The "Lost" Court of Cumberland Island

by Dennis McCarthy

A Tale of Two Courts

"Plum Orchard," Cumberland Island, GA

Over a hundred years ago, two men wearing all-white clothing walk onto an enclosed court to play a match. Carrying their 27-inch-long wooden racquets and a white felt-covered ball, they enter through an opening in the court's side wall and look up at the sun coming through the skylight. The court shows similarities to others of its kind, but the owner cherishes its eccentric details. Spectators sitting behind the server look on as the battle begins, games are fought, and the match ends with a winner and a loser. This court was added to a private estate owned by one of the country's wealthier citizens, and stands on a picturesque island on the edge of the Atlantic. At the time, the sport lay squarely in the domain of the privileged class—most of the locals had never even seen it played, nor would their children. Decades later, the family of the owner, long since passed away, decides to do something magnanimous—giving the estate, and its unique court, to the nation's government and its people. The doors are then locked, and the public at-large never gets a chance to play on the court. Is this an account of Edward Guinness' Dublin tennis court? Perhaps. But it also describes the long forgotten squash tennis court at the Plum Orchard estate on Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA.

Squash Tennis Anyone?

The origins of squash tennis, though not definitively documented, are surely not as obscure as court tennis (also real tennis or, properly, just tennis). The idea for the game probably began in Concord, New Hampshire in 1883 when St. Paul's School students carried lawn tennis equipment onto their new rackets courts while waiting for the proper equipment to be shipped from England.¹ Apparently even years later they occasionally used the "wrong" equipment both on the school's rackets courts and newer squash racquets² courts.

Plum Orchard Squash Court, Front Wall. Note skylight and clerestory windows. *[Larger version of picture]*

When the game was legitimized by adults it featured (with modifications) the rules of rackets, equipment of lawn tennis, and the court of squash racquets.³ One major difference is that, unlike rackets and squash racquets, after hitting the front wall the server aims to bounce the ball on the floor of the opposite fore-court, not the opposite back-court.⁴ And, as in lawn tennis, there also are no service boxes. The game started strong in Boston and was soon adopted by New York society. Familiar bastions of the more established racquet sports (such as the Tuxedo Club, the Tennis & Racquet Club of Boston, the Racquet & Tennis Club in New York, and the Racquet Club of Philadelphia) embraced the new game, at least initially, although none has a court today. By the turn of the century, access to a squash tennis court was a must for members of Society. So it is no surprise that in 1902 George Lauder Carnegie had the Boston firm of Peabody & Stearns⁵ design an addition for his Plum Orchard winter retreat that included a court.⁶ At the time there was no standard court size. The plans for this court even changed just before construction, modified in a letter by the architect to the contractor.⁷ The final layout, finished in 1903, is 15'-2½" by 32'-7" with wood faced walls.⁸ The official standard court dimensions of 17' by 32½' were later adopted around 1911. It was in that year that John W. Prentiss, of the Harvard Club of New York City, founded and organized the National Squash Tennis Association; a city inter-club league soon followed.⁹ By then "national" mostly meant New York, because as the sport of squash racquets spread, squash tennis retreated. Soon it was played almost exclusively by New Yorkers in a few private clubs, almost no one else even knew the sport's name. A few revivals kept the sport going for many decades. Although a minyan of squash tennis players still meet with racquets at the Harvard Club,¹⁰ the national title has not been contested in almost a decade.¹¹ There is no record of when the last squash tennis match was competed at Plum Orchard, but the original owner passed away in 1922, and subsequently the court became "lost."

Lost and Found

Finding the Plum Orchard court was not easy. But exactly how does a nearly 500 square foot space in a grand mansion get lost? It mostly hinges on the remoteness of the estate, and the changing meaning of the word "squash."

Large tracts of Cumberland Island, off the southern tip of Georgia's Atlantic coast, had been purchased for winter estates during America's Gilded Age. Certain families rode the crest of the industrial revolution from their Park Avenue residences to their summer mansions in Newport, and then to winter estates in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida—at least until new income tax and anti-monopoly laws caught up with them. On Cumberland Island most of this land was left wild either for hunting or for scenic value. The island was remote, and remains so today. There never has been a bridge to the mainland, and few reside there. In the 1970s, after a similar barrier island in South Carolina was "developed" beyond recognition, activists started to look for ways to protect Cumberland Island. The federal government became interested in turning the island into a protected natural area, and either by purchase or donation most of the island is now Cumberland Island National Seashore, administered by the National Park Service (NPS). A maximum of 300 visitors per day may take the ferry to Cumberland Island, which is 17½ miles (28 km) long totaling 36,415 acres (14,737 ha), including 16,850 acres of marsh, mud flats, and tidal creeks.

After my only visit to the island (that unfortunately did not include Plum Orchard), the architect in me became somewhat curious of the history of its estates. With a little research I found the copies of the original plans for Plum Orchard that included a room labeled simply "squash court." I had vaguely heard of squash, but as it meant little to me at the time I filed the court away in my memory. A few years later I was browsing through a 1932 book of architectural standards that included dimensions for a regulation "squash tennis and squash racquet court." By then the National Squash Tennis Association had authorized play on an 18½' by 32' American (hardball) squash racquets court—with a few extra lines added to the floor and back wall.¹² This, coupled with the decline in numbers of squash tennis players, meant that virtually all 17' wide squash tennis courts were doomed to demolition or alteration.

Rear Wall. Note the inverted "T", balcony, side door, rear telltale location, and wooden racquetball racquet. *[Larger version of picture]*

It was not until later still, when I started to actually play squash racquets (today almost universally called simply "squash"), and looked into its history, did I discover that in America a century ago a different game—squash tennis—was commonly called "squash," particularly in Boston and New York. I also discovered that surviving unaltered courts designed specifically for squash tennis are rare indeed.

I went back to the Plum Orchard plans and began to recognize some odd features of this court. It was planned to be only 16' wide, but 34' long. The door, rather than being in the middle of the back wall, is on the right wall near in the back-court, and the gallery is actually a balcony that projects into the court. Unfortunately, the construction drawings did not include any playing features that might positively identify if this is a squash tennis versus a squash racquets court, and I could find no clear photographs of the court.¹³ The building's Historic Structure Report (a public document cataloging architectural features and conditions) only included language on the court's balcony, windows, and construction—not a mention of the lines or playing features, nor what "squash" meant to the original architect. After writing to the park, I was sent a sketch that showed the floor lines: no service boxes, and a "T" of which the center-court line runs to the front wall rather than the back—something that only makes sense for the fore-court serve of squash tennis. Eureka!—I had finally "found" this lost court.

Degrees of Loss

Recently I was put in touch with Tom Murphy, an NPS architect based in Denver involved in a preservation project at the estate. Having played both squash racquets and lawn tennis (but like the staff of Cumberland Island National Seashore, never having heard of squash tennis) he quickly agreed to take some photographs and measurements for me. Some additional information from the park's facility manager, David Casey, and a park volunteer, Bernard Huber, completed the rediscovery.

Indoor Pool. Stairs down to court and up to balcony are on the left. The removed telltales, in the center of the photograph, are on the floor, propped against the changing booths. *[Larger version of picture]*

I then realized that the court is not actually unaltered. In the attached photographs you may notice that the front wall seems to have a discolored area where the telltale should be, and that there is a similar discoloration on the top half of the back wall. Originally the court had two telltales: one to mark if the ball went too low on the front wall, and one to mark if the ball hit too high on the back wall. Because of the lively squash tennis ball, players often moved up and waited for a ball to bounce off the back wall, so a telltale would eliminate the need to look back and watch the ball the entire time.¹⁴ When the estate was handed over to the NPS in 1972, the inventory included "2 squash racquets" and "2 black balls" (presumably squash racquets balls) near the court.¹⁵ Elsewhere in the house were a stray tennis racquet and ball,¹⁶ probably used on the estate's lawn tennis court, but possibly used on the squash court. Again, I have found no record of when squash tennis was last played at the estate, but apparently squash racquets was played on the court in the early 1970s. The back telltale would have gotten in the way for playing squash racquets, and may have been removed around this time period. By 1977 the front telltale had been removed also, only shadows and a few mounting screws remain on the walls where both had been, and the detached telltales were left propped against some furniture in the adjacent indoor swimming pool room.¹⁷ After I inquired about their current whereabouts, the tin-clad telltales were discovered in the basement.

A clue behind this alteration can be seen in one of the photographs: an old wooden racquetball racquet, not listed in the 1972 inventory. Even though the estate was closed to the public, early on, after transfer of the estate to the NPS, the doors were apparently not locked very well and the stray visitor, employee, or island resident, could find his way into the mansion. Racquetball became popular in America around 1970, but required a court with bare walls. Someone may have removed the telltales for this purpose. A less mischievous explanation is that the telltales were removed to inspect the condition of the walls, and simply were never reinstalled—then someone took advantage of the bare walls to play some racquetball.

Yet, even if the telltales had been lost, this would have been minor, due to the fact that the wood around the telltales was bleached in the sun. The former locations of the telltales are still easily visible. As such, the court is effectively playable today as-is, although an occasional dispute could occur when a shot is close to being out. Luckily no one painted additional lines on the floor or walls for playing squash racquets or racquetball. A major loss is the story of Cumberland Island's other squash tennis court. The second, and slightly earlier, court was located in the recreation building of the Dungeness estate, owned by Lucy Coleman Carnegie, George's widowed mother.¹⁸ This court did not need a back telltale—above 5' the back wall was wire mesh for viewing—perhaps inspired by court tennis' netted gallery openings, and a thematic precursor to today's glass-walled squash courts. The Dungeness mansion burned down in 1959. The associated outbuildings of the estate, such as the recreation building, became seriously neglected. By the time the NPS had established itself on Cumberland Island, the building containing the Dungeness squash court had serious structural problems. It collapsed around 1982.

The Irish Connection

Besides some coincidental similarities in court design illustrated in the beginning of this article, the big question is: What does any of this have to do with the Irish Real Tennis Association (IRTA)? Consider some lessons of the courts of Cumberland Island:

The Public Trust. Both the Plum Orchard and Dublin courts are public property, and their preservation or use can be influenced by the citizenry through lobbying and education. The IRTA demonstrated this in its successful fight to prevent the permanent alteration of the court into a concert facility. If Cumberland Island had not been conserved as a National Seashore, the area would probably have been developed into gated subdivisions of vacation condominiums—who knows to what use Plum Orchard estate would have been converted into? The NPS has been looking into possible uses for Plum Orchard, including leasing, but by law preservation of its character defining historic features must be part of any planned rehabilitation work. With this research, identifying the rarity of the squash tennis court, its playing features will likely remain untouched.

Durability. The Dublin court was built as a world class facility, for year-round play, with brick and stone. The Cumberland Island courts were built of wood and plaster for the occasional match during the family's winter stay on the island. Dublin can have a thriving tennis club after removal of the inserted laboratories and restoration of the galleries. But at best Plum Orchard could host the occasional demonstration match to educate the occasional park visitor; constant club play would likely be too much for its wood frame construction. The Dungeness court has already become a victim of its maintenance intense design.

Isolation. Remoteness can be a friend and foe to preservation. For Dungeness it meant catastrophic loss. For Plum Orchard it meant survival. The reason why very few, if any, playable pure squash tennis courts remain is mostly due to competition for the space. Manhattan rents and property taxes do not permit 550 square feet to sit idle. Even the last court at the Yale Club of New York City, the home of squash tennis championships for years, recently has fallen prey to "renovation," and the space now houses exercise machines.¹⁹ But this isolation for Plum Orchard has come at the cost of near uselessness: even if squash tennis were a popular sport generally, a self-sustaining facility is impossible on a remote island. And even if the NPS allowed the public to play freely on the court, as a practical matter it would still be quieter than the wilderness around it. The Lambay Island tennis court suffers from similar curses and blessings of remoteness. This private court has not been converted to another use, but given its location 3 miles off Ireland's east coast, neither will it ever see a thriving tennis community. The court in the heart of Dublin suffers no problems of isolation, rather it has the opposite problems. It is so central that the building has been appropriated for other uses since the day the government received it. Although the IRTA has defended one challenge against restoration of the facility, University College Dublin is still using the space. Yet with this centrality comes hope for vitality—easy access for Dubliners and visitors alike. And the Dublin court has a history of world championship play.²⁰ This combination of history and possibility has gained the IRTA supporters both at home and abroad.

Ultimately we are left with the two courts. Plum Orchard is public, isolated, playable (within limits), yet a relic of times past. Dublin is public, accessible, not playable, but durable and hopeful. One is well preserved. The other has great potential. A hundred years from now, into which court will two players walk, ready to contest a match, carrying tennis racquets and a felt-covered ball?

2004 February 10

Mr. McCarthy is an architect, living and working in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In a comedy of errors, he somehow recently won what are probably the first three (and, simultaneously, possibly the last three) squash tennis matches ever contested at his downtown athletic club.²¹ With questions or comments he invites the reader to contact him at: racket@lakeclaire.org

Footnotes

James Zug, Squash: A History of the Game (New York: Schribner, 2003), p. 21.
Squash racquets is today usually simply called "squash." As the reader will see, the evolving terminology of these sports plays a role in the history of the Plum Orchard court.
See Appendix A: Rules of Squash Tennis, and Appendix B: Court Diagrams
Dick Squires, The OTHER Racquet Sports (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p. 79.
"Ridgemere," the Newport, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, home of court tennis patrons Jay & Susie Schochet, was also designed by Peabody & Stearns.
David G. Henderson, Plum Orchard Historic Structure Report (Denver: National Park Service, 1977), pp. 1 & 39.
Sarah Olson, Plum Orchard Historic Furnishings Report (Harpers Ferry: National Park Service, 1988), pp. 119-120.
Metric equivalents are included in Appendix B: Court Diagrams.
Richard C. Squires, Squash Tennis (1968), p. 15.
Telephone interviews with Bill Rubin [squash tennis player since the 1960s, past president of the NSTA, top seeded player in 1981, and at least twice runner-up to the national championship title (1980 & 1981)], New York, 2004 Jan 07 & 23. He also stated that the National Squash Tennis Association has not met in years. Although a search of the New York State website still listed the NSTA as an active not-for-profit corporation, no contact information is in the database.
See Appendix C: Squash Tennis National Champions.
Charles George Ramsey & Harold Reeve Sleeper, Architectural Graphic Standards for Architects, Engineers, Decorators, Builders, and Draftsmen (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1932), p. 173.
The photographs in the available copy of the 1977 Historic Structure Report were illegible. I subsequently located an original with color photographs, three of which I have included here. The photograph of the façade of the mansion was taken during the past few years by the National Park Service.
By later rules of the sport, the rear telltale would be obsolete, as a ball that first bounces on the floor is still in play even if it hits the rear wall above the back wall boundary line. If it hits the gallery or other obstruction a let is called. National Squash Tennis Association, 1967-1968 Yearbook, p. 11, rule 7(c).
Olson, p. 153.
Olson, pp. 142 & 144.
Henderson, Plum Orchard HSR, p. 18.
David G. Henderson, Dungeness Recreation/Guest House Historic Structure Report (Denver: National Park Service, 1977), pp. 1-2 & 31-32. This court was 32'-5" by 16'-5" with plaster walls. Based on historic photographs, the telltale was approximately 24" and the service line 72" from the floor; playing height on the side walls was about 11'-5". The floor lines appeared to be comparable to those of Plum Orchard. The wire mesh appeared to have been too wide to prevent a squash ball (1½″ or 40mm) from passing through.
Rubin. This was an 18½' by 32' modified hardball/squash tennis court with a large spectator gallery.
In 1890 Tom Pettitt defended his title against Charles Saunders in 12 sets. See the article, The 1890 World Championships, at the IRTA website, http://www.irishrealtennis.ie/
He happened to play two other gentlemen of Irish ancestry. The scores: against Mr. T. McCarthy 15/7, 12/15, 15/6, 15/4; and against Mr. Martin 15/7, 18/13, 15/10 and 15/9, 18/17, 18/14.

Appendix A: Rules of Squash Tennis

Notes:

Information in brackets is not original to the text.
The scoring system in these rules, from 1968, differs from those of a hundred years ago. Originally only the server could score. If the receiver won a rally, he earned the right to serve.
The court dimensions in Rule 1 are included in Appendix B: Court Diagrams, below. Standard courts were rare enough by 1968 that these rules reference the "16-ft." line on the front wall, although on a standard squash tennis court the front-wall boundary line is 14' from the floor. The line on an American (hardball) court is 16' from the floor.
As the added note indicates, the squash racquets court mentioned in Rule 1 is an 18½' by 32' hardball court. Squash tennis can be played on a 21' by 32' international (softball) squash racquets court if an additional floor service line is added 10' (3048mm) from the back wall, and additional back wall line is added 4'-6" (1372mm) from the floor. Masking tape can be used to temporarily add these lines. However, players insist that the change in shot angles and distances on a 21' wide court makes for a distinctly inferior game.
As there are no longer any manufacturers of squash tennis equipment, players use lawn tennis balls and junior lawn tennis racquets. Colored (non-white/yellow) balls are preferred for visibility if the court has white walls.


                      OFFICIAL PLAYING RULES

1.  COURTS
    The court dimensions, lines, telltale, material,
construction, and lights shall be in accordance with the
specifications approved by the Executive Committee of the
National Squash Tennis Association.  Existing [American
(hardball)] Squash Racquets courts are recognized by the National
Squash Tennis Association, but a court boundary line across the
back wall, 4'6" [1372mm] from the floor, is essential, and a line
from the center of the service line forward to the front wall is
highly desirable.

2.  RACQUET AND BALL
    The racquet or bat shall have a frame similar in shape to
that of a lawn tennis racquet, the length including the handle
not to exceed 27 inches [686mm].  The stringing shall be of gut,
nylon or other kindred substance, but neither the frame nor the
stringing may be of metal.
    The ball shall be in accordance with the specification
approved by the Executive Committee of the National Squash Tennis
Association.

3.  GAME
    A game shall be fifteen points; that is, the player scoring
fifteen points will win the game, except in the event both
players tie (a) at "thirteen all", the player who has first
reached the score of thirteen will elect one of the following
before proceeding with the game:  1) "set five"--making the game
eighteen points, 2) "set three"--making the game sixteen points,
3) "no set"--making the game fifteen points--or b) at "fourteen
all", providing the score has not been "thirteen all", the player
who has first reached fourteen points will elect one of the
following before proceeding with the game:  1) "set three"--
making the game seventeen points, 2) "no set"--making the game
fifteen points.

4.  MATCH
    Matches shall be the best three out of five games.

5.  SERVER
    Before a match begins, it shall be decided by a spin of a
racquet by the players as to which player shall serve first.
Thereafter, when the server loses a point, his opponent becomes
the server.  The winner of a game shall serve first at the
beginning of the following game.

6.  SERVICE
    The server shall stand behind the service line with both feet
on the floor and not touching or straddling the line, and serve
the ball against the front wall above the front-wall service line
and below the 16-ft. [4877mm] line before it touches any other
part of the court, so that it shall drop directly, or off the
side wall, into his opponent's court in front of the floor
service line without either touching the floor service line or
the center line.
    If the server does not so serve, it is a fault, and if it be
the first fault, the server shall serve again from the same side.
If the server makes two consecutive faults, he loses that point.
    The server has the option of electing the side from which he
shall commence serving and thereafter, until he loses the
service, he shall alternate between both sides of the court in
serving.  If the server serves from the wrong side of court,
there shall be no penalty and if the receiver makes no attempt to
return the ball the point shall be replayed from the proper
court.
    When one service fault has been called and play for any
reason whatsoever has stopped, when play is resumed the first
fault does not stand and the server is entitled to two services.

7.  RETURN OF SERVICE AND SUBSEQUENT PLAY
    (a)  To make a valid return of service the ball must be
struck after the first bounce and before the second bounce, and
reach the front wall on the fly above the telltale and below the
16-ft. line; in so doing it may touch any wall or walls within
the court before or after reaching the front wall, except as in
(e), below.  A service fault may not be played.  If a fair
service is not so returned, it shall count as a point for the
server and he shall then serve from the other side of the court.
    (b)  After a valid return of service, each player alternately
thereafter shall strike the ball in the same manner as on the
return of service, except that it may be volleyed.  The player
failing to so return the ball shall lose the point.
    (c)  A ball striking the ceiling or lights or on or above any
court boundary line on the fly shall be ruled out of court; if a
ball should strike the back wall on or above the 4'6" line after
having bounced, it shall continue to be in play.  If a ball
having bounced should go into the gallery or strike any
construction which alters its course, a let shall be called.
    (d)  If a ball before the second bounce hits the front wall
above the telltale for the second time it is still in play.
    (e)  In an effort to return the ball to the front wall by
first hitting to the back wall, the ball may not be played to the
back wall unless it has first struck the back wall, and must be
so struck as to hit the back wall below the 4'6" line.
    (f)  A player may not hit a ball twice during a stroke, but,
while the ball is still in play, it may be struck at any number
of times.

8.  LET
    A "let" is the stopping of play and the playing over of the
point.
    (a)  In all cases, a player requesting a let must make his
request before or in the act of hitting the ball.  If a let is
requested after the ball has been hit, it shall not be granted.
    (b)  If a player endeavoring to make his play in proper turn
is interfered with so as to prevent him from making such play as
he would without such interference, or if the striker refrains
from striking at the ball because of fear of hitting his
opponent, there shall be a let whether the ball has been hit by
him or not.
    (c)  A player shall not be entitled to a let because his
opponent prevents him from seeing the ball, provided his stroke
is not interfered with.
    (d)  If the ball breaks in the course of a point, there shall
be a let.  If a player thinks the ball has broken while play is
in progress, he must nevertheless complete the point and then
request a let.  The referee shall grant the let only if the ball
proves in fact to be broken.
    (e)  If in the course of a point either player should be
interfered with by elements outside their control, there shall be
a let.
    (f)  It shall be the duty of the referee to call a let if, in
his opinion, the play warrants it.  If a match be played without
a referee, the question of a let shall be left to the
sportsmanship of the players.
    (g)  A player hit by a ball still in play loses the point,
except that if he be hit by a ball played by his opponent before
the ball strikes the front wall above the telltale, then it is a
let.  If however, a player is hit by a ball off his opponent's
racquet that is clearly not going to reach the front wall above
the telltale, a let will not be allowed and the point shall be
given to the player who was hit by the ball.  However, a player
hit by a ball still in play will not lose the point if because of
interference a let is called.

9.  PLAYER INTERFERENCE
    Each player must stay out of his opponent's way after he has
struck the ball and (a) give his opponent a fair opportunity to
get to and/or strike at the ball and (b) allow his opponent to
play the ball from any part of the court to any part of the front
wall or to either side wall.

10. LET POINT
    (a)  A "let point" may be called by the referee if after
adequate warning there is no attempt or evidence of intent on the
part of a player to avoid unnecessary interference or unnecessary
crowding during his opponent's playing of a point.  Even though
the player is not actually striking at it, the referee may call a
let point.  The player interfered with wins the point.
    (b)  If in the opinion of a player he is entitled to a let
point, he should at once appeal to the referee whose decision
shall be final, except when judges are present, as described in
Rule 11(b).
    (c)  A let point decision can only be made when a referee is
officiating.

11. REFEREE AND JUDGES
    (a)  If available a referee shall control the game in any
scheduled match.  His decision is final, except when there are
judges present as described in Rule 11(b).
    (b)  Two judges may be appointed by the referee or tournament
committee to act on any appeal by a player to the referee's
decision.  When such judges are on hand, a player may appeal any
decision of the referee directly to the judges.  Only if both
judges disagree with the referee will the referee's decision be
reversed.  The judges shall not make any ruling unless a player
makes an appeal.  The decision of the judges shall be announced
promptly by the referee.
    (c)  All referees must be familiar with these playing rules
when officiating in sanctioned matches.

12. GENERAL
    (a)  At any time between points, at the discretion of the
referee a new ball may be put in play at the request of either
player.
    (b)  Play shall be continuous.  Between the third and fourth 
games there may be, at either player's request, a rest period not
to exceed five minutes.  Between any other games there may be, at
either player's request, a rest period not to exceed one minute.
    (c)  If play is suspended by the referee due to an injury to
one of the players, such player must resume play within one hour
or otherwise default the match.
    (d)  The referee shall be the sole judge of any intentional
delay, and after giving due warning he may disqualify the
offender.
    (e)  If play is suspended by the referee for some problem
beyond the control of both players, play shall be resumed
immediately after such problem has been eliminated.  If cause of
the delay cannot be corrected within one hour, the tournament
committee and/or the referee will determine when play will be
resumed.  Play shall commence from the point and game score
existing at the time the match was halted.

                                                     January 1968

Source: National Squash Tennis Association, 1967-1968 Yearbook.

Appendix B: Court Diagrams

See attached Adobe Acrobat file.

Appendix C: Squash Tennis National Champions

1911-1912  Alfred Stillman
1913       George Whitney
1914       Alfred Stillman
1915-1917  Eric S. Winston
1918       Fillmore Van S. Hyde
1919       John W. Appel, Jr.
1920       Auguste J. Cordier
1921       Fillmore Van S. Hyde
1922       Thomas R. Coward
1923       R. Earl Fink
1924       Fillmore Van S. Hyde
1925       William Rand, Jr.
1926       Fillmore Van S. Hyde
1927-1929  Rowland B. Haines
1930-1940  Harry F. Wolf
1941       T. A. E. Harris
1942-1945  (no tournaments held)
1946       Frank R. Hanson
1947       Frederick B. Ryan, Jr.
1948-1950  H. Robert Reeve
1951       J. T. P. Sullivan
1952       H. Robert Reeve
1953       Howard J. Rose
1954-1956  H. Robert Reeve
1957-1959  J. Lennox Porter
1960-1962  James Prigoff
1963       John Powers
1964       James Prigoff
1965       (no tournament held)
1966-1968  James Prigoff
1969-1980  Pedro A. Bacallao
1981       David Stafford
1982-1983  Gary Squires
1984       Loren Lieberman
1985       Gary Squires
1986       Pedro A. Bacallao
1987-2000* Gary Squires

* The championship tournament may not have been held every year in the early 1990s. And although (as of early 2004) the most recent tournament was held around 1995, the National Squash Tennis Association considered Gary Squires to be the reigning champion when it reported to the New York Times through 2000 for the paper's annual comprehensive list of national sports champions.

Sources. To 1967: National Squash Tennis Association 1967-1968 Yearbook. 1967-1985: Library of Bill Rubin. 1986: Sports Illustrated, 1986 Jun 02, pp. 16-17 (50 year old Mr. Bacallao, who returned to competition for the first time since 1980, beat 27 year old Gary Squires in straight games). 1987: Interview with Bill Rubin, no written record available (Mr. Rubin recalls that Mr. Squires beat Pedro Bacallao for the first time in the last match they played against each other). 1988: Library of Bill Rubin. Post 1988: New York Times' list of national champions, published in the sports section either the first or last Sunday of the year since 1989 Dec 31.