[BillV]

Tom MacWood

Unfortunately my life is very complicated just now and it is very unlikely that I will get to my History of Shinnecock for the exact details any time soon. I am limited to hit and run on the board here.

The general implication is that the work at Shinnecock was largely Dick Wilson and no specific confirmatory details are rendered.  He certainly was on site and there is no question a lot of absolute Flynn there, but don't forget the obvious Raynor holes at Shinnepeter   , too. A lot of people made that place a top 5-10 world course.

Unfortunately the printing of the book is only about 1000, so I can't tell you where to find one and you are welcome to read mine only at my house.

Geoff S disputes this claim and maybe he'll chime in.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Tell you I see what?

Regarding Dick Wilson on this thread, show me where he's been dissed. I suggest a lot of the commentary on here are contributors (such as yourself) who are trying to look at Wilson through the perspective of a time other than the time in question.

It's misleading to look at Wilson or any other architect in the context of the time he hit his stride when the subject of discussion might be 10-20-30 years before that time when he might have just been an employee of another architect. The reason this seems to be happening with a designer like Wilson seems to me to be much more about the thin-skins of certain people today and not much about the accuracy of the particular architect at a particular time!

The first rule of history is to try as best you can to put yourself in the time your analyzing--otherwise there can be immense distortions and inaccuracies!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How would you, or anyone else assess Wilson's abilities as an architect in 1947 ?  How about 1940 ?  Let's also include,
1953, and 1935.  Now, can anyone tell me how his architecture at those different points in time differed from each other point in time ?  If you can answer that question,
I might buy into your theory.

I don't think it's so much of an architect hitting his stride, as if his architectual design principles change until he hits the magical point of recognition, rather I think an architect gets recognized for a variety of reasons, with his design principles remaining fairly static.  The DISCOVERY event, or process may be random, but, the architect's design principles tend to be more stable and enduring.

Wilson seems to have been the understudy of some impressive architects working on their construction crew, becoming a construction supervisor, and then a design associate for them.  He was also a pro and greenkeeper.  
It would seem that between his own intellect and creativity, and his apprenticeship and in depth experience in various capacities with and beyond Flynn and Toomey, that his architectual ideas and design principles had evolved and been developed/established by the time he was 35-40 years of age.

I don't buy into the notion that in 1940 or 1945 he was inept, inexperienced or unqualified, but suddenly, one day woke up as a premier designer.  I don't think it happens that way.
Wouldn't you agree ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I appologize for twisting your words, maybe if you simply anwered my questions clearly in the first place I wouldn't have mistaken your non-answer for an answer.

We do not see things the same, you seem to be saying that a source is either credible or not credible -- black and white -- either you belive it all or nothing at all. When ever possible I try to find numerous sources of information to confirm or refute what ever I'm looking in to - and I've learned over the years to be flexible and open minded, because the moment you are convinced of one thing, you will be shocked with totally surprising new bit of information or worse you may completely miss an interesting discovery.

In regards to Seminole I have relatively little information, mostly from articles that I have collected over the years, and information that Whitten, Klein and Shackelford have discovered. There seems to be a general consensus that Wilson was involved in some capacity and I don't doubt he was responsible for the redesign for the 18th - but the information is very sketchy, including your vague reports from members that possibly pin points the date between 1947 and 1950 (I would hope you can understand why I assumed your early statement was dating it in 1947, since Ross was dead in 1948). By the way I have nothing against Wilson and have enjoyed his work - I do differentiate his work from the work of Lee and Von Hagge who butchered Scioto. Did I say something that dissed Wilson?

I think you confuse trying to get the facts with some attempt to disrespect Wilson or wipe him from the history books. I understand you are great admirer of his, but admiration should not get in the way of fact finding.

As far as his involvement at Shinnecock, you say he was responsible for 'much of the work', that is a little unclear and vague, what do you mean by 'much of the work'?

This is from Whitten prior to the US Open:

For all his accomplishments, the fame that should have been Flynn's somehow eluded him.

Shinnecock Hills is typical. Its present layout was designed by Flynn back in 1931, but a tale somehow developed that the great Dick Wilson was responsible for the marvelous design. Granted, Wilson had been on the scene when Shinnecok was contructed, and he later became one of America's most prominent designers. Wilson had worked for Flynn back then, first as a laborer, then as a timekeeper and finally as a contruction boss on various pojects.

But Wilson was just 27 at the time Shinnecock was built, still learning the basics about golf design from Flynn. Flynn drew the plans and made on-the-site adjustments while Wilson made sure the laborers built it the way Flynn wanted. But Flynn spent plenty of time on the site. The result was a thoroughly genuine William S. Flynn design. Incidently, Wilson continued to work on and off for Flynn after Shinnecock, coordinating construction of several layouts in the South while also managing a club in Delray Beach, Fla. His last job for Flynn was in 1939, nearly 10 years after Shinnecock. It would be another decade before Dick Wilson emerged as a course architect in his own right.

Whitten was also the first to uncover that Flynn incorporated a couple of Raynor holes into his new layout or at least he was first to publish that finding. I think you will find most on this site are interested in uncovering the truth - whatever it might be.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
For someone who enjoys parsing every phrase and pointing out he differences between 'assisting' and 'collaborating', you sure have interesting way inturpreting my sue of the word 'novice'. I do not think calling some a novice is the same as calling someone inept. I was trying to point out that he was an inexperienced/brand new architect not that he lacked talent or intelligence. Sorry for the confusion, I'll try to watch my wording in the future, especially when it comes to Dick Wilson, Rees Jones or judging photographs.  

By the way what you make of the 1929 photograph of Seminole in Klein's Donald Ross book?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I believe I credited Flynn for the routing of Shinnecock.
My reading of Wilson's work at Shinnecock was implementing Flynn's plans.

I would agree with you that one source does not a fact make, that the more sources that can confirm an issue would seem to solidify, but not guarantee that that  particular position, or contention is correct.  And, it does appear that many seemingly black and white issues are hazy at best when delved into.  Even the Guru's are wrong from time to time.

Your question regarding Seminole is a significant one.
Why didn't Seminole retain the ultimate expert on any course  revisions, Ross himself ?  With his death in 1948, I thought perhaps illness in 1946-7 might have prevented his involvement, although Daytona is credited to him in 1946.

Then I thoiught that autocrats and artists/designers sometimes clash, and could an autocrat stand toe to toe with the original designer and maintain with any credibility that his position was the true position, even if it was going to be the ultimate position.

I then thought of Wilson's involvement as strictly by default, sheer good luck with timing and the lining up of the planets.  
He had experience in multiple disciplines, had great tutors, good pedigree, and was local and could spend as much time as necessary on consulting, design, construction, grow in and maintainance, all areas of Wilson's expertise.  And... a club like
Seminole represented a great opportunity, a springboard to other jobs  and a career.

That's why I think the health issue is so important.  If you had a Ross, Tillinghast, Raynor etc.,etc. course, wouldn't you bring back the original architect to make some revisions ?
Or, perhaps the revisions had been presented to Ross, in concept, and he rejected them.  I think this is a fascinating subject for discussion and research.

I became of fan of Wilson's long before I had ever played Pine Tree, not because of Pine Tree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The photo on page 190 seems to be in conflict with the caption appearing on page 191 below the photo.

The photo on page 190 also appears different from what I remember of the aerial photo in the locker room.  When I visit there, I'll have to study that photo.

Regarding "novice" it implies a beginner, and I hardly think in 1947, that one could call Wilson a beginner.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
How long had Wilson been architect in 1947? I differentiate between a construction supervisor and design work, I would think most prospective clients would do the same. Anyway calling some a novice is not the same as calling him inept.

And what is your reason for contuing to bring up 1947? I have not seen any evidence to suggest Seminole needed an architect, experienced or inexperienced, in 1947 or at any other time. Other than the resiting of the 18th green at some point (when that was done is anyone's guess) the course pre-Silva does not appear to be significantly different than the photo in 1929. Other than the 18th green what did Wilson do at Seminole?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Again, you should stop saying things like some of us are calling  Dick Wilson inept! In this entire thread I have not seen the word inept used about Wilson by anyone except by you referring to what someone is implying! I don't think I've seen Wilson referred to as inept the entire time I've been on Golfclubatlas. It looks to me like Wilson is one of the real  respected architects on this website so when are you going to start seeing that and why can't you now??

So would you do me a favor and tell me why you keep saying that before you answer anything else?

About Wilson's involvement at Seminole and when. C&W attribute an "R" to Wilson at Seminole in 1947. In case you've never read the "Key" to C&W, "R" means remodel and theoretically it could mean anything from one bunker to most of the course as far as C&W are concerned or use it!

So what did Wilson do there? C&W don't say but it has always been assumed he resited and redesigned #18! Where did C&W get their info when they compiled their book? From various sources but primarily from the clubs themselves. So they are really not much more accurate in most cases than what is supplied to them by the clubs. So whatever Wilson did for Seminole is probably known by the club to this day and eventually we will probably find out.

By the way, Wilson formed his own architectural firm in 1945 in conjunction with the Troup Bros. of Miami, so Tom MacWood has every reason to call Wilson a novice architect at that time. Obviously that doesn't mean that Wilson was "inept" when he formed his own design business!! Most people who form design businesses have some experience before they do that, generally in those days (or even today) working their way up in the business with other architects and learning the business and the principles of architecture, styles, etc.

How do we know what Wilson's style, architectural principles etc were like in 1947, 1953, 1964 or 1935 or any other year? Obviously by studying and analyzing what he did at any particular time!! That's sort of what this stuff is all about! It helps to know who he worked for, who or what might have influenced or taught him and sometimes that shows in similarities with other architects, particularly the ones someone worked for, came in contact with, studied, whatever. And it also helps to know exactly what he did do--exactly!!

That sort of brings up this scenario you keep pushing about Shinnecock. You seem to have decided that Flynn did the routing and Wilson designed the rest of the golf course. Why do you assume something like that? Because some writer wrote or implied that at some point, although he since amended his story?

You've got to learn to deduce things like this a bit better than that, in my opinion, Pat! Because James Duncan was the project manager for Coore & Crenshaw at Hidden Creek are you going to assume that James did the golf course?

Try and look at the situation back then and put two and two together. Flynn did thirty something original designs in his career and although there was a course at Shinnecock (and Flynn used a hole or so from the original course) in the case of what Shinnecock is today Flynn is given attribution for it as an original design.

Flynn was a guy who clearly worked the rich and powerful set well for his projects and contracts--everyone who knows anything about Flynn knows that! So here he gets Shinnecock awarded to him through one helluva heavyweight contact--one Juan Trippe!! It probably was the premier contract of his career to that date. Does that sound like a contract and project that Flynn would just do the routing and turn the design and the entire implementation of it over to a 27 year old assistant, no matter how good he thought the kid was?

It's sort of illogical to me to assume he would do a thing like that! Don't you think that would be a bit illogical Pat? But if that's one of the reasons you think we're dissing Dick Wilson, then all I can say is you're just not putting these things into very good historical perspective!!

Of course Wilson didn't just wake up one day and become a master architect but do you think that maybe he might have learned a thing or two between 1931 and 1960?

That's about all Tom MacWood and I are saying. Do the research, analyze it carefully and try and put it into the perspective of its own time, not a later time for Wilson and not your time or my time!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Please review my twelve or so posts very carefully, and tell me where I ever said that Dick Wilson designed Shinnecock.

I could have saved you hours of typing.  If only you had done your research, but you chose to make a statement absent one iota of fact.  Again, please review every one of my posts, and cite one instance where I said Wilson designed Shinnecock.  I never did.

This malady must be spreading eastward, and I've hastened to make your appointment with the optometrist-reading comprehension specialist, Dr. Katz will consult as always.

I also never said that anyone called Dick Wilson inept.  
If you would review my posts and tell me the name of the person that you allege, that I said, called Wilson inept, I would appreciate it.  

What I said was that I don't buy into the theory that Wilson in 1947 or so, was inexperienced, unqualified or inept.  I don't think he went to bed one night, unqualified, inexperienced or inept in 1947 or thereafter and woke up the next morning an acclaimed architect.  At age 43, I think he was in possession of his talent.

With respect to my question to you relative to comparing Wilsons work at different time frames, If as Tom MacWood indicates, he was a novice architect in 1947, how can one compare his work in 1931, 1935, 1940.  What is there to study of his style, his architectual principles between 1904 and 1947, if he was a novice in 1947 ?

My original question, which has gone unanswered by you or Tom MacWood, is,  why was it such a quantum leap for him to do greensite work at Seminole pre or during 1947, if he was chosen to rework the 18th hole at Seminole in 1947 ?

It is such a simple, uncomplicated, straight forward question, yet, you and Tom MacWood choose to go off on these wild tangential issues, which incorporate misquoting and misrepresenting what I said.  Just answer the question, it's not that hard.  Either it is a quantum leap, or it isn't a quantum leap.

Instead of consulting and collaborating with each other, just answer the questions for yourself, from your own perspective.

Should I call Ran and others the next time a question is posed to me       .

Lastly, we're not talking about State secrets on this thread.
I am trying to ascertain why Ross wasn't employed to do the work in 1947 or earlier.  Poor Health, too busy, personality clashes, club politics, a new star on the horizon, all reasonable possibilities, and I don't think we have to look at this in the context of forcing the information out of the Government under the Freedom of Information Act.
You of all people, who love and champion research certainly shouldn't dampen this effort.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Thank you for pointing out the errors of our posts -- its not like you to devolve a thread into a he said he said -- usually you are full of interesting and substantive information.  

I look foward to you research on the 18th and
Wilson's involvement. I'll answer your question when you are able to confirm the facts.

I think this is where Tom Egan jumps in to describe the Pat Mucci he knew as a seemingly rational and reasonable guy and that some one is obviously impersonating you.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Look, if you're not a frustrated defense attorney, I don't know who could be!!

On the subject of calling Wilson inept, I said to you I don't think anyone has ever said that about Wilson! But if you look at your post of 12/16/01/1:33pm, you said, 'I don't buy into the notion that in 1940 or 1945 he was INEPT, inexperienced or unqualified, but suddenly.....'

Pat. seriously, that was the first instance, to my knowledge, that anyone used the word "inept" regarding Wilson! You were the one who used it (first) and the only one who ever used it! If you don't BUY into that notion then I have to ask you, who in the world is selling that notion?? Absolutely NOBODY!! So why did you mention it?? Is this the ultimate RHETORICAL question, on your part to simply roil the waters a bit more.

If you don't BUY into the notion that Wilson is inept, than just tell me who the hell ever trying to SELL you that notion!!!!

I would suggest that nobody did!!! So, would you mind telling me what you said that for??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

When posters make statements claiming that I said something that I never said, I think I'm obligated to correct them.

I don't think misquoting or misrepresenting what someone said should go uncorrected.

I can't help it if some posters have problems with their vision or reading comprehension, I have afterall, recommended some specialists to help remedy the problems.

Ahhh, you're getting personal again Tom.  
Tom Egan referenced his personal experiences with me as very positive, very pleasant, perhaps the chemistry with some on the internet is..... missing.

TEPaul,

You can't misquote me and expect me to remain silent, especially when the misquote is semi-outrageous.  
You know I never said Wilson designed Shinnecock, yet you posted that I said it.  Now that's not right, is it Tom ?

Webster's offers a definition of the word as follows:
INEPT: not suitable to the time, place or occassion.

Isn't that the exact context Tom MacWood was discussing regarding Wilson's involvement as a novice at Seminole, or were you utilizing the word in one of its more harsh definitions ?

When  I combined the word with inexperienced and unqualified, I thought it fit in perfectly with what I was trying to say,  but perhaps I should have used a word with a singular definition, perhaps that would have been less confusing to some.

Do you think, at age 43, that Wilson was a talented architect ?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I agree completely if you are misquoted or misinterpreted you  are obligated to set the record straight. And you are so damn good at it - plus it beats the hell out of dealing in substantive facts and/or issues - very Clintonian. I'm still waiting for the findings of your research.

How does Webster's define 'pissing contest'?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I do see your logic about what was said about Wilson, but I suggest to you it's misguided logic. And I also recognize that many of the contributors to Golfclubatlas don't like to see us get into these hairsplitting discussions. But I think this one is important because it's a good example of the way things get distorted and misunderstandings become perpetuated.

Regarding Dick Wilson: Tom MacWood said he was a novice architect in 1947 and indeed he was. To label him a "novice" architect in no way is denigrating Wilson or implies that he did not have talent--although clearly that's what your assuming the implication is. The fact is that Wilson had been an architect for about a year and a half! He formed his business in 1945! Previous to that time he'd been the pro/greenkeeper at Delray Beach C.C. and had constructed landing fields during WW2.

Nothing that Tom MacWood said indicates that Wilson was at that time or at any time inept, although you assume that implication for some reason. It's obvious to me that you think  the word novice and inept are synonymous--they are not! Even the most naturally talented architect (one who has never been inept) is a novice when he first gets into the business of architecture. Wilson's career we know from the time he was an assistant to Flynn at Merion and then Toomey and Flynn to the hiatus of the depression when he did other things. At those times he was hardly a licensed architect, I'm sure, although he may have had lots of talent to be one.

The point is nobody has called him inept or even implied that Wilson was ever inept at the art of architecture but you are clearly assuming that someone is implying that. You don't need to assume those kinds of implications but you do for some reason! And believe me we can all read a great deal better than you indicate we can.

So what do you think Wilson's roll was with Shinnecock given the information that is available on this particular thread or other information? And what do you think Wilson's roll was at Seminole and what are you basing your thinking on?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's not a hairsplitting discussion, it's a healthy difference of opinion.  

In 1947 I felt that Wilson was beyond his formative years as an architect, Tom MacWood feels he was a novice.  I feel Seminole hired him for prudent reasons, based on their assessment of his abilities, Tom MacWood and perhaps you, feel Seminole roled the dice.  I brought up possible issues related to Ross's non-involvement at Seminole which I felt some would want to explore.  That should be a reasonalbe side topic, especially to those who love research.

If I'm going to be condemned every time I disagree with you or Tom MacWood on a topic, well, .....so be it.  
If I err, correct me, if I don't know the facts, provide them.  But, if I make a reasonable or intelligent point, don't attack simply because we have different perspectives, or draw different conclusions.  Simply,  put forth your perspectives and be prepared to advance your cause in the face of questions from me and others on this site.
 
To claim Wilson was a novice architect in 1947 is to discard or disregard his years of work under Toomey and Flynn.  

How do you determine that he only became an architect in
1945-6 ?  Just because he began a business venture with the Troup brothers at that time doesn't mean it marked his birth as an architect.  That talent, that ability, had to exist prior to the  execution of the articles of incorporation.
The act of incorporating doesn't convey the ability, or
automatically annoint one a golf course architect.
That comes from non-business disciplines and talents.

1244 views would seem to indicate that some are interested in the topic and dialoque on this thread.  

Keep up the good work

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Did Seminole hire Dick Wilson in 1947?

I'm not surprised by the number views - its kind of like people slowing down to view car wreck.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Whose condemning you? I just keep asking you how you're getting from Wilson being called a novice architect to one who is inept. This doesn't have much to do with Wilson to me anyway but it sure does to you. So since it does mean so much to you I'm just asking you about two words, novice and inept. To me they don't mean the same thing but they seem to to you. Was Crump an inept architect in 1913 when he did a brilliant routing at Pine Valley, despite never having done a golf course before? Not to me he wasn't! Was he a novice architect? Of course he was because he'd never done a golf course before. That's why I mentioned hairsplitting because you're once again arguing about things that I can't see anyone said or implied!

You're asking a bunch of questions, there no doubt about that. Read my posts of 12/14/11:27am and 12/15/3:07pm if you want to see what I think some likely answers are. And there's nothing in there that's denigrating to Wilson or implying he was inept--far from it in fact!

The question here is not about whether Wilson was inept or not, although you're doing your best to make that the question and point. The question on this thread was and should be what Wilson (or whomever) did at Seminole and why, like did he do just #18 green or did he redesign all the greens and green-ends of Seminole?

You always seem to get into the politics of a club and its membership. That's fine, I guess, but I just want to know why people think all the greens of Seminole were redesigned and whether or not they were.

I'm going to get to the bottom of it one of these days despite all the other stuff that's going on in this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You must have missed it, but I provided you with a definition of inept, from Webster's Dicitionary, that fit the context of the discussion perfectly.  That you choose to use another definition is your choice, albeit incorrect in the context that I used the word.

Tom, if we go back to the begining of this discussion, I asked a simple question about Seminole's use of Dick Wilson, based on Tom MacWoods description of Wilson as a novice.

Other issues revolve around Wilson, his work, etc., etc..
I don't bellieve he was a novice in 1947, Tom MacWood, and perhaps you do, and I thought I put forth reasonable, not extreme, thoughts regarding that position.

You may remember all of the flap regarding the bunkers at Merion.  You participated, I believe, in that discussion.  You may also recall that I was intriqued, curious, as to how the club came to choose Fazio, versus some other well know architects that might be called classical specialists.  No one thought it was an unreasonalbe quest for information, and perhaps it was a key to the resulting work.  
Wouldn't the same apply to Seminole ?
If work was done, I'm curious as to why Ross didn't do it, and why Wilson, the novice architect was chosen.
Hopefully, we'll find out.

Tom, we're all INEPT, at different things !

[TEPaul]

You're going to continue to push the Wilson inept issue although nobody said that. Sure you gave a definition of inept from Webster's but that definition has little or no connection to novice, except in your mind! Again, nobody said Wilson was ever inept as an architect, certainly not me, nor Tom MacWood. Now you're claiming everybody is inept at something. Athough that remark has nothing whatsoever to do with Seminole or its greens, I'm sure in some way it's a very penetrating and incisive remark. And because it is, OK, I will go on record and say that maybe Wilson was inept at something---teetotalling!!

It seems like everytime someone says anything critical of someone you appear to like and defend at all costs which would seem to include Wilson and Rees you go on the offensive and say you have a responsibility to prevent against double standards and you cite Coore & Crenshaw, Hanse and Doak as architects that nobody on here criticizes and that's a double standard. OK, I'm going on record here and criticize them for failing to build waterfalls into any of their architecture, fully admitting that in some circles that might be considered necessary! In a golf architectural context they are all novices at that all important waterfall feature! Sorry, they might not just be novices at it they might even be inept at it! Oops, Gil's of the hook because one of his clients forced him to build a waterfall!

Anyway, I do hope to get to the bottom of the evolution of Seminole and it's greens one of these days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

At the begining of this thread, you were admitedly rude to Mark Fine.  Now, you're ranting and being rude again.

Cite one example of where I ever said Gil Hanse was beyond  criticism, by any on this site.

With respect to Wilson, the one word you took out of context appears in my post of 12-16-01 at 1:33 pm.  Let me cite it again for you, and see if you can comprehend my meaning, rather than your misguided interpretation.

"I don't buy into the notion that Wilson was inept, inexperienced or unqualified in 1940 or 1945, but suddenly one day woke up as a premier designer.  I don't think it happens that way."

Read it over and over until you understand that that paragraph dealt with the evolutionary process of becoming an architect, over time, not at one single, signal moment.

No where did I say that anyone said Wilson was inept, as you keep on insisting.  I  provided you with a definition of the word since you had missed its meaning, and the entire message in the paragraph quoted above,

And, remember, this started because I asked a question regarding Seminole's retention of Wilson, asking if it was a  quantum leap that they retain him for other work, when they retained him for work on the 18th hole.  And, to date, noone has answered the question, so I'll answer it again, no, I don't think it was a quantum leap on the club's part, do you ?

How did the 18th hole that this novice architect worked on turn out ?  

[Tom_Egan]

Who the hell is this "Dick Wilson" everyone's talking about?  And what does he have to do with the issues related to "framing" and "Pine Valley"?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Jeeesus, you can't expect me not to respond to that extraordinary Wilsonian addled post! Too tired tonight, but tomorrow is another day!

[TEPaul]

Tom Egan:

Unfortunately the Pine Valley "framing" subject on this thread was so long ago that even I will stipulate that Pine Valley's trees might need a trim!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

Who diverted this trhead from Pine Valley to Seminole ?

A. Mark Fine -      12-12-01, 3:10 pm
B  Tom Paul  -      12-13-01  5:21 am ( what were you
                                                       doing up at this hour
C  Tom MacWood  12-13-01, 9:32 PM
D   All of the above
E   Who cares, interest was continued
F   Rees Jones

TEPaul,

Back to Pine Valley.

Do you think that Crump in around 1910 or so, was inexperienced, unqualified, or even inept in the field of golf course architecture and golf course construction.  In 1910 would any club have hired this novice to build or remodel a golf course ?  

Do you think he was more qualified and experienced as an architect, construction man, and greenskeeper in 1910 than Wilson was in 1947 ?    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()