[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Thanks for those links.   Tom MacWood had posted some terrific information in that second link, particularly his timeline.
____________________________________________________________

Ed,

You state, that "this post suggests that [CBM] was in total support of the R&A ruling." That is a vast oversimplification of CBM's position, and one that completely ignores all of what he had written about the issue at the time and later.  I don't think it makes much sense to make such broad assumptions about CBM's position based on one second-hand newspaper account, especially when we have actual statements by CBM of his position written at the same time!   We'd be better off reviewing his discussions on the matter in SG, and his letters contained therein, including the one written days before this article was written, and the transcript of his speech at the USGA meeting in question.

As for your questions about CBM's grasp of the facts, I think we'd be better off if we started with our own grasp of the facts.   A good place to start is with CBM's January 5, 1911 letter written to Watson/ the USGA responding to the USGA's request for a "history of facts leading up to the recent ruling of the R & A regarding form and make of golf club."  He was there and involved.  We weren't.  I'm inclined to trust his version of the facts over any conclusions we might jump to based on one newspaper article.

As for your mention of CBM's "historic missteps," particularly the one about when the Schenectady putter was created, could you point that out to me?   I don't recall that.  Thanks.  

[Ed Homsey]

DAvid--Earlier you'd suggested that you might have "misremembered" somethings from Scotland's Gift.  Re:  CBM's statements concerning the invention/creation of the Schenectady and the first time that Travis used the Schenectady, I am confident that, if you go back to review Scotland's Gift, as you suggested you would, you will find the errors that CBM made in reference to the Schenectady, and Travis's use of it.  In my opinion, those are the kinds of errors that a person might make, some 20-25 years after the fact.  However, they're also the kinds of errors that would give cause for wondering about other information that CBM included in his book--some 20-25 years after the fact.

[DMoriarty]

Forgive me for being blunt, Ed, but you really seem to be grasping at straws here.  If there is something inaccurate about about CBM's well-documented description of his role in the Schenectady utter fiasco, then by all means let's have it.  No use beating around the bush with asides like when CBM said Travis first used the putter, or when he said it was invented.    First and most importantly, these issues are tangential, at best.  Second, I think you may be mistaken when you indicate CBM got these things wrong.  

As for CBM's statements regarding the creation/invention of the Schenectady putter, it is entirely irrelevant.  Even so, after looking at the book, I don't know what was the supposed error? CBM mentioned that center shafted golf clubs had been around for 50 years.  They had been.  He also mentioned that Burn had conceded that wooden Schenectady-type putters had existed in St. Andrews for 20 years.  They had.  At one point he also mentioned that Schenectady putters and goose neck putters had been in use for a decade, and technically with regard to the American version of the Schenectady, this was off by a year or so, but surely this isn't the egregious error to which you refer is it?  If not then where is the important error regarding the creation of the Schenectady putter?  As I said, maybe I missed it.  

You also claim that CBM erred in his description of "the first time Travis used the Schenectady."   Again, entirely irrelevant.  And again, I don't think the error is CBM's.  Unless I missed it, CBM was silent as to "the first time" Travis used a Schenectady.  (How on earth would CBM know that?) What CBM actually wrote was, "Travis was presented with a Schenectady putter at Sandwich immediately before the amateur championship by an Apawamis member, Simeon Ford, I think, and Travis played with it through that championship and won."   Here CBM blundered.  According to Travis, he received the Schenectady putter not from Ford, but from Mr. Phillips.  "I got going all right the following week in the practice rounds . . . but the putting was still the weak feature. Finally, the day before the Championship, Mr. Phillips, of the Apawamis Club, Rye, a member of our party, suggested I should try his putter, a Schenectady. It seemed to suit me in every way and I decided to stand or fall by it."  Do you think that because CBM got the name wrong that this should be "cause for wondering," as you put it?  I don't.

Seriously Ed, I don't get what you are trying to prove here?  Much of the information in SG about the Schenectady putter fiasco is in the form of verbatim letters written by CBM at the time of the controversy, and the rest of the material is entirely consistent with those letters, and with other contemporaneous reports.  When you suggest things like "CBM was in total support of the R&A ruling" you are attempting to rewrite well documented history.  Likewise when you suggest that CBM's account is inaccurate and all you come up with are questionable readings of tangential points.  I am left wondering why?

Again, if there are substantial errors, then I'd love to hear about them, but so far the errors seem to be yours, not CBM's.  

[Joe Bausch]

From Tom Paul:

Ed:

I was looking through the Travis Society website this morning, and I noticed a few things to do with Pine Valley that might need to be altered or added on your website (and perhaps to PV's design evolution story).

First, Crump asked Travis to do a reverse routing/design of the course in 1915 not 1917. Second, it seems that Travis actually only did two hole drawings that were reversible (#1 and #16, and they appeared in American Golfer in Aug and Sept 1915). However, Travis did drawings of all the holes of the course with the exception of #12.

I mention this because those drawings were not identified as to the architect for the longest time (in modern times). I got them over fifteen years ago from the files of Gil Hanse (how and when he got them is another quite interesting story). Frankly, at this point, I'm not even sure if those drawings got out of PV's archives at that time and never returned. I will get in touch with Andy Mutch and check (perhaps I'm forgetting something I researched some time ago). Gil always thought those drawings looked like Travis but there was no way, at that time, to prove it. There is now because the drawings of #1 and #16 (in the complete set (with the exception of #12)) are identical to the drawings that appeared in Aug. 1915 in American Golfer in an article by the editor (Travis). It's an interesting article, particularly as he says it kept him up nights trying to figure it out.

So what else is interesting about this? I think the fact that Travis did not do a drawing of #12 might help show when, how and why Crump got stuck on his fourteen hole course----eg his fourteen hole course sequenced from #11 green to #16 tee, and the fourteen hole course was in play from 1914 until the full eighteen was finally opened in 1921-22 (three to four years after Crump died). The fourteen hole course worked well enough as golfers simply played #1-#4 again and were right back at the clubhouse. The other interesting thing to me about Travis's drawings is his 14th hole---eg it is the only hole drawing that is very different from the holes of the course that exist today.  It is also one of the most remarkable risk/reward cape holes I have ever seen (it goes from a tee approximately where #14's middle tees are to a semi-island green where the beginning of the 15th fairway is, and there is a fairway for this hole where the #15 "Nature Walk" is from the 15th tees to the fairway. The hole on a direct line from tee to green is around 250 yards (quite a bit downhill) and was apparently intended to be "high risk" drivable by an adventurous expert player. To play the hole via the fairway made it play approximately 300 yards. And, because of its green placement it show how by Aug-Sept 1915 Crump had not yet thought to take the 15th tee to the far side of the pond. In addition, who actually designed the existing 14th hole is something of a question (I feel the most likely candidate is Crump's foreman, Jim Govan. This was mentioned by his son, George Govan, in a 1991 article). It is also possible that Crump never saw the even roughed out 14th hole.

Again, maybe I'm just forgetting some research I did on this some time ago but perhaps not. I know this might seem a bit abstruse so I hope you get the gist of it and its potential significance, including what all Travis was involved in at PV. A bit more conjectural is some old reports that Crump did ask Travis for his opinions on some of the designs of the putting greens.

Regarding the Macdonald/Travis relationship/equation et al on this thread, it should be noted that Crump also had Macdonald (Whigam?) down to the course for a day at some point. Macdonald made a few suggestions, at least one of which was done---eg the massive bunker/waste area fronting the fairway on #4. Macdonald also supplied him with his famous quote about PV; "It might become the greatest course in the world IF they can get the grass to grow."

[DMoriarty]

I mentioned last page that there were to ongoing issues in 1910 which probably impacted Travis's relationship with CBM and others in the American Golf establishment.  We've been discussing the Schenectady putter fiasco, but the other possibly related issue going on at the same time was Travis's growing hostility and resentment toward the R&A, British Golf, and the British Golf Press. Perhaps by extension, there was also quite a lot of hostility toward those in the US (such as CBM) who were most sympathetic with the R&A, British Golf, and the British Golf Press, and visa versa.  I mentioned the Hutchinson article and the Travis response above, but the links to some of Tom MacWood's posts reminded me that the anti-British bent to Travis's writing had really gotten going earlier in the year, with his April 1910 publication of his long article entitled How I Won the British Open.

http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag35d.pdf

The article can be read at the link above and it and the accompanying material, especially the Ford speech, are worth a read.  The article came off to many as a bitter, petty, and untimely screed against how poorly Travis felt he was treated six years before at the 1904 British Open, and was viewed by some as inappropriate and perhaps even a ploy to sell magazines and garner attention.  In his January 11, 1911 letter explaining the facts underlying the Schenectady putter fiasco, CBM referred to "Travis's uncalled for and undignified criticism of his treatment at Sandwich."   Writing in the Golf, The Official USGA Bulletin in May 1910, Harry Hilton had gone much further:





Hilton followed up with a bit more the next month, further questioning Travis's motive and referring to his "childish outbursts" and "bitter resentment:"



For those looking for a source of ill will, or at least evidence of ill will, this exchange might go a long ways toward setting the stage.

[Joe Bausch]

From Tom Paul:

Ed:

As I told you this evening, I think this particular subject is not only fascinating, it's hugely important, and, I believe, has some of the basic ingredients that can serve to explain some of the important elements/issues that drove the direction of American golf and its administrations in the future.

Of course, it would be interesting to know if Travis and Macdonald may have had a real falling out at some point, including what it was over, and perhaps did not speak to one another again (or for years). I think we can be sure this was the case with Travis and Emmet (ie: Emmet's letter (around 1920?) to Travis asking if they could be friends again. And, I agree with you that their falling out probably was over GCGC). But on the specific issue of when or why Macdonald dropped Travis from the design committee of NGLA, that one may be harder to pin down. All I know now is that Macdonald did say in his book (in 1928, about a decade and a half later) that he did 'drop' Travis, but he did not say why or when. I think it's quite safe to say that most stuff never really happened at NGLA without Charlie Macdonald condoning it, even in those very early years.

Therefore, I would point out that I think it was mentioned somewhere on this thread that apparently, or that it appears, Macdonald dropped Travis from the NGLA design committee before 1910. If that is true and it had to do with the Schenectady Putter issue or Travis being critical of the British or some amateur status issue, I think it would be very odd indeed that Travis played in that well reported July 1910 invitational at NGLA. He not only played in it, he beat Macdonald in the first round of match play and then in the better ball stroke play event at the end of the tournament he partnered with Macdonald to win it.

Next, I'm going to do, and I encourage, some serious research into the initial organization of the Western Golf Association (WGA) in 1899, including who specifically the organizers were. Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York right around that time, and of course he was one of the founding members of the USGA in 1894-95. So, the question is, did Macdonald have anything to do with the organization of the WGA--or did perhaps the WGA just view him as one of those "Eastern Elitists" who fled Chicago and was not adequately representative of them? It is certainly no secret that Macdonald had little respect for the WGA in the ensuing years. At one point, in his book, he labeled them as "recalcitrants." It is also possible that the WGA never really recognized (officially) the USGA as the ruling amateur body of the USA until around 1920.

For his part, Travis wrote a scathing article about the USGA in American Golfer in the late teens over the Ouimet et al amateur status issue. In that article, as I recall, he suggested the USGA was so out of touch with golf in America that the WGA should replace it as the national ruling body of amateur golf.

[Ed Homsey]

Tom--I totally agree that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the precise reason that Macdonald "dropped" Travis from the NGLA project.  Doubtless it was a series of events.  Still, their relationship, and influence on the game, are worthy of further study, as you've indicated.  I just reread the March 1910 article, titled How I Won the British Championship, followed by quotations from a large number of UK newspapers, at the time of his 1904 win.  Easy to see how his article stirred up a hornet's nest.  And, understandable that Hilton would write such a scathing rebuttal; published in Golf, not the AG as I said, though I seem to recall that Travis published a letter from Hilton.  But, this particular controversy followed his being 'dropped" from the NGLA project, right?  So, the mystery continues.  BTW, have you read the July 1904 Golf article titled "The Amateur Championship of Great Britain", by P.B. Burn?  He has some interesting things to say about Travis, and how he went about his business during the championship, concluding There are fine players who do not attend to these matters, small and insignificant as they may possibly be when there is so much at stake, but they go to prove that the amateur championship is in hands that will not allow it to suffer in any way. For what it's worth.

Ed

[DMoriarty]

Tom--I totally agree that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the precise reason that Macdonald "dropped" Travis from the NGLA project.  Doubtless it was a series of events.

Why is this "doubtless?"  Why couldn't it be something simple and/or singular?   Why do people assume that he must have been dropped as a result of some ill-will or falling out?   

Travis appears to have been dropped at NGLA before many of these other disputes surfaced. So if there is a causal connection, maybe it is that Travis became bitter toward CBM and much of the golfing world because he wasn't wanted or needed at NGLA.  Or perhaps there is no causal connection at all.

[Niall C]

Was their not some other controversies at the 1904 Amateur involving Travis where he claimed a hole (correctly) after his opponent had grounded his club in what was designated a bunker by local rules, and in a subsequent round where Travis made some transgression and his opponent failed to call him on it ?

Niall

[BCrosby]

Niall -

Correct. See WT's account of the 1904 British Am in The American Golfer. (Sorry, I don't have a link.)

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Niall -

Correct. See WT's account of the 1904 British Am in The American Golfer. (Sorry, I don't have a link.)

Bob

Link in post 80.

There were also accusations regarding Travis and his Amateur status. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()