Stanley Thompson Redux - The Dilemma of Attribution

At GolfClubAtlas I began a thread on The Definative Thompson list as well as on here.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=27513;start=70#lastPost

My comments come from the realization of what I set out to do.

First off, there is a lot of really interesting pieces that have been linked, reported, or added through comments that definitely shed some light on his work. I’m grateful I started this thread for the gems that continue to appear. There are also some fascinating comments also on my blog where I posed the same question.

As the information began to come in I began to realize that this will demand a lot more time and energy to organize all the information than I have. It’s not collecting it, but beginning the important process of cross-referencing what has been presented. There is also a whole series of clubs with tentative connections to Thompson that have no references in old articles and magazines that would still require either research. That research would likely entail visits to review information to find out if the connection is conclusive. I certainly don’t have that time and I’m not really sure anyone else does either.

The other realization that came was I was quickly being placed in a position to make decisions on whether a club should be included or not. As I said to one of the other contributors on the phone, I don’t think I’m qualified to do this. So how fair would it be for me to include or not include a club until there is definitive proof. Since I can’t make the time to research this, the process would be flawed.

My original rally came from the number of mistakes on the current list and the inclusion of high profile courses where he only built a green or two. I think that it was important to say he worked at these courses, but it was more important for future architects to know what an original Stanley Thompson hole or course is.

The last thing that came up was what is the line between Thompson and not. The Summit debate is proof that this line is fairly subjective. Does he have to route at least nine holes? What if he didn’t route the course but rebuilt every feature? What if he did a major renovation to only the greens? What if he worked with someone else on the project? Most importantly, what if he built the course for another architect who made either one or two visits……or none?

I don’t know where to go from here, but I do have an interesting suggestion. I have a great deal of inside knowledge on particular Stanley Thompson courses. It seems like it would be more productive to post a full list as a base and invite people to post their conclusions through facts that they will also be required to provide. Then each of us interested in this process could leave comments under our name and slowly try to unravel the mystery of what is a Thompson course and what is not.

Food for thought.