[TEPaul]

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?

[DMoriarty]

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 about how their unpublished and unpublishable manuscript covered the origins in great detail .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!  

[TEPaul]

"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)

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[DMoriarty]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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?

[Phil_the_Author]

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]:



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..."

[Mike Cirba]

it seems pretty clear Dunn was here in 93.

Might he have finished his course work in 94?

[TEPaul]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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..." :

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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...

[Patrick_Mucci]

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..." :

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

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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:

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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:



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...

[Phil_the_Author]

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. 

[TEPaul]

"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?

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
At least you are consistent.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Phil_the_Author]

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.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()