the 12 hole course (not sure if I've seen those).
Sven
-
Sven, I think that is the same Cuthbert article I have. I wish we had more on him.
Recently Lee Patterson, who is doing some research for Stanmore GC, reached out with some additional information about John Cuthbert, as follows:
-1872 Born St Andrews.
-1891 Plays Open Championship as an amateur.
-1892 Club professional for one season Shinnecock Hills. (Mr. Patterson relied on my post for this info.)
-1893 Takes position as inaugural pro at Stanmore GC.
-1901 Founder member PGA.
-1902 Leaves U.K. to take position at Wellington Golf Club, New Zealand (wins NZ Open).
-1905 Returns to U.K to take position at Wrekin GC (formerly Wellington GC U.K. version)
-1907 Takes position at Rye GC.
-1914 Leaves Rye GC aged 42.
Thanks very much to Mr. Patterson for supplying this information. (I may do a follow-up thread on Mr. Cuthbert at some point, or at least another request for additional information.)
Unfortunately, while interesting, this new information doesn't tell us much about Cuthbert at Shinnecock, except to confirm that he did indeed become a golf professional around this time, and that he was not at Shinnecock beyond 1892.
-
Without going back through to see if this was previously uncovered information, I found a source that mentioned Willie Dunn arrived at Shinnecock in May of 1893, returned to France that winter, and repeated the same in 1894.
I also may have missed the attribution of the 1893 drawing to Dunn; could anyone clarify the source?
Thanks for a fascinating discussion.
-
As far as I can determine, that 1893 drawing is unattributed and first appeared in James Lee's 1895 book, "Golf In America".
Interestingly, it appears to contain 23 holes, with most of the northernmost holes likely the shorter Ladies' Course.
Didn't Raynor's father do an early contour map of the area if memory serves from prior discussions? Also, one of the roads is titled Raynor Road.
What year was Dunn's course with the Biarritz in France completed? It really is an odd story he recounted later in light of other known facts.
Thanks.
-
The map was published in that book (and that is where the copy I posted came from) but as the book (and many other sources) acknowledge, the course was already 18 holes by the time the book was published. The map is marked 1893, so my guess is that it is from 1893 and reflects Dunn's first effort.
The map does not depict 23 holes. It is Dunn's 12 hole course, plus the 9 hole women's course. 21 holes. This is covered in the thread above. (There was reportedly an earlier women's course on the other side of the tracks, this too is covered in the thread.)
The new course at Biarritz opened for play in December 1892. Biarritz was a winter resort. The timing of this opening fits perfectly with Dunn having come to the U.S. in the spring of 1893. This too is covered in the thread above.
There is a lot of good information in the thread, you should give it a read.
-
Thanks David. There is indeed a lot of good information and it's an excellent thread in many respects and I've gone back to read as I've been able in a busy season.
I was simply trying to understand if that map had been definitively attributed as to its author.
It really is a strange mystery. With an elderly Parrish misattributing the earliest days to Dunn from Davis I wonder how much of the Dunn story years later is true?
Thanks again.
-
I hope this article is readable, but it's from July 18, 1892 in the NY Evening Post.
A few things are interesting to this discussion and I hope they aren't redundant. First, at this time it appears the club has purchased 80 acres and from the sounds of it, work is still ongoing on the golf course, including "clearing". Additionally, John Cuthbert has been hired as the new pro and the course is claimed to be "some three miles in extent", which seems rather long for the nine hole course described the year prior laid out by Willie Davis. The Davis nine-hole course was just under 1.5 miles in length. Of course, that total number could include the Ladies Course but that seems a stretch due to the timing.
I say that because the original Davis "Ladies Course" was described as well south of the Railroad tracks and even the 9 hole Davis course seems to extend much further south than the actual 75 acres that Shinnecock purchased in late 1891 (see maps with property lines above). So, by definition, it seems that some adjustments to the course became necessary almost immediately after the season of 1891 and it sounds from this article that they were already at work on it by summer of 1892, prior to Dunn's arrival in the US.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/753/23587658005_2e02b11a3f_b.jpg)
-
Mike:
As I noted above, there are reports from 1894 that the 12 hole course was 2.5 miles (one of them is copied below). I wouldn't put much credence in that 3 mile report (which is the exact same article I posted above).
Sven
June 10, 1894 New York Tribune -
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20New%20York%20Times%20June%2010%201894%201_zpsctl8vb3i.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Shinnecock%20-%20New%20York%20Times%20June%2010%201894%202_zpslsozowjr.png)
-
Mike, the article you posted was discussed in the initial posts, discussed and referenced in the discussion, and discussed and posted by Sven just a few posts above. "Redundant" is probably an accurate description.
As for the three mile length, Davis's 9 hole course, as played in 1892, was almost exactly three miles when played as an 18 hole course. Earlier in the thread I referenced an article from 1892 wherein the hole lengths were provided, and they are the exact same hole lengths as the 1891 course.
I've seen nothing indicating that Shinnecock's main course in 1892 was anything but Davis's 1891 layout. If you have any evidence otherwise, I'd love to see it, but I suspect that you are here rehashing long discredited theories from posters past, and if so I'd suggest you come up with some evidence or give it a rest.
-
David/Sven,
No problem, thanks.
Once again, I think it's a question of timing. I do find it interesting that the land the club purchased in late 1891 did not include much land south of the Railroad tracks and therefore did not include holes 3, 4, and 5 of the course they had been playing that summer, nor did it include the nine-hole Ladies course. Whether that land was unavailable for purchase or undesirable for golf based on experience is unknown.
Both the 1893 and 1895 maps seem to indicate the property line, with the 1895 one including some additional 60 acres of land west between the tracks and St. Andrews Road that had been purchased by the club in 1894.
-
Mike:
I'm not sure what significance you place on the 1891 purchase boundaries, as we know the course had 9 holes as late as mid-1892, and possibly later, and that the description of those 9 holes matches what we see on that 1891 map.
I can appreciate that the club figured out they'd need to alter the course early on, but it is the timing of that alteration that we are trying to decipher, not when the motivation for it first came about.
It remains a mystery to me, but I have yet to see anything placing Davis on Long Island after the 1892 reports of 9 holes, and nothing that would eliminate Dunn from having done the work that was first reported on in mid-1893.
I am open to acknowledging that the 12 hole version could have been the work of Davis, Cuthbert, Dunn or another unknown party. I just haven't seen anything definitive that would suggest it was anyone other than Dunn.
Sven
-
Sven,
I would agree with your overall assessment, although the "clearing" and "improvements" reported in the summer of 1892 suggests to me the possibility that was happening on land that was not part of the original Davis 9 holes but instead on new land acquired in the late 1891 75 acre purchase. Thanks.
***EDIT*** I went back and read what Parrish wrote in his remembrances as transcribed by David on page one of this thread and he indicated that the land they originally purchased was the land of the 9 hole golf course, as follows. Based on the 1891 and 1893 drawings, this seems unlikely;
At a meeting of the Trustees held on September 5, 1891,
the officers of the Club were authorized to accept the offer of the
Long Island Improvement Co. to sell from 75 to 80 acres of land,
on the Shinnecock Hills for the sum of $2500, the golf course having been already laid out on the land.
-
Mike:
Following up on the distance question, go back and reread the June 20, 1892 article posted above, which notes a 9 hole course of 2 miles.
Sven
-
Mike:
Following up on the distance question, go back and reread the June 20, 1892 article posted above, which notes a 9 hole course of 2 miles.
Sven
Sven,
I do see that, although when measured the nine-hole course is slightly less than 1.5 miles.
What do you make of the boundary shift between the land of the nine hole course extending well below the tracks and the land ultimately purchased? We can obviously only speculate but it seems clear that by the end of 1891 the lands north and northwest of the 9 hole course seemed more desirable and the lands below the tracks less so. Whether that was because of availability or suitableness for golf is again a matter of speculation at this point.
-
Mike:
I choose not to speculate on the boundary shift.
Instead, I'm focused on the reports that the course had 9 holes in 1892.
Sven
-
No real need to speculate pointlessly but it's undeniably odd for a club to purchase land where they hadn't been playing golf on all summer and fall while not purchasing land where they had been.
-
Mike:
Perhaps, but perhaps not. This was the start of golf on Long Island, no one had set down a blue print as to how things should be done.
I'm more concerned with the written descriptions of the course in the 1892 articles, and how they don't seem to match up with the look of the course in the 1891 map. The hole distances given do, but the write up of how the course worked its way around the property seems different from how it was drawn a year earlier.
Sven
-
Sven,
I suspect there might be some validity to the idea we were both emailed that the course started at #5 originally. If the "Women's course" was well south of the tracks the convenient starting point (likely some type of hut) for both sexes would likely be in that area prior to the clubhouse being constructed. The 6th looks like it requires the carry over the railroad embankment cited in that article.
It could be as simple as the difference in hole numbering between what was intended (post-clubhouse construction) and what was practical prior to then.
-
A few of the articles mention something like an old windmill cottage and/or Hoyt's cottage, which I think was the structure pictured on the original 9 hole map near the 5th tee. My assumption is that, prior to the creation of the clubhouse, they started the course at that point. The descriptions make more sense if one starts there.
-
Mike:
I understand why the description was written that way in 1891, but not in 1892.
That was my point.
Sven
-
David/Sven,
Agreed. It would be interesting to see how that land ownership was subdivided prior to the late 1891 purchase.
-
I found this 1923 article by William Everett Hicks (Brooklyn Times) that seems to fit in this thread.
(this article is clickable to a larger size)
(http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/Hicks/Shinnecock_Brooklyn_Times_Union_Thu__Jun_28__1923_.jpg) (http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/Hicks/Shinnecock_Brooklyn_Times_Union_Thu__Jun_28__1923_.jpg)
-
Gee, thanks, Joe. ::) ;D
-
"How to cure the slice" is certainly a hardy perennial in the golf media!