Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom MacWood on July 31, 2009, 02:37:17 PM

Title: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on July 31, 2009, 02:37:17 PM
This is from the Boston Daily Advertiser June 19, 1894.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 02:56:21 PM
Tom,

Thanks for posting that. 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 31, 2009, 02:58:26 PM
This seems to be totally at odds to what's been said about Myopia, i.e. that it's 1894 course was laid out by members because Campbell wasn't even in the US at the time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 03:09:51 PM
This seems to be totally at odds to what's been said about Myopia, i.e. that it's 1894 course was laid out by members because Campbell wasn't even in the US at the time.

Jim,

No, I believe I produced it here before but I have Willie Campbell's ship manifest with him arriving in the states in March 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 03:38:13 PM
I'll repost the manifest later...I'm not at a computer where I can do that right now.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on July 31, 2009, 03:57:48 PM
I'm assuming this is the same Willie Campbell.  It appears he won the tournament that perhaps was the progenitor of the US Open.  This from the September 11, 1894 edition of the Boston Daily Journal.

(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/willie_campbell/09211894_BostonDailyJournal.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: David Stamm on July 31, 2009, 04:12:48 PM
I have a very stupid question. Was Brookline at one time known as the Country Club of Boston?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on July 31, 2009, 04:30:26 PM
More on Willie Campbell, this from the August 7, 1894 edition of, believe it or not, the Idaho Daily Statesman:

(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/willie_campbell/08071894_IdahoDailyStatesman.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on July 31, 2009, 04:33:05 PM
I have a very stupid question. Was Brookline at one time known as the Country Club of Boston?

I think so David.  I saw an article calling it Brookline Country Club of Boston.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 31, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
Mike,
I'll take your word on the passenger list, that date sounds familiar.

To the first half of my question: I think that there was some disbelief that WC had anything to do with building MHC. This article at least seems to challenge that belief.
 
It really seems to me that in this time period (and possibly at times in ours) the builders of golf courses and clubhouses all had a mentor, or mentors, at the club. Perhaps it was some sort of validation of the plan, i.e. if a member was linked with the 'designer' then all was well, and everyone could believe that the best interests of the club were being served.

In this case it's not far-fetched to think that WC built the course and his mentors were the members who have been mentioned in other threads. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on July 31, 2009, 04:54:51 PM
Mike,
I'll take your word on the passenger list, that date sounds familiar.

To the first half of my question: I think that there was some disbelief that WC had anything to do with building MHC. This article at least seems to challenge that belief.
 
It really seems to me that in this time period (and possibly at times in ours) the builders of golf courses and clubhouses all had a mentor, or mentors, at the club. Perhaps it was some sort of validation of the plan, i.e. if a member was linked with the 'designer' then all was well, and everyone could believe that the best interests of the club were being served

In this case it's not far-fetched to think that WC built the course and his mentors were the members who have been mentioned in other threads. 


Given that WC was one of the top golfers in the world and familiar with the courses in scotland while they were novices in comparison don't you think it would be the other way around?

Or do you mean that it was important for the club to have a club representative or figurehead even if they had little or nothing to contribute to the substance of the project?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 05:03:30 PM
David,

I'm pretty familiar with the courses of Scotland and have also seen many of the best courses in this country and some of the worst as well.

Would you hire me to lay out your course?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 31, 2009, 05:04:59 PM
DM,
Yes, I think the club member was there mainly to lay rest to any fears that the membership might have. That doesn't mean they didn't get involved, like McGovern at Aronimink or Banks at Hotchkiss.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 31, 2009, 05:18:34 PM
David,

I'm pretty familiar with the courses of Scotland and have also seen many of the best courses in this country and some of the worst as well.

Would you hire me to lay out your course?  ;)

I don't know about David, but I wouldn't hire you. In this day and age we have golf course architects vs. then, when the only guys who knew much of anything were the Campbells of the world.
 Their reign may have been short-lived, but at least they reigned.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 05:52:41 PM
Jim,

I'm not disputing that at all.

I'm simply stating how thin of a qualification that is/was and although Willie Campbell was one of the better ones, it's no wonder really that so many of the early golf courses done by his counterparts made the very soul of golf shreik, in Macdonald's immortal words.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on July 31, 2009, 06:05:15 PM
Mike,
How could that be taken as a 'thin qualification' back then when there wasn't any way to quantify it as such? For the most part no one knew any better.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 06:23:44 PM
Jim,

Agreed,,,I think we're saying the same thing from two different ends.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 08:31:08 PM
Sorry for the large size, but it's pretty cool nonetheless...

His occupation is listed as "Golf Club maker"


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/3775909613_76ac1c5d73_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on July 31, 2009, 08:33:27 PM
David,

I'm pretty familiar with the courses of Scotland and have also seen many of the best courses in this country and some of the worst as well.

Would you hire me to lay out your course?  ;)

Jim,

I'm not disputing that at all.

I'm simply stating how thin of a qualification that is/was and although Willie Campbell was one of the better ones, it's no wonder really that so many of the early golf courses done by his counterparts made the very soul of golf shreik, in Macdonald's immortal words.

Mike,  I wish you were joking with these posts, but I am sure that you are not.   This was 1894, and there was nothing "thin" about Willie Campbell's qualifications, especially in comparison to the club members in Boston who had just picked up golf clubs for the first time (literally, according the article.)  

1.  He was one of the top golfers in the World, and by "top golfers" I don't mean 6 to 8 handicap American Amateurs, I mean contesting for the Open Championship "top golfers."  In fact he may be best known for having the 1887 Open all but rapped up when he drew a bad lie on the edge of a bunker ("Willie Campbell's Grave") refused to play out backward, and took a 9 on the 16th at Prestwick.  

2.  Prior to coming to the United States he had already designed two quality golf courses, both of which are still in existence: The Machrie Hotel Course on Islay; and Seascale Golf Club in England (with George Lowe.)

3.  Willie Campbell was so far superior to the novice golfers in Boston that the comparison is laughable.   For example, the winning score in the opening tournament was 112 by Leeds, and the second place finisher (who had apparently never handled a club before) shot a 114.   In Comparison, as of 1898 Campbell's reported low on the course was 77.   That is 35 strokes better than top "crack amateur player" Leeds. 

4.  Most of the amateurs in Boston had never seen a real golf course.  In contrast, Campbell not only was familiar with Scottish golf, he was the Professional at Prestwick and other notable courses.
  
So  given a choice between you and Willie Campbell,  I'd take Willie Campbell, even though he has been dead for 109 years.

There was nothing thin about his qualifications in 1894.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 08:43:27 PM
David,

Yeah, I'd probably take him over me too.  And yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek.

But part of what I'm saying here is simply the reality that these guys were left designing courses simply because they were "professional golfers", and it was thought that they had to have some skills in not only playing, but also clubmaking, teaching, greenskeeping, and architecture.    

While his resume was hardly "thin" for the times given that almost nobody in the US even knew what the game was in 1894, when one considers the skills required to artistically visuallize and then create a golf course, having good hand-eye coordination and top level playing experience along with clubmaking expertise is not exactly the same skill-set, and generally, it showed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on July 31, 2009, 09:13:05 PM
Give us a break Mike.  In addition to his golfing expertise, the guy designed courses before he ever even came here.   He was infinitely more qualified than anyone else there, and not just at golf.

As for the rest, you've been arguing on other threads that, even 17 years later, any amateur with a mid-to-high single digit handicap qualified as an "expert" at designing courses, yet here you are claiming that one of the top golfers in the world was not really an expert?

You are all over the place, apparently just typing whatever comes to mind to support whatever point you happened to be trying to make at the time.  Why not set your heavy baggage aside and see if you can learn something about early golf in America from these articles?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 09:26:39 PM
Give us a break Mike.  In addition to his golfing expertise, the guy designed courses before he ever even came here.   He was infinitely more qualified than anyone else there, and not just at golf.

As for the rest, you've been arguing on other threads that, even 17 years later, any amateur with a mid-to-high single digit handicap qualified as an "expert" at designing courses, yet here you are claiming that one of the top golfers in the world was not really an expert?

You are all over the place, apparently just typing whatever comes to mind to support whatever point you happened to be trying to make at the time.  Why not set your heavy baggage aside and see if you can learn something about early golf in America from these articles?

Dave,

I have no problem with Campbell being an expert golfer in 1894, or even designing the first nine holes at Myopia between his arrival in March 31, 1894 and the course's opening in mid-June.

What I'm not getting is your reactions to my posts?  What are you disagreeing with?

My only point is that the early professionals from Great Britain were given a very tough set of expectations, and all of them were expected to lay out golf courses whether they had any innate ability or interest in doing so or not.  

You certainly can't tell me that most of what they produced in these early years was any good?

That was hardly their fault..most were expected to get their job done in a day or two, for modest pay, and most weren't around to supervise any construction.

On the other hand, I also have a hard time understanding how guys who saw the great courses of Scotland designed holes with stilted geometric shapes, cross bunkers like steeple chase crossings, and such courses generally lacking strategy.   I don't know much about what Campbell produced so I can't comment there, but guys like the Dunn's and some of the others designed some very strange courses for being from Scotland.

I also think you have to admit that these early professionals were responsible, at least in part, for much of the generally awful golf architecture that existed in this country in the first 15 years, that Macdonald, Travis, and others began to rebel against.

As Max Behr said, you might as well expect a golf professional to build a cathedral.   Like today's touring professionals, an ability to strike a ball well with a club is hardly the same skillset as designing good golf holes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Patrick Kiser on July 31, 2009, 09:29:35 PM
Cool stuff.  Keep it coming.

I could have sworn there was a course profile of Myopia previously.  Was that not the case?

Also, there was a thread some time back about how certain WASP clubs had to have a WASP seal of approval and credit of sorts.  Do we know if Myopia was one of those clubs and because WC was not really a WASP ... credit went elsewhere?

Just wondering...



 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on July 31, 2009, 09:42:49 PM
I had the same thought Jim had, i.e. that I somehow remembered that the dates wouldn't line up right. But even before Mike corrected that idea, I realized I was thinking of something else, a couple of things - one, the obituary that appeared soon after Willie Campbell's premature death (which I can't find again right now, but which I think -- I could be wrong -- did mention that he laid out several courses but didn't include Myopia on the list, only saying that he was the profesional there), and second, the Hutchinson article from 1914, that includes this snippet:

"Thence we went on by night, a sixteen hours' journey, to Boston, where Charlie Macdonald, the creator of the National Golf Links of America, met us. Immediately on arrival I started out for the Myopia Club, where Macdonald and I beat T. Stephenson and Herbert Leeds. The latter is the constructor of the Myopia course, and for its construction deserves no little credit. From what I have seen of American courses I put the National Golf Links first and this Myopia second, a very good second."  

Peter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Peter,

Well, there is no question at all that H.C. Leeds took the original Myopia course very early on and added nine holes and modified, evolved, and shaped it over many years into the course that was truly America's first great course, which by the time of Hutchinson's quote it had certainly become.

I think what is being contested here is the Myopia history book, which has the original nine holes as being designed by 3 members back in 1894, one of whom memorably was also the "keeper of the hounds", which is a term I love.  ;)  

I don't know the course or the history well enough to know how much of those first nine holes remain, and in what form, but there is no doubt that Leeds was the first of the great "amateur sportsmen" architects in America, and what made each of them special was the time, study, care, and development they each put into their particular projects.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on July 31, 2009, 10:13:40 PM
Mike - Since that last post and this is one sums up all I know about Myopia, I'll just leave this with something I remember appearing on another thread a while back, from a 1933 article by A. Linde Fowler. I understand that a lot of the 'story' about the course's origins could've changed between 1894 and 1933, but I found this interesting nonetheless:

"The Greater Boston District has another club [i.e. along with Brookline], the Myopia Hunt of Hamilton, Mass., which played a major part in the early history of the sport in this country, venue of four National Open Championships between the years 1898 and 1908 and a golf course which, with undoubtedly fewer major alterations in more than thirty years of any first class course in the land, still measures up with the leaders, because its "father", the late Herbert Leeds, was years ahead of his time in the art of laying out golf holes of character.

It was pure innate love of the game, as an amateur, that sent him abroad to study the most famous holes of the renowned British courses to help mould his ideas of what he wanted at Myopia. And the club was wise enough to give him a free hand in the pursuit of those ideas. He held a place as an amateur golf course architect comparable to that enjoyed in later days by C. B. Macdonald, builder of the National Links at Southampton, L. I. In the early years of golf in this country, visitors by the scores visited Myopia to get advice and ideas for their own clubs."

At the heart of this is the old question - were men like Campbell 'written out' of later histories (for many reasons, including not being around to encourage anyone to advocate on their behalfs), or did writers/observers (some, the early ones at least, who might have known Campbell and Leeds) have reason to decide that what Leeds did was to be considered THE 'architecture' at Myopia and what Campbell had done not?

Big question.

Peter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on July 31, 2009, 10:37:33 PM
Mike,

You really don't understand my reaction?   You diminish and belittle the man's qualifications and even have the nerve to compare his qualifications to your own.  You don't know anything about his work, yet you put it down anyway.  And this was your attempt to dismiss my point, which was that there is no way that anyone at Myopia was any position to mentor or supervise or instruct Willie Campbell when it came to anything golf, whether it was golfing or laying out golf courses.   And any representation that it was members who originally laid out the course is reportedly incorrect. 

Was his work good? I think we have to look at it in the context of the time, and in the context of the time he apparently had a hand in the creation of some pretty well-respected courses, including Myopia.  And after talking up Myopia for so long as the first quality American course, then I don't understand now that you find out that it was originally done by WC, it suddenly made the soul of golf shriek?  For you to dismiss his work and the work of others is to ignore the context of the time. 

____________________________________________________________


Patrick.   I think that is a good question.  If the article is accurate (and it seems pretty detailed and written by someone who knew what was going on there) then credit must have gone elsewhere.   The question I have are why?  And how common was this?

I've never understood how these early pros all claimed to have designed so many courses, yet many of the courses we here about from that era claim to have been designed by a member.   I think the easy assumption has always been that the professionals exaggerated, but it also seems like these clubs were much more likely to recognize the accomplishments of their own other than these professionals. 

There could be a number of reasons for this other than just some sort of elitism.   For one thing, the professionals were often involved with these courses for a very brief period of time, while the key members may have nurtured the courses for years, so from the perspective of the rest of the membership, it probably looked as if the member or key members was responsible.  Once the professional was gone, it was the key member's course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on July 31, 2009, 10:49:37 PM
David,

I wasn't diminishing the abilities or sadly short career of Willie Campbell.

I was questioning your statement that simply because "he was familiar with the courses of Scotland" that his viewing of them somehow translated into architectural abilities.

I also think that if we sit here today and assume that just because these early pros came abroad from Great Britain that they were somehow naturally endowed with more design talent than the average punter, we are doing the exact same thing the early clubs did, which is an unrealistic expectation of these early pros.   The historical record largely shows their courses to be lackluster, at best, although given a day or two of expectation and pay for the work, that's hardly surprising.

I saw the great courses of Scotland too, even studied them, but I couldn't design my way out of a paper bag.  

Although, I did do a pretty good two-hour paper routing of the Johnson Farm so perhaps I'm not completely hopeless in that regard.  ;)



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on July 31, 2009, 11:12:13 PM
Back pedal all you like Mike.  Your posts are still there. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 01, 2009, 04:04:18 AM


I sit here and am amazed at times at the statements we make about the early designers. Are we that shallow and so full of ourselves or is it that we are dismissive of the efforts of earlier generations because of our real ignorance of their lives? Their courses, or as some seem to describe them as lacklustre were subject to various conditions, yet they would have been the state of the art of golf course design at that time in its development. The quality of the courses I would suggest are reflected by the rapid expansion of the game in North America, not to mention the immigration of able bodied designers/professional golfers from Scotland to the States in particular.

In 1894, golf was exported by Scotsmen travelling the world, many going to and settling in America. Names like D Ross, The Foulis Brothers, Willie Campbell, the list is nearly endless.

Willie Campbell was a golf course designer, he designed quality courses, perhaps not what some seek today, but then Ladies & Gentlemen we are looking back 100 years plus and as is the want on his site, and they are being compared with the money & technology we have today. A trap we never seem to remember not to keep falling in to, we are judging without the understanding or for that matter the facts.

Lacklustre courses were mentioned as perhaps standard of that period, but by what standard, those later designers that followed, the so called Golden Age guys or by our own generation. Those who know our islands may well have played on a Willie Campbell’s course or two. There is Machrie on Islay to name but one, lacklustre would not be my description for that course built in 1891.

The history of Man is riddled with later generations dismissing the efforts or abilities of their predecessors or those much earlier. Examples the super ships of antiquity i.e. the Chinese and Roman (two large ship the Germans burnt when leaving Italy in WW2), then the Byzantium “Greek Fire” and effective flamethrower from the 7th century, again the list goes on. Our forefathers were just as intelligent as we are today and were the stepping-stones to what we have today. Only a fool would dismiss the part they played in allowing our generation to achieve what we have. Without their input, we would certainly be the poorer in my humble opinion.

Melvyn


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim Nugent on August 01, 2009, 06:30:03 AM
Quote
"It was pure innate love of the game, as an amateur, that sent him (Leeds) abroad to study the most famous holes of the renowned British courses to help mould his ideas of what he wanted at Myopia. And the club was wise enough to give him a free hand in the pursuit of those ideas."

Almost the exact same back story told about Leeds at Myopia, as Wilson at Merion. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Paul_Turner on August 01, 2009, 06:57:17 AM
I guess the question is how close is Myopia now, to the course Campbell laid out?   Machrie and Seascale are links and wouldn't have involved much construction work.  

But how about an inland course like Myopia in 1894?  Was it all "steeplechase" hazards and fairly crude or was it a real breakthrough?  Even the British inland courses were all pretty unsophisticated that early on.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 01, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
Paul
He laid out the first nine, and those holes are mostly intact in the current 18. I don't believe there was much structural work at Myopia besides preparing the greens. As far as the hazards are concerned the article above states: "The links are new and rough as yet, but have capital natural features, and in time will be as good as any hereabouts." I'm not aware of any Campbell's course here or in Scotland that utilized the Tom Dunn formula. I know he did utilize some cross hazards, which were very popular at the time, but not in the formulaic Dunn manner.

I would not term it a breakthrough architecturally from an international perspective, but rather a breakthrough in America. Campbell brought golf in and around Boston up to the inland standard abroad. And as I discovered when I was researching the early architects there were several good inland courses built in the UK in the 1890s, they were more exceptions than the rule, because there was still a lot of crap, however the first incarnations Woking, New Zealand, Ganton and Worlington date back to the 1890s, and you can add Myopia and Brookline to that list. What year was Painswick built?

Here is a link to that early architects essay. Unfortunately it got mangled on the transfer from old website format but I think one can still trudge through it.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/in-my-opinion-the-early-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 01, 2009, 08:06:02 AM
Here is another article that speaks to the course relative quality nationally.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 01, 2009, 08:51:35 AM
Quote
"It was pure innate love of the game, as an amateur, that sent him (Leeds) abroad to study the most famous holes of the renowned British courses to help mould his ideas of what he wanted at Myopia. And the club was wise enough to give him a free hand in the pursuit of those ideas."

Almost the exact same back story told about Leeds at Myopia, as Wilson at Merion.  

There are some similarities, but there are also some major differences. The state of golf and golf architecture was quite different in the 1890s than it was in 1911. Leeds was a nationally ranked golfer, who competed on a national level. By the way Campbell was Leeds mentor, and when Campbell moved to Myopia Leeds made the move from Brookline too (or the other way around). Leeds was involved in laying out two courses prior to designing Myopia full 18 - Kebo Valley and Palmetto. And Leeds made several trips abroad to study modern architectural developments, not just one.

Here is another early article from the Boston Daily Advertiser (May 18, 1894) which gives some perspective about early golf in Boston. This article is about The Country Club - Campbell was the pro and Leeds was a member.



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 01, 2009, 09:19:04 AM
How much of an impact will this info have on the history of Myopia? Seems like no one knew about these articles until now, or didn't want to know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 01, 2009, 09:23:52 AM
Tom,

These are great articles, thanks for sharing them...

However, the devil on my other shoulder is poking me asking, "if Campbell laid out the first nine holes at Myopia, who planned and routed the course?"  Couldn't someone make the argument that as the hired help, Campbell was strictly doing construction to someone else's plans?  ;)

No answer is necessary...I'm kidding, but also showing how absurd, pointless, and unproductive that whole line of thought is!  :D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 01, 2009, 09:27:42 AM
Here is an old picture of the quirky links at Machrie. From what I understand this course is still hell of a lot of fun. Please forgive the quality of the picture. I've also included a link to Machrie's website.

http://www.machrie.com/machrie-golf-links.html

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 01, 2009, 09:37:56 AM
Jim
That is a good question. This info doesn't change Leeds' impact - their history never had him involved in laying out the original nine. Personally I believe it enhances the course's history having Campbell laying out the original nine as opposed to the master of hounds, the current story. IMO Campbell should hold a larger position in the early history of American golf architecture - I think that may be the bigger impact.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 01, 2009, 10:52:45 AM
Mike,
I'll take your word on the passenger list, that date sounds familiar.

To the first half of my question: I think that there was some disbelief that WC had anything to do with building MHC. This article at least seems to challenge that belief.
 
It really seems to me that in this time period (and possibly at times in ours) the builders of golf courses and clubhouses all had a mentor, or mentors, at the club. Perhaps it was some sort of validation of the plan, i.e. if a member was linked with the 'designer' then all was well, and everyone could believe that the best interests of the club were being served

In this case it's not far-fetched to think that WC built the course and his mentors were the members who have been mentioned in other threads. 


Given that WC was one of the top golfers in the world and familiar with the courses in scotland while they were novices in comparison don't you think it would be the other way around?

Or do you mean that it was important for the club to have a club representative or figurehead even if they had little or nothing to contribute to the substance of the project?

Possibly a better idea to think of them as sponsors rather than mentors.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 01, 2009, 11:51:58 AM


Willie Campbell was a good golfer and designer, Machrie as I have already mentioned. However as you are seeking an inland course, look a few years earlier in 1889 when he designed an 11 hole course for Monmouthshire G C Abergavenny (www.monmouthshiregolfclub.co.uk/ ) He was good at what he did but passing away at an early age in 1900, just think what he might have done?
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/TheScotsmanArchives23101889Monmo-1.jpg)
Mike, did Willie just construct the course or would, following his ability and record have designed the completed course? Was there not something about hime only staying about a year before moving on? Not up on the American clubs, sorry.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 01, 2009, 11:58:13 AM
I believe Cornish and Whitten's book says nine holes at Torresdale-Frankford CC (1895) were done by Willie Campbell.  Fact or fiction?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 01, 2009, 12:09:36 PM
One aspect as to WHY so many Scottish professionals found employment in the U.S. which has been completely overlooked is that in order for the game to grow in America there was one absolute that was needed... GOLF CLUBS! Many, if not most, of the Scottish professionals who were hired were done so as much for their club-making abilities as playing abilities.

Golf clubs were hand made back then and so craftsmanship definitely affected how well one could play... In some cases, and I believe probably more times than we are generally aware, it was the club-making ability that got one hired and kept one employed by golf clubs...

Joe, I vaguely remember seeing that somewhere else, possibly anewspaper article as i was researching tilly's early years in Frankford. I'll see if I can find anything...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 01, 2009, 12:10:34 PM

Machrie Site say about Willie

Courses by Willie Campbell:
 Massachusetts: Oakley CC (9 1898, NLE); Tatnuck CC (9 1899, NLE); [The Country Club (9 1893,A.3 1895).New Hampshire: Beaver Meadow GC (9 1897)Pennsylvania: Torresdale -Frankford CC (9 1895)Rhode Island: Wannamoisett CC (9 1899, NLE)England: Seascale OC (9 1892)
Scotland: Machrie Hotel GC (9 1891)**
 Courses remodelled or expanded by Willie Campbell***Massachusetts: William F. Devine GC [FNA Franklin Park GC] (R.1900)
The above information from Geoffrey S Cornish and Ronald E. Whitten, The Architects of Golf: A Survey of Golf Course Design from Its Beginnings to the Present, With an Encyclopaedic Listing of Golf Architects Harper Collins 2nd Edition, 1993.
 
Campbell is also credited with designing Cowal Golf Club ( www.cowalgolfclub.co.uk )

What Musselburgh say
Willie Campbell
Willie Campbell, a former caddie for Bob Ferguson was born in Musselburgh in 1862 and worked with Old Tom Morris at Prestwick before becoming professional and club maker at Ranfurly Club, Bridge of Weir. A tall strapping fellow he was not a sensational driver yet long and straight off the tee but it was with the mashie that he was famed, using it for every kind of shot, sometimes putting with it. Match play rather than stroke was Campbell's forte winning many money matches. In 1886, he defeated Willie Park twice over Musselburgh and North Berwick, beat the champion David Brown and had victories over Bob Martin and Willie Fernie.
In 1889, Campbell took part in a four round challenge match against Archie Simpson over Carnoustie, St Andrews, Musselburgh and Prestwick. The first played on 12th April which was the opening day over Archie's home course at Carnoustie. Campbell won all four matches but it was the huge crowd at Musselburgh which stole the headlines with the players driving down an avenue of spectators ten to twelve deep including top-hatted Edinburgh gentlemen shoulder to shoulder with grimy miners who had climbed from the bowels of the earth to watch the match.
John Reid who is credited as being the ' Father of American Golf ' was born in Dunfermline in 1840, and learned to play the game over Musselburgh Links.
Campbell suffered from a rheumatic condition and emigrated to the United States in 1894 where he became the first professional at Brookline Country Club in Boston. Campbell extended the course from six to nine holes which included a replica of the 'Redan' hole on the West Links, North Berwick. In 1896 he was appointed to Myopia Country Club and the following year moved to the first public links course at Franklin Park, working from a shop in Dorchester. His wife Georgina also born in Musselburgh was the first lady professional in the United States. Campbell never enjoyed good health and died in Boston in 1901 at the age of 38 and is buried at Forest Hills.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 12:27:50 PM
Melvyn,

Thanks for that information.   I think it is a rather incomplete listing as American courses go.

______________________

Niall,

I couldn't come up with the right word and "sponsor" works better than what I came up with.  Thanks.

________________________


Mike,

As to your snarky post above, as I have explained dozens of times, as I understand it the verb "to lay out" (or to "lay off" or "to lay down" or "to mark off" or to "stake out")  in the context of creating golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground.    Generally (but not always) these early designers planned the course on the ground (as opposed to on a contour map or on a piece of paper) and marked out the course on the ground.  Generally, very little construction was involved.  They were simply marking off (laying off, laying out, staking out, etc.) a course.

The confusion came when designers started planning on a map, and when more significant construction was needed to complete the course.   In these cases, sometimes the person who planned the course was not the same as the person who laid it out.   I've pointed out numerous examples of this, where the person who "laid out" the course was different that the person who planned it.

In this case, I am not familiar with exactly how Campbell worked, but if he is said to have "laid out" a course, my assumption would be that he arranged the course on the ground.

But Mike,  why would you choose to sully yet another thread with this nonsense?   Your repeated disingenuous caricatures of my understanding of the phrase "to lay out" show that you are incapable of dealing with the source material reasonably, and that you will pretty much twist anything to make your point.   You need to start dealing with the material openly and honestly.  Otherwise, at least try to constrain your nonsense to the Merion threads.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 01, 2009, 12:31:46 PM
David,

It sucks to be proven wrong.  I understand.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 12:33:41 PM
. . . Please forgive the quality of the picture. . .

Tom, Perhaps you should consider a camera with a better lens, or at least one with a few more pixels?


David,

It sucks to be proven wrong.  I understand.

Does it?  You should know Mike.  But again your snarky nonsense fails to advance the discussion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 01, 2009, 12:42:34 PM
Fwiw, Willie Campbell did not design Torresdale-Frankford.

It wasn't even a consolidated club until the teens.

WC, the pro in Philly at the time may have done an early course for either the Torresdale or the Frankford club.but nothing on the present site.

Are we certain that WC never came to work in Philly?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 12:44:12 PM
I don't know Mike.  I'd hate to comment for fear of being accused on stepping on Philadelphia's toes.   What do the resident Philadelphia Experts say about it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 01, 2009, 12:53:31 PM
Fwiw, WC did not desifn Torresdale-Frankford.

It wasn't even a consolidated club until the teens.

WC, the pro in Philly at the time may have done an eaerly course for either the Torresdale or the Frankford club.but nothing on the present site.

Are we certain that WC never came to work in Philly?

You are right Mike, it was probably the Torresdale course.  Finegan's book says a Scottish pro by the name of James Campbell did it.  I wonder if somehow he got the first name incorrect?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 01:03:19 PM
James Campbell was an early professional at Torresdale and then at Belmont.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Bradley Anderson on August 01, 2009, 01:33:00 PM
Melvyn,

.....as I have explained dozens of times, as I understand it the verb "to lay out" (or to "lay off" or "to lay down" or "to mark off" or to "stake out")  in the context of creating golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground.    Generally (but not always) these early designers planned the course on the ground (as opposed to on a contour map or on a piece of paper) and marked out the course on the ground.  Generally, very little construction was involved.  They were simply marking off (laying off, laying out, staking out, etc.) a course.

The confusion came when designers started planning on a map, and when more significant construction was needed to complete the course.   In these cases, sometimes the person who planned the course was not the same as the person who laid it out.   I've pointed out numerous examples of this, where the person who "laid out" the course was different that the person who planned it.

In this case, I am not familiar with exactly how Campbell worked, but if he is said to have "laid out" a course, my assumption would be that he arranged the course on the ground.


David,

Could you provide some evidence of this? All those terms are used extensively in print from those times, and you should have no problem producing text that prove your point here.

Thanks,

Bradley
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 01, 2009, 04:20:36 PM
I can't keep track of all these Campbells.  :)

Here is a blurb concerning Merion Cricket Club from the March 18, 1896 edition of the Philly Inquirer:

(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/willie_campbell/03181896_Inky.jpg)

And here is a blurb concerning Belmont Country Club (which eventually becomes Aronimink) from the May 4, 1896 edition of the Philly Inquirer:

(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/willie_campbell/05041896_Inky.jpg)

And here is a write-up concerning the 18 hole layout at Bala for the Philadelphia Country Club from the April 3, 1897 edition of the Philly Inquirer:

(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/willie_campbell/04031897_Inky.jpg)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 01, 2009, 04:37:45 PM
"I can't keep track of all these Campbells."

There's a soup-pot full, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 04:45:38 PM
Melvyn,

.....as I have explained dozens of times, as I understand it the verb "to lay out" (or to "lay off" or "to lay down" or "to mark off" or to "stake out")  in the context of creating golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground.    Generally (but not always) these early designers planned the course on the ground (as opposed to on a contour map or on a piece of paper) and marked out the course on the ground.  Generally, very little construction was involved.  They were simply marking off (laying off, laying out, staking out, etc.) a course.

The confusion came when designers started planning on a map, and when more significant construction was needed to complete the course.   In these cases, sometimes the person who planned the course was not the same as the person who laid it out.   I've pointed out numerous examples of this, where the person who "laid out" the course was different that the person who planned it.

In this case, I am not familiar with exactly how Campbell worked, but if he is said to have "laid out" a course, my assumption would be that he arranged the course on the ground.


David,

Could you provide some evidence of this? All those terms are used extensively in print from those times, and you should have no problem producing text that prove your point here.

Thanks,

Bradley

I'd be glad to, but cannot right now, and I am not sure this thread is the appropriate place.  In the mean time, why don't you tell me what you would take as proof of my point?   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 01, 2009, 04:49:36 PM
Joe,
Was Willie Campbell the Forrest Gump of GCA in the latter years of the 19th century? Seems like he was everywhere.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
Joe, there were at least two other professional Campbell's in Philadelphia, one named James and one named Willie.  

But I am pretty certain that it was the more famous Willie Campbell, out of Boston, that designed the early Merion Course.    This is the same Willie Campbell that Mike Cirba had the audacity to compare himself to.

Again, I believe that Merion credits members with the early course.  Can you confirm this in the Heilman book Mike?

Can't post anything right now.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 01, 2009, 05:06:11 PM
Merion's original course was never credited to members, but to early pros from abroad.

You should see it...cross bunkers and earthen ramps abound.

Apparently David knows nothing of the history of that Merion courae either.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 05:15:08 PM
Merion's original course was never credited to members, but to early pros from abroad.

You should see it...cross bunkers and earthen ramps abound.

Apparently David knows nothing of the history of that Merion course either.

I've seen plenty of pictures of it, and know plenty about its history.  But I don't have Merion's history books handy, nor do I consider them reliable sources regarding Merion's earlier history.  For example, I know who designed the original course, which is more than you, Wayne, TEPaul, and Joe know, isn't it?  Correct me if I am wrong, though, with proof.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 01, 2009, 05:17:59 PM
David,

Are you two years old or did you have a recent birthday?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 01, 2009, 05:20:31 PM
David,

Are you two years old or did you have a recent birthday?

Mike if you don't want me to respond to your immature insults, don't immaturely insult me. . .

. . .
Apparently David knows nothing of the history of that Merion courae either.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 01, 2009, 07:41:18 PM

David

Any truth in the rumour that the Merion Bunkers where delibrately made to look older.  If a Scotsman was involved then that would not be the case, its only American architects that I believe feel it necessary to offers that additional option - not Willie. Another option I hear is special alloy wheels for carts fitted with a metal fold down roof.  ;)

I am also reliably informed that the must have Christmas gift for 2009 is a combined GPS-distance aid available as a ‘head-up’ display for carts. It comes completed with an inbuilt ball tracker as standard. Wonder if that will speed up play.  ::)

Melvyn

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Forrest Richardson on August 01, 2009, 08:51:27 PM
As usual, Tom delivers interesting research and insight. I have always maintained that Myopia is one of the most underrated courses in America.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 02, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
Melvyn,  No truth to that at the old Merion which is NLE, I don't think.  But according to one of the videos on Castle Stewart, A Merion maintenance practice (on the East course and I presume the West course) provided some of the inspiration for the technique used on the rough bunker edges there.  But I don't think Merion East was trying to make their bunkers look old, but rather trying to make them look natural. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 02, 2009, 12:15:15 AM
Here is an article from the New York Times, February 24, 1896. 

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/189690224-Campbell-to-lay-out-Merio.jpg?t=1249186439)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 12:31:30 AM
Here is an article from the New York Times, February 24, 1896.  

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/189690224-Campbell-to-lay-out-Merio.jpg?t=1249186439)

David,

Holy cow, so it was THAT Willie Campbell who built that thing at Merion!   :o

Tom MacWood said it was another Willie when I asked about that sometime back.   I guess he was mistaken at that time.

Wow...I was really sort of hoping that it wasn't.

I was sort of hoping that perhaps the Willie Campbell who everyone is raving about on this thread was actually a decent early architect, perhaps even someone who taught something to Leeds so that we can follow this lineage with some sense.

I don't know...perhaps the original nine-hole Merion course was another in a horrid line because Willie Dunn made some subsequent suggestions but OMG....you have to be kidding!   :P

First Hole - 327 yards - cross bunker 40 yards short of green with large mound behind.

Second Hole - 356 yards - cross bunker 40 yards short of green.

Third Hole - 239 yards - cross bunker 50 yards in front of tee and 30 yards short of green.

Fourth Hole - 473 yards - cross bunker 270 yards from tee

Fifth Hole - 256 yards - cross bunker 40 yards short of green.

Sixth Hole - 320 yards - cross bunker 20 yards short of green.

Seventh Hole - 143 yards - cross bunker in front of green and cross bunker behind.

Eigth Hole - 278 yards - bunkerless.

Ninth Hole - 410 yards - cross bunkers with giant mounds 40 yards short of green.


Wow...what a disappointment.   I was hoping we actually discovered someone who might have helped teach Leeds and provide a connection from abroad.

Guess not...

No wonder Rodman Griscom ran like hell when Connell suggested English pro golfer HH Barker and decided the Merion Committee should design the course themselves with valuable suggestions and advice from CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 12:42:09 AM
I guess I should have known when I saw Melvyn's post about the hazards at Willie Campbell's Monmouthshire being "fences and ditches"!   ::)

Or, even the original Myopia article here which talks about golfers having to hit over trees and bushes.

Sheesh...no wonder the very soul of golf shrieked.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 02, 2009, 12:44:40 AM
Last time you were giving yardages of the original Merion, didn't you think the 18th was something like 78 yards?  Yet now you are somehow an expert on the course, and ready to dismiss it completely with your usual near-hysterical hyperbole.  Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 02, 2009, 07:20:07 AM
I've unearthed a real good article concerning Willie Campbell and his wife.  This is from the July 2, 1902 edition of the Saint Paul Globe.

Now we know why Willie ended up at Myopia and Brookline, and that he laid out both courses.

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p1.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p2.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p3.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 10:17:44 AM
Joe
That is a very interesting article. I've not been able to figure how Thomas met Campbell. WB Thomas was a very wealthy man who made his fortune in sugar. He was president of the American Sugar Refining Co. I know he was involved in yachting and was a member of syndicate that sponsored an Americas Cup boat, so that may be the reason why he was in the UK. He became president of the USGA in 1899.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Here is profile on Campbell I cut and pasted from my essay:

Willie Campbell – Born in 1862, Willie Campbell like his father before him was a caddie at the nine-hole links at Musselburgh. He learned the game from the great Bob Ferguson, who in the early eighties was the premier player in the world, having won the Open Championship in 1880, 1881, and 1882. In those days nearly all the caddies were professional players, and Willie was no different, competing for money at an early age. Among his contemporaries at Musselburgh were David Brown, Peter Paxton, and Willie Park-Jr.

Campbell was a tall strapping man with a demeanor admirably adapted to the difficulties of a match—fearless and courageous. Willie was regarded as one of the finest match players of his time. Garden Smith of Golf Illustrated described him as a golfing genius. During the 1880s Campbell never backed down from a match—anywhere, anytime, with anyone. In 1882 an admirer offered to back him, and the following year Campbell issued a challenge to the world. From 1883 to 1890 he played every player who would meet him for money. Some reports claim he never lost a match during those years, although I have been unable to substantiate that claim. What is certain Campbell delivered some incredible beatings to the world’s best players.

Despite all his success his most famous golfing moment was a failure. In the 1887 Open Championship at Prestwick, where Campbell was an assistant professional, Willie was coming home the sure winner when he healed his drive at the 16th and found a deep bunker (later dubbed Campbell’s grave). The gallery tried to convince him to play backward, unfortunately he ignored their advice and took eight instead of four. Willie Park-Jr won the title by a stroke. Horace Hutchinson told the sad story of coming into Charlie Hunter’s shop after Willie had thrown away the Championship. On either side of the shop were upturned buckets – on one sat Willie Campbell and on the other his caddie, both weeping bitterly.

After the disappointment Campbell challenged the champion to a match over 72 holes. He defeated Park 18 up with 17 to play. The year before he had finished second in the Open to Davie Brown at Musselburgh. Again he issued a challenge; ultimately defeating Brown 13 and 12. He had similar one-sided victories over Bob Martin and Willie Fernie. His match against Archie Simpson may have been the most publicized, it was held over Carnoustie, St.Andrews, Prestick and Musselburgh in front huge crowds. The battle ended at Musselburgh with Willie up 16.

Campbell was engaged as professional at Prestwick (1887-88), Ranfurly Castle (1889-91) and North Berwick (1892-94). His first architectural involvement appears to be at Ranfurly Castle in 1889, where he designed their nine-hole course. In 1891 he laid out the wild links at Machirie on Islay, considered a cult classic today. That same year he designed Cowal, Rothesay and Kilmacolm in western Scotland, and in 1893 the first nine at Seascale.

Campbell suffered from a rheumatic condition and immigrated to America in 1894 - setting up shop in Boston. 1894 was a critical year for golf in Boston, and the United States. There were four major projects that year – the expansion of Brookline, the laying out of the first nines at Essex County, Quincy (Wollaston) and Myopia Hunt. Campbell was responsible for all four. Considering the importance of those courses, particularly Brookline and Myopia, its surprising he hasn’t received more recognition.

Over the next few years Willie continued to lay out courses throughout the region including Oakley, Wannamoisett (RI), Winchester, Worcester, New Bedford, Beaver Meadow (NH) and Franklin Park. Although not as prolific as some he was without doubt one of the most important early golf architects, especially in America. Unfortunately his place in American golf architecture history has been largely ignored. Willie Campbell’s life was cut short when he succumbed to cancer in 1900. He was only 38 years old.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 02, 2009, 10:21:36 AM
Another couple of mentions of WC at MCC, the first from the Feb 24, 1896 edition of The Sun, the latter from March 16 of the same year and paper.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 10:46:45 AM
Joe.

Interesting articles.

Can someone tell us how his architecture differed from the efforts of other early pros?  I see no evidence of that on the early Merion course frankly.

David,

I never said any hole at the original Merion course was 78 yards. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 02, 2009, 11:16:43 AM
Here are the photos that went with that Mrs. Willie Campbell article above:
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 11:26:33 AM
Tom,

Why do you think these early pros designed such rigid, formulaic courses?

Is that how the first inland courses were in Great Britain, as well?

It has always been a mystery to me why guys who saw and played the great courses abroad designed such dreck here even considering they weren't given much time.  Did they actually think designing one cross bunker after another was good or interesting golf?.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 02, 2009, 12:06:46 PM
Is this story about Willie Campbell true?  Hell, I don't know, but it is funny:

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 02, 2009, 12:16:01 PM

Mike

I can’t talk much about what happened in the States, but you may have noted that I prefer to use the word hazards rather than bunkers. Because the early inland courses were full of hazards as I keep mentioning, stonewalls, streams, railways, roads, bunkers, mounds, dykes etc.,etc. Bunkers were not the only hazard on a course.  Our early inland curses were full of hazards with many not having bunkers built let alone located for months after opening.

If there is a difference then it may come from the clients brief, because Willie certainly knew how to design and build golf courses, from his knowledge gained from Charlie Hunter and of course Old Tom. Willie was no village idiot, he had real experience behind him. Is that not reflected in some of the courses he was involved with when arriving in the States?

My own opinion, is that Willie Campbell had more talent that The Foulis Brothers and on a par with D Ross when he arrived in the USA. Regrettably, we never saw the true depth of his ability dying young.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 12:37:19 PM
Mike
I would not characterize all the early courses in America or Britain as rigid and formulaic. Willie Dunn was known to use the formula illustrated by Travis in American Golfer, and found on page 4 of Shackelford's Golden Age book. I wouldn't throw every golf architect working at the time under that bus. Why do you feel the need to denigrate Campbell? He was clearly a very important man in the early development of American golf, and probably has not been given his due. I think everyone understands the reasons for your campaign against Barker, but your hostility toward Campbell is strange.  

Since I wrote the essay I've found a few other courses Campbell designed beyond the ones I mentioned: Cambridge GC, which was Harvard GC's home; Prides Cross GC, WB Thomas's private course; Salem GC; Bridgewater GC and Topsfield GC.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 01:14:51 PM
I think Campbell's influence on other golf architects may be understated too. We know Campbell was a golfing mentor to Leeds; QA Shaw and GH Windeler (who both dabbled in golf design) were also early members of The Country Club. Campbell was also a mentor for golf architect Arthur Lockwood. He was Lockwood's tutor and caddied for him at the 1900 US Am at Garden City. He lost to Travis in the finals. I believe Campbell may well have had an influence on Alex Findlay. When Findlay moved to Boston in 1897-98 he played out of Franklin Park. Campbell was the most active architect in the region when Findlay began getting into design, in fact his design activities increased significantly after Campbell's death. And on the grounds of Franklin Park was the Boston Cricket Club, where Fred Pickering was the the premier Boston cricketer and the superintendent of the grounds. I don't know how FP got involved in golf but I would not be surprised if Campbell didn't have something to do with it. I believe William Flynn played his early golf at Wollaston, but I don't believe that's the same course Campbell designed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on August 02, 2009, 02:24:36 PM
Tom - I've always wanted to ask you this directly, and your last two posts brought the question to mind. This is a big topic, but one lense through which to discuss it is in terms of the nature and fundamentals of golf course architecture. And my question is, what do you think should be considered viable (and worthy, and note-worthy) architecture, i.e. at what point/stage in the life and development of a course does it become an example of good design, does it became valuable in and of itself as a manifestation of the fundamental principles of golf course architecture?  Let me sidetrack for a moment -- the following quotes we've discussed before; they are from articles from back in 1906 referencing the opinions of Andrew Kirkaldy (who visited key courses with Sandy Herd):

"Since the   declaration   by   Andrew   Kirkaldy that  Myopia  is  the best test of good golf  he has seen in a  long life of links   visiting,  many amateurs   who   live   afar   from   Boston   have   the desire   to   engage   in   a   competition   over   the noted   course.   To   meet   the   many   requests, open   competitions   have  been arranged   by the   Myopia   golf   committee for   May  31   and September   29."  And

"...On  a   strict poll, however,  the professionals  would  vote for Myopia   as   the   first   course   in   the   East, Wheaton in   the   West,  Aiken in   the   South, and Lambton Country   Club  links in Toronto, the best in the North....That  two of   the   four --   Myopia   and   Alken --  owe   their excellence to   the   efforts   of   the   one   amateur has long been known --a sportsman who played and studied   golf   here   and   abroad   before undertaking to   put   his   ideas   into   a   course with the detail and thoroughness that have made him a leader at   field   sports, yachting, fishing and shooting. He   has   had   a   free hand and   the   hearty   cooperation   of   his   club committess, besides having the support of a brainy professional, John  Jones, at both Myopia  and  Aiken..."

Now, I think we agreed last time that the "one amateur" in question was Leeds.  And this is from not long after he had completed the 2nd 9 at Myopia (and, I assume, made changes to the whole course).  I don't have to throw Willie Campbell under the bus or try to minimize his contribution to wonder why, so relatively early on, the work that Campbell did was supplanted so thoroughly -- at least in the minds of some key contemporary observers -- by Leeds' work, with so much praise lauded on Leeds.  Again, without trying to disparage Campbell's contributions, could it not be that only with Leeds did the fundamentals of golf course architecture, the principles of  good design, manifest themselves?

What do you think?

Peter  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: BCrosby on August 02, 2009, 03:08:16 PM
Shorter Pallota - was Myopia a great course by 1906 because of Campbell or despite Campbell?

The same question applies to many of the forgotten pioneers of gca. Certainly they should be credited in the design chain, but I don't have much sense of whether their designs were largely erased because they were crude or because of changing tastes or for other reasons. Sometimes obscurity is not deserved. Sometimes it is.

Bob   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on August 02, 2009, 03:11:33 PM
Note to self: Attend Bob Crosby School of Effective Writing. Don't skip class. No booze.

Peter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: BCrosby on August 02, 2009, 03:23:10 PM
Peter -

Booze is a prerequisite. Think Hemingway. Take a drink. Write a short sentence. Take another drink, write a short sentence, and so forth. When finished, throw your glass. At Max Perkins, if around.

Bob
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 04:21:30 PM
Peter
Leeds added the second nine in late 1898, early 1899, and then began to systematically improve the golf course over an extended period. Making changes just about every year - mostly in the form of additional bunkers. Leeds also made several trips abroad and was able to see first hand the dramatic developments in golf architecture taking place in the early 1900s. Campbell was dead by 1900. I've got believe his short career and premature death did not help his legacy, especially in the States. Leeds got the credit and deserved credit. Its not unlike Paton & Low at Woking, Wendeler at Brookline, Wilson at Merion and Colt at Sunningdale. The perfecter often gets all the credit at the expense of the original architect. Of those examples, Colt was only one I'm aware of who went out of his way to correct the record. I don't believe there was much of an appreciation for routing in those days either, certainly not to the extent it is appreciated today.

On the Kirkaldy & Herd's 1906 tour of Myopia from the Boston Globe:
"With two members of Myopia, one whom is responsible for the layout of the course as it is today, and with Alex Findlay, the two Scotsmen played a full round...The talk would have been Greek to an outsider. The Myopia member astonished the Scotsmen by remembering offhand all the features of the principal holes on the course of Great Britain better than they did. With the visitors this member would agree that such and such a hole at Prestwick and St. Andrews was a 'toy' or 'a grand good hole'. Kirkaldy was much interested in the fact that Willie Campbell, his old friend, had tried shots at this or that hole. It was a reunion in the spirit of the old and new gods of the game."

Clearly in their minds Campbell was closely associated with Myopia. Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.

Do you know if Kirkaldy was familiar with the inland courses around London?

Herd was the professional at Huddersfield and HH Barker's mentor. I wonder if he arranged for his boy to come to Garden City on this trip. Barker came to America the following year, although rumors began circulating in 1906 that he was going to turn pro.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 02, 2009, 04:39:54 PM
Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.- TMac

That is odd. Do you think it's a carry-over from the days when Pros were second class citizens at some courses, or does it change the cachet to say a Pro was involved and that MHC wasn't purely the product of an amateur sportsman.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Jim
That maybe part of it. You are right about how they were treated. But like I said before I believe his premature death and relatively short stay hurt his legacy. And you've also got to give some credit, or blame, to the author of the club history. There is plenty of evidence Campbell was the pro at Myopia, but for whatever reason he didn't find it.

I also question who all was involved in the expansion of Myopia to 18 holes late 1898. Leeds is given full credit, but I wonder if he had any help from Campbell or John Jones, who was the new pro in 1898. At the time Leeds was a new member at Myopia, and although he did have experience laying out Kebo Valley, he certainly did not have the experience or reputation of Campbell.

I found this in The Golfer June 1898:

"The new links [Cambridge GC] will complete a trio of eighteen-hole courses for this neighborhood. The famous County Club of Brookline has had a full course laid out by Campbell, who also planned the course of the Cambridge Club, and the Myopia Hunt club has taken steps to bring its links up to the standard number of holes."

There are couple of different ways you can read it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on August 02, 2009, 05:26:10 PM
"I don't believe there was much of an appreciation for routing in those days either, certainly not to the extent it is appreciated today."

Tom - thanks. The line I quote above struck me as particulalrly interesting. I don't know if you're right, you may well be. But two thoughts /objections occured to me immedately, though I don't know if they hold any water:

1) It was 1906, and Colt was already working and would soon be doing work in North America that would demonstrate the importance of good routing, especially to those 'in the know', i.e. that smallish group of well-heeled and well-travelled insiders who were familiar with golf course architecture and its developing ideas/ethos/ideals. Would it be correct to put Kirkaldy in that camp? (I don't know the answer to your question re his knowledge of the inland courses.) I ask, of course, because if the answer to that question is yes, it would add significance to the sentence from that 1906 article about the Kirkaldy-Herd visit, i.e. about playing the course with a Myopia member, "one whom is responsible for the layout of the course as it is today" -- and who astonished the Scots with his detailed knowledge of the great British links courses. (Just an aside - again, no mention of Leeds by name, as if he went out of his way NOT to have outsiders aware of his work.)

2) IF the land that Myopia sits on was an ideal site for golf, and IF Campbell's 9 holes had been very well routed to maximize the site's potential, that would suggest he get more credit than he does. But I don't know (I mean just that, I don't know) if either of those is true -- and if they aren't, it would suggest to me that it was Leeds' work, and the additional nine and with the changes throughout over the years, that more than made up for the 'deficiencies' of the site (and of the original routing?)

Peter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 02, 2009, 08:02:16 PM
Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.- TMac

That is odd. Do you think it's a carry-over from the days when Pros were second class citizens at some courses, or does it change the cachet to say a Pro was involved and that MHC wasn't purely the product of an amateur sportsman.

Rather than carry-over,  I think this might have been the period to which you refer.

From the Plain-Dealer in Cleveland, April 19, 1908:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/19080419OhioPlainDealerMyopia1.jpg?t=1249255666)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/19080419OhioPlainDealerMyopia2.jpg?t=1249255695)

An active member would have been much more visible to a membership as a whole, and generally worked very hard for a very long time to nurture the golf course.   This seems to have been more highly valued that planning the course in the first place.   But also, crediting someone from their own social class might have come much easier for these men.  

______________________________________

. . .
Can someone tell us how his architecture differed from the efforts of other early pros?  I see no evidence of that on the early Merion course frankly.

Mike can you be more specific about the features from the old course at Merion that so offend you?  Were they on tbe original nine or the added nine?    Were they there when the course opened?  Or were they added by members or other professionals?  

While I can guess your motivations for trying to demean men like Campbell, it is shortsighted on your part.   Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  Now, you have the soul of golf shrieking.  A cynic might note that your story changes with the point you are trying to make.

Quote
David,

I never said any hole at the original Merion course was 78 yards.  

My mistake.  It was 65 yards or 72 yards.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter,  

I don't think Colt came to the United States until some years later, offhand I think it was 1913.  A few others had demonstrated the importance of a good routing by then.  In 1915 when Behr wanted to highlight how a course should be routed, he used NGLA as his example.   I don't think there were too many "well-heeled and well traveled insiders who were familiar with golf course architecture and its developing ideas, ethos, ideals."   At least not in the United States in 1906.   There was Leeds and there was Macdonald and Whigham, Travis, and some of the professionals.  Tillinghast probably qualified but I am not sure he had quite come into his own in 1906.  No doubt there were more, but those that were tended to stick out like sore thumbs.  I think you overestimate the breadth of interest in and knowledge about the intricacies of golf courses among the social elite until NGLA came online.  

This is a concept you have repeated numerous times, this idea that there was this large groundswell or buildup of developing thought before NGLA, but I really do not think there is any evidence of this.  If you have any such evidence of his I'd love to see it.  Thanks.

As for Myopia, I believe Tom MacWood posted above that the original nine holes is mostly intact and part of the existing 18 holes.   But even if Leeds started from scratch (and I don't think that was the case) I would still think that Willie Campbell's work at the Club would be considered an important event in the club's history.   Willie Campbell was a very big deal.   And he was apparently important to Leeds, given him telling stories about shots that Campbell had tried.

Recognizing the contributions of non-members was obviously not high on the priority list at some of these clubs.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 02, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 02, 2009, 08:38:04 PM
Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

No offense meant, Joe.   But I recall that Mike posted quite a bit of information on where Hugh Wilson might have played golf while playing for Princeton around the turn of the Century, and surely you understand at this point why I link the two of you.  After all almost everything new he posts comes from you, doesn't it?   And his purpose was to prove that Hugh Wilson had already been exposed to enough solid architecture to prepare him to design Merion, wasn't it?   I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that he even credited you with doing the dirty work of tracking down the source material.   

If so, would you be more comfortable if I had written the following?

Mike spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove that the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion, and Joe Bausch spent a lot of energy finding the source material that Mike tried to use to justify his argument. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on August 02, 2009, 08:46:04 PM
David - maybe a discussion for another day/thread, but fwiw I'd put the number of people who were really in the know about the ideas/trends/rising stars in golf course architecture at only about 100, and I agree that if we're thinking in terms of those ideas about the fundamental principles as promoted and espoused by CBM, that number is even smaller (even much smaller) than that.  But on the other hand, I think you may be under-estimating the nature and extent of the general conversation about golf course architecture.  Here's what i mean. In 1906, that 'conversation' had become 'popular' enough that a daily New York newspaper, not even one of the golf journals, thought enough of their sports section readership was interested enough in architecture for an article on "Thinking Golf".  It was in the November 18 1906 edition of The New York Sun (I found it on the Library of Congress, Digitial Archives, Historic Newspapers).

The 1906 article announced that "Thinking Golf" was all the rage in America, and that club committees were busy having their courses altered so as to  better exemplify this new ethos. (It mentions Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf).  By the term, they seemed to mean the idea that hazards should be placed/arranged so that players could think and play their way around them instead of being forced to go over them.  Interestingly, the article notes that the great amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf idea than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could.  The idea seems to have been an early version of Bobby Jones' idea (for Augusta) that a birdie or a par would be hard to achieve but that a bogey, honestly sought, would be easy.

Yes, that's not a detailed understanding of the principles that lay behind the great holes of British links golf, but it does seem like the 'dawn' of, for lack of a better word, strategic golf architecture and its principles was happening quite out in the open. And if this tyoe of article was being publish in The Sun, I imagine that group of 100 or so was probably getting into it in a more detailed way.

Peter    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 02, 2009, 08:49:26 PM
David
The best golf architects understood the importance of routing, but it was rarely discussed in golf publications. I don't believe any of the contributors of Horace Hutchinson's Golf Greens and Greenkeeping (1906) emphasized it. Colt in Sutton's Book of the Links (1912) may have been the first to explain its importance, and even after that you rarely find it discussed in golf magazines.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: David Lott on August 02, 2009, 09:16:24 PM
Peter -

Booze is a prerequisite. Think Hemingway. Take a drink. Write a short sentence. Take another drink, write a short sentence, and so forth. When finished, throw your glass. At Max Perkins, if around.

Bob

Bob:

I think you may be confusing Hemingway's writing habits with those of Fitzgerald, who was more into lubrication while writing. But neither of them should have thrown anything at Max Perkins, who polished their gems to an even higher luster.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 11:54:02 PM
 David,

I never said any hole at the original Merion course was 78 yards.  


My mistake.  It was 65 yards or 72 yards.

David,

You are a liar who is once again just making stuff up.

I said the land they were renting for their original course was 70some acres, not yards.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 02, 2009, 11:54:50 PM
Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

David is simply lying again, Joe.

The truth means nothing to him on his personal vendetta.

Don't you get that yet?

Do you really think he's after the truth about Merion??  

Do you think that matters to him in the least?

He'll use you for whatever information he can ply from you and throw you under the bus without a second thought or a hint of conscience.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 03, 2009, 12:12:21 AM
Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

No offense meant, Joe.   But I recall that Mike posted quite a bit of information on where Hugh Wilson might have played golf while playing for Princeton around the turn of the Century, and surely you understand at this point why I link the two of you.  After all almost everything new he posts comes from you, doesn't it?   And his purpose was to prove that Hugh Wilson had already been exposed to enough solid architecture to prepare him to design Merion, wasn't it?   I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that he even credited you with doing the dirty work of tracking down the source material.    

If so, would you be more comfortable if I had written the following?

Mike spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove that the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion, and Joe Bausch spent a lot of energy finding the source material that Mike tried to use to justify his argument.  

Joe,

Are you starting to understand what you're dealing with here?

I guess these guys feel the've gotten whatever they felt he needed from you so you're pretty disposable at this point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 03, 2009, 01:31:42 AM
Peter, Thanks for the reference to the article.  I'll take a look.  And you are correct that there was at least some more interest in the proper function of a golf course.  CBM also preached that the lesser player (or sometimes the smarter player) should be given an alternate route to the hole around the hazards, but that the route would probably take an extra stroke.

But Peter it is a big jump from starting to talk about something, and having the know-how and where-with-all to actually do it.  And in 1906, very few did.  

______________________________________

Joe Bausch.   I really did not mean any offense.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 03, 2009, 06:28:48 AM
David
There is no need to drag Joe B into what ever disagreement you or I might have with Mike. I believe he has remained remarkably neutral in all of this, and has been a source of tremendous information. Information is information, I don't care who is bringing it as long as they keep bringing it, and Joe has brought more than just about anyone.

And I might add Mike has shown the ability to find a lot of this stuff on his own.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: BCrosby on August 03, 2009, 08:32:46 AM
Peter/David -

One example of the cross pollination going on about gca in the early 1900's was the Oxford Cambridge golf matches in 1903.

On the UK side were John Low and C.H. Alison. Playing for different US teams were Travis, Emmet, Tilly, Leeds, Whigham, CB MacDonald, Chandler Egan, Behr and others who went on to prominence in US architectural circles.

Note that Low's Concerning Golf was published in the same year as the tour, a book that MacK called one of the best ever on architectural ideas. At about the same time the changes that Low and Paton made at Woking were causing considerable debate and controversy. See Darwin, Simpson, MacK, Campbell and others for accounts of the controversies and issues raised at Woking. The "new" inland architecture was also being put in the ground at Huntercombe, Sunny Old and at Walton Heath, all being high profile designs at the time covered widely by the golf press.

It's hard to believe that when the OCGS and the Yanks got together every evening for dinner there weren't lengthy discussions about design issues and current debates in the UK and the US. Partly because there were in fact very lively debates going on in the UK at exactly that time about inland v. links designs. Partly because members of the OCGS were not impressed with many of the US courses and said so. But mostly because everyone was trying to sort out the implications of the Haskell. The new ball meant everyone had to rethink first principles. And a who's who of present and future US golf architecture was there every evening to participate in the discussions with the Brits.

But the OCGS visit was one of many ways in which there were cross Atlantic borrowings going on.

My read is that by the time NGLA came to be in 1912, there had already been a decade or more of discussions about key architectural concepts and that most everyone in the design biz was familiar with the key issues. CBM was certainly an important part of all that, but only a part. 


Bob
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 03, 2009, 02:15:02 PM
TomM,  I have no quarrel with Joe Bausch, at least not from my persective.

___________________________________


BCrosby,  

As I noted above, I agree that there was starting to be a conversation about the proper function of the golf course around this time.  The Best Hole Discussion in Golf Illustrated played a role in that discussion, as did books by Hutchinson and others.  But as I said to Peter, there is a big difference between a few people discussing something and actually bringing it into fruition.  And there is little evidence that the courses were being greatly improved in the United States on any sort of wide scale during in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century.

In 1909, H.J. Whigam provided a summary of what had gone on in America between since his previous article on the subject in 1897.

I believe that the first really good inland courses were made in America.  England learned from America that while you could never make a St. Andrews or a Prestwick away from the sea, you could produce something which was almost as good a test of golf.

He  continued . . .

We started well enough twelve or fifteen years ago by showing how to make a good golf course inland.  Yet there as been practically no improvement in that direction since then, although in every other way the game has made great strides.   Ninety per cent. of the courses in this country are not to be compared to the real golf links abroad.  And the worst of it is that an entirely erroneous standard has grown up so that it is the most difficult thing in the world to introduce reforms.  Everything now is sacrificed to the older players who want the path made easy for them, and for some strange reason the younger players are dumb.  There are a few golfers in the country hwo have steadily set themselves to keep up the real standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe was responsible not only for Myopia but for the nine hole course at Bar Harbor, and the winter course at Aiken.   There is an excellent inland course at Manchester Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has gotten much improved.  When one has mentioned these one has included practically all of the links in the country which approach the interest and quality of the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long ways short of perfection.  

He then went on to note that while Ontwensia and Wheaton had "represented the last word in making artificial courses at that time," neither had been improved since then and were actualy much worse, because as conditions improved they both relied as a defence on long grass, "the worst feature of the game in America."

And while Whigham noted that Garden City had been much improved, he thought it was far from what it should be.  "As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right."  He also noted that even to improve Garden City as much as he did, Travis "had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measureable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out."

As for NGLA, I think you are a bit late on when NGLA "came to be" and you are many years too late on when its influence began to be felt.   CBM began preparing for the project as early as 1902, and articles on both continents began discussing and debating the project as early as 1906.  The article mentioned above was published in 1909 is Scribner's, and provided fairly detailed descriptions of the concepts underlying the course.   This being said, while it is technically correct to say that CBM was "only a part" of what was going on, he was an extremely large part and perhaps the dominant part, and the part without which the other parts might not have fallen into place.  

As to the more immediate topic at hand,  it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 03, 2009, 11:02:18 PM
“As to the more immediate topic at hand, it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.”

 

 

Why is that disappointing?

Perhaps Whigam felt (and with good reason), as Macdonald apparently did when he said  “the very soul of golf shrieks,” that it was those journeymen, quick and inexpensive architects who were primarily responsible for the majority of the deplorable state of architecture in America with the exception of a few good courses by those dedicated, “lots-of-time-in-on-their-special-project” amateur/sportsmen architects like Leeds of Myopia, the Fowneses of Oakmont, Emmett and Travis of GCGC, Wilson of Merion and Crump of Pine Valley et al, and most publicly Macdonald of NGLA.

After-all H.J. Whigam had his eye and ear to the ground with what was going on back then with American architecture a whole lot more than people like the Moriartys and MacWoods of today do, right? 

Who can deny that the courses that were praised in that first decade of the 20th century in America were Myopia, GCGC and perhaps Chicago GC (by Macdonald ;) ).

Was that an unusual opinion at that time or was it a consensus opinion? What, after-all did HH Barker say Merion Ardmore's site had the potential to match? I remember him saying MYOPIA!! Why do you suppose that was if Myopia was not the IDEAL to emulate in his opinion at that time?!?

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity? 

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.

 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 03, 2009, 11:20:38 PM
Here is tribute from British Golf Illustrated. In the photo Willie looks to be about 80 years old, he was actually 38 when he died in 1900.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 03, 2009, 11:41:34 PM
“As to the more immediate topic at hand, it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.”

 

 

Why is that disappointing?

Perhaps Whigam felt (and with good reason), as Macdonald apparently did when he said  “the very soul of golf shrieks,” that it was those journeymen, quick and inexpensive architects who were primarily responsible for the majority of the deplorable state of architecture in America with the exception of a few good courses by those dedicated, “lots-of-time-in-on-their-special-project” amateur/sportsmen architects like Leeds of Myopia, the Fowneses of Oakmont, Emmett and Travis of GCGC, Wilson of Merion and Crump of Pine Valley et al, and most publicly Macdonald of NGLA.

After-all H.J. Whigam had his eye and ear to the ground with what was going on back then with American architecture a whole lot more than people like the Moriartys and MacWoods of today do, right?  

Who can deny that the courses that were praised in that first decade of the 20th century in America were Myopia, GCGC and perhaps Chicago GC (by Macdonald ;) ).

Was that an unusual opinion at that time or was it a consensus opinion? What, after-all did HH Barker say Merion Ardmore's site had the potential to match? I remember him saying MYOPIA!! Why do you suppose that was if Myopia was not the IDEAL to emulate in his opinion at that time?!?

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.


TEP
The point of this thread, and the point of unraveling what happened at Merion, is to show the evolution of these great courses is not quite as simple as the current histories would have you believe. The current histories of Myopia & Merion have either completely ignored or largely understated the contributions of Campbell, Barker, Macdonald & Whigham. I think it is clear those unsung men had a great impact on those courses, and on the men regularly associated with those courses. It is much easier to perfect an existing course over a period of years than it is to create one from whole cloth.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 04, 2009, 12:12:34 AM
For those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 04, 2009, 06:24:23 AM

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  


TEP
I think you are confused. Lumping Campbell and Barker together does a disservice to both. Willie Campbell was no journeyman pro. He was arguably the greatest golfer of his day. He was also a pioneer golf architect. He is largely responsible for introducing the game to Boston, and Boston is really where golf architecture first took off in America.

Barker was not your average immigrant professional. He was an amateur until he moved to the US. He was a British International, probably the most prestigious position one could reach in amateur golf. Other British and Scottish Internationals of Barker's era included Horace Hutchinson, John Low, HS Colt, Bernard Darwin, John Ball, Herbert Fowler, Harold Hilton, and CK Hutchison. He was no journeyman professional.

Campbell operated in the 1890s; Barker's most active period was between 1910 and 1914. Apples and oranges - two completely different periods of golf architecture. The men Barker collaborated with during his short stay reads like a who's who: Travis, Colt, Ross, Adair, Harban, Raynor, and Way.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 04, 2009, 09:05:39 AM
What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.


TEP
IMO this an oversimplification of golf architecture history. You always list these same names together even though each of them has a different story and different circumstances. Leeds did improve Myopia over a period of years and deserves credit, but he didn't begin with blank slate and Campbell deserves some credit. Emmet laid out GCGC around the turn of the century and was assisted by a professional. He did not work on the course over a period of years like Leeds at Myopia, and he went on to become a fee accepting golf architect in the mold of Barker or Ross. Travis did redesign GCGC over a period of three or four years (assisted by Barker), and he went on to become a fee accepting golf architect in the mold of Emmett, Barker and Ross.

Regarding the Fownses Oakmont was not considered a great course early on, in fact it was not until a major redesign 15 to 20 years after it was first laid out that it became nationally known. The history of Oakmont is unlike any of the other courses. The history of NGLA & Macdonald is well known. No project has ever been given the attention and it was recongized as a world class course from day one. It was also an example of wide collaboration: Whigham, Emmet, Travis, Low, Hutchinson and Sutherland.

Wilson did improve Merion over the years with the help of Flynn, a fee collecting architect in the mold of Travis & Ross. The jury is still out on if Wilson is responsible for the original routing or not. Crump hired HS Colt, the top architect in the world. He did not live to see the course completed therefore was not given the opportunity to improve the course over time a la Leeds or Fownes. There are other examples you did not mention: Ross at Pinehurst, Windeler at Brookline, Paton at Woking, Colt at Rye and Sunningdale, Adair at Eastlake, Sutherland at Dornoch and Coombe at County Down. To be given the opportunity to perfect a course over time does present certain advantages, but that should not take away from the golf architects who laid out very good courses in a realtively brief periond, like Barker, Ross, Mackenzie, Tilly, Simpson, Alison, etc, etc.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 04, 2009, 09:11:56 AM
“For those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”



Those are indeed the questions of the very early golf architectural history of Myopia’s golf course if a productive discussion is to be had on this website. Specifically, how different was the original nine hole course compared to the so-called Leeds “Long Nine” on which Myopia’s first US Open was played in 1898? Following that US Open Leeds felt the course had to be expanded to 18 holes which it was by 1900. It was tested by a number of expert players in 1900 and Myopia held the 1901 US Open on Leeds new 18 hole course. Myopia would also hold US Opens in 1905 and 1908. Leeds declined to have Myopia hold a US Amateur during this time citing the fact that the clubhouse (specifically the locker-room and accordant accommodation) was not sufficient to hold a US Amateur. This alone is a pretty good indication of part of Leeds’ thinking about golf and golfers of that time----his time.

It should also be noted that Myopia’s only club history book “Myopia, A Centennial Chronicle, 1875-1975” by Edward Weeks does not credit Willie Campbell with laying out the original nine hole course in 1894. It credits three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) with laying out the original nine hole course in the spring of 1894. This information is referenced in the club’s early administrative records in what was called “The Run Book” (apparently an administrative term for a hunting club which Myopia was for 20 years before golf existed at the club). There is no mention of a connection of Willie Campbell to Myopia even though his name is mentioned in the book along with a few other early Scottish, English professionals who were so helpful an were responsible for teaching and promoting the game of golf in Boston in the 1890s. Interestingly, the history book does liberally mention all the other golf professionals and golf professional/greenskeepers who were at Myopia over the years including Robert White in the mid 1890 and certainly their beloved John Jones for whom the right side of #10 is named for—eg “Jonesville.”

How this subject of Myopia’s early architectural has begun (again) on this website is remarkably similar to how the subject of Merion’s early history began on here over six and a half years ago. The subject of Macdonald’s part in Merion’s early architectural history was begun with a thread by Tom MacWood entitled “Re: Macdonald and Merion” (Jan. 2003). This thread is entitled “Willie Campbell and Myopia” and it too is by Tom MacWood.

I firmly believe that anyone truly interested in investigating the details of a club’s architectural history should FIRST endeavor to establish a good working relationship with the subject club BEFORE attempting to discuss it on here comprehensively and intelligently otherwise things seem to devolve into unproductive speculation without end. I believed that about the primary Merion discussants and said so continuously. I believe it with Myopia and before I become involved in discussing Myopia’s early architectural history I insist on it. I have no problem with others discussing it on here amongst themselves but for me to get involved in a discussion on the early history of Myopia I insist on it as I have no desire to see the subject of Myopia’s early architectural history devolve into what the subject of Merion’s early architectural history devolved into over the last six and a half years, at least not with me being a part of it this time.

I’ve been to Myopia and I know the club and course really well, as I’ve taken the time to really study it and its history. I know its history book intimately and I have been involved with the club and its architectural and administrative “assets.” Myopia, however, is not Merion. Myopia is unquestionably far more private about their course and club and history than Merion is. I, for one, understand that about Myopia and I respect and honor Myopia’s wishes that way. If others don’t or don’t see it that way, I don’t want to be part of it on here.

I would be glad, however, to preface with what I know about that original nine, what I know about the land and the history of it for golf and what I believe I understand is unknown about it and the difference of it (hole by hole) from Leeds’ 1898 “Long Nine” and then the 18 hole course Leeds created by 1900 which is essentially the same golf course that is there today.






Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 04, 2009, 09:44:46 AM

I’ve been to Myopia and I know the club and course really well, as I’ve taken the time to really study it and its history. I know its history book intimately and I have been involved with the club and its architectural and administrative “assets.” Myopia, however, is not Merion. Myopia is unquestionably far more private about their course and club and history than Merion is. I, for one, understand that about Myopia and I respect and honor Myopia’s wishes that way. If others don’t or don’t see it that way, I don’t want to be part of it on here.

I would be glad, however, to preface with what I know about that original nine, what I know about the land and the history of it for golf and what I believe I understand is unknown about it and the difference of it (hole by hole) from Leeds’ 1898 “Long Nine” and then the 18 hole course Leeds created by 1900 which is essentially the same golf course that is there today.


I don't follow you. Are you saying you know what Leeds did but are unable to tell us or are you saying you don't know or are you trying to say something else?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 04, 2009, 09:46:42 AM

Tom P

I believe it must have been about a year ago when under another topic I mentioned Willie Campbell being connected to Myopia. But I could not confirm that he did the design as he was there for less than a year. Not certain, if my post was addressed to you or Mike.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 04, 2009, 02:03:00 PM
Here is another article confirming that Campbell laid out 9 holes at Myopia in 1894.  Boston Journal, June 19, 1894.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/18940619BostonJournalMyopia.jpg?t=1249406046)

While the copy is difficult, I believe the first paragraph reads:  

It has been but a few days since the new links at Myopia were laid out by but the professional Campbell, but so keen are the members of the club that the first open handicap match took place yesterday.  It was an unqualified success and it is but the fore runner of many to come.  

Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?


______________________________________________

It has been suggested that only those with a well established relationship with these clubs are qualified to research and analyze these clubs' history.   Is this anything but barely veiled snobbery?   It is not as if these clubs are public libraries where we can just walk in and look at what they have.  Often the only way to get through the door is to have been born inside.   With this approach we'd be stuck with only what the clubs tell us, accurate or not.   One could not contradict them for fear of having the relationship severed.

Don't get me wrong.  These clubs can do whatever they want with sources of information that they own and have never made public.  I have no idea why they'd want to hide information primarily of historical importance only, but that is for them to decide, not me.   But it is not for to them to decide who researches, analyzes, and discusses their history.   To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

As for this discussion group, I propose a general working rule:

If a poster is not willing or able to back up CLAIMS of fact with VERIFIABLE support, then he or she has no business posting their unverified claims.  

If they choose nonetheless to post unverified claims, they should expect those claims to be challenged and should expect demands for the supporting information.   They should also realize that their unverified claims might put the clubs in question in a very awkward position by creating the impression that the clubs have something to hide.

In short, I am not interested in any more "discussions" where TEPaul (or anyone else) dictates his version of the history to us without offering any verifiable evidence and we are expected to accept his word as gospel without questioning his version and without being given an opportunity to verify and vet his claims.    

In this case we are talking about events that happened over a century and a decade ago.   Surely none of us has any better personal insight into what happened in 1894 as any other.   If we are going to accept this history by club dictate approach, then perhaps we need a new section of the website where posters take a DNA test to establish the correct lineage before they are allowed to post.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 04, 2009, 02:37:03 PM
I think it would be just the opposite of what Tom Paul asks, and the evidence is on the Merion threads. Tom and Wayne and Mike were too close to the subject to remain objective when it came to assessing new information, especially information that they did not previously have in their possession.

The endeavors here do not rewrite the history of these clubs, and none of the clubs whose lineage have come under review have asked for any such rewrite, therefore none of this has any bearing on these clubs as they are not involved in the search. This is only amateur forensic history that harms no one, but if there should be some incredibly important new information that comes to light it should be presented to these clubs so they can do with it what they will.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 04, 2009, 09:13:01 PM
David
I don't think we need a rule, its just a case of common sense. When someone is unable or unwilling to back up their historical claim I simply disregard it. For example the disjointed quote from the April 1911 MCC report is worthless as far as I'm concerned. And regarding Myopia's history book I consider it highly suspect due to the fact they had no knowledge Campbell even worked for the club. Every major newspaper in the country (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc) reported Campbell was playing out of Myopia for a good year or more. British Golf Illustrated knew he worked at Myopia, and so did Kirkaldy and Herd.

Jim
I'm not sure who you believe are the amateurs and professionals, but if the professionals are the official historians of Merion for example, I would say the amateur (David) produced a better written and more thoroughly researched account by many magnitudes. In fact as a general rule club histories are not very good from a historical or a golf architectural point of view (there are exceptions of course). And I don't think club's requesting or not requesting their histories be re-written has anything to do with it. Its been my experience most clubs appreciate new information - and a well written, well researched essay - no matter if they requested or not. The truth is the truth, and it shouldn't matter where it comes from.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 04, 2009, 09:27:34 PM
David
I don't think we need a rule, its just a case of common sense. When someone is unable or unwilling to back up their historical claim I simply disregard it. For example the disjointed quote from the April 1911 MCC report is worthless as far as I'm concerned. And regarding Myopia's history book I consider it highly suspect do the fact they had no knowledge Campbell even worked for the club. Every major newspaper in the country (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc) reported Campbell was playing out of Myopia for a good year or more. British Golf Illustrated knew he worked at Myopia, and so did Kirkaldy and Herd.

Yes it is common sense, but some around here seem to think that this type of behavior is just fine, and I am not just referring to those who have done this, but also those who have defended it.  If a general working rule keeps the peace then perhaps it would do more good than harm.
__________________________________________________________________________

Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some. 

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/18970403PICCCampbell1.jpg?t=1249435205)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/18970403PICCCampbell2.jpg?t=1249435244)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on August 04, 2009, 10:06:45 PM

Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some. 


C'mon David, you're getting as bad as me by putting up articles that others have already posted!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 04, 2009, 10:30:58 PM


Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some.  


C'mon David, you're getting as bad as me by putting up articles that others have already posted!

It's not the same article at all.  Mine has those cute yellow boxes, and is therefore far superior.

For what it's worth,  the other Campbell (who often went by William Campbell) ended up in Colorado  at the Town and Gown Club, he was the professional there.  He was also reportedly quite a singer.  A baritone.   Joe,  I have an article somewhere about the course, unless you think you already posted it.

[Note:  Changed name of club from Cap and Gown and can't remember if he designed it]
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 04, 2009, 10:39:32 PM
“Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”


I already addressed this question from post #103 in post #106. The question is asked again in post #109. The same poster asked it again. Why is that? Is there something about my explanation in post #106 he doesn’t understand? Is there anything in my post #106 anyone doesn’t understand other than Tom MacWood who never seems to admit to understanding anything I say on here?

As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.

If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me.

In the meantime, I am not willing to perpetuate with Myopia the same nonsense that has been going on with the same two people on here with Merion for more than six and a half years.

If that’s what this thread is going to be, including with Moriarty’s “rules” or whatever, I have no interest at all in participating in it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 04, 2009, 11:16:40 PM
TEP
You aren't being very cooperative. If you have the info please share it; if don't know thats fine too. The problems regarding Merion can be traced to a lack of trust and cooperation, and hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes.

In light of three separate contemporaneous reports crediting Campbell with the original nine at Myopia (along with Brookline and Essex County) and no reports crediting Appleton, Merrill and Gardner I think its fair to conclude the club history is wrong. The fact that the club history was unaware Campbell was the pro at Myopia should be eye opening. I don't think having Willie Campbell associated with the club is something to be ashamed of, in fact just the opposite.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 04, 2009, 11:47:08 PM
Tom MacWood,
What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research. I disagree with Tom Paul, mainly because I've seen what being 'close' to a club does, it begets a laborious and contentious back and forth between those who preach that they know 'everything' about a club and those who want to find out more.

Consider this:  "As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.
If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me."


I'm sorry, but after reading these two paragraphs I really don't care what this person knows. He's never going to openly contribute anything, it will have to be cajoled out of him in dribs and drabs, and the font could dry up if he feels the slightest provocation, or a whim overtakes him.

I'd rather see the info coming in the way it has been, no strings attached. It will never hurt these clubs if more is learned and then honestly reported.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 12:05:57 AM
Tom MacWood,
What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research. I disagree with Tom Paul, mainly because I've seen what being 'close' to a club does, it begets a laborious and contentious back and forth between those who preach that they know 'everything' about a club and those who want to find out more.

Consider this:  "As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.
If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me."


I'm sorry, but after reading these two paragraphs I really don't care what this person knows. He's never going to openly contribute anything, it will have to be cajoled out of him in dribs and drabs, and the font could dry up if he feels the slightest provocation, or a whim overtakes him.

I'd rather see the info coming in the way it has been, no strings attached. It will never hurt these clubs if more is learned and then honestly reported.

Jim,  Well said.   

Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?

No need for anyone to address my question without answering it.  Would anyone like to provide any verifiable facts that might begin answer the question? 

Reportedly, William Campbell laid out the first nine holes at Myopia.  I am unaware of any verifiable information that contradicts this. 

So again, what changes (if any) did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 12:44:07 AM
Jim,

I must say that I disagree with what I believe you are TRYING to say when you wrote, "Tom MacWood, What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research..."

It isn't that the "DM's of the GCA world," and in this I consider myself among that group, NEED a close relationship, but it is FAR better that they have one. It opens doors, literally, to the rooms where board minutes and blueprints are kept. There are many examples of where newspaper and magazine articles provide information that not only disagrees with what a course has seen fit to record in "official histories" but that are the correct versions. There are many, many examples of newspaper and magazine reports where the exact opposite has occurred. Far more often than not, the history that a club has kept is correct.

Let me give you an example of a whopper. In September of 1928, a reporter in the Atlanta Constittion wrote that Tillinghast designed the courses at Olympia Fields! Anyone here care to agree with that?

It is always best to approach a golf club, even if by mail or telephone only. Introduce yourself and explain the what and why that you are researching there history. Often times they will send you information or loan you items for your research and they always appreciate when you can share, in as excited a mode as possible, what you have "discovered."

Does a researcher HAVE  to do this? No, but he is definitely at a big disadvantage if he doesn't...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 06:04:25 AM
Jim
I agree with you.

Phil
I agree with you too. IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't believe that is what TEP is referring to. He believes DM should have sought permission from Merion before writing his essay or I should have sought permission from PV or Ohio State or Myopia or whomever before writing anything I've written.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 07:39:33 AM
“IMO there is no reason to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't believe that is what TEP is referring to. He believes DM should sought permission from Merion before writing his essay or I should have sought permission from PV or Ohio State or Myopia before writing anything on GCA.”


Tom:

Unfortunately for you that is not what I’m referring to at all; Permission to put something about a club’s history on Golfclubatlas.com’s “In My Opinion” section is something I doubt any of these clubs would even comment on, although certainly some from Merion commented on the essay “The Missing Faces of Merion” after it was put on this website. To say they were unimpressed with it would be quite an understatement. Most just thought it was a complete stretch of logic and not comprehensively researched in that it did not contain necessary information that was found later at one of the clubs here.

What I believe with establishing a good working research relationship with subject clubs is precisely what Phil Young said below, particularly his last sentence:





“It isn't that the "DM's of the GCA world," and in this I consider myself among that group, NEED a close relationship, but it is FAR better that they have one. It opens doors, literally, to the rooms where board minutes and blueprints are kept. There are many examples of where newspaper and magazine articles provide information that not only disagrees with what a course has seen fit to record in "official histories" but that are the correct versions. There are many, many examples of newspaper and magazine reports where the exact opposite has occurred. Far more often than not, the history that a club has kept is correct.


Does a researcher HAVE to do this? No, but he is definitely at a big disadvantage if he doesn't...”



Lastly, Jim Kennedy said the following the other day. I agree with that too.


“This is only amateur forensic history that harms no one, but if there should be some incredibly important new information that comes to light it should be presented to these clubs so they can do with it what they will.”




If some “In My Opinion” piece or some discussion on some thread on here produces some incredibly important new information it should be presented to these clubs if they have never been aware of it before and I would expect they would consider it in the context of their histories unless there is some good reason from their own contemporaneous records not to. With Myopia there seems to be a good reason not to consider that Willie Campbell routed their original nine hole course----eg because the club’s executive committee recorded when they did it that three members did that themselves and very likely before Campbell got off the boat from Scotland.

It is probably possible and even very likely that both accounts are true-----Myopia’s executive committee administrative records and some of those newspaper articles.

Consider, for instance, that in this case David Moriarty’s interpretation of the definition of “laid out” in those newspaper articles meant just building or constructing and not planning!  ;) It’s possible and perhaps very likely that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner and Myopia got the fresh-off-the-boat Willie Campbell (particularly since he seems to have had an important sponsor in Thomas) to build something on the tees and greens they had staked out (a plan or routing) the club executive committee reported those three members had staked out themselves as soon as the snow melted in the spring of 1894 (March).

It’s not that surprising, at least not to me, if that were the case, that the club did not record in their executive committee records some of the manual labor that Willie Campbell may've done as soon as he got off the boat and that went into the plan for the course those members had staked out. At Merion, the executive committee did record the plans the Wilson Committee created in the winter and spring of 1911 before building and construction began even though the executive committee never said much or anything about the manual labor of the building and construction with that plan of say the Johnson Contractors or Pickering or even young William Flynn at that time.

Does that surprise some on Golfclubatlas.com today? Perhaps it does but it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t think it surprises Merion or Myopia either. But if a few on here expect Myopia to believe or consider that their club and those three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) had been waiting patiently for Willie Campbell, the wonder of all golf architectural wonders, to step off the boat in his first time in America to show them all how to stake out tees and greens and a nine hole routing, then I would expect Myopia probably wouldn't take that very seriously at all. Particularly since R.M. Appleton, the Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds (a position that is akin in a hunt club to the president of a golf course) already had a six hole golf course of his own on his own massive farm----Appleton Farm, which appears to be the oldest farm held by a single family in America.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 07:48:50 AM
I corrected what I wrote, I meant to say, "IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 08:02:39 AM
"I corrected what I wrote, I meant to say, "IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful."


Tom:

In that case, you and I are in complete agreement, and I see no reason to say more about it other than that is what you should've done with Merion over six and a half years ago and it's what you should have done with Myopia over a year ago. Had you done that with those two clubs, who knows, maybe you would've found that it and they too would have been 95% HELPFUL to you! ;) It's what I did with Merion many years ago and with Myopia two years ago after not having been at that club for for close to fifty years since going to school in Boston for seven years. Just remember, it's never too late. You should do it now if you have this interest in the histories of Merion and Myopia you seem to have.

But if you think you can answer the important questions above of how the original nine holes of Myopia differs from Leeds' 1898 "Long Nine" and then the Leeds 18 hole course completed in 1900 then by all means go right ahead and answer it because if you can why would you need my help answering those questions?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 09:18:15 AM

If some “In My Opinion” piece or some discussion on some thread on here produces some incredibly important new information it should be presented to these clubs if they have never been aware of it before and I would expect they would consider it in the context of their histories unless there is some good reason from their own contemporaneous records not to. With Myopia there seems to be a good reason not to consider that Willie Campbell routed their original nine hole course----eg because the club’s executive committee recorded when they did it that three members did that themselves and very likely before Campbell got off the boat from Scotland.

It is probably possible and even very likely that both accounts are true-----Myopia’s executive committee administrative records and some of those newspaper articles.

Consider, for instance, that in this case David Moriarty’s interpretation of the definition of “laid out” in those newspaper articles meant just building or constructing and not planning!  ;) It’s possible and perhaps very likely that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner and Myopia got the fresh-off-the-boat Willie Campbell (particularly since he seems to have had an important sponsor in Thomas) to build something on the tees and greens they had staked out (a plan or routing) the club executive committee reported those three members had staked out themselves as soon as the snow melted in the spring of 1894 (March).

It’s not that surprising, at least not to me, if that were the case, that the club did not record in their executive committee records some of the manual labor that Willie Campbell may've done as soon as he got off the boat and that went into the plan for the course those members had staked out. At Merion, the executive committee did record the plans the Wilson Committee created in the winter and spring of 1911 before building and construction began even though the executive committee never said much or anything about the manual labor of the building and construction with that plan of say the Johnson Contractors or Pickering or even young William Flynn at that time.

Does that surprise some on Golfclubatlas.com today? Perhaps it does but it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t think it surprises Merion or Myopia either. But if a few on here expect Myopia to believe or consider that their club and those three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) had been waiting patiently for Willie Campbell, the wonder of all golf architectural wonders, to step off the boat in his first time in America to show them all how to stake out tees and greens and a nine hole routing, then I would expect Myopia probably wouldn't take that very seriously at all. Particularly since R.M. Appleton, the Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds (a position that is akin in a hunt club to the president of a golf course) already had a six hole golf course of his own on his own massive farm----Appleton Farm, which appears to be the oldest farm held by a single family in America.


TEP
Yours is an interesting theory, not very logical, but interesting. Are those the same administrative records that have no record of Willie Campbell working for the club? It is also worth noting of those three Myopia members only Appleton played in the first golf event held there June 18.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 05, 2009, 09:36:18 AM
Tom P

I note your comment that Appleton etc laid out Myopia in the Spring of 1894. I also note that you have Spring as being March, is this your interpretation or the clubs ? The reason I ask is that I have a contemporary article which has Campbell sailing for the US about the last week of March (from memory, will need to check).

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 09:54:17 AM
"Tom P
I note your comment that Appleton etc laid out Myopia in the Spring of 1894. I also note that you have Spring as being March, is this your interpretation or the clubs ?"


Niall:

It's the club's.




"TEP
Yours is an interesting theory, not very logical, but interesting. Are those the same administrative records that have no record of Willie Campbell working for the club?"


Tom:

No, there're not. They are the administrative records that record Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staking out a nine hole course in the spring of 1894 with the permission from the club (March) to construct a nine hole golf course. I realize some people such as yourself might call it a theory and not very logical but nevertheless it is part of the club's administrative records just as that Wilson report is part of Merion's administrative records that you also said virtually made no sense to you.  ;)



"Thanks Tom, I'll check the article tonight and at least type out what is on it if I can't manage to post. BTW how long did it take to make the crossing back in those days ?"


Niall:

I'd say probably 5-6 days back then but depending on a lot of things like weather, seas, ports of call etc. There is a ship passenger manifest list on this thread with Campbell's name on it but I can't make out the date his ship (The Carthaginian) arrived in Boston in March. I also don't know where Campbell got aboard but being a Scot I suppose it would've been Glasgow. The ship also made stops in Liverpool and Halifax before Boston. But it looks like the manifest says the ship arrived in Boston in March (again, I can't read the exact day).

I'd say the answer to this Willie Campbell thing is he probably did some work on the course when they were doing whatever construction they did which was apparently quite minimal---eg they depended on things like stone walls, roads and high pasture land grass for rough as their hazards, the fairways were mowed down by penned in sheep and the greens were sodded and mowed the same way (penned in sheep). But it looks to me like those three members routed the nine hole original course by staking tees and green sites before Campbell got to Boston. At least that's what the executive committee records said and I see no reason to think they would be sitting there in an executive committee meeting lying to one another when they were in the process of doing something like that and recording it. Do you?

I mean, Niall, I have no problem at all with anyone on here discussing what some old newspaper articles may mean about what the likes of Campbell may've done for Myopia in 1894 or what Macdonald/Whigam may've done for Merion East in 1910 and 1911. What I have a problem with is when a few people on here (and it seems like they are always the same two people) just disregard what those club's administrative records say on the subject or when we present to them what we have seen from those club records they just start parsing the hell out of the words in them or they say they make no sense at all as Tom MacWood just did about Myopia's executive committee records and Merion's executive committee records. After a while most of us just grow tired of that nonsense and that's why I see no reason to post any longer on those Merion threads.

If those two are really interested in the architectural histories of those two clubs maybe they should consider not dismissing everything from those clubs. And if they don't believe what we've said about them they should just establish a working relationship with those clubs and they could then perhaps see for themselves what others have seen and reported.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 05, 2009, 09:59:25 AM
Thanks Tom, I'll check the article tonight and at least type out what is on it if I can't manage to post. BTW how long did it take to make the crossing back in those days ?

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 01:31:44 PM
Once again, we have been accused of ignoring information that I have never even seen, this time "Myopia's administrative records."   If I've never seen Myopia's admimnistrative records, how could I ignore them?   So far as I know, there are no "administrative records" to ignore, and if there are "administrative records" I have no idea what they really say or mean.  

TEPaul may think he speaks for Myopia, Merion, and every other club up and down the Eastern seaboard, but as far as I know he does not.    Likewise, he may have appointed himself gatekeeper and sole arbiter of what Myopia's records say and mean, but as far as I know he is neither.  

If Myopia would like their private administrative records discussed, they should bring them forward.  Likewise, if Myopia would like to engage in this dicussion, I am sure that Ran would welcome their representative with open arms.   However, I strongly suspect that they have no intention or desire on either front.  My guess is they would rather we leave their administrative records out of our conversation.  They are after all a private club, so private that they apparently did not even want their course profile on gca.com.  

So what is going on here?   Why is TEPaul again foisting his questionable interpretations of the supposed records of a private club into the limelight here on gca.com?  Why is he pretending to speak for Myopia?    Why is he again pretending that he has special insight into exactly what happened over 100 years ago?    Why is he again making representations he refuses to back up with verifiable facts?  

Already his story is falling apart.   For months the supposed "administrative records" said that three members at Myopia laid out the first nine holes. Yet now suddenly the administrative records only gave permission for a course to be laid out.    There is big difference between giving permission to lay out a course, and acknowledging that a course had already been laid out.    But these kind of key factual distinctions are trivial to TEPaul.   He's got another legend to protect, and by God he will do it, facts be damned.   And Myopia and their desire to remain out of this be damned as well.    

This is why these "discussions" fall apart.  They are not discussions at all.  They are TEPaul making all sorts of claims but refusing to back them up with verifiable facts.   We cannot have a discussion when one side demands that we believe him even though he has no support for what he says!   That is dictate not discussion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 02:08:18 PM
"Once again, we have been accused of ignoring information that I have never even seen, this time "Myopia's administrative records."   If I've never seen Myopia's admimnistrative records, how could I ignore them?   So far as I know, there are no "administrative records" to ignore, and if there are "administrative records" I have no idea what they really say or mean."



Hmmm, actually a fascinating point! Let me see now-----eg how could you ignore them? Boy, that's a tough one. Let me think about that for a few weeks and get back to you.

Oh wait, I think I got it. By failing to establish a working research relationship with Myopia like you failed to do with Merion and the club (MCC) it was part of in 1910 and 1911 before trying to write an informed and informative and credible essay on that particular subject and time period of the club's architectural history? ;)

Wayne Morrison and Merion's historian and another member may not have known those administrative records had been in the attic of MCC for a century but for some damned reason he thought it might be worthwhile to go over there and ask them about it and take a look. That Wayne Morrison must be like some kind of really spooky intuitive research genius, I guess, HUH?

For some damned reason I asked about Myopia's archives when I was there last year and the year before that. Why did I do that? Well, I can't remember right now but if and when I think of it I will let you know.  

By the way, have you ever even read Myopia's one and only history book? Have you ever even seen it? Have you ever even been to Myopia Hunt Club? Do you know anything at all about Myopia?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 05, 2009, 02:17:18 PM
These discussions fall apart because of smart ass retorts, like the previous reply on this topic.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 02:29:57 PM
TEP
Campbell arrived in Boston on March 31, 1894 via Glasgow, Liverpool & Halifax.

Its your understanding Myopia hired the world's finest match play golfer just to carry out manual labor? By the way at the time he was laying out Myopia he was employed by The County Club. The first organized gathering on the new links at Myopia was June 18 and the second event was the 4th of July. Leeds won both. Strangely Mr. Merrill and Mr. Gardner did not compete in either event. Are we certain those two even played the game?

Campbell also laid out Essex County in 1894. Here is article from the Boston Globe July 13, 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 02:30:10 PM
"If Myopia would like their private administrative records discussed, they should bring them forward.  Likewise, if Myopia would like to engage in this dicussion, I am sure that Ran would welcome their representative with open arms.   However, I strongly suspect that they have no intention or desire on either front.  My guess is they would rather we leave their administrative records out of our conversation.  They are after all a private club, so private that they apparently did not even want their course profile on gca.com.  

So what is going on here?   Why is TEPaul again foisting his questionable interpretations of the supposed records of a private club into the limelight here on gca.com?  Why is he pretending to speak for Myopia?    Why is he again pretending that he has special insight into exactly what happened over 100 years ago?    Why is he again making representations he refuses to back up with verifiable facts?  

Already his story is falling apart.   For months the supposed "administrative records" said that three members at Myopia laid out the first nine holes. Yet now suddenly the administrative records only gave permission for a course to be laid out.    There is big difference between giving permission to lay out a course, and acknowledging that a course had already been laid out.    But these kind of key factual distinctions are trivial to TEPaul.   He's got another legend to protect, and by God he will do it, facts be damned.   And Myopia and their desire to remain out of this be damned as well.    

This is why these "discussions" fall apart.  They are not discussions at all.  They are TEPaul making all sorts of claims but refusing to back them up with verifiable facts.   We cannot have a discussion when one side demands that we believe him even though he has no support for what he says!   That is dictate not discussion."



No, WHAT THAT is----is just f.....ing unbelievable; just another totally adverserially nonproductive David Moriarty hysterical rant! But he's probably right about one thing and that is Myopia would probably prefer that people like MacWood and Moriarty who don't know a damn thing about Myopia's history but have become fixated by it because of some seemingly misleading or irrelevent newspaper articles that some on here seem to think contradicts the fact that the club's executive committee records say three members staked out and routed the original nine in early 1894 not think they should rewrite and revise Myopia's architectural history on here with some dumb In My Opinion piece like that one about Merion on here!

I have no problem at all with people like you who know nothing about that place babbling on endlessly on some thread trying to make it look like you do. I'm sure Myopia doesn't either as it's totally inconsequential to their actual club and architectural history!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
"TEP
Campbell arrived in Boston on March 31, 1894 via Glasgow, Liverpool & Halifax.

Its your understanding Myopia hired the world's finest match play golfer to carry out manual labor? By the way at the time he was laying out Myopia he was employed by The County Club. The first organized gathering on the new links at Myopia was June 18 and the second event was the 4th of July. Leeds won both."


Tom:

Why are you telling me what I just put on here this morning and what I put on here last year on this same subject? Do you actually think you are telling me something if you simply repeat on here what I already said.

It is my understanding that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out the original nine hole course in March 1894 and that Willie Campbell did not, probably because he wasn't even in America at the time. But despite that you can just continue to rant on illogically that he must have done that somehow. Maybe he emailed it in to them via his Blackberry when he was still on the Carthaginian. That would be just about as logical as some of the things you try to contend on here. I'll take newspaper articles if that's all there is but in the case of Merion and Myopia that is NOT all there is and what they have contradicts your grandiose theories about the likes of a Campbell or Barker and what they did for each club.

It's OK Tom, you're a good researcher but a God awful historical analyst and there are enough people who've been telling you that about the things you've said and written that maybe it will actually sink in some day.

But the most important question has not been addressed yet----how different was that original nine from Leeds' "Long Nine" of 1898 that became part of the 1900 course.

Why don't you try to give that question a try, Tom? Take it right out of Week's book if you want and see how that goes.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 02:53:04 PM
TEP
I'm sorry I thought you said this mourning you could not read the date in March.

I don't know what to tell you about the master of the hounds and his friends laying out the original nine. For whatever reason the local newspapers reported Campbell laid the course out, and Mrs. Campbell said the same thing in an interview in 1902. Maybe the newspapers and Mrs. Campbell were mistaken, and maybe The Country Club and Essex County Club were mistaken too, and he didn't lay their courses out either.

I don't have Weeks book so I won't be able to share what he says about the Long Nine in 1898.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 03:11:14 PM
A few thoughts based upon comments made. If this doesn't make sense feel very free to tell me so...

Tom Paul stated that the three members "laid out" the nine holes in March based upon what the club's administrative records state. Willie Campbell could not have done this since he only stepped off the boat on March 31st. Tom Macwood points out that newspaper accounts and statements from his wife state that Campbell "laid out" the course.

So once again understanding of the events that took place are muddied because of a simple two-word phrase.

For me, and I am assuming that Tom has seen the administrative records that give the March 1894 date, I haven't a problem at all with accepting them as the final authority over newspaper accounts of which we are interpreting their meaning. For example, isn;t it at all likely that the three club members routed the course and located tees & greens and then waited for campbell to arrive to fill in details such as bunker and other hazard placements as well as final shape and sizing of greens and fairways? And if that is the case, BOTH PARTIES would be correct in stating that they had "Laid Out" the course and the club would be quite correct in recording and crediting the three members as those who designed it.

Tom Macwood also rerasoned this way, "Its your understanding Myopia hired the world's finest match play golfer just to carry out manual labor?" Yet isn't that PRECISELY what Myopia and other clubs did? Isn't one of the main definitions of "laying out a course " in those days involve the LABOR of staking the land and locating tee & green sites and overseeing the bulding?

He may have been the finest match-platy golfer on the planet, but in their eyes that is all he was... a PROFESSIONAL golfer. That was considered pretty low class at that time...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 03:16:38 PM
Tom:

Thanks for that clarification on the actual day of March Campbell arrived in Boston.

In that case, it would be virtually impossible that Campbell staked out the tees and greens of that original nine hole course, that the club at the time said Appleton, Gardner and Merrill did as Campbell hadn't even first arrived in America at the time.

I'm sorry you don't have Week's book so you could refer to what it says in this vein about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner and the executive committee decisions of that time as well as what it says about the actual holes of that original nine (so you could compare them to Leed's "Long Nine"). Maybe when it's convenient for you, you could go back over to Mike Hurzdan's office and look at his copy again. After Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staked out that original nine they reported to the executive committee that the course could be ready for play in three months. Members began to play the course on June 1, 1894. You do the math, and please don't tell me you don't understand the math or it doesn't make sense to you because it's not that hard to subtract three months from June 1 to see where you are on the calander.

I don't have too much doubt that Campbell very likely did do something for Myopia, only what it was isn't very clear, and it really couldn't have been staking out a routing for that original nine for the very obvious reasons that have been given above (I do know it can be a bitch sometimes when one's favorite theories get killed by basic "timelining". And I have no idea why Myopia never acknowledged Willie Campbell in Weeks history book because it most certainly did acknowlege everyone else who worked for them from the beginning of golf for them at Hamilton until 1975. I know you happen to think Willie Campbell was the greatest thing since sliced bread but I guess you will just have to get used to the fact that perhaps Myopia may not have thought that for whatever the reason.

Now, for my part I just don't see what there is left to discuss. If you get the history book or go to Myopia to see it and analyze it and the course's history maybe we could pick the discussion up again at that time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
"Tom Paul stated that the three members "laid out" the nine holes in March based upon what the club's administrative records state."


Phil:

Sometimes on this website one needs to be very careful with the words they used because they get constantly misquoted or get their meaning totally misconstrued.

I have tried to be very very careful NOT to say that Myopia said that those three members "laid out" that original nine hole course because I can't see the club or its records ever used that term. I think what they said those three members did in the early spring is to stake out tees and greens----in other words to stake on the ground the basic routing for that original nine. I know some on here seem to think that's some kind of golf architectural rocket science but it really isn't since I've done it myself and I would have to guess that R.M Appleton did it himself on his own six hole golf course on his 1,000 acre estate nearby that preceded the Myopia nine by over a year! I do not believe they even used bunkers at that time as they also said their hazard features were only high pasture grass rough and existing roads and stone walls and that the fairways were pasture grass mowed by penned sheep and the greens were sodded grass mowed by penned sheep. When they were not mowing grass on the penned sections of the course the sheep were kept in a pen next to the tennis court----which by the way was one of only seven court tennis courts in America and it is still there today but used as part of the maintenance area.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 03:37:32 PM
Phil
I think there is one important factor missing from your analysis. The articles I mentioned are posted on this thread. We have not seen the administrative records, and I don't believe we will ever see the administrative records. TEP is referring to what Edward Weeks wrote in his history book.

TEP
You quoted from the book on a previous thread:

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:

         'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.'”

How long did it typically take to lay out a course in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 03:49:57 PM
Tom,

You mentioned, "Phil, I think there is one important factor missing from your analysis. The articles I mentioned are posted on this thread. We have not seen the administrative records, and I don't believe we will ever see the administrative records. TEP is referring to what Edward Weeks wrote in his history book..."

That is true, but then again the articles themselves are just as much "hearsay" as the information in Weeks' book. For example, none of us heard Mrs. Campbell say that her husband "laid out" Myopia yet that is what one of the articles you refer to state. If we are to accept as true what she said then we also must accept that Weeks saw the facts he recorded in his book from the administrative records.

That we, or anyone, don't get to see actual documents neither argues against their existence nor does it mean that the proper prior use of them in publication should be ignored. Let me give you an example. In both my Tilly essay on gac.com and in my Tilly biography I refer to medical records from the Mayo Clinic that state that tilly hadn't had a drink of alcohol after a doctor's visit there in 1927. I have an actual photocopy of them, but due to constraints put upon me by those who furnished me with them I am only allowed to refer and quote from them and not allowed to display or publish them. Does that mean that what i wrote should be ignored by some future historian doing independent Tillinghast research? Does it mean that some on GCA.com should refuse to accept either my conclusion about Tilly's use of alcohol or my use of these records because they don't have access to them?

It is easy for me to say they would be wrong to do so. Looking back from100 years to the past isn't so easy yet is also no less valid in doing so...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 04:07:24 PM
"Phil
I think there is one important factor missing from your analysis. The articles I mentioned are posted on this thread. We have not seen the administrative records, and I don't believe we will ever see the administrative records. TEP is referring to what Edward Weeks wrote in his history book."


Tom:

If you never go to Myopia of course you will never see those administrative records. I quoted from Weeks' book because I've had it in my office here for a couple of years. I did not copy those administrative records Weeks referred to in his book and so I can't sit here in Philadelphia and quote from them and unfortunately I found when I began with Myopia a couple of years ago that the all important so-called Leeds scrapbook that Weeks had and sometimes referred to when he and some other Myopia members researched the club history over about 25 years and Weeks then wrote the book in 1975 has been lost now. The club can't find it and they sure have looked. People have looked with the Weeks family and elsewhere and it has not turned up. So that I have never actually read it or seen it, and I feel that is a real hole in actual physical evidence today that Weeks actually had and sometimes referred to in his book but none of us will proabably ever see it again. To me that isn't much different than those sketches and drawings that Wilson brought home from abroad and Macdonald did too for NGLA or even that actual plan for Merion East that the minutes said was actually attached to the Wilson report that Lesley gave on 4/19/1911. All gone now---gone with the wind and we may never see any of them again. On the other hand, one never knows how or when things may turn up.

To me it's a damn shame because I have a feeling that Leeds scrapbook might have been a true treasure trove of architectural infomation about Myopia through the years as well as Leeds trips abroad.

Week's Myopia history book is only 150 pages and the majority of it is about hunting and polo and tennis not golf. For that reason there was probably no good reason that Weeks and the others felt it should be put in that single Myopia history book since a lot of it was probably just a ton of architectural background information which of course people like us would be totally fascinated by but not a general membership like Myopia's in 1975 that was still heavily into other sports beside golf. Actually, the members sometimes refer to that era around 1975 as some real sleepy years with the golf course and they definitely weren't kidding about that!

If you can't understand that, Tom MacWood, and you start to criticize it as you have others for things like sins of ommission I really don't think you are being either fair or realistic to a club like that one and apparently many others. This is just one of many reasons over the years I personally feel it is really hard to have an intelligent discussion with you about some of these golf courses. It's almost like you don't even care to consider why they do the things they do and it's almost like you just want to criticize them for not doing what YOU think is important. It's almost like you don't really want to understand them.

I want to understand them and the numerous clubs like them and after all these years I think I do and I think it is immeasurably important to understand them. I certainly do know they think it is immeasurably important if people like me and you understand them or try very hard to.

For this single reason alone I so much hate to admit it but I have to say it----it has really disappointed me about Golfclubatlas.com and SOME of the people on it. I know it has surely disappointed Wayne Morrison too. Because we have relationships with these clubs and we have many friends in many of them we have been accused on here of so many things that just don't seem right. Of hiding things, or misquoting and distorting things, or doctoring documents of not being able to be objective about the things we know that others may not.

To me that really sucks on here, and it will drive all of us away from here who are close to these golf clubs and their courses. Everyone on here seems to understand that one needs to treat these clubs and their members and their ethos with respect if they go play those courses. Most on here are actually fanatical on that point. To me I just don't see why it needs to be any different than that on here when we discuss them too.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tony_Muldoon on August 05, 2009, 05:05:31 PM
For 3 pages this thread was progressing well and then TEP arrives with his usual attempt to make the thread all about him. Ennui descends on the group.

I’ve just counted there are 16 courses named in the titles of threads on Page one of the Discussion Group. Plus there's another one discussing the top 50 modern courses.  Don't have to hang around here for long to figure out who started the thread where Tom Paul, of all  people, is lecturing others on how to behave.  Haven't checked all the other threads but it's a sure bet he's not giving anyone else the benefit of his wisdom.  This is a discussion group and when the subject of allowing the club first sight of research or opinions is discussed everyone but you and Wayne rubbish the very idea. It’s a matter about which you’ve shown no consistency in your own behaviour. So we know what you’re really trying to do and it’s not to increase the groups knowledge of GCA and its history.  Give it rest, it's tired and you've become the club bore.


Has anyone else anything to add to what was a fantastic and illuminating thread?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 05:31:15 PM
"Has anyone else anything to add to what was a fantastic and illuminating thread?"


Not me and I doubt I have any more to add on this website. Myopia and its architectural history is a great subject particularly as it probably is the FIRST good golf architecture in America. It's a good subject to discuss intelligently but apparently not with people on here if they're anything like Tony Muldoon. Babble on guys, you sure don't need me.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 05:36:51 PM
Phil
Hearsay? So in your mind three contemporaneous reports from three different sources are the equivalent to hearsay or rumor? That is an interesting perspective. Since you never spoke directly to Tilly I assume you consider the majority of your book to be hearsay.

You can accept Mr. Weeks' account, but I'm certainly not. He told us what the official record said:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

I assume the quote is accurate. However there is a large gap between that 'terse' statement and the tale Mr. Weeks tells us, which frankly makes no sense. Weeks didn't even know Willie Campbell was the pro at Myopia Hunt Club (a fact widely reported). IMO that reflects directly upon the thoroughness of his research, and based on that I would not accept anything he tells us with out confirming it.  

Typically how long did it take to layout a course in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 05:43:38 PM
"Phil
I think there is one important factor missing from your analysis. The articles I mentioned are posted on this thread. We have not seen the administrative records, and I don't believe we will ever see the administrative records. TEP is referring to what Edward Weeks wrote in his history book."


Tom:

If you never go to Myopia of course you will never see those administrative records. I quoted from Weeks' book because I've had it in my office here for a couple of years. I did not copy those administrative records Weeks referred to in his book and so I can't sit here in Philadelphia and quote from them and unfortunately I found when I began with Myopia a couple of years ago that the all important so-called Leeds scrapbook that Weeks had and sometimes referred to when he and some other Myopia members researched the club history over about 25 years and Weeks then wrote the book in 1975 has been lost now. The club can't find it and they sure have looked. People have looked with the Weeks family and elsewhere and it has not turned up. So that I have never actually read it or seen it, and I feel that is a real hole in actual physical evidence today that Weeks actually had and sometimes referred to in his book but none of us will proabably ever see it again. To me that isn't much different than those sketches and drawings that Wilson brought home from abroad and Macdonald did too for NGLA or even that actual plan for Merion East that the minutes said was actually attached to the Wilson report that Lesley gave on 4/19/1911. All gone now---gone with the wind and we may never see any of them again. On the other hand, one never knows how or when things may turn up.

To me it's a damn shame because I have a feeling that Leeds scrapbook might have been a true treasure trove of architectural infomation about Myopia through the years as well as Leeds trips abroad.

Week's Myopia history book is only 150 pages and the majority of it is about hunting and polo and tennis not golf. For that reason there was probably no good reason that Weeks and the others felt it should be put in that single Myopia history book since a lot of it was probably just a ton of architectural background information which of course people like us would be totally fascinated by but not a general membership like Myopia's in 1975 that was still heavily into other sports beside golf. Actually, the members sometimes refer to that era around 1975 as some real sleepy years with the golf course and they definitely weren't kidding about that!

If you can't understand that, Tom MacWood, and you start to criticize it as you have others for things like sins of ommission I really don't think you are being either fair or realistic to a club like that one and apparently many others. This is just one of many reasons over the years I personally feel it is really hard to have an intelligent discussion with you about some of these golf courses. It's almost like you don't even care to consider why they do the things they do and it's almost like you just want to criticize them for not doing what YOU think is important. It's almost like you don't really want to understand them.

I want to understand them and the numerous clubs like them and after all these years I think I do and I think it is immeasurably important to understand them. I certainly do know they think it is immeasurably important if people like me and you understand them or try very hard to.

For this single reason alone I so much hate to admit it but I have to say it----it has really disappointed me about Golfclubatlas.com and SOME of the people on it. I know it has surely disappointed Wayne Morrison too. Because we have relationships with these clubs and we have many friends in many of them we have been accused on here of so many things that just don't seem right. Of hiding things, or misquoting and distorting things, or doctoring documents of not being able to be objective about the things we know that others may not.

To me that really sucks on here, and it will drive all of us away from here who are close to these golf clubs and their courses. Everyone on here seems to understand that one needs to treat these clubs and their members and their ethos with respect if they go play those courses. Most on here are actually fanatical on that point. To me I just don't see why it needs to be any different than that on here when we discuss them too.

TEP
According to Weeks this is what the administrative records said about the subject:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

There is no mention of who was to build the links, nor when they planned to begin construction.

How long did it typically take to build a golf course in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 05:45:04 PM
I'll tell you one thing, Tom, you can accept newspaper articles as more credible than a club's contemporaneous executive committee meeting minutes until the cows come home and I'm sure you will but I never will, not ever. Neither will any of these clubs and neither will any other credible historian. But why wouldn't you look at it that way, after all that's about all you've ever had anyway----eg NEWSPAPER ARTICLES?!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 05:55:18 PM
"There is no mention of who was to build the links, nor when they planned to begin construction.

How long did it typically take to build a golf course in 1894?"


Tom:

That's right. No mention of that in the Weeks book and no mention of it in the executive committee records (The Run Book). Isn't that just really odd or do you think it may've had something to do with the way golf and architecture was in America in the early 1890s? ;)

As Weeks mentioned there were only a few courses in Boston in the early 1890s and preceeding Myopia's 1894 original nine and probably the majority of them were on private estates as Weeks mentioned in the Myopia history book, including Appleton's massive estate. By the way Prides Crossing was first done in 1893. You say that was Willie Campbell too? That's a pretty neat trick don't you think since Campbell would not even first arrive in America for another year?

How long did it take to built something like that original Myopia nine? Why don't you try to get your hands on Weeks' book and you can read all about how it was built---or frankly wasn't built for people who actually understand golf architectural history of that super-early time in America. Or better yet go to Myopia and look at their records.

You actually call yourself and golf architectural historian? That is what sure makes no sense at all to me.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 06:18:11 PM
Tom,

Consider your response. "Phil, Hearsay? So in your mind three contemporaneous reports from three different sources are the equivalent to hearsay or rumor? That is an interesting perspective. Since you never spoke directly to Tilly I assume you consider the majority of your book to be hearsay..."

Please show me anything in those three articles about Campbell having "laid out" the courses that is the result of either FIRST-HAND OBSERVATION or DIRECT QUOTE FROM VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTS. There aren't any. CONTEMPORARY as they may be, they are HEARSAY. That DOESN'T mean that they are incorrect and if you look at exactly what i wrote following it as to what it may mean, I stated that from the writers perspective both the three Myopia members & Campbell could correctly be referred to as having "laid out" the course.

You have demanded that "proofs" or "facts" presented be both verifiable and not hearsy, yet the articles shown are just reports repeated by a newspaper columnist. Not a single time did he state that Campbell TOLD me he "laid out" the course or even quote him. He did quote "Mrs. Campbell" but again that was hearsay rather than documented fact.

Again, I have no doubt that Campbell was invovled.

As far as much of what I wrote about Tilly being hearsay accounts, actually almost the entire book is based upon Tilly's OWN WORDS or those that personally witnessed the events. There is very little that is based upokn "reports"...

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 08:30:10 PM
This is all pretty comical.   TEPaul seems to be confused between access, on the one hand, and quality research and analysis, on the other.  As has always been the case, his forte is the former.     And while we keep hearing about these "administrative records" I doubt there is anything more to them that what Weeks put in the book:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

TEPaul reads this as meaning that the course was staked out in March 1994, but obvously that is not a foregone conclusion.   As for the rest of the Weeks description, it sure reads like storytelling to me.   These club histories are after all vanity pieces -- a celebration of oneself -- so it would be surprising if there wasn't some poetic license added here or there for the sake of making a more compelling story out of it.   I don't doubt that in March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia roungs.    One can assume the source of that information was the "administrative records" but I cannot imagine the rest of the description would be the type of thing that would be contained within the administrative record.   In fact, TEPaul has all but admitted that the rest of the Weeks' story is not traceable to the administrative record.   

In short, the conclusion that TEPaul draws does not appear to be based on any actual source material other than the above snippet, apparently from an administrative record, via Weeks' book.    But the snippet on its face is entirely consistent with the THREE reports that Campbell laid out the course.     Myopia decided to build a course in March 1894.  Willie Campbell arrived on the scene soon after and laid out the course between his arrival and when the course was ready for play in June, 1894.   

Hardly worth arguing about, given that there is nothing in the FACTUAL record that contradicts the three accounts of Campbell designing the course!    At least nothing that has been brought forward here, and that is all any of us can go on.

___________________________________________

Phillip, you have a strange understanding of what  is hearsay and what isn't.  Let me put it this way . . . unless you have a time machine where you can bring Tillinghast in so we can question him under oath, then his words are hearsay as well.    While some hearsay might be considered more reliable than others, at the very least if a scholar is to be taken seriously then his peers must have access the source material so they decide for themselves whether or not the documents are reliable and whether or not the analysis makes sense.   So with your Tillinghast example, if we doubt you we can read Tillinghast's writings ourselves and decide for ourselves.   If you relied solely on super-secret information that no one else could see, then you might find that others did not take your work seriously.   

As for your reliance on unproduced medical records in your book, if your conclusions from these records were controversial or disputed then another scholar would and should demand to examine them for himself.  If you refused to allow the scholar to at least review them, then you ought to expect that the scholar would not accept your findings as sound, and others shouldn't either.  This would be especially so if ALL of your source material was unavailable for verification, or if you had a long history of mistakes (innocent or not) when presenting source material.   

In short Phillip, your research and analysis is in no way comparable to what TEPaul is trying to pull here.    He isn't even telling us what the supposed "adminsitrative records" say.  He is insisting that the supposed records prove that his version of the story is correct but won't even let us decide that four ourselves.   He is demanding that we take his word for the ultimate question at issue! That is not historical research and analysis.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 09:17:18 PM
TEP
You're right. The first golf course at Prides Crossing was laid out in 1893. It was a group effort being built over five estates - WB Thomas's being one of them. Thomas was the man who brought Campbell to the States. The golf course proved to be so popular it was expanded in 1894-95 - this according to 'Golf in America' (1895) by James P. Lee.

I didn't ask you how long it took to build Myopia, I asked how long it took to build a typical course in 1894.

Phil
If you buy Weeks story without any confirmation I've got some land in NJ I think you would be interested in.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 09:33:29 PM
"TEP
You're right."

Tom:

I suppose that shocks you, huh, Tom?  ;)


David Moriarty:

Why in the world are you trying to rant on like that last post about Myopia? You don't know one damn thing about Myopia; I'm sure you've never been there, I bet you've never even seen Weeks's book about it, much less read it and I'm positive you know zero about Myopia's executive committee records and what they say. You've never seen them but I have and yet you're trying to tell people on here how they should be interpreted?

No matter how many preposterous things you say on here or how often you say them, you, like anyone else needs to have a working relationship with any club to do a credible job of trying to write about their history. Don't take the advice from me if you don't want to but try to take it from others who have done it before you like Young, Quirin, Labbance, Shackelford, Silverman et al.

Do you actually believe anyone thinks some egotistical, highly argumentative smuck like you has figured out a better way to go about it than any of them?

But just keep ranting on as you have and after a while I doubt there will be a reputable or signifcant golf club in America even willing to show you the inside of their door. But why should that concern someone with your outlook and attitude since you don't even appear to be interested in finding any important club's door?


"He is demanding that we take his word for the ultimate question at issue!"


I'm not DEMANDING a damn thing. All I'm doing is expressing my opinion on what I actually know and what I've actually seen. I'm not guessing and speculating about things I don't know and have never seen as you've been doing on here with Merion and Myopia.

So what else are you doing other than constantly trashing the opinions of others who know a lot more about these subjects than you ever have or probably ever will?!?

If you don't like my opinion or Wayne's opinion on what we know and have seen then go to some of these clubs yourself. Don't depend on me or Wayne Morrison or anyone else to do any legwork for you because I will guarantee you with the way you've been and the way you are on this website that is not going to happen. Not ever.

I would work with Tom MacWood in the future if he would somehow learn how to analyze these things logically and get over this fixation he has about these types like Wilson and Crump being idolized by their clubs and friends and some of these early journeymen being dissed as a consequence, but I would never have a thing to do with you in the future on anything. In my opinion you are a total waste-of-time washout on here. Your opinions and posts are a constant stream of some combination of arrogance, total lack of logic and really bad comedy and that's a very poor combination in this particular area of research and analysis.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 10:21:08 PM
Setting aside TEPaul's rudeness and obnoxiousness, this seems pretty linear to me.

- At Myopia's March 1894 Executive Committee Meeting it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.
- Shortly thereafter, the famous professional, Willie Campbell, arrived in Boston.
- Sometime before June 1894, Campbell reportedly laid out the golf links at Myopia.
- In June 1894 the course was ready for play, and the course hosted their first tournament.

I am unaware of any source material that contradicts this.  Certainly none has been presented here.   Is anyone aware of any verifiable source material that contradicts this?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 10:50:25 PM
"I am unaware of any source material that contradicts this.  Certainly none has been presented here.   Is anyone aware of any verifiable source material that contradicts this?"


Of course you are; why wouldn't you be unaware of any source material that contradicts that "linear list"  ::) ;) of yours?

Is anyone on here aware of any verifiable source material that contradicts this?

I doubt it. Who on this thread other than me has ever even been to Myopia and tried to actually work with them about their history and what their club source material says about it?

I don't see that question of mine is in any way rude or obnoxious. The answer to it is pretty much just a statement of fact, don't you think? Aren't you the one who says on here every day you just want facts? ;)

You're the same guy who asked on here how you could ignore something if you've never seen it in the first place, right? Well, that's an interesting way to put it but you can't deny you still haven't seen it right? If so why try to comment on what it says or doesn't say if you've never seen it? I've seen it and that's why I commented on it.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 10:56:59 PM
David and Tom,

Bottom line... show me what is FIRST-HAND evidence in any of those articles. There is none. Everything is a report of second-hand information. I ALSO stated that what Weeks wrote was not first-hand either. In other words, their veracity should be judged EQUALLY. 

By the way, the source material for EVERYTHING in my Tilly bio is available to anyone who wants to see it. I simply am under an ethical constraint to show others the copy of the medical records. If that means that another historian or scholar decides not to accept what I wrote I'm fine with that; its their loss. If they are too lazy to go to the source and see it for themselves yet criticize my adherance to principle than shame on them.

But of course, that is just my opinion...  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 11:00:24 PM
David,

You stated in a quite "linear" fashion that:

- At Myopia's March 1894 Executive Committee Meeting it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.
- Shortly thereafter, the famous professional, Willie Campbell, arrived in Boston.
- Sometime before June 1894, Campbell reportedly laid out the golf links at Myopia.
- In June 1894 the course was ready for play, and the course hosted their first tournament.

You then followed with, "I am unaware of any source material that contradicts this.  Certainly none has been presented here.   Is anyone aware of any verifiable source material that contradicts this?"

Can YOU provide VERIFIABLE SOURCE MATERIAL that Campbell was hired by Myopia to design and/or lay-out the new golf course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 11:09:33 PM
Philip:

I'm not too sure why you are even trying to discuss that kind of thing with the two people you addressed that last post to. This idea on here that none of us can or should discuss something or offer our opinions on something we both know and have seen without showing it to someone on here is about the dumbest and most arrogant suggestion I've ever heard. This is an opinion website and not some damn court of law with its encumbant "discovery" requirement.

I think the only possible reason those two guys try to make it look like we owe them a copy of everything we express our opinion on around here is because both of them realize that is about the only conceivable way either of them would ever be able to get it.

I have no sympathy for people like that. I just think it proves they are either lazy or they just lack initiative and an appreciation of what personal responsibility in this particular context means.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 11:13:15 PM
David and Tom,

Bottom line... show me what is FIRST-HAND evidence in any of those articles. There is none. Everything is a report of second-hand information. I ALSO stated that what Weeks wrote was not first-hand either. In other words, their veracity should be judged EQUALLY. 

By the way, the source material for EVERYTHING in my Tilly bio is available to anyone who wants to see it. I simply am under an ethical constraint to show others the copy of the medical records. If that means that another historian or scholar decides not to accept what I wrote I'm fine with that; its their loss. If they are too lazy to go to the source and see it for themselves yet criticize my adherance to principle than shame on them.

But of course, that is just my opinion...  ;D

What Tilly bio?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 11:19:27 PM
Is TEPaul's only point here to tell us repeatedly that he is welcome at Myopia and we are not?  I think we all knew that already.  He certainly seems disinterested in advancing the conversation, or even engaging in one.  

Setting aside TEPaul's rudeness and obnoxiousness, this seems pretty linear to me.

- At Myopia's March 1894 Executive Committee Meeting it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.
- Shortly thereafter, the famous professional, Willie Campbell, arrived in Boston.
- Sometime before June 1894, Campbell reportedly laid out the golf links at Myopia.
- In June 1894 the course was ready for play, and the course hosted their first tournament.

I am unaware of any source material that contradicts this.  Certainly none has been presented here.   Is anyone aware of any VERIFIABLE source material that contradicts this?

________________________________

Phillip,  

By "verifiable" in this context I mean only that the source material is what the presenter claims it to be.  For example, I have presented a Boston Journal article that says Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia.    You can look at it and see that I have presented this truthfully and accurately.  You can decide for yourself what weight to give it.   Contrast this with TEPaul's approach, where he claims that the "administrative records" establish that someone other than Campbell laid out the first nine.   He has not offered any source material or even told us what the source material actually says, so we have know way of knowing even whether he has presented it accurately.  

There are multiple reports that Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original nine holes.   You can verify the existence of those reports and decide for yourself what they mean.

And Phillip, whether those reports are first hand, second hand, or pure fiction, they are the only information from that time frame about who laid out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 11:23:15 PM
"I didn't ask you how long it took to build Myopia, I asked how long it took to build a typical course in 1894."


Tom:

OK. It's a guess on my part but I would say it took about as long to build the typical golf course in 1894 as it took to built that original nine hole course of Myopia Hunt Club in 1894.

Does that answer work for you or does it make no sense at all to you like most of the rest of what I say?

But I don't know. What do you suppose "typical" means? Should we parse the meaning of that word for about ten pages? Maybe we could just ask Moriarty what he is probably certain it means and if anyone tells him differently he will say that their opinion is preposterous, distorted, doctored or some such.

Tom, honestly, why in the hell do you ask me a question like that? ;) I mean, really, what's the point?

And why the hell don't you try to answer the really important question asked on here about how different is that original nine from Leed's "Long Nine." You just avoid and dismiss that question every time it's asked of you and the reason why you do has just gotten so fucking obvious at this point. Is it really so hard for a total research snob like you to just admit when he's wrong or just doesn't know something?

Matter of fact why in the hell are you even discussing a golf course you know so little about?  Why is Moriarty who knows even less about it than you do?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 11:24:30 PM
And Phillip, what's your point?

What evidence is there that someone other than Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia?      

I'd appreciate it if you listed it out, because I am unaware of any, verifiable or not.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 11:33:17 PM
"Is TEPaul's only point here to tell us repeatedly that he is welcome at Myopia and we are not?  I think we all knew that already.  He certainly seems disinterested in advancing the conversation, or even engaging in one."


No, I'm just trying to tell you that Myopia's executive committee records say that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out the routing of Myopia's original nine hole course. I think that is maximally advancing the conversation! Is that verifiable? Yes it is; I verified it and if you don't want to take my word for it and you'd prefer to personally verify it yourself then you are pretty much going to have to go to South Hamilton, Massachusetts and Myopia Hunt Club and verify it for yourself as I have done for the last couple of years. I guess you don't like to travel, huh, or you're too damn lazy to. Well, I don't either really but I do it anyway if I'm as interested in something as I am in Myopia and its history. And one thing you sure do avoid is admitting that it is definitely YOUR responsibility to verify something for yourself and not my responsibility to do that for you. You just keep avoid (sic) avoiding that, you always have and you probably always will.

Again, at this point some of us on here are no longer willing to do any of your research legwork for you because of your attitude on this website.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 11:41:18 PM
Yes, the reason I don't have access at Merion and Myopia is because I am lazy.  It is the free market at work and I don't deserve access because I haven't earned it.  And conversely, the reason TEPaul has access to these clubs is that he is a real go-getter!  He's pulled himself up by his bootstraps and earned everything he has, including red carpet treatment at all these clubs!

TEPaul,

Perhaps it is a confusing concept for you, but you telling us your conclusions about Myopia's history is not advancing the conversation.   In a conversation there would be a "because . . . " and some explanation and presentation of the information you were relying on.  Then we might ask for clarification or context.   But as it is, you have given us a take it or leave it proposition.  There is nothing to talk about.

So now we know your opinion, for what it is worth.   But it is worth very little unless it has some basis in fact.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 05, 2009, 11:43:18 PM
"What evidence is there that someone other than Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia?"


WHAT evidence? I keep telling you Myopia Hunt Club's on executive committe evidence that says Appleton, Gardner and Merrill routed the original nine hole course.

Oh, I get it; you're the same as Tom MacWood has always been in that if he hasn't actually seen something he contends that it just doesn't exist.

Does anyone really want to try to have a discussion with someone who actually thinks like that?   ??? ::)  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 05, 2009, 11:45:26 PM
"Is TEPaul's only point here to tell us repeatedly that he is welcome at Myopia and we are not?  I think we all knew that already.  He certainly seems disinterested in advancing the conversation, or even engaging in one."


No, I'm just trying to tell you that Myopia's executive committee records say that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out the routing of Myopia's original nine hole course. I think that is maximally advancing the conversation! Is that verifiable? Yes it is; I verified it and if you don't want to take my word for it and you'd prefer to personally verify it yourself then you are pretty much going to have to go to South Hamilton, Massachusetts and Myopia Hunt Club and verify it for yourself as I have done for the last couple of years. I guess you don't like to travel, huh, or you're too damn lazy to. Well, I don't either really but I do it anyway if I'm as interested in something as I am in Myopia and its history. And one thing you sure do avoid is admitting that it is definitely YOUR responsibility to verify something for yourself and not my responsibility to do that for you. You just keep avoid that, you always have and you probably always will.

Again, at this point some of us on here are no longer willing to do any of your research legwork for you because of your attitude on this website.  


TEP
I think you meant to say Myopia's colorful club history says Appleton, Gardner and Merrill laid out Myopia's original nine. The executive committee recorded the following:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

No mention of Appleton, Gardner and Merrill. No mention of when the work began. And no mention of when the work was completed or by whom. As usual you are long on opinion and short on facts, but you do have a very vivd imagination.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 05, 2009, 11:46:51 PM
"What evidence is there that someone other than Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia?"


WHAT evidence? I keep telling you Myopia Hunt Club's on executive committe evidence that says Appleton, Gardner and Merrill routed the original nine hole course.

That isn't evidence.  It is your conclusion.  I see no basis for that conclusion in what has been presented on this website, verified or not.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 05, 2009, 11:49:24 PM
Tom,

You asked, "What Tilly bio?"

Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses. Published by Classics of Golf released November 2006.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 12:03:48 AM
David, you stated that, “By "verifiable" in this context I mean only that the source material is what the presenter claims it to be.  For example, I have presented a Boston Journal article that says Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia.    You can look at it and see that I have presented this truthfully and accurately.  You can decide for yourself what weight to give it.   Contrast this with TEPaul's approach, where he claims that the "administrative records" establish that someone other than Campbell laid out the first nine.   He has not offered any source material or even told us what the source material actually says, so we have know way of knowing even whether he has presented it accurately.”

That is not correct. Go back one page on this thread and look up post #138 authored by Tom Macwood. He directly QUOTES Tom Paul’s own offering of source material. That Tom Macwood believes that it was correctly transcribed can be shown by HIS OWN use of this quoted information in his reply #143 where he states:

“You can accept Mr. Weeks' account, but I'm certainly not. He told us what the official record said: 'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.' I assume the quote is accurate…”

You stated also, “There are multiple reports that Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original nine holes.   You can verify the existence of those reports and decide for yourself what they mean.”

That is true and I have decided a POTENTIAL understanding for what they might mean. That can be found in my response #135.

You finished by stating, “And Phillip, whether those reports are first hand, second hand, or pure fiction, they are the only information from that time frame about who laid out the course.” I must disagree with you here. Again, refer back to Tom Macwood’s post #135 where he accepts Tom Paul’s transcribing of Week’s writing in which he speaks to a creation of the course in which Campbell’s name isn’t mentioned while the other three members that Tom refers to are…
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 12:07:23 AM
"So now we know your opinion, for what it is worth.   But it is worth very little unless it has some basis in fact."


Well, then, I guess all I can say is I'm pretty sure my opinion of what Merion's and Myopia's records mean regarding their history is worth a bit more to them than your opinion is. And in their opinions there are a number of pretty good reasons why that's the case.

Maybe you think this website's DG is the real world where the histories of these club's should be recorded. I really don't. I think those clubs are the real world and I take comfort in the fact that they put more worth in my opinion than they do in yours.

I don't see that changing but you should just ask them about that at any particular point in time.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we? ;)  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 12:12:53 AM
David,

You asked me what was MY POINT... It is a simple one. Some, including yourself, keep insisting that verifiable first-hand evidence be provided by any and all claiming that someone other than Campbell designed the original nine at Myopia before it can be accepted, yet you refuse to both provide the same for your contention that Campbell did it and even acknowledge that what you have presented is NOT first-hand evidence and therefor is of no greater value than what has been presented by others.

So my point is a simple one... You can't have it both ways!

The "evidence" that has declared that three Myopia members designed the original nine holes is second-hand at best. So is the evidence found in those three newspaper reports.

So now I must ask you, what's your point? What VERIFIABLE FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE is there that Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia?      

I'd appreciate it if you listed it out, because I am unaware of any...

I would also like to see what you think of my theory that ties all of these different reports into a single and reasonable version of what might have happened...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
"The executive committee recorded the following:"


Tom:

Is that right? Is that all the executive committee said? I thought you've never been to Myopia so how could you know that's all "The Run Book" says on the subject? You almost fooled me; I thought I read in The Run Book that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out tees and greens when the snow melted in early 1894. Do you think Weeks just poetically dreamed all that up? Don't answer that; I'm sure you do.  ;)

Tom, I really don't think there is any reason to continue this as I just don't see it going anywhere at all. I don't really care what the hell you think Myopia's architectural history is or what you think Campbell did there. I only care about what Myopia has and knows about that. If their records didn't really mention Campbell there is probably a pretty good reason for it such as they just never thought back then he was anything like you claim he is.

Live with it Pal, if you call yourself an historian.  ;)  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 12:45:11 AM
Phillip,  The passages on page 138 are from Weeks' book, which was written in 1975, 81 years after the fact.   You don't seriously consider that source material do you?     The only thing remotely related to source material in the quote was the reference to the executive committee meeting where it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.  That says nothing of the three, and nothing about how the course was laid out!

It is a joke for you to compare three accounts written at the time with a club history written 100 years later.   

David,

You asked me what was MY POINT... It is a simple one. Some, including yourself, keep insisting that verifiable first-hand evidence be provided by any and all claiming that someone other than Campbell designed the original nine at Myopia before it can be accepted, yet you refuse to both provide the same for your contention that Campbell did it and even acknowledge that what you have presented is NOT first-hand evidence and therefor is of no greater value than what has been presented by others.

I haven't demanded first-hand evidence.  I have demanded evidence.   TEPaul's conclusions are not evidence but that is all we have.   That you would even suggest that Weeks 1975 history is evidence is preposterous. 

Other than references to Weeks' 1975 book you have pointed to absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the three had anything to do with laying out the course.


Quote
So my point is a simple one... You can't have it both ways!

The "evidence" that has declared that three Myopia members designed the original nine holes is second-hand at best. So is the evidence found in those three newspaper reports.

So now I must ask you, what's your point? What VERIFIABLE FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE is there that Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at Myopia?     

I am not trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand we have evidence, on the other we have none.   You are the one who injected first-hand into this, apparently because of a lack of understanding of what was hearsay and what is not.   

Quote
I would also like to see what you think of my theory that ties all of these different reports into a single and reasonable version of what might have happened..

As for your theory, I've seen no facts that support it whatsoever.   Have you?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 02:13:57 AM
David,

You stated, “The passages on page 138 are from Weeks' book, which was written in 1975, 81 years after the fact.   You don't seriously consider that source material do you?”

No, I do not. I do maintain that WEEKS considered that what he was both quoting from and referencing to be FIRST-HAND source material and that there is nothing in any of the three newspaper accounts which can qualify as such.

“The only thing remotely related to source material in the quote was the reference to the executive committee meeting where it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.  That says nothing of the three, and nothing about how the course was laid out!” Again, go back to the quoted portion in Tom Macwood’s post and you will see that all three are named before and after his quoting the administrative records. Willie Campbell is the name that is NOT MENTIONED.

“It is a joke for you to compare three accounts written at the time with a club history written 100 years later.” This is insulting and uncalled for. Disagree with my comparison, but a JOKE it is not!   

“I haven't demanded first-hand evidence.  I have demanded evidence.   TEPaul's conclusions are not evidence but that is all we have…” I have never, not one single time in this discussion stated or even suggested that Tom Paul’s conclusions are EVIDENCE. In fact, I haven’t referred to his conclusions at all.

“That you would even suggest that Weeks 1975 history is evidence is preposterous.” Sorry, but it is. In fact your next statement shows it for if it weren’t then what YOU say can have no validity on its face. “Other than references to Weeks' 1975 book you have pointed to absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the three had anything to do with laying out the course.” Once again, it is the only thing written that claims to directly quote from SOURCE MATERIAL.

“Phillip,  The passages on page 138 are from Weeks' book, which was written in 1975, 81 years after the fact.   You don't seriously consider that source material do you?” NO, I DO NOT! But I maintain that WEEKS DID, for he directly quoted from club “administrative records” recorded at the time it was created. NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE SO.

“The only thing remotely related to source material in the quote was the reference to the executive committee meeting where it was decided to to build a golf links on Myopia's grounds.  That says nothing of the three, and nothing about how the course was laid out!” Once again, please refer back to Tom Macwood’s post where this is contained and which he stated later that he believed that Tom Paul had transcribed it correctly, and you will see that all three members are named before and after the quote from the “administrative records” that even you “remotely” recognize as “source material.” The only name that is glaringly OMMITTED is CAMPBELL’S.

“It is a joke for you to compare three accounts written at the time with a club history written 100 years later.” Once again you choose to insult rather than to simply disagree.

I again ask that you look at my hypothesis that ties all the accounts together and explain how it is unreasonable as a possibility… 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 06:25:43 AM
It seems the original holes of Myopia Hunt Club were not laid out by Willie Campbell, as has been suggested. thread.

It seems the original holes were laid out beginning in March 1894 ('when the winter snow melted') by three Myopia Hunt Club members, R.M. Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner. The club records even describes most of these first nine holes. The club record also describes these three "partners" footing it over the terrain staking out tee and green sites. The recording of the club Secretary at that time, S. Dacre Bush, describes the proceedings of the club that led to the laying out of the nine hole course.

The holes were in play within three months and by the beginning of July, 1894 two tournaments had been held on them. TCC's scratch golfer, Herbert Leeds won both of them. In 1896 Leeds would join Myopia as well.


TEP
Run book? The quote above is the sort of stuff you regularly spew on this site to give the impression you have some special historical access. The actual translation 'club record' = the history book. The official club record from the executive committee is a terse statement (in the words of Weeks) found in the club record....errr, history book:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

The rest of Weeks story reads like fantasy land, which is probably why you like it. Not unlike your fictional take on Flynn's early history, a kid from the other side of the track marries a member of an august Boston family, they move to Vermont and he designs his first course at the age of 19. And not unlike your favorite history book written by Desmond Tolhurst (maybe second favorite now to Weeks book) in which half the facts he gives are in error. I have to give you credit, there was a time not too long ago when you relied exclusively on Cornish & Whitten, at least you have graduated to club histories. You are making progress.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 06:32:27 AM
Phil
This is the only quote from the executive committee about the original nine hole course, and that quote is what I said I assumed was transcribed accurately:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

Based on the evidence presented so far who do you believe laid out the first nine at Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 07:00:42 AM
TEP and/or Phil

How long did it typically take to build a nine-hole golf course in 1894?

For whatever reason you boys have avoided answering this question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 06, 2009, 07:42:02 AM
My interest is not to side with one side or the other but to look at the facts. This is not the story of Merion, not silted over with this or that report that does not clearly define the full origins of the course. The newspaper articles and reports in this case appear to support each other in a simple and clear way that Willie Campbell was responsible for Myopia.

I am only dipping my toe in this American debate because Willie Campbell is worthy of support. His courses are not basic beginner’s attempts, but fun and well design affairs. In addition, his tutorage was impeccable. Willie was no novice when he departed our shores. Willie’s wife also proves his credentials, and was a wonderful women, knowing more about golf than most men let alone women in American at that time. Her abilities and character should be seriously considered when we debate Willies achievements as she would have been right there supporting her husband in his endeavours.

Was Willie Campbell the designer of Myopia? All the reports focus on the same conclusion, yes he was. It’s clearly stated in black and white print.

As for club histories, whilst a great source of information, their writers are human and errors/omissions do occur. Don’t agree, then just look and read what the so-called Golden Age guys said about their predecessors, surprising more out of actual ignorance that total self-promotion (I hope). Also, I have found out information, which the club historians have missed. I have advised them with copies and references of their omission as to the real designers of their course. Nor am I talking of just the odd one or two either (but of course, I am referring to courses in GB&I only).

Numerous reports appear to state the same facts, Willie Campbell designed Myopia in the mid 1890’s. Therefore, I feel the case is as close as we will get to proving that Willie Campbell was the designer of the Myopia Course.

Tom P, what is the good of a historic golf library, if we ignore historic records. Can we trust the very fabric of that Library? Would it not be right to include all information and allow each generation to make their own mind up based upon the evidence at hand. As more information comes to light, then the original accreditation can be reconsidered and/or updated if the new detail outweighs all the past records/information within the library. Knowledge is achieved from the continued input of information, it is a growing process with many blind alleys and bends on its long path.

The Truth is out there or is the library willing to have a Fiction Wing.

Melvyn


Tom Mac

"How long did it typically take to build a nine-hole golf course in 1894?"  From reports I have read the average in GB&I was uptwards to a min. of 3 months from appointment to opening of the course. Some faster, many longer but that was subject to the site, but on the whole circa 3 months as a rough guide for the early 1890's.
It was never design AM, play a full game of golf PM = course ready for opening.

Melvyn 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 08:22:40 AM
Tom,

You asked, "TEP and/or Phil, How long did it typically take to build a nine-hole golf course in 1894? For whatever reason you boys have avoided answering this question."

Sorry you think so, but I haven't avoided answering this question. Both the long and short one is that I don't know. I also don't see what that has to do with anything for a variety of reasons, the most important one being that, as has been pointed out, the decision to build Myopia's nine was made during March and they had their first competition on it in June. That isn't under dispute, so we know how long Myopia took to build...

You further asked, "Based on the evidence presented so far who do you believe laid out the first nine at Myopia?" I've answered that several times now and, in fact, you have even derided my answer by offering me some pretty good swamp land for sale at a great price.

But in case you have forgotten, I was wondering if maybe the 3 Myopia members designed and staked it and Mr. Campbell built and added in all the features such as the size of greens and placement of bunkers, etc... If so, then EVERY single newspaper article AND Mr. Weeks' book would be both accurate and orrect. Every now and then that happens where everyne is correct... It is also a reasonable explanation in this case based upon EVERYTHING that we know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 08:41:28 AM
Phil
How long did it take to layout the new courses at The Country Club and Essex County in 1894?

"I was wondering if maybe the 3 Myopia members designed and staked it and Mr. Campbell built and added in all the features such as the size of greens and placement of bunkers, etc.."

What information have you seen that would have you believe the three members had anything to do with designing the course? The newpaper reports make no mention of the three members, and neither does the brief excerpt from the executive report.

Have you attempted verify Weeks account? If so, what verification have you come up with?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 09:11:51 AM
Tom,

You asked, "What information have you seen that would have you believe the three members had anything to do with designing the course?" None.

"The newpaper reports make no mention of the three members..." And Weeks' book makes no mention of Campbell. "and neither does the brief excerpt from the executive report." That also makes no mention of Campbell.

"Have you attempted verify Weeks account?" No. "If so, what verification have you come up with?" N/A.

Your turn. Do you have any verifiable FIRST-HAND evidence that states that Campbell designed Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 06, 2009, 09:36:15 AM

Phil

Back in the early days the building of a golf course was not as destructive as most of the later period courses. They worked with the land due to minimal (if any) heavy earth moving equipment. I expect this was mirrored in the USA in the 1890’s.  However, it was commonplace to prepare the course ready for a competition or matches to be played either before or after the course was formally opened.

Therefore, the June competition could have been played on a raw course. The problem or the real solution to the construction of the course depends on upon the condition/suitability of the original land. I would also expect that course construction in that period to be based upon the traditional Scottish approach. But, as I have mentioned my knowledge of the early history of American courses is around zero. Nevertheless, I would not dismiss the course could have been in a condition to host a match that early on in its formation. The interesting point would be to read the report on that match, as I would expect some comment on the condition of the new course.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 10:25:27 AM
Phil
Based upon your lack of research into the subject it would appear you have no interest in Myopia's history, which begs the question why do you feel the need to interject yourself into this discussion. I see no evidence that you have anything to add in the way of information or insight. Your self-appointed role on this website now appears to be that of an arbitrator or referee; there was a time when you contributed information.

Considering the fact that course was designed 114 years ago, having three separate and contemporaneous sources claiming Campbell designed the course is about good as you are going get. Especially when you consider there are no contemporaneous reports claiming anyone other than Campbell was involved in the design of the course.

Obviously I don't have a time machine so I'm unable to got back to May/June 1894 to observe the action, and to question Campbell, his wife, and newspaper reporters. So to answer your question, no, I don't have any first-hand evidence. If you are going to require that standard might I suggest you go back and re-evaluate your claims and evidence presented regarding in your quest to prove Tilly designed Bethpage-Black.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 10:47:31 AM
"TEP
Run book? The quote above is the sort of stuff you regularly spew on this site to give the impression you have some special historical access. The actual translation 'club record' = the history book. The official club record from the executive committee is a terse statement (in the words of Weeks) found in the club record....errr, history book:"


Tom:

Allow me to explain something fairly basic to you about how these kinds of clubs operate and keep their club records and administrative records. I mention this to you because of what you said just above which indicates to me you may be confused to some degree on this basic point, and for someone who claims to be a golf architectural historian who concentrates on CLUB histories being as confused on this point as you seem to be is definitely not good.

A club's HISTORY book like Weeks' for Myopia (1975) or Tolhurst's for Merion (1989) is not the same thing as a club's administrative records (board meeting minutes and committee meeting minutes). Therefore what you just said above---eg 'the actual 'club record'=history book' is not correct, not even close!

In clubs like Merion or Myopia and of that age generally have all their board and even committee meeting minutes contained and bound in books! Sometimes they are actually quite beautiful and even leather bound and generally are all the meeting minutes in a single year or two or so and are often labeled that way. That is the way the early MCC meeting minutes are and are bound that were found in the attic recently of MCC. The Myopia executive and committee meeting minutes are basically the same but Myopia did not refer to their executive committee meeting records or committee meeting minutes or records as such, as most golf clubs do, they always referred to them as "The Run Book" which I assume has some kind of fox hunting club etymology because that is precisely what Myopia HUNT Club was before golf existed at the club. It might still be referred to that way because Myopia is still active with polo and probably fox hunting too. You may not be aware of it, most on here may not be and why should they be but the sport of fox hunting actually has traditions and terms, procedures and etiquettes and such attached to it not unlike golf.

I hope that helps. The Myopia club administrative record or "Run Book" was and is definitely NOT the same thing as the club's HISTORY book, in this case the only one being Edward Weeks' 1975 club history book "Myopia 1875-1975."

And yes, Weeks did refer to Myopia's "Run Book" when he wrote his club history in 1975 about the club's hunting, polo, tennis, court tennis and golf. He also referred to Leeds' "scrapbook" for the club's golf history which I mentioned he had when he wrote his history book that appears to have been lost since.

I hope you consider the foregoing as contributing to this discussion of Myopia's history. I'm not sure about you but personally I feel when considering and investigating a club's history that really understanding how and why a club actually operates as it does throughout its history is a pretty important item in the historical analysis of the subject. Just considering outside and indirect newspaper articles about it is one way of looking at the history of a club but in my opinion doing it that way is far less than half the best and most complete and comprehensive way to go about it.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 11:16:30 AM
TEP
According to Weeks this is the extent of what the Run Book tells us about the original nine hole course:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 12:48:27 PM
“And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?”


Tom:

I could answer those questions for you and ordinarily I would, certainly for anyone else on here other than Moriarty. Actually I already answered those questions for you but again you do not seem to have noticed just as you keep asking me and Phil the same question over and over about how long we think it took to build a course in 1894 despite the fact we answered that question a number of times even if the answer was that we really don't know for sure and that we can only guess, which we did. But I just don’t see the point of even bothering to try answering them for you again because of a constant stream of things like the following recent item:



“The rest of Weeks story reads like fantasy land, which is probably why you like it. Not unlike your fictional take on Flynn's early history, a kid from the other side of the track marries a member of an august Boston family, they move to Vermont and he designs his first course at the age of 19. And not unlike your favorite history book written by Desmond Tolhurst (maybe second favorite now to Weeks book) in which half the facts he gives are in error. I have to give you credit, there was a time not too long ago when you relied exclusively on Cornish & Whitten, at least you have graduated to club histories. You are making progress.”




If that’s the way you look at Merion’s and Myopia’s history books and me, and it’s certainly not the first time you’ve said that on here and I doubt it will be the last time, then that’s your good right---anyone is entitled to whatever opinion they have and state but I surely don’t need to get involved in addressing it and neither does Merion or Myopia. To you Barker routed and designed Merion East and to you Campbell staked out the nine original holes of Myopia and not those three members which the club recorded when they did it and before Campbell first arrived in America. Neither club is going to consider altering their architectural histories to reflect that, and I'm not going to alter my opinion of what happened to reflect that. If they did or I did the golf and architectural and historical world would just laugh at them considering what their own clubs recorded from not later but from the time those things were happening. And again, just because you have not had the opportunity to see them in person does not mean that anyone should assume and certainly not conclude they never happened. Good luck.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 12:55:50 PM
What a farce.   Since TEPaul started posting on this thread it has become completely useless.   After deriding me and Tom MacWood repeatedly and claiming to have information that contradicts the multiple accounts that report Willie Campbell as having laid out the 9 hole course at Merion, he has NOTHING TO OFFER.  His point?

I know more than you do, and it's for me to know and you find out.
   Hardly the makings of a productive conversation.

Phillip,

You should be embarrassed that you keep making excuses for this sort of thing.  It makes you look foolish by association.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on August 06, 2009, 01:04:49 PM
I am nether embarrassed to associate myself with Tom Paul nor am I embarrassed to associate myself with you... I do agree that this thread is no longer viable for a serious discussion...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 01:09:36 PM
Tom:

Actually the answer to your second question is on this thread. I'm not sure why it is that you ask questions, get definitive answers to them and then just keep asking them again and again as if they were not responded to. Why do you do that and why is it you've been doing it on here for so long? Do you not bother to read other people's responses to your questions or do you read them and they just don't register for some reason? You've been doing the same thing with Phil Young recently. It looks like he's at a loss of what to do about it as I am.


You say you're a researcher, right? I answered that question definitively on this thread. If you're a researcher why don't you see if you can find it first? I think that should serve as a basic test here since you ask the same questions over and over again; we answer them and you don't notice it; we tend to get tired of that. Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 01:16:03 PM
"I do agree that this thread is no longer viable for a serious discussion..."


I agree with you Philip. Why don't you and I just play "The BETTER MAN" and take a powder for however long it takes for something interesting to arrive on this subject? No sense in devolving into adverserialness again. You don't want that and either do I. If others on here want to carry on----cool, let 'em have at it. Frankly, I've always been pretty good at finding humor wherever I can. A "farce" is humor, isn't it Phil?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 02:47:06 PM
“And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?”


Tom:

I could answer those questions for you and ordinarily I would, certainly for anyone else on here other than Moriarty. Actually I already answered those questions for you but again you do not seem to have noticed just as you keep asking me and Phil the same question over and over about how long we think it took to build a course in 1894 despite the fact we answered that question a number of times even if the answer was that we really don't know for sure and that we can only guess, which we did. But I just don’t see the point of even bothering to try answering them for you again because of a constant stream of things like the following recent item:



“The rest of Weeks story reads like fantasy land, which is probably why you like it. Not unlike your fictional take on Flynn's early history, a kid from the other side of the track marries a member of an august Boston family, they move to Vermont and he designs his first course at the age of 19. And not unlike your favorite history book written by Desmond Tolhurst (maybe second favorite now to Weeks book) in which half the facts he gives are in error. I have to give you credit, there was a time not too long ago when you relied exclusively on Cornish & Whitten, at least you have graduated to club histories. You are making progress.”




If that’s the way you look at Merion’s and Myopia’s history books and me, and it’s certainly not the first time you’ve said that on here and I doubt it will be the last time, then that’s your good right---anyone is entitled to whatever opinion they have and state but I surely don’t need to get involved in addressing it and neither does Merion or Myopia. To you Barker routed and designed Merion East and to you Campbell staked out the nine original holes of Myopia and not those three members which the club recorded when they did it and before Campbell first arrived in America. Neither club is going to consider altering their architectural histories to reflect that, and I'm not going to alter my opinion of what happened to reflect that. If they did or I did the golf and architectural and historical world would just laugh at them considering what their own clubs recorded from not later but from the time those things were happening. And again, just because you have not had the opportunity to see them in person does not mean that anyone should assume and certainly not conclude they never happened. Good luck.


TEP
You are very good at lecturing us on the importance of considering the Clubs above all, and letting us know what wonderful access you have, not so good at producing any info. This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing.

David
I disagree, the thread didn't go south when TEP got involved, no one takes him seriously. It went south when Phil got on here and put forth his theory about the three members deigning the course (and Campbell simply constructing it) with no supporting documentation, and when it was pointed out he had no supporting documentation, he suggested newspaper reports were nothing more than hearsay (as if he never relies upon newspaper reports), and began demanding first-hand evidence. The thread went from producing information to Phil telling us if the info was acceptable or not. For some reason Phil has a problem with conteporaneous newspaper reports, yet he has no problem diagnosing a man dead for 60 years with a bio-polar condition.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
“TEP
You are very good at lecturing us on the importance of considering the Clubs above all, and letting us know what wonderful access you have, not so good at producing any info. This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing.”



Tom:

Sorry about that. Would you consider the answers to the following question important information? Moriarty asked it a few days ago. No answers though. He even said that he thinks you posted that the original nine pretty much remained intact. Obviously he doesn’t know the answers or why would he have asked in the first place?



“For those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”


Then he posted the question again because there was no answer:


“Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”


Do you know the answers to that question Tom? If so why don’t you go ahead and tell us as much as you possibly can hole by hole with the details of each hole what that original nine hole course was like and what Leeds’ so-called “Long Nine” was like and the details of how the first one differed from the second one on which the 1898 US Open was held at Myopia?

Can you do that for us? If not just let me know if you’d like me to try to do it for you and Moriarty and others on here who may be interested in that important architectural information. Would you call that furthering this conversation on the architectural history and evolution of Myopia or are you just going to tell me again that even that is just me lecturing you and others on here and telling you and others what wonderful access I have?

Please go first in explaining the answers to that question in as much detail as you can or at least tell us you just can’t do that and why.

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: David Stamm on August 06, 2009, 03:54:58 PM
Why are newpapers cited as invalid/valid in some cases, i.e. crediting Wlison with Merion, and yet invalid/valid in this case in regards to Campbell and Myopia? When are they credible and when are they not?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 06, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Gentlemen,

It would appear that the discussion has moved on somewhat since I last posted on this thread.

For the record, the newspaper article (Glasgow Evening Times) that I found that referred to WC going to America was dated 9th March and not the 19th as I had originally thought. What it says is that WC had accepted appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC and that "he sails for the states next week".

Then in 14th June 1895 the same paper states that he has been re-engaged as professional and greenkeeper for another year by the Brookline CC, Massachusets USA.

Another report dated 28th Feb 1896 states that he has left the CC of Brookline.

The final mention I have for him is a report dated 26th Nov 1896 which says the following;

"Courses are still being laid out in the States. Philadelphia, aided by Willie Campbell, has added another to its large number of links. St Andrews, having bought a lot of land at a cost, it is said, of 80,000 dols, will lay it out when the frost goes."

Not quite sure if any of that adds anything to the discussion but there you go.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Tom,

I think the two go hand in hand, because as far as I can tell the only thing supporting Phil's theory is TEPaul's unsupported conclusion.   Phil has some confused ideas about what makes for reliable evidence, especially when it comes to his own theories.  

So far as I understand it, this is what we know:

-  Weeks reported that in March 1894, Myopia's executive committee decided that Myopia should have a golf course on its property.
-  Willie Campbell, the famous professional, arrived in Boston from Scotland shortly thereafter.
-  Two newspapers reported that Willie Campbell laid out the Myopia golf course.
-  In a later interview, Campbell's widow (also a teaching professional) confirmed that Willie Campbell laid out the original nine at Myopia.
-  In June 1894 the course was ready for play and hosted its first tournament.

No one has offered any facts beyond this.   Weeks had a narrative about what might have happened, but that was 1975 and there is nothing in the narrative to suggest that it was based on anything more than the snippet from the March 1894 decision of the executive committee deciding that a golf course should be built.  

Phillip has offered no facts beyond this.  Neither has anyone else.  

So why do Phillip and TEPaul keep posting their conclusions that contradict these facts?  

What purpose do unsupported conclusions serve but to bog down the discussion and distract from what is a pretty obvious from the facts before us?  

_________________________

David

The standard seems to be that if it supports one preconceived notion, then use it, if it does not then deride it, twist it, or do whatever you can to get rid of it.  

__________________________________

Niall,

It helps a little bit, because there is some mystery as to which Willie Campbell was involved in expanding Philadelphia CC.   There was a local Philadelphia as well.   But it would make some sense that it was the more famous Willie Campbell since Campbell had reportedly been hired to lay out Merion's course at around this this same time.  

Thanks for the information.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 04:02:21 PM
"This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing."


Tom:

Well, at least today I produced the information that Myopia's "Run Book" was not the same thing as Weeks' 1975 history book which you apparently thought I was trying to say or you apparently thought it was. Would you say that was "nothing?"  ??? At least I taught you what Myopia called its executive committee administrative record keeping book. Pretty unusual and cool term for what most all other clubs call their board and committee meeting records, don't you think?

At least you could have acknowledged learning that from me which by the way you absolutely never do or admit to (research snobs like you are consitutionally incapable of acknowledging things like that, I guess ;) ). I tell you or teach you something on these threads and you either say it makes no sense or about a day later you act like you knew it all along or thought of it yourself.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 06, 2009, 04:04:39 PM
David

Almost certainly the article would be referring to the famous WC however it is possible that they got duff info but I doubt it as it would have come from a WC contact.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 04:06:19 PM
Tom,

We all know the difference between an administrative record and a club history.    The only question is whether the Run Book contains any more information that what was cited in the Weeks book.  My guess is no, because if there was anything you'd have brought it forward.   You only hide things that hurt your case.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Hancock on August 06, 2009, 04:14:37 PM
In progress:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg/500px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)

 :)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 06, 2009, 04:37:24 PM
Joe,
I don't see Gene and Richard anywhere. Are you sure that's a real photo? Where did you get it from?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Hancock on August 06, 2009, 04:42:52 PM
Joe,
I don't see Gene and Richard anywhere. Are you sure that's a real photo? Where did you get it from?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 04:44:01 PM
"Why are newpapers cited as invalid/valid in some cases, i.e. crediting Wlison with Merion, and yet invalid/valid in this case in regards to Campbell and Myopia? When are they credible and when are they not?"


DavidS:

I, for one, am not saying that newspaper articles are invalid or not credible although that kind of thing can certainly span a spectrum like anything else.

As to these newspaper articles that say Willie Campbell "laid out" the original nine at Myopia, I am not saying they are invalid or not credible. All I'm saying is one needs to be careful about what kind of interpretation they put on what those articles meant by Willie Campbell "laying out" that original nine. I have no doubt he did something on that original nine and maybe quite a bit but it appears (and I've been aware of this for over a year now) from Myopia's own records (not just Weeks' 1975 history book) that Campbell could not have routed (tees and greens siting) because that was already done by three Myopia members before Campbell ever arrived in America and so it isn't chronologically possible that Campbell could have done that part of creating that original nine.

I think Phil Young said it well when he mentioned both the club executive committee records and those newspaper articles could both be very right in what they say but not if one interprets either to mean that Campbell did what those three members did before he got there or conversely that those members did what Campbell did later (which frankly the club has never claimed that those three members did anything other than site those tees and greens (routed that original nine( probably in early March or earlier 1894). One also needs to appreciate who people like Appleton, Gardner and Merrill were----eg people like that did not get out there with a shovel or even went out there and sodded greens etc. People like that hired other people to do things like that for them. If some on here think that sounds elitist or whatever, I'm sorry but so be it, because that's just the way it really was back then with people like that. We can dismiss it or deny it but it would not be historically correct to do so.

I just wish more people on here would address that logical explanation that Phil mentioned.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 05:04:25 PM
"The only question is whether the Run Book contains any more information that what was cited in the Weeks book.  My guess is no, because if there was anything you'd have brought it forward."


It does. It contains a ton more information than what was cited in the Weeks book. I'm sure that you might be able to appreciate that a club history book of 150 pages the majority of which is not even about golf is not going to just verbatim cite the entirety of a club's executive committee administrative records. Have you ever seen a club history book that has done that or even come remotely close to doing that? I have maybe a hundred club history books in my office and I've sure never seen one do that---not even remotely close to doing that. It's pretty obvious to any club membership that doing something like that would be incredibly boring and uneccesary to a membership for who those club history books are written. A history book writer like Weeks (he ran a national magazine) did it well with that history book of his for what the club wanted.

If some really detailed golf architecture historian wants to dig way deeper than that in the golf architectural details of a club they would need to really get into the details of something like a club's executive committee and other committee meeting minutes and records. That's why newspaper articles generally only tell a small part of the story, as do most general club history books.  



"You only hide things that hurt your case."


Moriarty, you've been saying that to me and about me constantly and for far too long. Consequently, I will never address you or respond directly to you again. To me it will be like you don't exist on here which frankly I really wish you didn't or even ever did!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 05:08:50 PM
In progress:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg/500px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)

 :)

God, I hope thats not the train HH Barker was taking to Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 05:18:17 PM
Tom:

Instead of posting pictures of train wrecks would you mind reading very carefully my post #189 and dealing with it and answering it if you can? You want to further what is important architectural information and the discussion of it, don't you?

The hole by hole details of that original nine compared to Leeds' "Long Nine" on which they held the 1898 US Open would be pretty important architectural information on Myopia's architectural history, don't you think?

I do.

You go first. I'd like to see what you know about that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 05:20:57 PM
On that train wreck photo you just posted I missed the caption. That is very funny, hilarious actually. Bravo, I didn't realize you had a sense of humor but that's nice to know at this point.

I'm trying to make out the name of the station on the wall. If it's Boston that must mean HH Barker routed and designed Myopia and not Leeds or Campbell or those three stooges from the club one of which couldn't have done it because he was the Master of the Fox Hounds and that apparently disqualifies him even if he had his own golf course on his own estate in Ipswich a year before he and the other two stooges footed it over Myopia in the melting snow and staked out nine tees and greens.

But it looks like the name of that station is in French which would mean Barker probably routed and designed every golf course in France.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 06, 2009, 05:22:02 PM
Tom Mac,

It might just be! I think I see a sketch of the Merion routing plan in the rubble in the lower right......Good to see you have kept your sense of humor!

I do enjoy reading all the old articles you and a few others find.  I know those take time to find, even with the internet.  We are all a bit better off for those efforts.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 05:30:28 PM
It looks like that train wreck was in France. Can you imagine what the engineer must have said just before impact?


How do you say aaaaAAAAAAAWWWHHH Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!!!! in French?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 06:24:25 PM
"This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing."


Tom:

Well, at least today I produced the information that Myopia's "Run Book" was not the same thing as Weeks' 1975 history book which you apparently thought I was trying to say or you apparently thought it was. Would you say that was "nothing?"  ??? At least I taught you what Myopia called its executive committee administrative record keeping book. Pretty unusual and cool term for what most all other clubs call their board and committee meeting records, don't you think?

At least you could have acknowledged learning that from me which by the way you absolutely never do or admit to (research snobs like you are consitutionally incapable of acknowledging things like that, I guess ;) ). I tell you or teach you something on these threads and you either say it makes no sense or about a day later you act like you knew it all along or thought of it yourself.  


TEP
I knew all about the Run Book, you've told us about it many times before. Its a cute name, which is why I think you like bringing it up, of course the book is of no use in this discussion other than the one quote, which is hardly enlightening. I think you missed the whole point of that club records = club history comment. Let me bring back the quote from last year I was referring to.


It seems the original holes were laid out beginning in March 1894 ('when the winter snow melted') by three Myopia Hunt Club members, R.M. Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner. The club records even describes most of these first nine holes. The club record also describes these three "partners" footing it over the terrain staking out tee and green sites. The recording of the club Secretary at that time, S. Dacre Bush, describes the proceedings of the club that led to the laying out of the nine hole course.


The point of my post was to show how were misrepresenting the minutes (where have we heard that before?). You were trying to make the claim the club records (the minutes or Run book or whatever you prefer) say that there three partners were footing it over the terrain staking out tees etc, etc. The club records don't say that, the history says that. You were obviously confused over what are the club records and what is the history. Here is a quote from the history and I've underlined the part from the club records/Run Book/minutes. I hope this helps.

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:

        'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.'”

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 06:52:32 PM
"The point of my post was to show how were misrepresenting the minutes (where have we heard that before?)."

Tom:

I'm not misrepresenting the minutes but you might be.


"You were trying to make the claim the club records (the minutes or Run book or whatever you prefer) say that there three partners were footing it over the terrain staking out tees etc, etc."


I wasn't trying to make that claim that is precisely what I was saying.


"The club records don't say that, the history says that."


I know what the history book says as it's been here in my office for two years. How do you know what the records or Run Book says? Have you ever seen it? Have you ever read it? If you've never seen it or read it how can you say what it doesn't say? That really is ridiculous.


"You were obviously confused over what are the club records and what is the history."


I'm not confused at all over what are the club records (Run Book) and what is the 1975 history book and I never have been. As you just said I explained the difference to you a year ago, as I just did again today.



"Here is a quote from the history and I've underlined the part from the club records/Run Book/minutes. I hope this helps."


I don't need you to quote for me from the Myopia history book; as I said I've had it in my office for two years. Matter of fact, it's right next to me. I've read the whole thing a number of times and I know what Weeks said from the Run Book and I know what he said himself and I know what the Run Book says. Where do you suppose Weeks got the idea that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner routed the tees and greens in the early spring of 1894? Do you think he just dreamed that up on his own?

Oh that's right, I guess you do think he just dreamed that up on his own as today you called most of Weeks' history book a "fantasy land" or some such thing.


How about post #189, Tom? Are you going to try to deal with and explain in detail that original hole by hole nine hole course and how it was different from Leed's "Long Nine" or are you going to continue to avoid that altogether, as you have been doing? I thought you said you wanted to advance this converstion with some important information. Don't you consider that to be important information on this subject of Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 07:05:43 PM
TEPaul

If you have any facts, bring them forward.  Otherwise, you are wasting our time.  Again.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 07:11:11 PM

“Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”

Do you know the answers to that question Tom? If so why don’t you go ahead and tell us as much as you possibly can hole by hole with the details of each hole what that original nine hole course was like and what Leeds’ so-called “Long Nine” was like and the details of how the first one differed from the second one on which the 1898 US Open was held at Myopia?

Can you do that for us? If not just let me know if you’d like me to try to do it for you and Moriarty and others on here who may be interested in that important architectural information. Would you call that furthering this conversation on the architectural history and evolution of Myopia or are you just going to tell me again that even that is just me lecturing you and others on here and telling you and others what wonderful access I have?

Please go first in explaining the answers to that question in as much detail as you can or at least tell us you just can’t do that and why.

Thanks


TEP
I don't have your inside connections, so obviously its impossible for me know what you know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 06, 2009, 10:03:40 PM
"TEP
I don't have your inside connections, so obviously its impossible for me know what you know."




Tom

Aha! Well there you are. In that case, since I have studied the course and its history closely for the last few years would you like me to share with you my OPINION on how the original nine apparently differed hole by hole from the so-called Leeds "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held? Would you say that would be bringing new information forward and furthering the conversation of the architectural history of Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 06, 2009, 10:47:44 PM
"TEP
I don't have your inside connections, so obviously its impossible for me know what you know."




Tom

Aha! Well there you are. In that case, since I have studied the course and its history closely for the last few years would you like me to share with you my OPINION on how the original nine apparently differed hole by hole from the so-called Leeds "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held? Would you say that would be bringing new information forward and furthering the conversation of the architectural history of Myopia?

I for one have no interest in hearing your opinion unless you present facts to back it up.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 06, 2009, 11:13:55 PM
"TEP
I don't have your inside connections, so obviously its impossible for me know what you know."




Tom

Aha! Well there you are. In that case, since I have studied the course and its history closely for the last few years would you like me to share with you my OPINION on how the original nine apparently differed hole by hole from the so-called Leeds "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held? Would you say that would be bringing new information forward and furthering the conversation of the architectural history of Myopia?

No.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 01:27:14 AM
Tom:

Thanks for the response anyway. In that case, carry on, babble on, whatever.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 07, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Can I ask a question, what kind of course exactly do people think Myopia was back in 1895, irrespective of who designed/built it ? How much of what is there now is in any way original ? I don't know the course at all but I would be willing to lay (as opposed to design !) a fairly large wager that there isn't a single man made feature left of the original course.

Indeed I doubt that the course had many features in the first place as courses back then were fairly rudimentary and were subject to change on fairly frequent basis so I think it entirely possible if not likely that Appleton and co laid out nine holes and days/weeks later Campbell came in and either tweaked what was there or laid out a fresh course over the top of it. Do I have any evidence of that ? No, but then there seems to be precious little evidence being produced so far for anything else.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 07, 2009, 08:40:21 AM
Niall,
This article gives the lengths of the nine holes as they were in 1898:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CE1DD1030E333A25756C0A9609C94699ED7CF
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 09:09:58 AM
Niall
Campbell's original nine is more or less still in play today. Some holes have been lengthened, bunkers added, and one or two holes merged but its mostly intact. Based on the speed Campbell built Brookline and Essex County I don't think there was whole lot of construction going on, therefore not a lot of crude features to remove.

Myopia, The Country Club and Essex County were summer clubs servicing summer colonies. The annual meeting in March when they decided to build a golf course was held at the Somerest Club in Boston. They didn't even start heading north until weather began to turn in April or May, and Campbell was firmly established by then.  The man reponsible for bringing Campbell to the States - WB Thomas - was prominent member of Myopia. Campbell arrived March 31 but certainly they must have anticipated his arrival for some time before that.

Why would they have Appleton lay out the course when they had the top man in the country at their disposal, who had just completed new courses for the sister clubs of The Country Club & Essex County?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 09:30:02 AM
I just thought I would throw this modern example of how reliable newspaper reports might be in the mix. 

The reporter apparently has some Jerry Jones and/or big business bias, AND the web site had to correct his facts which went in the article apparently unchecked.  While I don't know for a fact, it would seem that it would be even harder to double check facts in the old days than it is now.  I presume reporter bias is about the same then and now.  I am not sure about journalistic standards in general although a case could be made that the internet currently has far lower standards than the old days of the media. :(.


Update: In the post below, we link to a story from the Lincoln Journal World's Web site that contained a number of inaccuracies.

According to the Cowboys, the 20-inch pizzas at the new stadium will cost $60, not $90 as reported. (That's the same price they were in the suites at Texas Stadium.) There will be five different types of pizza available for that price. Beer will be sold for $5.

The suites themselves will range from $100,000 to $500,000 per year. That lease will include tickets to Cowboys games, but not third-party events.  



The colossal new Dallas Cowboys Stadium is living proof that everything is bigger in Texas. The menu in the luxury suites proves that things there are more expensive too.

Those enjoying a Cowboys game from a luxury suite at the new stadium will have to shell out $90 for pizza and $66 for a 12-pack of domestic beer, reports Steven Sipple of the Lincoln Journal World. Ninety bucks for pizza? That's almost as much of a rip-off as Roy Williams. 

It costs $800,000 per year to lease one of those luxury suites, a hefty sum that doesn't include game tickets. On the bright side, the stadium's official Web site says that "having your company's name on a suite makes an important statement about your success" and can help make an impression on clients. (Namely that they're paying you way too much money.)

As for the $90 pizza, that's the cost for a plain pizza. No word on how much each topping costs but, suffice it to say, if you're a fan of pepperoni you may want to consider refinancing your mortgage before you head down to watch the Cowboys.

Thanks, The Sporting Blog
 

My only point is to say that when you rely on newspaper sources, you should probably not use single pieces as evidence, since they are often proven wrong.  If there are two newspapers reporting the same thing, it is far less likely that they are both making the exact same mistake, although its still possible that they were just taking someone's press release and running with it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
1. There is no Lincoln Journal World
2. Your primary source of information - Cornish & Whitten - would not have been possible without newspaper and magazine accounts
3. Jerry Jones is a douche bag
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 09:49:55 AM
"Can I ask a question, what kind of course exactly do people think Myopia was back in 1895, irrespective of who designed/built it ? How much of what is there now is in any way original ? I don't know the course at all but I would be willing to lay (as opposed to design !) a fairly large wager that there isn't a single man made feature left of the original course."

Niall:

I'd say you'd win your bet hands down. I'd say there are three green sites max (not necessarily the actual greens but the sites) that are left and probably three tee sites. There are basically three holes that are unaccounted for. The original nine apparently only used as hazards high pasture grass as rough and existing stone walls and roads as hazards. The fairways were pasture grass and the greens were sodded and both were mown by penned in sheep. If you'd like I'll go through the holes individually which is a lot more explanatory than saying that original nine is "more or less intact."  ;)



"Indeed I doubt that the course had many features in the first place as courses back then were fairly rudimentary and were subject to change on fairly frequent basis so I think it entirely possible if not likely that Appleton and co laid out nine holes and days/weeks later Campbell came in and either tweaked what was there or laid out a fresh course over the top of it. Do I have any evidence of that ? No, but then there seems to be precious little evidence being produced so far for anything else."


You have that right too. Appleton and two other members paced off and staked nine tees and green sites before Campbell arrived in America. Why did Appleton do it? He was the one who proposed Myopia have a golf course and frankly he was probably the only one in the club who could get that proposal through (interesting story there). Appleton had his own six hole golf course on his estate in Ipswich before Myopia had its first course.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 10:09:34 AM
1. There is no Lincoln Journal World
2. Your primary source of information - Cornish & Whitten - would not have been possible without newspaper and magazine accounts
3. Jerry Jones is a douche bag

Tom,

3. Stop talking about my clients that way!  Truthfully, when I did Cowboys, Jerry turned out to be a lot nicer and smarter than portrayed on TV and in the media. I was pleasantly surprised.

2.  Agreed and I have had many discussions with Ron about this (who BTW, is visiting with Geoff C this week on the occaision of Geoff's 95th birthday)  As an example that shouldn't be as controversial as MCC or MHC, he has seen ads from both Langford and Stiles claiming Omaha CC as their designs.  In his mind, he looked at the style of the (then)remaining original greens and declared it a Stiles, while the club itself still maintains its an LM design.  Niether really has much more info backing them up and it remains (to me at least) a mystery.  And, we all know that the book has been revised, and if a publisher could be found, they would revise it again to correct their known mistakes.  If there is a lesson there for these threads, its that finding out the "truth" might take years, and by that I mean years of research, not just endless bickering (of which we are all guilty here)

1.  I agree that there were probably far fewer newspaper hoaxes than current internet hoaxes in those days.  But, that article was posted and naturally caused quite a stir here in DFW.

Of interest to me is whether the rush to meet the evening deadline vs the current rush to put up info on the net would cause greater or lesser pressure to put an article out unchecked?  Its probably all the same - today's world is faster but at the same time, its easier to double check some facts.  In all those old movies, when the reporters call in their stories last minute, they don't ever ask if the story is reported correctly, do they?  Of course, that is the movies, not real life, but it probably happened that way in some cases.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 10:56:26 AM
"1.  I agree that there were probably far fewer newspaper hoaxes than current internet hoaxes"


Mr. Jeffrery, Sir:


That just might be the all time Golfclubatlas.com DG understatment! That's been one of my main concerns with this Merion revisionism. It's not just GCA, it's Google and other search engines like it. Information goes on those search engines within minutes of getting on the Internet and seemingly it never leaves those search engines. Therefore the danger of historical revisionism and historical hoaxes getting widely disseminated is so much greater today than it's ever been. There will be many more people duped in the future than in the past due to this new modern age massively increased information dissemination.

Mr. Jeffery, Sir, I propose you and I test out this phenomenon by floating some really good historical golf architecture rumor and watch it fly all over the world and dupe massive amounts of people.

Here's my suggestion:

It was H.H. Barker who in Dec 1910 during a train trip from New York to Atlanta Georgia put the idea of and the routing and design plan for ANGC in eight year old Bobby Jones' mind, and therefore H.H. Barker should be credited with the design of ANGC and the Masters tournament and not Mackenzie/Jones/Roberts et al. Or at the very least Barker should be credited with being the "driving force" behind the design of ANGC, at least unless we can determine if Willie Campbell ever took a train from Boston to Georgia in which case the history of ANGC and the Masters may need to be completely rewritten and attributed to him.

Wait a minute---the "timeline" says Campbell died at least two years before Bobby was born!! Oh well, what does that matter? Maybe Willie happened to meet Bobby's mother on a street corner in Atlanta and spoke to her about it and did a routing and design plan for the course for her a few years before she even thought of having Bobby. Can you think of any good reason why that shouldn't be considered "very likely?"

On another point, I think we need a 32 page thread on here to determine if Jerry Jones is a douche bag or not! Are you sure his name is Jerry and not Jimmy? I don't think I'm willing to take your word on that---I need PROOF! No, belay that, I don't just need proof, I DEMAND proof---ie VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE!! Can you show me his birth certificate or at least his name on a ship passenger manifest?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 11:14:22 AM
1. There is no Lincoln Journal World
2. Your primary source of information - Cornish & Whitten - would not have been possible without newspaper and magazine accounts
3. Jerry Jones is a douche bag

Tom,

3. Stop talking about my clients that way!  Truthfully, when I did Cowboys, Jerry turned out to be a lot nicer and smarter than portrayed on TV and in the media. I was pleasantly surprised.

2.  Agreed and I have had many discussions with Ron about this (who BTW, is visiting with Geoff C this week on the occaision of Geoff's 95th birthday)  As an example that shouldn't be as controversial as MCC or MHC, he has seen ads from both Langford and Stiles claiming Omaha CC as their designs.  In his mind, he looked at the style of the (then)remaining original greens and declared it a Stiles, while the club itself still maintains its an LM design.  Niether really has much more info backing them up and it remains (to me at least) a mystery.  And, we all know that the book has been revised, and if a publisher could be found, they would revise it again to correct their known mistakes.  If there is a lesson there for these threads, its that finding out the "truth" might take years, and by that I mean years of research, not just endless bickering (of which we are all guilty here)

1.  I agree that there were probably far fewer newspaper hoaxes than current internet hoaxes in those days.  But, that article was posted and naturally caused quite a stir here in DFW.

Of interest to me is whether the rush to meet the evening deadline vs the current rush to put up info on the net would cause greater or lesser pressure to put an article out unchecked?  Its probably all the same - today's world is faster but at the same time, its easier to double check some facts.  In all those old movies, when the reporters call in their stories last minute, they don't ever ask if the story is reported correctly, do they?  Of course, that is the movies, not real life, but it probably happened that way in some cases.

My bad, I'm sure Jerry is a very good guy. Some of his decisions of late haven't been so good, present company excluded.

I think you are right, the key is getting as many different sources as possible. I think having three contemporaneous and separate sources for Campbell is pretty solid, especialy when you consider it is 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 11:28:45 AM
"I think having three contemporaneous and separate sources for Campbell is pretty solid,"



I agree completely. I think having three contemporaneous newspaper article sources for Campbell is pretty solid. But don't forget, you'll also need to completely ignore or totally dismiss what the subject itself-----Myopia Hunt Club, had to say about it. Or else you could just go with the sometimes accepted theory on here that if you don't have access to what Myopia Hunt Club had to say about it whatever they had to say about it really couldn't have existed!  ;)

There's even a third accepted theory----if someone tells you what Myopia Hunt Club itself had to say about it at the time and it doesn't attribute the original nine to Willie Campbell, you simply contend all those people running Myopia at the time were all mistaken or lying to one another or what they recorded makes no sense at all, or they were all living in some fantasy land.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 07, 2009, 11:54:51 AM
Jeff,

I find your attempts to cast doubt on the newspaper articles strange.   Even if the article you site is real, the reporter has an obvious bias.   You state that you assume reporter bias has always been around, but what bias could the different reporters possible have about Campell's role?   In my experience working with these types of reports on tournaments and courses generally, the information for this stuff usually comes straight from the club itself.   Let me guess, Myopia was misrepresenting what happened as well?

More importantly, there is no conflict here.   One the one hand we have three reports that Campbell designed the course.   On the other hand, from Myopia, we have NOTHING to the contrary.    NOTHING AT ALL. 

Jeff, what specifically do the Myopia minutes say that contradicts the reports in any way?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 12:01:21 PM
"More importantly, there is no conflict here.   One the one hand we have three reports that Campbell designed the course.   On the other hand, from Myopia, we have NOTHING to the contrary.    NOTHING AT ALL."


That's true, depending on who "we" is, but Myopia certainly has something to the contrary!   

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 07, 2009, 12:06:23 PM
"More importantly, there is no conflict here.   One the one hand we have three reports that Campbell designed the course.   On the other hand, from Myopia, we have NOTHING to the contrary.    NOTHING AT ALL."


That's true, depending on who "we" is, but Myopia certainly has something to the contrary!  



That's Myopia's business.   You are not Myopia.  You are a child playing child's games.  

_________________________

Jeff, what specifically do the Myopia minutes say that contradicts the reports in any way?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 12:08:05 PM
David,

I wasn't actually trying to say anything about MHC specifically. Someone on the thread asked about the veracity of newspaper articles and I saw that and thought it relevant in a general sense as to how to value historic sources.  While its quite possible that in any single case, one source is good, in general, I think the idea of multiple, confirming sources is a good idea.  

Tom Mac agrees, which I appreciate.    Frankly, it is a good philosophical discussion and I find you finding it strange, well...... strange. ;D  I wasn't looking for an argument of any kind, but on golf club atlas, I guess the arguments come looking for me! ;)

I agree most reporters took (then and now) basic press releases from whatever source, perhaps doing some more research to make a story their own.  If so, its even more representative of the concept that information put in the paper has a certain spin to it, then and now.  All of which goes to say what you, Tom and the rest of us know - historical research will always require some interpretation.

TePaul,

Because I really don't want to get even as snippy as I occaisionally got on the MCC threads, I will acknowledge your attempt at humor but decline to expand on it, since its potentially as inflammatory as it is funny.  But, IF I were to start a rumor, I would add that HH Barker was really the founding father of ASGCA but missed the train to Pinehurst and so they made Donald Ross the first President........Why not, right? :D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 12:11:56 PM
Speaking of newspaper articles here is one from the Boston Globe, May 13, 1894. Campbell also introduced sheep to The Country Club, and later to Franklin Park. I'm not sure if there were sheep at Essex County or not, I seem to recall they had their own flock too.

There are couple of interesting points. First, apparently the links had not be laid out yet, or at least not completed. And second, it appears the magic date for the start of activities at the Club was June 1.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 12:16:16 PM
Well, if you like rumors, adding sheep to the mix is a good ticket!  Of more interest is perhaps the first mention of the stadium concept!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 12:29:05 PM
Well, if you like rumors, adding sheep to the mix is a good ticket!

Please explain.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 12:36:16 PM
Well, if you like rumors, adding sheep to the mix is a good ticket!

Please explain.

Do I really have to, Tom?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 12:42:59 PM
You lost me. Please explain the comment about rumors. Do you think the sheep were dual purpose?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 07, 2009, 12:47:12 PM
Interesting article.   Again the most probable source of the information is that it came directly from the club, unless the Boston Globe reporters were roaming the countryside looking for sheep.  Hard to imagine so much information being wrong, isn't it?

Jeff, it is very common for these early articles to note whether the clubhouse provided a good viewing spot.   Golf was still quite novel and therefore of much interest to curious spectators.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 12:49:32 PM
Tom,

This is a family site......but let me ask you what you were interpreting my bad joke to be?  Here I thought you were reaquiring your sense of humor with the Barker/Train Crash reference, and now you are relapsing!

BTW, did you hear the one about the Ohio State linebacker and the sheep? ;)

David,

I wasn't aware of such early comments, so thank you.  It seems to me that every time the stadium concept comes up (working backwards from TPC, ANGC) it is deemed a new idea.  As to the novelty, I can see that, pre TV.  Spectators from Washington went out to see the first battle of the Civil War as if it was sport.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JESII on August 07, 2009, 12:54:19 PM
I'm curious...are they able to keep the sheep out of the rough?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 01:01:23 PM
(http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/dog-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/border-collie-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/pictures/border-collie-0018.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on August 07, 2009, 01:18:44 PM
His name, according to published accounts, was Sam.  He was trained by a Scottish sheep-dog named Shetley.

Peter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JESII on August 07, 2009, 01:21:06 PM
But how does he learn the rough from the fairway?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 01:23:52 PM
Jim
You've obviously never owned a Border Collie. They are smarter than half the participants on this site...and thats not meant to be a criticism of the participants.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JESII on August 07, 2009, 01:35:27 PM
Nope...but I've seen them work so I have a sense for their intelligence...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JESII on August 07, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
Back to your article...how is it that in mid-May the writer says "the course will be laid out" and also says "golf will begin June 1"?

By the way, I haven't read the first seven pages so I have not picked a side yet...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 02:00:29 PM
That is 1894 for you. The 9-hole courses at The Country Club, Essex County and Myopia were laid out in a matter of weeks, not months.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 07, 2009, 03:06:05 PM
Myopia's executive committee records show that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner reported to the executive committee that a course could be ready for play in three months. The original nine was open for play June 1, 1894. June 1, less three months=March 1. Willie Campbell arrived in Boston aboard the Carthaginian from abroad on March 31, 1894.

Timelining is a wonderful thing for an historian.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 07, 2009, 06:19:05 PM
TEP
I agree it is wonderful thing, especially when you have the correct dates. Both articles are from the Boston Globe - the first is May 13, 1894 (the course has yet be laid) and the second from June 17, 1894 (Bunker Hill Day), not June 1. I think Weeks has sold you a bill of goods.

Where and when was the annual meeting held in March?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 07, 2009, 07:02:35 PM
Jeez Tom Mac, I don't know....before we accept that article we will need to debate how the word "tomorrow" was used back in 1894, don't you think?  (just kidding, of course.....I think)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 08, 2009, 01:53:27 AM
The Boston Journal article discussing the opening tournament that "took place yesterday" was dated June 19, 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 08, 2009, 11:03:45 AM
There are your two sources then.  A June 17 article saying it opens tomorrow and a June 19 article that says it opened yesterday.  There are smarter guys than me, but I suspect first play occurred on June 18th!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 02:04:19 PM
Jeff:

According to the secretary of the club, Dacre Bush, his written records say play began on the original nine around June 1, 1894 and was so popular with members and guests that within a month the club had held two tournaments (the first June 18th and the second July 4) both of which Herbert Leeds who was then at The Country Club Brookline won. Leeds became a member of Myopia in early 1896.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on August 08, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
So Myopia gets credit for stadium views AND the soft opening.......
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 08, 2009, 09:08:39 PM
Jeff:

According to the secretary of the club, Dacre Bush, his written records say play began on the original nine around June 1, 1894 and was so popular with members and guests that within a month the club had held two tournaments (the first June 18th and the second July 4) both of which Herbert Leeds who was then at The Country Club Brookline won. Leeds became a member of Myopia in early 1896.

TEP
What written records? Do you have copies or transcriptions of those records?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 09:56:28 PM
"TEP
What written records?"


Tom:

Myopia's 1894 executive committee written records. Dacre S. Bush was the secretary of the executive committee of Myopia Hunt Club at that time.



"Do you have copies or transcriptions of those records?"


I do not. I only read them at Myopia. They are obviously what Edward Weeks had and referred to when he researched and wrote his 1975 Myopia history book "Myopia 1875-1975." As I mentioned before on here he also had Leeds' so-called "scrapbook" which seems to me may've been a treasure trove of information on Leeds' life and times in architecture and with his twenty year development of the architecture of Myopia from about 1896 until about 1918 or beyond. It also may've been something of a diary of his golf architectural trips abroad. It seems to have been lost since Weeks used it in 1975 although the search for it is certainly still on. I have never seen Herbert Leeds' scrapbook!

As you can imagine the kind of information referred to above is far more important to me than even contemporaneous newspaper articles for the simple reason the former is far more direct source information and material evidence than any newspaper information which at it's very best can only be a reflection of what a club contemporaneously gives out as public information or uses as records for their own use.

CONTEMPORANEOUS club records should absolutely never be ignored, dismissed or rationalized away by serious historians, in my opinion. And that is precisely what has happened on this website, particularly with Merion and Myopia, time and time and time again!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 08, 2009, 10:15:00 PM
TEP
Do you think your memory might be influenced by Weeks' book? Here is your transcription from the book and it sounds similar to your remembrance of the executive records:

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:

         'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.'”

I'm trying to recreate my own scrapbook, but starting a couple years before Leeds became a member. Here is an interesting excerpt form the Boston Globe June 10, 1894. What are the chances Weeks ever read this article?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 10:30:37 PM
"TEP
Do you think your memory might be influenced by Weeks' book?"


Tom:


Not at all. It was Weeks' history book and even questions about it on here which motivated me to search for and read the contemporaneous club records he was using when he researched and wrote his 1975 Myopia history book. He did not transcribe it all verbatim (no club history book writer I've ever known has ever done that). He merely took the essence of it and reported it in his history book in what, at the time, probably seemed like an interesting presentation for the membership. But reading the raw material itself that Weeks used and referred to and reported there is no question in my mind that he represented very accurately what was recorded in the club executive committee records.

Again, Weeks' Myopia history book "Myopia 1875-1975" deals with the entire history of Myopia Hunt Club and golf is far less than half of the book or Myopia Hunt Club's history. Hunting, polo and even tennis altogether is the majority of Myopia's only history book by Weeks in 1975.

Edward Weeks was no amateur in reporting and writing----he was actually a professional. He was a major and longtime player in the national magazine "Atlantic Monthly."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 08, 2009, 10:38:35 PM

CONTEMPORANEOUS club records should absolutely never be ignored, dismissed or rationalized away by serious historians, in my opinion. And that is precisely what has happened on this website, particularly with Merion and Myopia, time and time and time again!  ;)


I don't think anyone would deny this.   But we don't have the contemporaneous club records, and you don't either.  If we've learned anything in these discussions, it is that taking your word for this stuff is a huge mistake.    Even here your account has been far from consistent, seemingly evolving as more questions are raised, getting ever closer to nothing more than a reference to the Weeks' book.  And these would be the strangest administrative records in recorded history if they contained the type of information you attributed to them.

So we are left with the newspapers and the one brief reference to the executive meeting records in the Weeks' transcription.    

I mean let's be honest about what likely happened here.    TEPaul went up to Myopia intent on proving that Campbell did not design the course. He might have looked at the "Run Book" and saw the March 1894 reference to the golf course (the same one as in the Weeks' Book,)  saw no reference to Campbell, and assumed the rest of the Weeks' story was accurate.   Maybe it was the three members who made the proposal to the board that was approved in March.  

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 08, 2009, 10:50:34 PM
TEP
I'm certainly not questioning Weeks' credentials, but are you at all curious why he wasn't able to uncover the Willie Campbell connection? As you know there were several reports he laid out the course in 1894, along with the two other premier courses in Boston - Brookline and Essex County. It was also widely reported he was the resident pro at Myopia in 1897-98. Weeks has no knowledge of any of this.

I can appreciate your heightened interest in the records, especially when questions began to rear their ugly head. I know whenever I've been put in a similar position at the very least I've taken very detailed notes. I'm surprised you didn't make notes when going through the club records.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 10:54:12 PM
"Even here your account has been far from consistent, seemingly evolving as more questions are raised, getting ever closer to nothing more than a reference to the Weeks' book.  And these would be the strangest administrative records in recorded history if they contained the type of information you attributed to them.

So we are left with the newspapers and the one brief reference to the executive meeting records in the Weeks' transcription."




The type of information I am attributing to Weeks's book and the Myopia executive committee records (Dacre Bush secretary) is simply that three members of Myopia, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out tees and greens of the original nine at Myopia in the early spring of 1894. There is nothing at all inconsistent about that. It is, in fact, entirely consistent between the 1894 executive committee records and Weeks' 1975 history book "Myopia 1875-1975." And there is obviously a very good reason it is entirely consistent----eg Weeks, in his 1975 Myopia history book "Myopia 1875-1975" was referring to the very same 1894 executive committee records I read!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 11:04:21 PM
"TEP
I'm certainly not questioning Weeks' credentials, but are you at all curious why he wasn't able to uncover the Willie Campbell connection?"


Tom:

Of course I am curious about that, particularly with the newspaper articles that have been produced on this website. However, I do not believe that either denys or makes the historical fact that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill staked out that original nine in the spring of 1894 and before Campbell ever arrived in America INCORRECT.

Campbell clearly did something with the original nine in 1894 but Myopia's executive committee records show and make it pretty clear that staking out the tees and greens of the original nine was not one of the things Campbell did.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 08, 2009, 11:20:34 PM
I find it fascinating the Boston Globe named Thomas, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill as the first golfers on the new links. Thomas was the man responsible for bringing Campbell to Boston (The Country Club in particular) and the other three are credited by Weeks for the original design. I did some checking and discovered all four men were also members of The Country Club. TCC had the six hole course laid out in 1893 that Campbell redesigned and expanded to 9 holes in April 1894.

It was reported prior to his arrival that Campbell was hired as a green-keeper. Why would Appleton, Gardner and Merrill try to layout out a new course for Myopia when they knew a qualified man was either in town or on his way? Weeks story makes no sense, and makes even less sense when no one is producing any documentation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 08, 2009, 11:47:07 PM
"I find it fascinating the Boston Globe named Thomas, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill as the first golfers on the new links. Thomas was the man responsible for bringing Campbell to Boston (The Country Club in particular) and the other three are credited by Weeks for the original design. I did some checking and discovered all four men were also members of The Country Club. TCC had the six hole course laid out in 1893 that Campbell redesigned and expanded to 9 holes in April 1894.

It was reported prior to his arrival that Campbell was hired as a green-keeper. Why would Appleton, Gardner and Merrill try to layout out a new course for Myopia when they knew a qualified man was either in town or on his way? Weeks story makes no sense, and makes even less sense when no one is producing any documentation."


Tom:

Who do you think laid out the six hole golf course on F.M Appleton's own estate in 1892-3? Do you think that was Campbelll too even though he would not arrive in America for another year or two? I'm not sure at all why you think it is so odd that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staked out the original nine at Myopia in 1894! Was Appleton waiting for a green-keeper, star match play golfer or architect from Scotland to lay out a course for him on Appleton Farm in 1892-3? If he was who was it?  ;) I don't think so and the same, according to Myopia's executive committee meeting records, was true in the spring of 1894 at Myopia Hunt Club!

I also don't think you have any understanding or appreciation for why F.M Appleton may've been the ONLY man from Myopia who could've proposed a golf course at Myopia and had it approved by the club. Weeks' explains that very well, I think, but you seem to have either missed it or failed to appreciate that too.

You also asked me a day or so ago if I know when the ANNUAL meeting of Myopia was held and where in 1894. May I ask WHY you asked me where and when Myopia's ANNUAL meeting was held in 1894? ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 08, 2009, 11:51:11 PM
TEP
Are you certain Appleton's links was laid out in 1892?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 12:09:44 AM
"TEP
Are you certain Appleton's links was laid out in 1892?"



Tom:

I am. Between 1892-3. I went to Appleton Farm which is not far from Myopia in Ipswich and an historic landmark and checked it out. We even went out there to see if we could see remnants of those six holes. As I said earlier on this thread, it seems Appleton Farm is the oldest farm in America under the ownership of a single family.

You know, you really ought to get off the Internet, off of Google and Ancestory.com and out of your Ivory Tower and away from just Mike Hurzdan's good office/library and get to some of these clubs and their surrounds and do some traveling and real "on-site" research. You might be stunned what you can and will find and learn!   ;D

If you can find a way to do that I very much doubt you will ever again put the stock that you have in someone like David Moriarty!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 09, 2009, 12:15:44 AM
TEP
This is from May 20, 1894 and the tally of Boston courses has no mention of Appleton's course or Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 12:31:33 AM
"TEP
This is from May 20, 1894 and the tally of Boston courses has no mention of Appleton's course or Myopia."


Tom:


Uh Huh. So what does that mean in your mind---that it didn't exist because it wasn't in some newspaper article that you just produced on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? ;) I encourage you to go travel; go to Massachusetts, to Ipswich, to Appleton Farm and to try to research and learn something on site that way and get out from behind your computer in Ivory Tower, Ohio.

You aren't a golf architecture historian. You're only funny---you're ultimately an historical golf architect comedian!   

Well, actually, you're more than that----you're a guy who has tried and is still trying to make a reputation for himself by questioning the architectural histories of important clubs and courses. I see nothing wrong with that at all just that if one tries to do it they should do a far better job of it than you have and you are!   ;)

The best I can say for you is believe it or not you're actually doing a slightly better job of it than the "Missing Faces Of Merion's" essayist, David Moriarty.   :(

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 09, 2009, 12:35:38 AM
TEP
It would appear the author of the article travelled throughout the Boston area and did not uncover your Appleton course. Was the Appleton course built in 1892 or 1893?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 01:07:39 AM
"TEP
It would appear the author of the article travelled throughout the Boston area and did not uncover your Appleton course."


Tom:


Yes, it would appear that way, wouldn't it? But I can understand full well that to your way of thinking if a newspaper article did not point out something it could not have existed.

 

"Was the Appleton course built in 1892 or 1893?"


Yes it was!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 01:21:06 AM
"Was the Appleton course built in 1892 or 1893?"


Tom:

Again, yes it was. The Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds who actually had his own six hole golf course on his massive estate in 1892-3 and who proposed a nine hole course to his club, The Myopia Hunt Club, and staked it out with three of his member friends-----that seems like an unfathonable and imaginable concept to you? Is that correct, Tom MacWood?  ;) 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Rich Goodale on August 09, 2009, 03:00:37 AM
Toms

One interesting fact is that Myopia was founded in Winchester, not in Hamilton, and not by men, but by boys!  See the excerpt below, from a history of the Myopia area in Winchester:

"The club

The Myopia Club began with a group of boys who used to play together, at first around Wedge Pond where they could go boating and where they built a tennis court during the 1870s. When they took up baseball, they took on a name. Charter member Frederick Prince related that, upon deciding to play a match at Lexington, "it was necessary that the club which we had formed should have a name, so someone selected (as we four brothers and others present were all short-sighted) the name 'Myopia,' and a large red banner with black letters 'Myopia' was hung out when the game took place." That was in July 1876.

The town's baseball diamond was on Bacon Field at the corner of Church and Bacon Streets. But the club acquired a clubhouse on the hill. Dedicated in 1879, it was built by David N. Skillings, whose son-in-law W. D. Sanborn was a charter member of the club.

The house, visible from the railroad, reportedly had a wide verandah, living rood, billiard room, card parlors, and cool bedrooms. Adjacent to it were stables, tennis courts, a shooting box, and acres of wood land.

When the club incorporated in the fall of 1879, its stated purpose was "for encouraging athletic exercise and yachting and establishing and maintaining a place for the use of a reading room and for social gatherings."

In 1882 more members were interested in hunting than in playing ball and changed the name of the club to the Myopia Fox Hounds. although foxes were said to have been plentiful on the hill, soon members moved on to other grounds, particularly in Hamilton.

In 1883, after just four years on the hill, the club gave up the hillside house and grounds. The clubhouse was sold and turned into a residence. Eventually the original house was torn down and a new house built on the site (or the foundation), now numbered 27 Myopia Road. The adjacent house, 31 Myopia Road, is allegedly built on the site (or foundation) of the club stables.

Though the club left the hill after only a few years, in the names of Myopia Road and Myopia Hill, a remembrance of the old club lingers on."

Given this extraordinary genesis is it really a surprise that the boys would take it upon themselves to build their first golf course rather than seek out professionals or other "experts?"  Not to me.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 09, 2009, 08:17:34 AM
I find it fascinating the Boston Globe named Thomas, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill as the first golfers on the new links. Thomas was the man responsible for bringing Campbell to Boston (The Country Club in particular) and the other three are credited by Weeks for the original design. I did some checking and discovered all four men were also members of The Country Club. TCC had the six hole course laid out in 1893 that Campbell redesigned and expanded to 9 holes in April 1894.

It was reported prior to his arrival that Campbell was hired as a green-keeper. Why would Appleton, Gardner and Merrill try to layout out a new course for Myopia when they knew a qualified man was either in town or on his way? Weeks story makes no sense, and makes even less sense when no one is producing any documentation.

Tom

You ask the question why Appleton et al would go ahead and layout 9 holes when they knew Campbell was on his way (assuming of course that they knew he was on his way).

You could reasonably ask the same question of the Country Club who had 6 holes laid out before Campbell arrived. As Rich says these guys were used to getting on with things so why not go ahead and lay out a course which would allow them to at least flex their golfing muscles. It might have been rudimentary in the extreme but at least it would allow them to crack on rather than waiting for WC to arrive in town. Guys like WC were hired as keepers of the green, with that they would have the scope to make alterations so I don't see how it is unreasonable to think that there was a course there before WC but that he then knocked it into shape and in doing so made some alterations.

Again it seems a reasonable assumption to me given a club history which says Apleton et al laid out the original course and contemporary reports which give WC credit for laying out 9 holes.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 09, 2009, 09:12:19 AM
Given this extraordinary genesis is it really a surprise that the boys would take it upon themselves to build their first golf course rather than seek out professionals or other "experts?"  Not to me.-Rich Goodale


Rich,
It would be no surprise to me if these chums took credit for the course instead of giving the due to a lowly professional.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Rich Goodale on August 09, 2009, 10:05:05 AM
Nor me, Jim.

After all, wasn't it as late as 1920 when Inverness became the first golf club in the US to allow professionals into the clubhouse?  In my personal experience you have to dig very deeply into club archives to find out who did what and when and with whom.  In very many cases the only answer you will find is "The Committee."  Very rarely does the hired help get the credit they deserve.

Rich
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 11:01:26 AM
"Given this extraordinary genesis is it really a surprise that the boys would take it upon themselves to build their first golf course rather than seek out professionals or other "experts?"  Not to me."


Rich:

Not to me either. The Myopia Club basically sprung from activities of the Princes in the 1870s---four brothers who were all some powerful all around athletes----baseball, football, riding, sailing, tennis etc. It's believed they built one of the first lawn tennis courts in America at their father's place in Winchester which had a Gothic house they referred to as "Gawky" cottage. The place even had a separate lodge with bedrooms to house their friends from Harvard, Boston and Cambridge who came down on weekends to play all kinds of sports including some vicious tugs of war!  ;) Their father, Frederick O. Prince was the Mayor of Boston.

Some of those early clubs all pretty much included the same people. In 1883 the Myopia Club was actually offered the arrangement of merging with what would become The Country Club (Brookline) at the time but they declined because they did not want to give up their name---eg Myopia Club. Eventually they ended up at what was called the Gibney Farm in South Hamilton where they still are today.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 09, 2009, 11:09:46 AM

Tom

You ask the question why Appleton et al would go ahead and layout 9 holes when they knew Campbell was on his way (assuming of course that they knew he was on his way).

You could reasonably ask the same question of the Country Club who had 6 holes laid out before Campbell arrived. As Rich says these guys were used to getting on with things so why not go ahead and lay out a course which would allow them to at least flex their golfing muscles. It might have been rudimentary in the extreme but at least it would allow them to crack on rather than waiting for WC to arrive in town. Guys like WC were hired as keepers of the green, with that they would have the scope to make alterations so I don't see how it is unreasonable to think that there was a course there before WC but that he then knocked it into shape and in doing so made some alterations.

Again it seems a reasonable assumption to me given a club history which says Apleton et al laid out the original course and contemporary reports which give WC credit for laying out 9 holes.

Niall

Niall
I don't understand your point. The six hole course was built in 1893, the year before Campbell came to Boston. Are you saying they should have anticipated his hire the next year?

Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Thomas were all active members of The Country Club. When it was announced in early March the best golfer in the world (arguably) was coming is it fair to assume it was highly anticipated at Brookline? The Myopia meeting when it was decided to build a golf course was mid March. Willie arrived at the end of March. According to news accounts the course had yet to be laid out in mid May. The course opened on June 18.

What evidence have you seen that would suggest Appleton, Merrill and Gardner actually laid out the course prior to Campbell's involvement?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 11:24:23 AM
As far as why Weeks's 1975 history book "Myopia 1875-1975" never mentioned Willie Campbell laying out the original nine hole golf course rather than Appleton, Gardner and Merrill, that is sort of curious if he really did do something significant for them. One could claim he wasn't mentioned because people like that at that time were not willing to mention people who worked for them but then that doesn't make much sense since Weeks' book rather prominently mentions seemingly everyone else who worked for Myopia from the beginning and over the years until 1975 including Scot immigrant professional Robert White and also including the prominent mention of their beloved early professional/greenkeeper John Jones. The rough/moundy right side of #10 is still affectionately called "Jonestown."

We should probably consider that rather than assuming they were all trying to hide something or not telling the truth in their records that there may be some other good and logical reason for it such as they just never considered that he did that much for them to mention him in their history.

I see Tom MacWood has stated on here that 'we know' Willie Campbell was Leeds' mentor in either architecture or in how to play golf or both. Do we really know that? I, for one, have never seen that mentioned anywhere or by anyone other than Tom MacWood. If Tom MacWood says that simply because Leeds and Campbell were in Boston at the same time or around the same clubs at the same time that it can just be assumed Campbell was Leeds' mentor, I would say that is just not enough to even make an assumption like that much less saying "we know Campbell was Leeds' mentor." ;) Those kinds of remarks placed on here as assumed fact both can be and are very misleading!

If it has not been explained on here yet what kind of man Leeds notoriously was in that vein maybe now is the time to explain it. Certainly Leeds never hid that and either has the club's history of him. Since they always talked about him the way they did and recorded it in Weeks' 1975 history book one could probably fairly assume that Leeds was never considered to be typical of what the rest were actually like in that vein. Weeks' history refers to Leeds as a "martinet" and that seems to be something of an understatement!  ;)

It also seems pretty safe to say that given the reputation of Leeds and Leeds' Myopia golf course in the world of architecture during that early time that Leeds seemed to have been about as private towards the press and publicity as C.B. Macdonald was public towards it.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 09, 2009, 11:32:44 AM

I still believe (according to the reports) that Willie Campbell designed the 9 hole course at Myopia.

The Timline is fine - Tom (P) as I e-mailed you the opportunity of having a course ready in 1894 was within the times you state. As for how good or ready the course was by June is open to question. Although I would expect work continued after June to produce the course Willie had designed.

Yes,  prominent  people and professional Gentlemen would without doubt take credit for the works of lowly golf professionals. However, did they?

As for the original 6 holes course – was it actually laid out?  I would like to know how many of the – lets call them The Gentlemen  - including Appleton knew how to play golf in 1892/3 or 4. This information may help as it would show how much experience existed to generate the ability to lay out a 6 hole course.   

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 11:50:04 AM
Melvyn:

In fact the timeline for Campbell staking out the tees and greens of the original nine at Myopia is not fine. It just doesn't work unless Campbell somehow did it before he arrived in America.

Someone on here said the course opened for play on June 18th 1894. That is not correct---it opened for play for members and guests about June 1, 1894 according to the club records of the time. June 18th was when the first tournament was held on the course because golf was so popular with the members and guests. At least that is what Myopia's own administrative records of that time say. Since the course was Myopia's and they were the ones holding that early tournament I would have to assume THEY knew the dates of these things a bit better than some indirect newspaper articles.

As for Appleton's six hole course on Appleton Farm in 1892/3 as well as a few other private estate courses in the early 1890s including the Hunnewell's course in Wellesley and the Phillip's course at Moraine Farm on Wendam Lake, yes they certainly did exist before 1894 and before Campbell came to America. So did Prides Crossing and Essex.

Therefore to assume that these people had private golf courses on their own estates and did not know how to play golf at that time seems sort of silly, don't you think?   ???
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 09, 2009, 12:21:11 PM

Tom

Subject to the condition of the site circa May 1894, the course could be in a state to play. It would not be finished or ideal. Man made traps and sand traps did not always get constructed pre opening of the course. The main concentration and time would be spent on the Greens. Therefore, what I am saying is at that time it could have been possible to have a rudimentary course ready for the competition, however I would expect work to continue well after the opening.

The question could there have been a course made ready for play from April to June – yes, most certainly

Could a course be made playable in a less than a month – again subject to site, again yes it could, so I would not lead with Timline.

It does not matter how many courses are in the area, the real question is how many could play the game at or near Myopia in 1892/3/4? Did all the then committee members play golf, as I believe it was not a golf club? In-fact how many had played golf or knew how to play in 92/93/94 from the list mentioned? Who knows most in the area may have been well experienced in the game or was it just one or two pushing the game in the area.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: David Stamm on August 09, 2009, 12:32:16 PM
Did not St Andrews in Yonkers, NY have a group of men (the Apple Tree Gang) lay out a very rudimentary 3 hole course when they started their club in 1888? Who helped them put the course on the ground?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 12:35:29 PM
Melvyn:

I does not matter what the state of readiness that original nine holes was in through the spring and summer of 1894. All I am saying regarding a timeline is that a golf course of tees and greens was staked out by those three members before Willie Campbell got to America and therefore it is impossible that he could've done that for them. This does not mean there were not others things he did for them once he arrived, it only means the staking out of tees and greens had already been done BEFORE Campbell arrived in America. This is really not something that requires a lot of discussion or really any discussion as it simply means someone could not have done something if he just wasn't there when it was done. Since we do know that Campbell had never been to America when it was done I think we can conclude he wasn't there (at Myopia) when it was done, don't you?

But if all you are trying to say here is that Campbell may've done other things with that original nine after those tees and greens were staked out before he got there that most certainly is entirely possible and we do know that various newspaper articles mentioned that even though for some reason Myopia's own administrative records never did.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 09, 2009, 01:01:35 PM
"Did not St Andrews in Yonkers, NY have a group of men (the Apple Tree Gang) lay out a very rudimentary 3 hole course when they started their club in 1888? Who helped them put the course on the ground?"


DavidS:


That story of the Apple Tree Gang laying out a rudimentary 3 hole course in 1888 at what became known as St Andrews in Yonkers NY is obviously just legend and myth. Its history will now need to be rewritten by a few of the excellent researchers/essayists on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com as it is now obvious that even though the Apple Tree Gang wanted to lay out their own course in 1888 it makes no sense at all that they would have or could have done that themselves in 1888 (and most particularly if one or any of them happened to be the Master of Fox Hounds at some hunt club at the time) and the actual truth is they probably heard that Willie Campbell might come to America some day and they waited about six years for Campbell, the world's greatest match play player at the time to first arrive in America in 1894 and do it for them.

Matter of fact, as of now, it appears that any semblance of golfers or rudimentary golf courses in America before approximately April 1894 is nothing more than myth and legend.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 09, 2009, 06:25:32 PM

I still believe (according to the reports) that Willie Campbell designed the 9 hole course at Myopia.

The Timline is fine - Tom (P) as I e-mailed you the opportunity of having a course ready in 1894 was within the times you state. As for how good or ready the course was by June is open to question. Although I would expect work continued after June to produce the course Willie had designed.

Yes,  prominent  people and professional Gentlemen would without doubt take credit for the works of lowly golf professionals. However, did they?

As for the original 6 holes course – was it actually laid out?  I would like to know how many of the – lets call them The Gentlemen  - including Appleton knew how to play golf in 1892/3 or 4. This information may help as it would show how much experience existed to generate the ability to lay out a 6 hole course.   

Melvyn


Melvyn
The original six hole course at The Country Club was laid out by members Arthur Hunnewell, Laurence Curtis and Robert Bacon. Work began in autumn of '92 and the course was ready in spring '93. Hunnewell had 7-hole golf course on his estate next door to the club. That is where Curtis was introduced to the game, and I suspect that was where many of the members of TCC were introduced to the game. Hunnewell's course was the first in Boston - 1892. Curtis went on to become the first president of the USGA.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on August 09, 2009, 06:27:52 PM
It really appears that the only people or persons who didn't give WC his due were the ones who put forth the history of the club. What were their reasons? They probably didn't have access to the newspaper information, they may have thought they already had enough info, they may have felt that the club didn't charge them with finding anything new, and it could also be that the club itself wasn't going to allow them to use any material that got in the way of the 'story' the club built for themselves.

It really seems to me that the club has an inadequate written history on its hands, and some of the new information that's been presented on this thread could add to their knowledge of what happened at their infancy.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 06:39:25 AM
"Curtis went on to become the first president of the USGA."


Tom:

Just a bit of minor factual housekeeping is necessary here since you seem to be a real stickler for exact FACTS!

Laurence Curtis was not the first president of the USGA, he was the second president. The beloved Theodore Havemeyer was the USGA's first president for whom the famous US Amateur trophy was named and given!

But the Curtis family from Massachussets has a very august history in American amateur golf and with the USGA. Laurence Curtis' neices Margaret and Harriot would both win US Amateurs (Harriot one and Margaret three) and together they would give the Curtis Cup in 1933 which is the women's counterpart to the men's Walker Cup. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 06:51:08 AM
My mistake.

I think the Curtis example does illustrate something that has not yet been considered on this thread. In 1894 many of the new golfers around Boston had not been exposed to a real golf course. The only golf course Curtis knew (and many of the others knew) was the home made job by Hunnewell. That course would have been their template. Willie Campbell knew the best courses in the world, and had made a few very good ones himself. When he redesigned The Country Club he kept almost nothing from the original 6-hole course (one green and two tees, and no holes).
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 07:12:19 AM
"When he redesigned The Country Club he kept almost nothing from the original 6-hole course (one green and two tees, and no holes)."


Tom:

In that case, and since this thread is about Myopia (and Campbell) perhaps you should give us all a hole by hole description of that original nine hole course at Myopia compared to Leeds' "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played and as well the 1900 18 hole course on which three more US Opens were played by 1908.

You said on this thread that original nine was kept more or less intact! What does that mean? Is it more or is it less? Is it a lot more or a lot less? The only way to tell is for you to give us the details of all the holes of that original nine and the details of Leeds' 1898 Long Nine.

Weeks' refers to that original nine in his book as somewhat a matter of speculation. Do you think you can tell us more about it than Weeks did in his book? He also describes that original nine as an "imporvished links." Can you explain to us why that might not be accurate?

Also in the acknowledgements in Weeks book he mentioned some of the motivation for writing the book was that the famous links of Myopia had never been written about by the club. The famous links of Myopia by both the club and the world were always considered to be what Herbert C. Leeds did there with that golf course and not that original nine before Leeds came to Myopia.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 07:16:37 AM
"The only golf course Curtis knew (and many of the others knew) was the home made job by Hunnewell."


I beg to differ. Being from Boston there is no way Curtis couldn't have known of the pre-1894 private estate Phillips' course at Moraine Farm on Wendham Lake and Appleton's course on the 1000 acre Appleton Farm in nearby Ipswich.

By the way, have you come to realize yet both how and why it is possible for a man like R.M Appleton to have laid out golf holes on his own private estate around 1892-3 and nine holes at Myopia in 1894 DESPITE also being the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia as well?   ;) ??? ::)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on August 10, 2009, 11:46:05 AM

Tom

You ask the question why Appleton et al would go ahead and layout 9 holes when they knew Campbell was on his way (assuming of course that they knew he was on his way).

You could reasonably ask the same question of the Country Club who had 6 holes laid out before Campbell arrived. As Rich says these guys were used to getting on with things so why not go ahead and lay out a course which would allow them to at least flex their golfing muscles. It might have been rudimentary in the extreme but at least it would allow them to crack on rather than waiting for WC to arrive in town. Guys like WC were hired as keepers of the green, with that they would have the scope to make alterations so I don't see how it is unreasonable to think that there was a course there before WC but that he then knocked it into shape and in doing so made some alterations.

Again it seems a reasonable assumption to me given a club history which says Apleton et al laid out the original course and contemporary reports which give WC credit for laying out 9 holes.

Niall

Niall
I don't understand your point. The six hole course was built in 1893, the year before Campbell came to Boston. Are you saying they should have anticipated his hire the next year?

Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Thomas were all active members of The Country Club. When it was announced in early March the best golfer in the world (arguably) was coming is it fair to assume it was highly anticipated at Brookline? The Myopia meeting when it was decided to build a golf course was mid March. Willie arrived at the end of March. According to news accounts the course had yet to be laid out in mid May. The course opened on June 18.

What evidence have you seen that would suggest Appleton, Merrill and Gardner actually laid out the course prior to Campbell's involvement?



Tom

The point I was endeavouring and failing (now that I've reread my post) to make was that the possibility of Appleton and his pals laying out a course, and the possibility of Campbell laying out a course, needn't necessarily be mutually exclusive. From what I've seen looking through club histories and old newspaper articles over here, clubs made changes to their courses as often as some people redecorate their homes, especially in the early years.

If Appleton and his cronies wanted a game of golf (assuming that his own private estate was out of bounds !) then why wait for Willie arriving to lay out a course when they could lay out a basic one themselves ?

As far as evidence is concerned, I'm happy to go with the general veracity of both the club history, as per Weeks, and the newspaper articles. Unless of course anyone can show me where they are wrong.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 12:25:21 PM
Niall
The problem with your theory is that it was reported in mid-May the course had yet to be laid out. If they needed a game they could play at The Country Club, where they were all members (there are reports golf being played at TCC in April, with Willie actively teaching the game). Most of the Myopia members didn't head north until June 1 anyway, there was probably no need to have the course ready prior to that. You don't believe Appleton & Co could wait two weeks for Campbell to arrive on March 31?

Have you seen any evidence presented by Weeks (or alternatively presented by TEP) or are you taking his word for it without proof?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 10, 2009, 12:26:45 PM
It seems like many of the posts try to make the point that Appleton and friends would have been capable of staking out a course without the assistance of someone like Campbell.  I don't really think that this is the pertinent question.  

We have multiple reports that it was Campbell who laid out the course.    We have no contemporaneous reports that Appleton and friends laid out the course.     Why read Appleton and friends into the equation in the absence of source material indicating they were involved?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 01:24:21 PM
"We have no contemporaneous reports that Appleton and friends laid out the course.     Why read Appleton and friends into the equation in the absence of source material indicating they were involved?"


That's true, "we" have no contemporaneous reports that Appleton and friends staked out nine tees and greens prior to Campbell's arrival in America, but of course that depends on who "we" means. I sure doesn't mean me. If someone wanted to see those contempornaeous reports they'd have to go to Myopia and get permission to see them. They are obviously the very same contemporaneous club reports and records that Weeks, an old line member of Myopia, referred to when he wrote his history book in 1975 which according to Weeks very much included Leeds' "scrapbook" that apparently chronicled Leeds decades of architectural involvement with Myopia and may've even included what he saw and did on trips abroad.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 10, 2009, 01:30:16 PM

David

I feel we should be seen to be fair, thus questioning if these gentlemen had the knowledge to lay out a course. They certainly had the means to do so, but that does not necessary translate into ability.

All options should be investigated so that no further surprises surface, enabling the true records to come to light – whatever else it’s the truth that matters.

Melvyn

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 01:56:03 PM
Melvyn
David is right. There is no contemporaneous evidence Appleton & Co. laid out the original course, and therefore there is no reason to believe they did.

The first golf committee at Myopia consisted of Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Thomas. Thomas was the man who brought Campbell to America. The idea that these gents laid out the course rather than Campbell really defies logic. It only makes sense in the absence of Campbell, which for whatever was the case for Weeks. He was not aware Campbell was engaged by Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 02:07:26 PM
"I feel we should be seen to be fair, thus questioning if these gentlemen had the knowledge to lay out a course. They certainly had the means to do so, but that does not necessary translate into ability."


You know I've been reading stuff like that on this website far too long. I think I should mention, at this point, how silly remarks like that really are even in the form of a question. It may be somewhat understandable, I suppose, if very few on here had actually spend some time ACTUALLY routing a golf course on land. We know Appleton had a six hole golf course on his own estate a year or two before he and two friends staked out nine tees and greens at Myopia so obviously Appleton was a golfer or he wouldn't have had a private estate golf course of his own.

Guys, these men were extremely dedicated sportsmen who spent a good amount of time with sports on rural land including hunting, fox hunting, fishing, polo and golf back then. They also almost all went to Harvard and were highly educated and intelligent men. I spent about two years routing and designing a course on fairly complicated land and it just ain't rocket science staking out tees and greens if you are familiar with golf. It only gets tricky when you run into some really complex topogaphy or natural features and if you are excessively concerned with where you are with say "balance" and "variety" of holes at any particular time which back then they probably weren't. Plus you pretty much need to be intimately familiar with the land and topography with Myopia and where they were on it. Who on here is familiar with that for starters?

Those men were worldly, highly educated and intelligent and most all of them were all around sportsmen of the countryside and for anyone on here to actually question if they had the ABILITY or the KNOWLEDGE to stake out nine tees and greens also should realize how silly it truly is to say that and quesition it. The ones who do question it should try it themselves sometime on actual land, and if they ever did I believe they would reconsider what they are saying and asking in that vein!

Furthermore, Myopia never became famous for that original nine and the history book described it as "improvised" anyway. Myopia became famous for what Leeds did at Myopia over a number of years and in the end a decade and two. If that original nine was some world class nine holes Leeds probably never would've redesigned it in 1896 and a couple of years before he added a second nine.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 02:27:38 PM
"The first golf committee at Myopia consisted of Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Thomas."


Tom:

Well, you're getting a little better. That time you were 50% right or 50% wrong depending on how one wants to look at it. The original golf committee of that 1894 nine was Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker.

Furthermore, a few on this website have truly become funny when they say no evidence exists that those three members staked out nine tees and greens before Campbell arrived. Saying that "we" on here have never seen that evidence is definitely not the same thing as saying it doesn't exist. It exists at Myopia as I've seen it and read it as Weeks obviously did when he researched and wrote his 1975 history book which was actually a twenty six year project.  

But that's OK; if people like you two on here actually want to say that because you've never seen it ("we" ;)) then it actually doesn't exist, be my guest---what difference does it really make? Not much to Myopia, that's for sure!   ;) :-*
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 10, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
Furthermore, a few on this website have truly become funny when they say no evidence exists that those three members staked out nine tees and greens before Campbell arrived. Saying that "we" on here have never seen that evidence is definitely not the same thing as saying it doesn't exist. It exists at Myopia as I've seen it and read it as Weeks obviously did when he researched and wrote his 1975 history book which was actually a twenty six year project.  

But that's OK; if people like you two on here actually want to say that because you've never seen it ("we" ;)) then it actually doesn't exist, be my guest---what difference does it really make? Not much to Myopia, that's for sure!   ;) :-*

The obvious corollary, and one that has been proven repeatedly on these threads, is that what actually exists is probably not what TEPaul represents.   More specifically, we cannot and should not conclude that TEPaul understood whatever exists or that he has presented it accurately or completely.    In fact, there have been numerous instances where TEPaul has made claims about the contents and meaning of documents he refused to produce and in most every instance the actual information has differed materially from what TEPaul had claimed.   

Probably the safest conclusion and the one best supported by past examples:  If TEPaul makes claims but fails to back them up then his claims are bound to be inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete. 


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 05:51:16 PM
"The obvious corollary, and one that has been proven repeatedly on these threads, is that what actually exists is probably not what TEPaul represents."


I'm quite sure you'd agree there is only one REAL way to FIND OUT. And if you can't agree with that, well, then, that surely would be very funny!  

If these Merion and Myopia threads have proven anything it is that if someone wants to do a credible job of researching the architectural histories of club's like these and really satisfying themselves with it they should endeavor to do it themselves particularly if one is as hard to satisfy as you and Tom MacWood seem to be. It is just so interesting to me how you constantly avoid that central issue on this website!  

It's always easier to blame what you failed to do yourself and what you fail to have on someone other than yourself, isn't it?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 10, 2009, 06:45:47 PM

Tom

When I posted the following  “I feel we should be seen to be fair thus questioning if these gentlemen had the knowledge to lay out a course. They certainly had the means to do so, but that does not necessary translate into ability”. I was trying to be fair and honest, to pursue the debate in an open and fair manner, but you clearly are not interested in the truth. 

Well Tom you should be proud of yourself. I now find myself questioning whether you really are after the truth.

Melvyn 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 07:11:17 PM
“I feel we should be seen to be fair thus questioning if these gentlemen had the knowledge to lay out a course. They certainly had the means to do so, but that does not necessary translate into ability”.


Melvyn:

Is it possible that the way you wrote that statement is not really what you meant to say? The way I read it is you are saying that to be seen to be fair we must question if those particular men had the knowledge or ability to stake out nine tees and greens at Myopia. For starters what do you even know about those men?

We have already had one or two on this website (one who wrote an essay on here to this effect) that it should be an ACCEPTED and working FACT for us that an intelligent and highly educated man such as Hugh Wilson who was a very good golfer was NOT CAPABLE of routing and planning Merion East in 1911 because he should have been considered a total novice AT THAT POINT.

Sorry Melvyn but THAT is perhaps the biggest bunch of bullshit anyone has ever tried to foist on this website. It simply cannot continue to go UNCHALLENGED.

And THAT is perhaps less than even half the historical matter that should be considered and discussed on here if we ever want to get to the TRUTH of what some of those men back in that particular time REALLY thought and about various people as well!

If YOU cannot even bring yourself to both consider and discuss THAT then I'm afraid it is you who are not really after the truth of that age in American architecture.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 10, 2009, 07:48:11 PM

Tom

When I posted the following  “I feel we should be seen to be fair thus questioning if these gentlemen had the knowledge to lay out a course. They certainly had the means to do so, but that does not necessary translate into ability”. I was trying to be fair and honest, to pursue the debate in an open and fair manner, but you clearly are not interested in the truth. 

Well Tom you should be proud of yourself. I now find myself questioning whether you really are after the truth.

Melvyn 


That is really the question Melvyn, and one that TEPaul has answered many times.  In his mind there is no need for a search for the truth because he thinks he already knows the truth, and nothing we say is going to change that.     Not only that, but he will do whatever he can to preserve that truth, even if it means constantly misrepresenting by position (as he does immediately above) and demanding that people like you accept that I am an imposter and a charlatan before he will even discuss this stuff with you. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 08:05:49 PM
 "In his mind there is no need for a search for the truth because he thinks he already knows the truth, and nothing we say is going to change that."


I do indeed think I already know the truth (with what-all we have now) and I do know nothing you say is going to change that unless and until you get off your ass and your arrogant semi-know-nothing argumentative pulpit on here and actually go to those golf courses and clubs and research what I have at them and from them. THAT is the inescapable FACT of ALL or THIS! Failing that, it is true, I don't see there is much else you and MacWood (or Melvyn) could say at this point, that will change any of that. I certainly do know Merion and Myopia doesn't either (the fact you have no understanding of how many people and for how long I've known at those clubs is now a totally foregone conclusion).

I will also say again, what I said once before, that you seemed to take great umbrage at, but my primary concern and interest is what the clubs, the likes of Merion and Myopia, think about any of this, not people like you and MacWood and Melvyn on this website. I don't doubt that your concerns are with your credibilty and reputations to research well and perhaps analyze well and such but I think at least two of you have done a pretty weak job of that in the last six years and have completely failed to admit it or refused to admit it, all things considered. And I do admit I do take comfort in the fact I am definitely in the vast majority opinion on that where I feel it matters most!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 08:18:09 PM
A few things standout:

Weeks claims the Dacre Bush quote is from the club records, but it sure it doesn't read like contemporaneous club records or minutes, "...a meeting about March 1894...." It reads more a like a later remembrance.

Dacre Bush records make no mention of who designed the course.

Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker were the first golf committee.

Weeks has no idea if the 1894 course was redesigned prior to the US Open in 1898. He is speculating it was but I don't believe it was redesigned.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 10, 2009, 08:25:01 PM

Tom P

Thanks for your IM and response No.297, most kind of you. Had you read my post instead of telling me what I meant you might have understood my comments and noted whom it was addressed to.
 
So let’s recap and see what your attack upon me is all about.

I was responding to David’s post No 288 and his line “Why read Appleton and friends into the equation in the absence of source material indicating they were involved?” My response was addressed to David not you.

I believed we should look at all, examine your evidence and these gentlemen actual knowledge and golfing abilities before making our mind up. But, no not you, you jump in believing the opposite. Why not look into your claim re these guys and see what is the basis of your information.

You responded unfairly and without proper cause, then you have the balls to IM me. I was trying to be fair and listen to your case, I should have just accepted David & Tom comments, but as is my way I like to hear from all sides.

I have no interest in the USA courses, as they are not my field of expertise but I am interested in Willie Campbell and his short life. He was a gifted golfer and more than an able designer, that was my interest.

Historical knowledge should be based upon what happened, everything else is totally irrelevant. History should only record the events as they unfold otherwise it is just worthless paper serving no purpose whatsoever.

So Tom, you got it wrong. 

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 10, 2009, 08:28:26 PM
"Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker were the first golf committee."


Tom:

Yes, I just corrected you on that!

Why did you say the first golf committee was Appleton, Merrill, GARDNER AND THOMAS then?

Do you actually expect to just rattle off all this misinformation day after day and expect that I need to be your editor without you even admitting to it? ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 08:55:52 PM
TEP
There are two major differences between you and I. When I discover I've made an error I try to correct it as soon as soon as I discover it. And I share information with the group, unlike you who hide and distort information. A quick skim through this thread will show I have posted quite a few articles and other documents, while you have posted nothing. And I'm not alone actually there have been many others who have posted articles and such. Your approach to history is counterproductive.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 10, 2009, 11:41:08 PM
"When he redesigned The Country Club he kept almost nothing from the original 6-hole course (one green and two tees, and no holes)."


Tom:

In that case, and since this thread is about Myopia (and Campbell) perhaps you should give us all a hole by hole description of that original nine hole course at Myopia compared to Leeds' "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played and as well the 1900 18 hole course on which three more US Opens were played by 1908.

You said on this thread that original nine was kept more or less intact! What does that mean? Is it more or is it less? Is it a lot more or a lot less? The only way to tell is for you to give us the details of all the holes of that original nine and the details of Leeds' 1898 Long Nine.

Weeks' refers to that original nine in his book as somewhat a matter of speculation. Do you think you can tell us more about it than Weeks did in his book? He also describes that original nine as an "imporvished links." Can you explain to us why that might not be accurate?

Also in the acknowledgements in Weeks book he mentioned some of the motivation for writing the book was that the famous links of Myopia had never been written about by the club. The famous links of Myopia by both the club and the world were always considered to be what Herbert C. Leeds did there with that golf course and not that original nine before Leeds came to Myopia.



TEP
Please tell us about the Long Nine, and how it differs from the original nine. And when it was changed and by whom.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 11, 2009, 12:08:51 AM
"TEP
Please tell us about the Long Nine, and how it differs from the original nine. And when it was changed and by whom."


Tom:

Hmmm, that's interesting. What made you change your mind about that in the last day or so? ;)

I'd be glad to but why don't you go first so we can all see what you know about the differences? Hopefully you can do better with the detail than just saying you think it was "more or less intact." That really says a lot, don't you think?  ::)
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 11, 2009, 06:08:47 AM
TEP
Nothing changed in my mind - I never acknowledged there were any changes. Leeds was not responsible for the Long Nine prior to 1898; the Long Nine of 1898 was the original nine. In my makeshift scrapbook, which starts in 1894 and runs through about 1917, there was nothing that indicated there were any changes to the course between 1894 and 1898. Again this is a case of Weeks not knowing all the facts and getting the story wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 11, 2009, 09:37:31 AM
"I never acknowledged there were any changes."

OK


"Leeds was not responsible for the Long Nine prior to 1898;"

I see. And what do you base that on? Could it be you've never been to Myopia; never looked at any material there and that you just automatically dismiss everthing Edward Weeks says and just create your own story since you don't know much of anything about the place and its history?


"the Long Nine of 1898 was the original nine."

The Long nine used some holes and at least three greens from the original nine but other than that a number of the original nine holes were changed by Leeds between 1896 and 1898 and three holes are unaccounted for. To understand why you pretty much need to go to Myopia and analyze the entire thing including land originally used and what it once was. This is a job and project noone can do from their PC, that's for sure!   ;)

 
"In my makeshift scrapbook, which starts in 1894 and runs through about 1917, there was nothing that indicated there were any changes to the course between 1894 and 1898."


I see. YOUR MAKESHIFT SRCAPBOOK?!?  ::) ??? What is that; some attempt on your part to imitate Leeds' decades long scrapbook?

 

"Again this is a case of Weeks not knowing all the facts and getting the story wrong."


I see. Again, you have never been to this club and course, you have never seen any of their records, is that right? All you have done is find an old newspaper article about Campbell and now you are telling us that Edward Weeks, the editor or publisher of Atlantic Monthly, long time member of Myopia who researched that club and course over twenty six years with a number of other long time member historians, Janet Seagle of the USGA etc did not know the facts and got the whole story of Leeds and the golf course wrong?? That is rich, Tom MacWood, really rich!   ;) ::)

Where have I heard this before? You've never been to Merion either, never seen any of their material, you found an old article about seven years ago about Macdonald advising them; you thought you found something neither Merion nor anyone else knew (even though they always recorded Macdonald's advice) and you then gratuitously stated that Merion's history book by Tolhurst got everything wrong too or was like a third grader's paper compared to Moriarty's essay!?!?   :o ::)

With all that I just don't know what to say about you, Tom, but the first thing that comes to mind is comical. If there is anyone left on this website or anywhere else willing to take you seriously with all this all I can say is that is very problematic----VERY problematic. Yours is definitely the Historical School of Maximum and Rampant Speculation!   :'(

Don't worry about it, later today I will bail you out again with what is known about that original nine and what isn't and how it was different from Leeds' Long Nine!  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 11, 2009, 09:45:22 AM

Don't worry about it, later today I will bail you out again with what is known about that original nine and what isn't and how it was different from Leeds' Long Nine!  


I look forward to that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 11, 2009, 09:57:59 AM
"I look forward to that."


Thank you, Tom, and by the way, congratulations for getting down to Mike Hurzdan's library and copying a few pages of Weeks's Myopia history book. To even attempt to follow what I am going to explain to you about the differences of the original 1894 nine and the Leeds 1898 Long Nine on which the 1898 US Open was played I suggest you go back to Mike Hurzdan's library and copy the entire chapter and very much including the map of the 1898 Long Nine and the description of what is known about the original nine. Otherwise without ever having been to Myopia, or seeing or understanding the land and the course there would be virtually no way you could follow me.

Actually, why don't you tell me when you have copied that section of the book and then I can get started with the comparison for you?

But I caution you----if you are just going to condemn every bit of information from the club and its history as wrong as you have so far without having any information yourself and as you have done with Merion, I am not going to be interested in doing this for you. But if you are really interested in learning something from me, I'll proceed. Do we have a deal there or don't we?

Just let me know. But again if you are just going to blanket condemn Edward Weeks and his Myopia history book as you did Tolhurst's and his Merion history book I am definitely not interested in pursuing this with you. Your call.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 11, 2009, 11:40:36 PM
TEP
Forget it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 08:50:34 AM
TM
No problem. For you 'more or less intact' is a pretty detailed explanation of the differences between the original nine and Leeds 1898 "Long Nine." The fact that three holes are essentially unaccounted for, three didn't exist and most of the rest were changed in one way or another shouldn't really make much difference.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 10:22:00 AM
TEP
Weeks claims the uphill holes (I believe those are #6,#7 & #8) were added by Leeds between 1896 and 1898, but he does not give his source, and he also admits the make up of the original nine is a matter of speculation. So in other words he has no idea what was replaced if anything in 1896-98. The three year time frame makes no sense either, and tells me Weeks has no idea when the changes were made, or if they were made at all.

Was the 1894 nine different than the 1898 nine? If so, what were the differences and when did the change take place?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 10:30:22 AM
"Was the 1894 nine different than the 1898 nine? If so, what were the differences and when did the change take place?"


Tom:

If you want my opinion on that and what my sources are, please see post #309 and respond to it again. If you want answers to your questions quoted on this post a response from you like the one in post #310 is not going to get them.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 10:55:08 AM

Actually, why don't you tell me when you have copied that section of the book and then I can get started with the comparison for you?

But I caution you----if you are just going to condemn every bit of information from the club and its history as wrong as you have so far without having any information yourself and as you have done with Merion, I am not going to be interested in doing this for you. But if you are really interested in learning something from me, I'll proceed. Do we have a deal there or don't we?

Just let me know. But again if you are just going to blanket condemn Edward Weeks and his Myopia history book as you did Tolhurst's and his Merion history book I am definitely not interested in pursuing this with you. Your call.

I have that section of the book, and I will not condemn every bit of information in Weeks book as wrong. I have no desire to condemn anyone or anything. My goal is to uncover the truth. If I have a contrary understanding or conclusion I will present supporting info, and I will do it without placing any special stipulations on you or anyone else. That way everyone interested can take the information and make up their own mind.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 11:34:55 AM
"I have that section of the book, and I will not condemn every bit of information in Weeks book as wrong. I have no desire to condemn anyone or anything. My goal is to uncover the truth. If I have a contrary understanding or conclusion I will present supporting info, and I will do it without placing any special stipulations on you or anyone else. That way everyone interested can take the information and make up their own mind."


Tom:

If you are interested in uncovering the truth then why don't you go ahead and try to explain what the detailed hole by hole differences were between Myopia's original 1894 nine and Leed's "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held?

Simply saying you think what Week's said about the original nine was wrong is really not enough. You need to tell us what it is that you think makes Weeks explanation about it wrong. What information are you using to make that determination? Simply saying that you do not know where he got his information really isn't enough and even you should understand that. I believe I can tell you where Weeks got his information and I believe I can even tell you why Weeks was only able to describe six holes of that original nine and apparently not even in the correct sequence or order.

Can you do that? If so let's see you do it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 01:41:00 PM

Tom:

If you are interested in uncovering the truth then why don't you go ahead and try to explain what the detailed hole by hole differences were between Myopia's original 1894 nine and Leed's "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held?

Simply saying you think what Week's said about the original nine was wrong is really not enough. You need to tell us what it is that you think makes Weeks explanation about it wrong. What information are you using to make that determination? Simply saying that you do not know where he got his information really isn't enough and even you should understand that. I believe I can tell you where Weeks got his information and I believe I can even tell you why Weeks was only able to describe six holes of that original nine and apparently not even in the correct sequence or order.

Can you do that? If so let's see you do it.

TEP
I'm tired of playing games with you. I mistakenly thought you had information but you obviously have nothing to contribute. We will move  on without you.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 05:48:19 PM
"TEP
I'm tired of playing games with you. I mistakenly thought you had information but you obviously have nothing to contribute. We will move  on without you."


Tom:

No problem. If you're going to continue to assume the history book is wrong and Myopia has nothing on it because you depend solely on indirect newspaper articles and you've never bothered to check out Myopia then just move on without me with your assumption that the original nine was either intact in Leeds' "Long Nine" or 'more or less' the same.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Melvyn Morrow on August 12, 2009, 07:04:18 PM
 "My goal is to uncover the truth" lets hope so or just what is the point.

Also, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth.

Melvyn
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 08:58:07 PM
Here are the pages (including a map) from the club history dealing with the 'long nine'

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 09:00:51 PM
Here are two articles from two Boston newspapers at the time of the 1898 US Open, one has the total yardage at 2863 and the other at 2960.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 09:04:55 PM
Here is an article from 1896 which lists the yardage at 2836. Leeds came to Myopia from The Country Club in mid- to late-summer 1896, as did Willie Campbell as the new pro. Perhaps TEP can explain exactly when the long nine was designed and by whom.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 09:24:12 PM
Nice going there Tom:

But for either yourself or others to follow all this you may need to include pages 32 and 33 too, and perhaps even 42 and 44 as well. Back to Hurzden's library, huh? Sorry about that.

The club records do reflect what Weeks wrote (even though he certainly did not included them all in his 150 page history book that dealt with other things in the majority than golf). The key is the so-called ridge holes were not done or in play until around 1897 (and there seems to be good reason for that). The other key is a few of the original nine did use portions of Hopkin's property (before it was purchased).

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of some off the differences between the original nine and the Leed's Long Nine yet?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 09:41:06 PM
Nice going there Tom:

But for either yourself or others to follow all this you may need to include pages 32 and 33 too, and perhaps even 42 and 44 as well. Back to Hurzden's library, huh? Sorry about that.

The club records do reflect what Weeks wrote (even though he certainly did not included them all in his 150 page history book that dealt with other things in the majority than golf). The key is the so-called ridge holes were not done or in play until around 1897 (and there seems to be good reason for that). The other key is a few of the original nine did use portions of Hopkin's property (before it was purchased).

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of some off the differences between the original nine and the Leed's Long Nine yet?

What a joke you are.   Your only purpose here seems to be to pretend you know more than you do and to post about how much you are pretending not to tell us.   I have never imagined anyone could write so much about what they were refusing to write!

Newsflash.  No one cares.  No one here gives a damn what you pretend you know but won't post.  

If you want to contribute, fine.  If not, get lost.  Quit wasting bandwidth.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 09:44:33 PM

1896 - Weeks 1898 - Boston Advertiser 1898
380 -       390 -          397
423 -       427 -          428
100 -       130 -          135
250 -       280 -          235
300 -       400 -          396
250 -       285 -          235
400 -       350 -          380
510 -       490 -          510
250 -       176 -          240

Weeks was obviously confused. The largest change between 1896 and 1898 was the 5th, a down hill hole. The biggest discrepancy between Weeks nine and the 1898 US Open yardage is the 9th, a down hill hole.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 09:46:46 PM
David Moriarty:

Why don't you do everyone a favor here and just drop out of this Myopia thread and try to let me and Tom MacWood and anyone else who is actually interested in this subject and not in your constant insulting of me have a conversation about the differences between the original nine and the Leeds 1898 Long Nine?

As for your constant insulting of me, I might consider it or consider worrying about it if it was actually from someone with a modicum of consequence.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 09:49:42 PM
TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 09:52:05 PM
Tom:

What do you make of those very different hole yardages in the news accounts in your post #320?   ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 09:56:14 PM
"TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?"


Tom:

Yeah, why don't you answer that question in detail hole by hole? At least I didn't ask you the question so this time I guess I'm not going to be accused of trying to lord over you how much I know, Huh?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 10:00:20 PM
"TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?"


Tom:

Yeah, why don't you answer that question in detail hole by hole? At least I didn't ask you the question so this time I guess I'm not going to be accused of trying to lord over you how much I know, Huh?  ;)

You mean until this post, that is. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 10:00:56 PM
TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?

The old 4th or old Alps hole was the only hole that is not part of the expanded 18, although it appears the green is the green for the present 11th.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?

The old 4th or old Alps hole was the only hole that is not part of the expanded 18, although it appears the green was used with the present 11th.

Interesting about the hole called the Alps hole, because there was a hole called the Alps hole at Myopia about a decade later, wasn't there?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 10:07:39 PM
Yes, you can see the old Alps on the map. The present Alps has the same tee but is a par-4 and it moves 90 degrees into the corner of the property below SD Bushes rented property.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 10:08:52 PM
Yes, you can see the old Alps on the map. The present Alps has the same tee but is a par-4 and it moves 90 degrees into the corner of the property below SD Bushes rented property.

But didn't the Alps hole come into existence sometime around 1910 or there about?

ADDED:  My mistake.  A fronting bunker was added in 1909, but the hole was otherwise as it was.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on August 12, 2009, 10:27:17 PM
Here is the map of the course in 1902. The current Alps is the 10th hole.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 10:55:41 PM
Tom:

Since you've never seen it I should tell you for your edificatiuon that map of the 1902 course is pretty much the way the course is today with the exception of the 13th green and the 16th hole.

Hope that helps
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 12, 2009, 11:01:39 PM
The original Myopia Alps (#4) was called that because of a prominent natural feature. The second iteration Myopia Alps (#10) was called that because of another prominent natural feature (that was eventually removed).
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on August 12, 2009, 11:14:52 PM
TomM,

It sure looks as if the bulk of Campbell's original course was kept when the course was expanded to 18 holes.  With the 4th it looks like they used the tee for one new hole and the green for the next new hole, but the approach on the second of these must have have resembled the second shot on the original if one chose to play around the Alps feature instead of over it. 

Thanks for the comparison of the yardages and the maps.  Together they ought to settle any reasonable debate about Campbell's contributions. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on August 13, 2009, 08:02:43 AM
Tom:

Why have you assumed that the course listed as the 1896 nine (or the 1898 nine) in those newspaper accounts was the original 1894 nine?



"Perhaps TEP can explain exactly when the long nine was designed and by whom."


The "Long Nine" was designed by Herbert C. Leeds between 1896 and 1898. Between 1898 and 1901 Herbert Leeds designed nine more holes bringing the course to eighteen holes.
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on March 13, 2010, 11:51:19 AM
Here is another interesting old thread where substantive information trumped uninformed bluster.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 13, 2010, 12:03:00 PM
"Here is another interesting old thread where substantive information trumped uninformed bluster."


So now we seem to be getting a glimmer of why Tom MacWood is suddenly beginning to reprise all these old threads.   ;)

On this particular thread and subject a slightly informed observer might agree with the remark quoted above if they were only aware of what Tom MacWood found and knows about Myopia----eg a couple of old 1894 Boston Globe articles that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia in 1894.

Unfortunately, Tom MacWood has never seen the information within the club's archives which contradicts those 1894 articles as well as what-all happened later because just like Merion and Pine Valley, Tom MacWood has never even been to Myopia and consequently has never had any access to the all important information within the club itself. If anyone is going to do this stuff well and comprehensively they pretty much have to personally look at and consider all research information on these clubs and subjects and unfortunately that requires actually going to them. It is almost never even close to good enough to just consider a small part of it all as the researcher from Ohio does on most of these courses, clubs and subjects.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on March 13, 2010, 12:12:42 PM
TE
This thread covered ten pages. A good amount of documentation was presented over those ten pages, and none of it came from you. Your fall back position when the information mounts against you - 'I know these people, and I've had access to their material, and so-and-so has does not, therefore lets ignore his documentation' - is growing old. If you have info to present, present it, if not, admit it and move on.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 13, 2010, 12:36:18 PM
"TE is an idiot savant. On the one hand he clearly suffers from a lack of substantive historical information (and has no the ability to independently gather substantive historical information), but on the other hand he is one of the world's foremost experts on golf architecture history."



What's the matter, Tom MacWood, are you starting to get desperate now? ;)

I guess I can at least understand if you are seeing as how many times as your information and opinions  on here have been proven wrong by those you seem to insist on compete with on what you consider research.

With the architects and courses I've concentrated on which certainly include Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia I have probably conservatively ten times more research information on them right here in my office and on my computer than you ever have or ever will with the way you go about it.

It's just that I can't post information on this website and even if a could I would not post unpublished information on here without the direct permission of the clubs. Consequently I just talk about the information I have rather than posting it. If anyone feels some burning need to check on my accuracy or bona fides of what I have and what I know they are perfectly free to approach these clubs about it as I always have.

You have no such concerns or constraints apparently. To me that just boils down to a matter of a real lack of good old fashioned commonsense and ethics, and personally I think yours totally stinks on both counts. If you don't want to hear this from me on this DG or otherwise or if you don't want to believe me then just start by calling up that New Jersey township manager you conned information out of and let him explain it to you or for you. Or you could always just go there and talk to him face to face but if you decided to do that I'd advise you to bring a lawyer with you because that guy told us both if you ever showed up there he would personally sue you for a complete failure to properly represent yourself and what you were after.

Frankly the way you go about it on here and apparently elsewhere unfortunately has the potential to give numerous others who are beginning to do some good and deep research and analysis a bad name and doubly unfortunate is it involves some of the most significant clubs and courses in America and probably elsewhere as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 13, 2010, 12:56:22 PM
"TE
This thread covered ten pages. A good amount of documentation was presented over those ten pages, and none of it came from you. Your fall back position when the information mounts against you - 'I know these people, and I've had access to their material, and so-and-so has does not, therefore lets ignore his documentation' - is growing old. If you have info to present, present it, if not, admit it and move on."



Tom MacWood:

We've heard that same litany from you on here before---a lot actually.

Apparently you must think that nothing actually qualifies as documentary information unless and until a copy of it is posted on this website.

I don't look at it that way for a number of reasons. First, it's completely illogical to say something like that. Information and analysis is just what it is and if someone wants to check out the bona fides of documentary information at a club that's never been published then they pretty much need to go there to see it for themselves, don't you think? Is there anything about that concept you don't understand or agree with?  ;)

Again, I don't post copies of documentary material on this website. I never have and I don't even know how to do it. But for those who know me and have worked with me or been here where I work know fairly well what I have here on some of these significant courses such as the ones mentioned that has never been published or been made part of a public website like this one.

When I work with these clubs I let them make that call. You don't actually work with any clubs or memberships I'm aware of so you obviously don't have to deal with these realities. I respect them so that's the way I've always done it and I encourage others to do the same. In the end it pretty much serves to make this interest of our more accessible by more people. If they share things with me I respect their processes regarding information. You don't do that at least you most certainly haven't in the slightest with the likes of Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia, and as you know I think that stinks and I always have thought it stinks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 13, 2010, 01:30:18 PM
But now that this thread has been reprised by MacWood for some reason ;) I see looking at the last few posts from before it is reprised that there may be some pretty general confusion or lack of understanding about what the original 1894 nine was compared to the long nine and then the long nine compared to the entire 18 holes as Leeds developed the latter two, and that would include confusion and lack of understanding on MacWood's part despite the fact he seems to think for some odd reason he was the one who provided most of the information on this thread or who can.  ???

It's more than a little complicated about what exactly made up that original 1894 nine and perhaps still even on the part of the club's understanding of that original nine, even though they now have a member who is doing some great work on the architectural evolution of the course that includes some good research after Leeds, and long after Leeds.

Like a lot of these great old course's and architecture with this kind of membership it went into an era I tend to call their "sleepy period."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on March 14, 2010, 11:00:57 AM
TEP
If you have information to present - be it drawings, notes, articles, excerpts from minutes, or whatever - then please present it. If not, stop pretending you have information and pretending you have some special insight into the evolution of Myopia. We can see through your self-important BS.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 14, 2010, 11:19:50 AM
That might be your opinion but it's not mine and it's not Myopia's and their opinion of their architectural history is what really matters, and certainly not your opinion of their architectural history.

I doubt they even know who you are or care. And that's what most clubs feel about people like you who do about less than half the research and analysis of any architectural subject without even bothering to go to the subject or even talking to them about it. I don't believe any of these clubs, be they Pine Valley, Merion, North Shore or Myopia, see any need to present their unpublished club material to you or anyone else on this website unless and until some of those people establish a relationship with those clubs. Others certainly have but you never have.

Perhaps their opinions might change on that if anyone on here produced some credible information that might change their interpretation of their architectural history and then presented it to the club but that hasn't happened with you or anyone else on the website. They are now aware of those Boston Globe articles about Campbell in 1894 but they are also aware of their club administrative records of 1894.

I doubt you even understand the seeming differences between that original 1894 nine and Leeds' first efforts called the "Long Nine." I asked you to explain that on this thread before but you conveniently ignored it. I wonder why? ;)

There's even a semi-mistake in the club's history book on that distinction between the first nine hole course and the next nine hole course but I doubt you've figured out what that is or ever could without going there first and examing the material and the land itself.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 17, 2010, 07:27:28 PM
Tom MacWood:

I'd be curious to know why you reprised this thread the other day after six months other than to mention something about uninformed bluster. What is that, by the way? Is it the fact you claim you know something about the architectural history of the course without ever having seen Myopia? Or are you perhaps wanting and willing to learn something this time?

But now that it's back and since your Schtick with Myopia is that Willie Campbell designed the original nine hole course in 1894 (contrary to what the club's administrative records show), perhaps you could tell us all what the hole by hole sequence of that original nine hole course was and where all the holes were.

I'll be back on Monday and check in to see how you did and what we all learned from you about that original Willie Campbell 1894 Myopia nine.   :) 8)

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on March 17, 2010, 07:34:33 PM
TE
I bumped this thread because some confused idiot wrote this the other day:

"And Leeds didn't even have Willie Campbell to help him or do it for him either as one misguided contributor on here seemed to think. Part of that had to do with the fact that when Leeds really got rolling on the architecture of Myopia Willie Campbell WAS DEAD!"
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 17, 2010, 07:49:59 PM
I don't think that is info from any confused idiot depending on what one defines as Leeds really getting rolling with Myopia in 1900 when Willie Campbell died!  ;)

Is it possible for you to write a single post on this website about something I'm involved in without putting one or both your feet squarely in your mouth?

But more importantly try to deal with the real gist of my last post:

"But now that it's back and since your Schtick with Myopia is that Willie Campbell designed the original nine hole course in 1894 (contrary to what the club's administrative records show), perhaps you could tell us all what the hole by hole sequence of that original nine hole course was and where all the holes were."

Can you answer that comprehensively or will you just avoid it as you so often do with important points so as not to prove to every one on here what you don't know?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on March 19, 2010, 11:34:35 AM
Tom MacWood:

Since you continuously either refuse or neglect to answer questions to you about the original 1894 nine hole course of Myopia I suppose that means you know nothing about it. Do you deny that? If not that would be pretty revealing about you on here since you've maintained Willie Campbell designed the course and not those three members mentioned in the club's administration record which of course you've never seen.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 01, 2010, 03:13:03 PM
Pulling this up so we don't have to cover all this ground again and so the Tweedie thread isn't taken further off topic.

To recap, Willie Campbell was reported to have designed the original 9 at Myopia in 1894.    Specifically, on June 19, 1894, the Boston Journal reported:

It has been but a few days since the new links at Myopia were laid out by but the professional Campbell, but so keen are the members of the club that the first open handicap match took place yesterday.  It was an unqualified success and it is but the fore runner of many to come. 

On that same date, the Boston Daily Advertiser also reported that Willie Campbell had laid out the Myopia links. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 01, 2010, 03:19:59 PM
David,

I don't think the point of the discussion on the other thread is whether or not Campbell had any involvement at Myopia or not, but whether HJ Tweedie's architecture was something that advanced the art in this country in terms of quality as opposed to quantity, and how by contrast someone like Leeds did work in the same timeframe that clearly did.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 01, 2010, 04:42:58 PM
My point, Mike, is that at early Myopia what you refer to as "Leed's work" was not necessarily or exclusively "Leed's work."   Reportedly Willie Campbell laid out the original nine.   As for the "long nine" I've never seen anything indicating that it was significantly different from original nine (at least nothing verifiable.)   The only comparison I recall was MacWood's, and according to his comparison all but one hole of the Campbell routing still exist in the present course.

It seems to me that you are utilizing a double standard.  In the past you have dismissed  the work by the Scottish professionals as inferior and as a blight on the medium, yet Myopia was reportedly laid out by one of these Scottish professionals.  And according to you, cross bunkering, cops, and geometric features have always reaked of unworthy dark ages architecture, yet at Myopia these same types of features represent a profound advancement in golf design?    You need to make up your mind Mike.  

As for what you perceive as Leed's advanced use of diagonals, again, I am not certain that this was Leed's doing.   Some of these features were rock pile fences, were they not?     Didn't those predate the course?  If so, then the original routing (reportedly Campbell) set their position.   And only a few of the cross hazards are diagonal.  

Have you compared the use of cross  hazards at Myopia to a relevant sample of courses from the same time period, or are you just relying on the single Atlantic City map?   If you have not done such a comparison, then what is the basis for your conclusion?  

Surely Myopia is a great course and was very important to golf course design.  But when studying it we ought not change our standards based upon who is credited with its creation.

Two photos of Myopia from 1898, then two from 1901:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia1898.jpg?t=1291239318)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia6th1898.jpg?t=1291239318)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia19011stG.jpg?t=1291239318)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia190112thT.jpg?t=1291239318)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 01, 2010, 04:56:27 PM
David,

Thanks for the terrific pictures.

Whether or not the original nine holes were laid out by the three members or by Campbell is still not relevant to the point I think you're making which is that Leeds did not route the entire course by himself, but instead added nine holes and revised others.   That's a given.   Personally, I think that the members likely routed the course in the spring and then had it built/enhanced for them by Campbell after his arrival here but that's a subtle view that doesn't sit well with the dogmatic archie attribution religious wars that take place on this site too frequently.  ;)

But, it is/was generally acknowledged that the course was made excellent, and very early on, by Herbert Leeds, as I illustrated with the 1906 articles posted on the Tweedie thread.   That's why I'm trying to draw out more info on the Tweedie thread...I'm trying to understand how he differed in terms of quality from the other professionals of the time.

Lots of pros back then were involved in building lots of courses.   Most of them were not very good.

As regards the map of ACCC I posted previously, I don't know if that is representative of Tweedie's work or not and stated that honestly upfront.   At the time I posted it, I asked if others could scan course drawings from the "Golfer's Green Book", I believe it's called, which has a listing of Chicago courses of that time with relevant information for comparison purposes.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything yet in that regard and may try to see what I can pull down from the USGA website.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 01, 2010, 05:03:51 PM
Mike
Are you taking into account that Willie Campbell designed the original nine at Myopia and that Leeds spent a couple decades perfecting the course (during a period of great advancement in golf architecture)?

Do you think the early versions of Kebo Valley and Palmetto are indicative of Leeds architectural abilities? How did they compare with perfected versions of Myopia and Garden City?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 01, 2010, 05:09:12 PM
Tom MacWood,

Please see my answer above, which I believe I was typing as you posted.

As regards Leeds' other courses, I wouldn't expect either of them to have the degree of sophistication that Myopia has simply because he didn't spend as much time refining them as he did his home course, much like Hugh Wilson at Merion East in comparison to his other courses, or even Macdonald's ongoing refinements of NGLA over his lifetime.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 01, 2010, 05:20:58 PM
Mike
Are you saying the changes that Leeds made over a period two decades are not relevant? If so why not? Are the changes Travis made to GCGC relevant? You do not appear to have any historical perspective when it comes to golf architecture.

Do you think the early versions of Kebo Valley and Palmetto are indicative of Leeds architectural abilities? How did they compare with perfected versions of Myopia and Garden City?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 01, 2010, 05:43:19 PM
From the HJ Tweedie thread:

"Since the beginning of golf at Myopia Hunt club in 1894 the club has essentially had three golf course iterations:

1. The original 1894 nine.
2. The so-called "Long Nine" that was begun in 1896 and used for the 1898 US Open.
3. The eighteen hole course begun in 1898-99 (shown in that plan above) that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens and happens to be remarkably similar to the course as it exists today.

There are no real unanswered architectural questions today about the "Long Nine" or the eighteen hole course shown above but there are a few about some of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole course."



It is certainly true that there are at least two newspaper accounts from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 but they are not the only documentation of the laying out of the original nine at Myopia. Three members laid out the original nine in the spring of 1894 according to the club board's records of the time it was laid out. Some on here might claim the board members of Myopia would sit at a meeting of the club's board and lie to one another about what the club was doing with its first golf course and who was doing it, and then submit that record to the Run Book but I seriously doubt they would do that or have any reason to do it. Campbell may not have even arrived in America at that time. It's certainly not to say he didn't help Myopia in some way with their original nine holes when he first got to Boston from Scotalnd but he did not lay them out (route them) originally.

There is no drawing of that original 1894 nine that I'm aware of. What it was and where it was has been partially described somewhat conjecturally in the club's history book (Edward Weeks, 1975) but at least three of the of the holes are unaccounted for (although I believe I know at least where they were) and the others cover some of the same ground as Leed's 1896 "Long Nine."

Leeds was not a member of Myopia in 1894 (he belonged to Brookline). Leeds did win the first two tournaments at Myopia in 1894 though.  He came to Myopia in 1896 and was the one primarily responsible for the "Long Nine" and then the full eighteen hole course that was ready for play in 1900.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 01, 2010, 06:12:30 PM
TEP
We have presented at least three contemporaneous reports (from three different sources) that Campbell laid out the original nine in 1894. What evidence have you presented?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 01, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Mike, I am not sure how you can call Myopia a substantial architectural advancement of the pre-1900 period if you aren't familiar with what else was out there.    It may have been, but thus far you haven't come close to making your case.  

Didn't Campbell arrive in Boston in March?   Surely the members did not route the course in the middle of the winter, did they?  Note that the article indicates that the layout was recent.  

Looking at those photos and diagrams, I am having a hard time seeing how the hazard placement at Myopia represented a substantial architectural advancement to what else had been ongoing.    Is it merely because a few of these apparent fences/hazards were not completely perpendicular to the line of play?   What of all those that are basically perpendicular?

If the course was indeed "excellent" in the pre-1900 period, then what specifically did Leeds do to make it so?  And what facts justify your belief that Leeds' early changes at Myopia represented a substantial architectural advancement?

_________________________________________

TEPaul, I don't recall ever seeing anything which established that three members laid out the course in the spring of 1894.

In the past you quoted the following, which I believe was from club history:

 “At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.”

This doesn't preclude Campbell at all, does it?   Most of the paragraph is in passive voice; the actor is not identified.  Surely it was the Executive Committee who made the decision, but  the passage does not speak to who actually laid out the course, does it?  If so, where does it say that the members laid out the course?  

Also, can you clarify what of this is an actual  entry into the Run Book and which parts (its any) are Weeks explaining what happened.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 01, 2010, 08:55:36 PM
David:

Sure, be glad to.

Edward Weeks published the Myopia history book in 1975. He worked on the history of the club for many years with another member. The book is over in my office so I can't refer to the passage right now in which he mentioned the three members who staked out the tees and greens of the 1894 nine but I believe I put that passage from Weeks' book on this thread in the past.

What Weeks said about the three members laying out the original nine in the spring of 1894 is very close textually and otherwise to the contemporaneous club administrative records of the spring of 1894. I've read them. Obviously Weeks had them in front of him when he wrote what he did about the original nine.

This is not to say that Campbell was not involved somehow when he arrived in Boston (there is a ship manifest on here with his arrival date in Boston at the end of March); only that the club records of 1894 don't mention him. Actually Campbell was primarily at that time to go to Brookline CC that had also previously had holes laid out by 3-4 members. But the point is the admiinistrative records of Myopia at that time record three members staking out the tees and greens, not Campbell. Myopia was and still is quite different from other clubs in that they seem to have always been very private. I have not seen members including Leeds write articles or even directly quoted in the press. Leeds, certainly was an unusually private person.




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 01, 2010, 10:09:10 PM
David,

Those are very cool pictures, but can you tell us what you think is indicative of the strategy of the golf course or holes in each?

Or, failing that, can you perhaps tell us what we're looking at in each?

You seem to think them somehow meaningful from an architectural standpoint, apparently representing some crude geometric philosophy consistent with most of the work of the time period so please enlighten us if you feel they are evidence of that genre.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 01, 2010, 11:07:55 PM

Leeds WAS clearly different, and was the best example of American architecture that utilized old world diagonal concepts prior to Travis's work at Garden City in 1906-07, and prior to NGLA.


Mike
Did Leeds introduce the old world diagonal or did Campbell? Do Kebo and Palmetto also utilize the diagonal?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 01, 2010, 11:27:04 PM
"As for the "long nine" I've never seen anything indicating that it was significantly different from original nine (at least nothing verifiable.)   The only comparison I recall was MacWood's, and according to his comparison all but one hole of the Campbell routing still exist in the present course."


David:

I have never seen that comparison of Tom MacWood's and I'm certainly not aware of it. Could you explain it to us or ask him to? I've asked him to do that about ten times, including again today----eg to try to compare the original 1894 nine to the present course or even the "Long Nine"  but he has ignored the question every time as far as I know.

And also, once again, the club administrative records from the time the original 1894 nine was laid out do not mention Campbell but they do specifcially mention the names of the three members who laid out that original 1894 nine.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 01, 2010, 11:32:21 PM
TEPaul

Tom MacWood had posted copies of a few pages of the Myopia history book, but they are no longer viewable.  (TomM if you send them to me I will repost them.)  

But I do remember the passages somewhat.  If I recall correctly, it seemed to me like Mr. Weeks' was doing his best to figure out what happened based upon the information he had available.  I do not recall him referencing anything that established with certainty that three members laid out the course.  And I don't recall him writing that the Executive Committee ever stated who laid out the course.

In other words, I think Mr. Weeks gave us his best interpretation based on less than perfect information.  I doubt that when he wrote the history that Mr. Weeks had seen the newspaper clippings indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  Had he, don't you think that he might have included Campbell? At the very least, wouldn't those articles have given him a different perspective on the meaning of the records?

Granted, we all have imperfect information, especially those of us who have never seen the club records.  But, like Mr. Weeks, I'll go with the information I do have.  And that information indicates that Campbell laid out the course.   I cannot imagine why two different newspaper articles would have reported it at the opening if Campbell had not laid it out.  

You have seen the minutes and have seen the articles, so you are in a much better position to reconcile the two.  But any such reconciliation carries little weight unless you support your conclusions with verifiable information.  Surely you'd think the same if our positions were reversed.
 
As for Tom MacWood's past comparison of the original nine and the long nine, he can better explain it than I can, but I believe it involved comparing the yardages of each hole.
____________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I am not the one making broad claims about how Leeds' work at early Myopia profoundly advanced the medium.  You are.  is your claim.   I am simply asking you to back it up by establishing 1) what Leeds did at early Myopia, and 2) how did this profoundly advanced the medium?

You wrote:  "You seem to think them somehow meaningful from an architectural standpoint, apparently representing some crude geometric philosophy consistent with most of the work of the time period . . . "  Again Mike, I am not the one drawing broad, oversimplified conclusions about early design based on very limited information.  

As far as what we are looking at, I believe each photo has a caption at the bottom.   I have no idea if they are accurate or not.  You are the one making the broad claims about Myopia during this time period so I was hoping you could explain them to me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 07:39:59 AM
David:

I feel your last response is a very good one. I feel it is logical and intelligent and I believe you asked good questions and important ones. I think this is the way a good and productive discussion about the history of an important golf course should develop on a website like this one between people who have various and diverse experiences with a particular subject, including some who have never been there or seen the course. I see some very clear parallels between this subject and the subject of the architectural history of Merion East in its beginning that developed into multiple threads and adverserial and contentious ones at that. I wish that subject on here could've begun with a post like your last one here; but it didn't. I also note that it seems the primary participants on that one and this one are the same and that too is probably fairly interesting. I would prefer to wait for Tom MacWood's responses to various things I asked him that you referenced in your good last post before proceeding; and hopefully productively this time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 02, 2010, 09:12:07 AM
Since the gang's all here and playing nicely in the sand box together, I guess I will chip in.....

May I (who knows nothing about Myopia) presume the "long" nine is differentiated from the original nine by being, well....., longer?

I would also be interested in knowing everyone's definition of geometric.  While I was denied access to the course, I confess to sort of a Paul Reveres midnight (well, dusk) ride through the club road, substituting my rented Chevy Cobalt for a horse.  IMHO, and from what I saw, and what I see on the aerial, it appears there are at least some vestiges of gometric bunkering, although it is by no means everywhere. 

Since its stated that the course is pretty much as was, that leads to the question of whether the non geometric bunkering was kind of an experiment of sorts for Campbell, Leeds, or whoever placed them in this time frame, or with the mixing of nines, perhaps some of the cross bunkers were from one or the other.  If the work of one man, it strikes me that perhaps he had an idea, but was at least somewhat timid to use it on all 18 holes, perhaps for fear of reprisals?

Thanks for any knowledgeable answers in advance.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 09:48:55 AM
Jeff:

How and how much the original 1894 nine at Myopia differed from the "Long Nine" is a very good question and subject and one very much open for analysis and discussion. There are various ancillary and supplemental facts and events to do with the club that need to be known first to be able to do a good analysis of that particular subject, in my opinion.

I believe I know what they are and am willing to discuss them but not until Tom MacWood offers his opinion and analysis of a comparison between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine or the 1894 nine and the holes of the 1900 eighteen hole course which is essentially the way the course is today (at least in hole routing and configuration albeit not necessarily with all the bunkering which Leeds certainly did add to and develop over time sort of ala the Fowneses of Oakmont).

Ordinarily, I would not make analyzing and discussing this specific subject contingent on MacWood doing it but in this case I am since he has implied he understands it and that I and/or the club don't.

So we shall wait and see how or if he responds intelligently and productively to a comparison of the holes of the original 1894 nine to the holes of the 1898 Long Nine or to the holes of the 1900 eighteen hole course. If he continues to ignore the question as he has in the past every time I've asked him to explain his opinion on that specific subject I think that says something important about his purpose and agenda on the subject of Myopia and its architectural history generally.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 10:04:53 AM

"Since the beginning of golf at Myopia Hunt club in 1894 the club has essentially had three golf course iterations:

1. The original 1894 nine.
2. The so-called "Long Nine" that was begun in 1896 and used for the 1898 US Open.
3. The eighteen hole course begun in 1898-99 (shown in that plan above) that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens and happens to be remarkably similar to the course as it exists today.

There are no real unanswered architectural questions today about the "Long Nine" or the eighteen hole course shown above but there are a few about some of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole course."


TEP
Where did you get your information that the 'long nine' was begun in 1896? Where did you read that?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 10:42:20 AM
In both the club's records and in the club's history book (Myopia 1875-1975 by Edward Weeks published in 1975). The book has become fairly rare at this point and sought after by some collectors I know. It appears you have had access to it. I suspect and assume your access to it is via Michael Hurzdan and his truly excellent library at his office in Columbus, Ohio). He mentioned to us when we visited him at his office some years ago that there was a person in town who came into his library frequently and who seemingly knew much of the contents of the books and other textual collectibles in his library better than he did. I can't remember if he named you to us or not at the time but I have assumed it was you he was referring to.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 10:46:03 AM
You might want to re-read Weeks' book, not that I would recommend it as good source of information, but that is not what it says.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 12:19:58 PM
"You might want to re-read Weeks' book, not that I would recommend it as good source of information, but that is not what it says."



Tom MacWood:

I just did. WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you mean 'it is not what it says?'
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 12:32:13 PM
Weeks says Leeds became a member of Myopia in 1896, which is true, but he doesn't say when in 1896 he became a member. He then says soon after he became a member he was appointed to the golf committee. He then goes on to say at some point he was asked to lay out the Long Nine. You are speculating this all occurred in 1896, but Weeks does not.

When precisely did he join Myopia in 1896...spring, summer, fall, winter?
Was he appointed to the golf committee in 1896, 1897 or 1898?
What year was he asked to layout the Long Nine, and by whom?

Weeks does not answer any of these questions.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 03:05:08 PM
Tom MacWood:

No, Weeks probably does not get as specific in his 1975 history book (The Myopia Hunt Club centennial history book) about some of those dates and events in the 1890s as some of us today, certainly including you, would like him to have been. And why didn't he? Well, as with other history books of other clubs you have criticized it probably had to do with the fact that his history book was less than 150 pages and it actually devoted as much or more space to the club's history of hunting and polo and tennis at the Myopia Hunt Club than to golf and golf architecture. As with Merion GC and others and their history books that seems to be a concept and reality that you either don't understand, don't recognize, don't appreciate or just don't want to, for some reason.

In other words, Weeks obviously did not write and record in his Myopia History book ever single thing that has been and is reposited in the club's historical records and archives. But it certainly does not mean it is not there. To study it and understand it all, however, one would have to actually establish a working relationship with the club, like any other, and actually go to it to do that more specific and detailed research.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 03:11:30 PM
In the meantime, since it seems to be only Week's book you have some access to, I suggest you read the entire Chapter III that is entitled "Golf: Herbert C. Leeds and the Long Nine." In it you will see various references to the Long Nine and the timing of it including the fact that it was done and ready to be reviewed and approved by the USGA apparently in 1897 for its scheduling for the June 1898 US Open.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 02, 2010, 05:55:06 PM
In the meantime, since it seems to be only Week's book you have some access to, I suggest you read the entire Chapter III that is entitled "Golf: Herbert C. Leeds and the Long Nine." In it you will see various references to the Long Nine and the timing of it including the fact that it was done and ready to be reviewed and approved by the USGA apparently in 1897 for its scheduling for the June 1898 US Open.

I don't have the Myopia history, but I don't think this is quite right.  My understanding is that Myopia was not approved as the site for the Open until the March 30, 1898, Executive Committee meeting.  

At the annual meeting (February 1898) they had decided to separate the two tournaments, but at that time there was no club that had offered to take the Open (although St. Andrews was willing to take it if they also got the Amateur.)   So the clubs punted to the Executive Committee, giving them power to find and approve a club.   Myopia had not been represented at the meeting, and apparently the USGA convinced them to take the tournament.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 07:43:08 PM
TEP
This illustrates the problem with relying on a single source of info, like a club history...which is compounded when you add your own unsupported speculation. Since you've not conducted any independent research you are at a disadvantage, you don't know how well researched the club history was, and in this case it wasn't very well researched. Not knowing Willie Campbell's connection to Myopia and to early Boston golf was huge a blind spot for Weeks. Campbell coming to America was a big story in 1894 on both sides of the Atlantic, and his impact on Boston and New England golf was also a very big story, especially in Boston. If Weeks had known that (which would have required the most basic research of looking at the NY Times or Boston Globe) he wouldn't have made so many mistakes. There was no new long nine, the 9-hole golf course in 1896 (prior to Leeds) was the same golf course they played the 1898 Open on. By the way the 1896 course was considered one of the longest golf courses in America.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 08:28:13 PM
"There was no new long nine, the 9-hole golf course in 1896 (prior to Leeds) was the same golf course they played the 1898 Open on. By the way the 1896 course was considered one of the longest golf courses in America."


Tom MacWood:

The nine hole course that Leeds was asked to develop after he became a member of Myopia (1896) was the same nine old course (known as the Long Nine) they played the 1898 US Open on. But it was not entirely the same nine hole course as the original 1894 nine. Some of the holes were in the same places but not all of them and the Long Nine that Leeds developed was considerably longer than the original 1894 nine with a few greens moved and three holes added. Three holes on the original 1894 nine did not exist on the Long Nine and three holes on the Long Nine did not exist on the 1894 nine. The remaining six holes of the 1898 Long Nine (that Leeds developed) on which the 1898 US Open was played were all longer and/or considerably longer than those six holes in essentially the same place on the original 1894 nine.

 I wouldn't expect you to understand this because you've never researched the history of the course at Myopia and you've never seen the club and consequently you apparently don't understand the make-up of the property or of the three iterations of courses on it. You would have to both go to the course and study its property as well as its records to understand all this in its entirety.

And it's not really a matter of what Weeks didn't write in his centennial history of 1875, it is what the club's records and archives show. Weeks actually only identified and described six of the original holes of the 1894 nine even though all the nine holes of the 1898 Long Nine are identified and described in his 1975 book.

THIS is essentially what I have asked you to try to explain about ten times on here but you ignored the question every single time. The reason why is obvious----eg you just never figured it out or knew it. If and when you do figure it out I have no doubt whatsoever you will claim the following day you knew it all along. THAT is your MO on here and it is also your problem on here---eg you apparently constitutional refuse to admit that you can possibly learn anything on this website from anyone and particularly me. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit it; you never have and I don't expect you ever will.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 08:53:46 PM
1896               1898
380 -                397
423 -                428
100 -                135
250 -                235
300 -                396
250 -                235
400 -                380
510 -                510
250 -                240


TEP
Here is the course in 1896 and the course that hosted the 1898 Open. Which three holes did not exist in 1898?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 08:57:06 PM
Tom MacWood:

All true in your last post. Unfortunately neither of those listings was the yardages or all the same holes of the original 1894 nine hole course. No wonder you refused to try to answer or even acknowledge that question I've asked you about ten times over a period of a year or more!! I don't think at this point you even have the slightest idea what I'm even talking about.

Why don't you do all of us all a favor and see if you can visit the place for the first time next year? Once you see it and with my help with the basic chronological research you may begin to figure it out but I won't be betting much on even that!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 09:03:06 PM

"Since the beginning of golf at Myopia Hunt club in 1894 the club has essentially had three golf course iterations:

1. The original 1894 nine.
2. The so-called "Long Nine" that was begun in 1896 and used for the 1898 US Open.
3. The eighteen hole course begun in 1898-99 (shown in that plan above) that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens and happens to be remarkably similar to the course as it exists today.


Was the original nine changed prior to 1896? Maybe you should write your own history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 09:19:33 PM
Tom MacWood:

You may want to do a bit of work on the semantics of that first sentence. On your second sentence, essentially I did just that; I consult with Myopia anyway and I am its contact for the USGA Architectural Archives. I did explain to them that three of the holes of the original 1894 nine were not exactly identified or described in Weeks' book other than their general area (confirmed by the club records). Interestingly enough they may've actually returned in some form at least when Leeds created the entire eighteen hole course that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens!  ;)

I hope you are finally learning something but don't worry I won't be expecting you to admit it. The reason it all may've happened this way is actually really interesting regarding the entire history of Myopia Hunt and then Myopia Hunt club that featured hunting and polo up to twenty years before they agreed to include golf.

The dynamics are interesting as hell (also included in the club records) but they were certainly not unusual for clubs that evolved as Myopia did. There were a few others with very similar dynamics. Best examples including Meadowbrook, Piping Rock etc.

The world of the horse and its sport and recreation----the world of golf----strange and disquieting bedfellows at first that ended up eventually co-existing and probably not the least reason being the automobile was on the horizon right around this time!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 02, 2010, 09:24:12 PM
"Was the original nine changed prior to 1896?"


Tom MacWood:

No, the original 1894 nine was not changed PRIOR to 1896; it begun to be changed in 1896 or shortly thereafter when Herbert C. Leeds came from the CC of Brookline to Myopia Hunt club and was asked to change it; which he did into what has long been called the "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played; the first US Open that was separated in time and place from the US Amateur!

Actually, the primary reason the US Open was separated in time and place from the US Amateur in 1898 is historically very, very interesting. Can you imagine what that primary reason was, Tom MacWood? Has your "independent" research ever given you any inclination into why that may've been?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 10:47:35 PM
Specifically how did it change?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 02, 2010, 11:09:39 PM
Not sure if Tom MacWood has posted these before or not, but here are two more snippets about the beginning of golf at Myopia, both from the Boston Evening Transcript.

From May 19, 1894, suggesting that the course had not yet been laid out.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940519BDT.jpg?t=1291347896)

From June 23, 1894, indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course and also providing a number of details, thus suggesting that the information came from someone involved with the course. (This almost always seems to have been the case with these newspaper blurbs.)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

Note also that the article lists the names of the holes.  Three of the names (kennels, bulbrushes, and pond) were still in use in 1898.  Two other of the names (and their relative order) somewhat correspond to names from 1898 (hills-alps and dale-valley.)  Four of the names were different in 1898 (Miles River, shooting box, track, and school vs. the orient, high, home, and prairie.)  

I also recall one blurb indicating that the course was changed for the 1895 golfing season.  If so, is it possible that changes these changes created the "long nine" before Leeds even joined the club?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 02, 2010, 11:20:59 PM
I'm not sure if some of the names came in and out fashion, but Miles River was used in 1900 and 1908 for what is the current 4th. That is a pretty good hole.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 12:25:49 AM
"Specifically how did it change?"


Tom MacWood:

But that is precisely what I asked you about a dozen times over the last year or so. If you can't even attempt to answer THAT how can you continue to claim on here you know much of anything about the architectural history and evolution of Myopia Hunt Club?

What you need to DO is to stop asking others endless questions about the clubs and subjects you pretend to know something about or just give it up.

ONCE AGAIN, Tom MacWood, what are the differences between the holes of the original 1894 nine hole course of Myopia and the 1898 Long Nine that Leeds designed and on which they held the 1898 US Open? How many hints do I need to give you before you even begin to figure this out?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 12:48:57 AM
"Note also that the article lists the names of the holes."


David:


You are on a ROLL! In the last week you are good----really GOOD!!

I have actually never seen that article you just posted but JUST LOOK at the name of the ninth hole on that original 1894 nine!!! It both makes and confirms my point about the most significant difference between the original 1894 nine and the 1898 "Long Nine" that they held the 1898 US Open on!

Have you figured out why? Do you have any idea YET? I'm pretty sure Tom MacWood doesn't and he may never understand it until someone takes him there and explains it to him like one explains to a child Santa Claus does not really exist!

I just knew it! The Myopia records from 1894 and 1895 allude to it-----eg golf was not to be near hunting or particularly polo OR the clubhouse-----and consequently where did the original 1894 nine end? It ended right next to where it began (the present 2nd hole) on the POND HOLE!!!!!  ;)

Thank you so much for that article. I've never seen it before and it completely explains what I've explained to Myopia in the last two years about where their 1894 original nine hole course ended.

NOW, where were those three holes on that  original 1894 hole nine that are unaccounted for?

Can you read the chapter "Golf: HerberT C. Leeds and the Long Nine" Tom MacWood and get some inkling about what this is all about? I've asked you this ten times and you still haven't figured it out. Why is that buckoo?  ;)

Are you able to accept YET what it means that you have never been there, never seen the course or the property and have never seen any of the club's records from back then? Do you really think you can understand a golf course's architectual evolution without that? Do you really think you can figure that out from your Ivory Tower through just newspaper articles?

Now, Tom MacWood, for the twelfth time, WHERE do you think those unaccounted for three holes on the 1894 original nine hole course WERE????  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 03, 2010, 01:08:39 AM
TEPaul,

Interesting theory Tom, but take a look at the photos I posted on the previous page, particularly the first photo.   It is from the 1898 open and is labeled "View from the First Tee."

As you know, I've never been to Myopia, but the pictured hole seems to correspond to what is marked as the 2nd tee on the later maps.   If so, then as of the 1898 Open the first tee was still not next to the clubhouse. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 01:30:34 AM
David:

All I can say in response to your last post is it sure seems you have neither been to Myopia nor understand the particulars of the three iterations of its golf course!

You know, you asked me a pretty good question on this thread about what would I think if I was in your position on this subject of Myopia. At this point, I would say it is very necessary for you to actually see the golf course. I've said the same to Tom MacWood in the past but that is definitely not going to happen. He will never get off his ass and leave Ivory Tower, Ohio. But if he did, I doubt Myopia would accept or entertain him at this point. That club is not quite as naturally accommodating as we and Merion and MCC are, you know?  ;)

But if you want to talk to me on ths thread about Myopia, please feel free to do so.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 03, 2010, 10:06:17 AM
"Note also that the article lists the names of the holes."


David:


You are on a ROLL! In the last week you are good----really GOOD!!

I have actually never seen that article you just posted but JUST LOOK at the name of the ninth hole on that original 1894 nine!!! It both makes and confirms my point about the most significant difference between the original 1894 nine and the 1898 "Long Nine" that they held the 1898 US Open on!

Have you figured out why? Do you have any idea YET? I'm pretty sure Tom MacWood doesn't and he may never understand it until someone takes him there and explains it to him like one explains to a child Santa Claus does not really exist!

I just knew it! The Myopia records from 1894 and 1895 allude to it-----eg golf was not to be near hunting or particularly polo OR the clubhouse-----and consequently where did the original 1894 nine end? It ended right next to where it began (the present 2nd hole) on the POND HOLE!!!!!  ;)

Thank you so much for that article. I've never seen it before and it completely explains what I've explained to Myopia in the last two years about where their 1894 original nine hole course ended.

NOW, where were those three holes on that  original 1894 hole nine that are unaccounted for?

Can you read the chapter "Golf: HerberT C. Leeds and the Long Nine" Tom MacWood and get some inkling about what this is all about? I've asked you this ten times and you still haven't figured it out. Why is that buckoo?  ;)

Are you able to accept YET what it means that you have never been there, never seen the course or the property and have never seen any of the club's records from back then? Do you really think you can understand a golf course's architectual evolution without that? Do you really think you can figure that out from your Ivory Tower through just newspaper articles?

Now, Tom MacWood, for the twelfth time, WHERE do you think those unaccounted for three holes on the 1894 original nine hole course WERE????  ;)

TEP
I don't know, please tell us, or if you wish turn this thread into some kind of childish game. You often turn these threads into a free for all when you are not confident of your information, and that seems to the be the case here.

Here are some of the reasons your theory that a new Long Nine was built by Leeds starting in 1896 is off.

1. The names of the holes, the yardage of the holes, and the total yardage of the course remained virtually the same between 1896 and 1898.

2. There is no reference to any changes to the course in newspapers or periodicals in 1896 and 1897. The first mention I have found was in the The Golfer magazine April 1898 when it was reported Myopia was building a new nine which would make the course 18 holes. There were similar reports in Boston and NY papers in 1899.

3. Leeds only became a member of Myopia in the later half of 1896, and Willie Campbell was still the pro at the time. It is completely illogical that the club would turn to a brand new member, with limited golfing experience, when they had one of the foremost experts in the world (and without question the foremost expert in America) at their doorstep.

4. I have not found reference to anyone referring to the Myopia course as the Long Nine in newspapers or magazines, and believe me there was a lot written about the course. It was considered a long 9-hole course by the standards of the day, but the idea there was separate nine hole course built called the Long Nine to replace their current 9-hole course is goofy.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 10:46:07 AM
"As you know, I've never been to Myopia, but the pictured hole seems to correspond to what is marked as the 2nd tee on the later maps.   If so, then as of the 1898 Open the first tee was still not next to the clubhouse."


David:

That's correct. As of the 1898 US Open the first tee was still not next to the clubhouse. In the 1898 US Open the first tee was what is today the 2nd tee. When Leeds developed the full eighteen hole course that was used in the 1901 US Open the present first hole was in play. You can see its green in your third photograph on the preceding page (the photo caption reads "The First Green. David Brown putting").

By the way, there are some other photographs of Myopia in The Golfer of 1898. That magazine was the official publication of the USGA (and some other associations). As you know I don't know how to post photographs and such on here. Do you have access to that magazine?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 12:33:02 PM
"TEP
I don't know, please tell us, or if you wish turn this thread into some kind of childish game. You often turn these threads into a free for all when you are not confident of your information, and that seems to the be the case here."


Tom MacWood:

This is no childish game and either is this thread which started well over a year ago and was started by you, I might add, in some attempt to prove  Willie Campbell laid out the original 1894 nine at Myopia in the spring of 1894 rather than the three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) who the club's records of that time record laid out the original nine holes in the early spring of 1894.

I have asked you about a dozen times to try to explain where all the holes of the original 1894 nine were. You have refused to attempt to answer that question about a dozen times over the last year and more and the reason has been obvious----eg you just don't know because you've never been to this golf club or researched its early history at the golf club via the club‘s own records from that time. I have merely asked you to answer that question to establish the fact that you either do or don't know where some of those holes were on the original 1894 nine hole course.

So now we know that you didn't know, and apparently still don’t know judging from your last post of today, and that that was the reason you refused to attempt to answer that question a dozen times in the last year and more.

Therefore, I will explain to you where those three holes were (albeit not exactly what they were because there is no known record of what they were extant today that I’m aware of or that Weeks was aware of) that have heretofore been unaccounted for on the 1894 nine by everyone other than me (I explained this to Myopia a year or two ago).

Those three 1894 holes were almost entirely on Dr S.A. Hopkins property and they are named in that article above "Miles River," "Shooting Box," and "Track." From "Track" the next hole was "School" which is today the 8th hole and was the 2nd hole on Leeds' "Long Nine" which was used for the 1898 US Open. There were no holes in play on the Long Nine on Dr S.A. Hopkins property. The three holes that replaced those three unaccounted for holes on the original 1894 nine (Miles River, Shooting Box, Track) on the Long Nine are "Orient", "High" and "Home"----#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on the eighteen hole course Leeds developed and was used for the 1901.

Again, this proves you really have never understood Myopia’s architectural history and the differences between the original 1894 nine hole course and the Long Nine that Leeds developed and was used for the 1898 US Open. It appears you still don’t understand it or refuse to accept the facts of Myopia’s early architectural history! However, there it is above for you to consider and hopefully understand. But if you still choose to deny it I’m frankly not aware of anyone who cares if you deny it.

By the way, although Dr S.A. Hopkins’s land was used for some holes on the 1894 nine, his land was not used for holes with the Long Nine. However when Leeds developed the eighteen hole course in 1899 and 1900 the club bought Dr. Hopkins’ land and it is today the green end of #4, #5, #6 and most of #7!

So, there you have the three iterations of the courses of Myopia Hunt Club from 1894 until today----eg 1. The original 1894 nine laid out by Appleton, Merrill and Gardner (apparently with Campbell helping them somehow after it was routed), 2. The Long Nine developed by Herbert Leeds and, 3. The full eighteen hole course developed by Leeds, in play in 1900, and the same course in its entirety that is still there today.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 03, 2010, 01:34:37 PM
TEP
First of all Squire & Co did not layout the course in the Spring 1894. On March 13 the Myopia Hunt Club decided to build a golf links at their annual meeting held in Boston. Willie Campbell arrived in Boston the first week of April (brought to America by WB Thomas, a member of Myopia and other Boston clubs). In June it was reported Willie Campbell laid out the Myopia course and it officially opened on June 18.

You seem to be saying the original 1894 golf course was partially on land the club did not own. The club had 200+ acres at their disposal but for whatever reason they ventured off to an adjoining property. Where did you come up with this information? What year did they decide they better get off Dr. Hopkins' land?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 02:28:05 PM
David,

On May 13th, 1894 the Boston Daily Globe had a similar report that made clear that the location for the course had been determined but the holes had yet to be "laid out".

the summer at Hamilton.
-A flock of sheep will soon provide a
picturesque feature Irt the landscape at
the Myopia hunt grounds In HamUton
The sheep will serye a utilitarian end
at the same time. They will be pastured
over the tract on which the golf links
will be laid out, and win crop the sur
face close and smooth; This links will
be so situated as to^ allow spectators to
view.from an elevated point the work of
the players over the whole course. Golf
play will probably begin June 1.
-Dr Henry C. Spauldlng and family
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 02:45:31 PM
Incidentally, Willie Campbell was the pro at Essex Country Club when he first arrived on these shores, moving to The Country Club in the fall of that year.

On April 15, 1894, it was reported;

 In Hamilton.
Messrs J. Watson Merrill, R. M. Ap
pleton and W. A. Burnham of the Myopia
Hunt club's committee on field sports, have
been appointed as a sub committee to take
Measures for the introduction this season
of the game of golf at the Kennels.



That same day it was reported;

.
The season at the Essex county club at
West Manchester will begin about .lune 10.
Among' the new features in field sports
will be introduced the same of golf, instruction
in which will be imparted to club
members by Prof Campbell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 02:49:06 PM
On June 17th, 1894, it was reported;


Mr Herbert Leeds, who went to
Bar Harbor last week with his mother,
h a s returned to town, but will go back
l a t e r . While there he looked over the
ground at Kebo valley, and arranged
for the new game, golf, which promises
to be the favorite game of the season
t h e r e . The facilities for playing it at
Kebo a r e very good. Mr Leeds is quite
a n enthusiast over the sport, as, too, is
his nephew, Mr E. S. Goddard.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 02:56:36 PM
June 10th, 1894,


•Bunker Hill day will be observed
at the Myopia hunt by the initial games
in two newly laid out golf links. The
expert players who will take part are
Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton,
Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Wattson
Merrill.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 03:11:58 PM
Sept 18, 1894


Champion Willie Campbell will leave
the Essex country club for the Country
club of Brookllne on Oct 1. He will instruct there during the following month
and then sail for Europe.   He has an engagement with the committee of the
Pau links in the south of France for the winter.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 03, 2010, 04:23:03 PM
Mike,

Do you know what was meant by the phrase "two newly laid out golf links..." in the June 10th, 1894, article you quoted from?

That is a very intriguing statement...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 04:45:05 PM
Phil.

I don't know for certain but would speculate it meant two new holes, possibly..
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 04:47:02 PM
Also interesting that they were already known as local "experts" at that time.

Deja vu, anyone?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 03, 2010, 04:52:26 PM
Mike,

If that was true, your speculation that it meant two HOLES, then the idea that the entire nine hole course was finished and open for play 8 days later on June 18th must certainly be called into question.

This article requires research as it certainly can be construed in a number of different ways that can discount the different reported understandings of what took place...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 03, 2010, 05:07:03 PM
Phil,

We do know the course opened though on the 18th with nine holes in play, so perhaps these members  were trying out the final two, perhaps with an audience of curious onlookers?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 03, 2010, 05:54:22 PM
"As you know, I've never been to Myopia, but the pictured hole seems to correspond to what is marked as the 2nd tee on the later maps.   If so, then as of the 1898 Open the first tee was still not next to the clubhouse."

David:

That's correct. As of the 1898 US Open the first tee was still not next to the clubhouse. In the 1898 US Open the first tee was what is today the 2nd tee. When Leeds developed the full eighteen hole course that was used in the 1901 US Open the present first hole was in play. You can see its green in your third photograph on the preceding page (the photo caption reads "The First Green. David Brown putting").

By the way, there are some other photographs of Myopia in The Golfer of 1898. That magazine was the official publication of the USGA (and some other associations). As you know I don't know how to post photographs and such on here. Do you have access to that magazine?

Great.   That is what I thought.    I will take a look for the photographs later.  

You wrote:

Therefore, I will explain to you where those three holes were (albeit not exactly what they were because there is no known record of what they were extant today that I’m aware of or that Weeks was aware of) that have heretofore been unaccounted for on the 1894 nine by everyone other than me (I explained this to Myopia a year or two ago).

Those three 1894 holes were almost entirely on Dr S.A. Hopkins property and they are named in that article above "Miles River," "Shooting Box," and "Track." From "Track" the next hole was "School" which is today the 8th hole and was the 2nd hole on Leeds' "Long Nine" which was used for the 1898 US Open. There were no holes in play on the Long Nine on Dr S.A. Hopkins property. The three holes that replaced those three unaccounted for holes on the original 1894 nine (Miles River, Shooting Box, Track) on the Long Nine are "Orient", "High" and "Home"----#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on the eighteen hole course Leeds developed and was used for the 1901.



TEPaul,  

I still haven't seen the course.  All the same, though, I don't think this is quite right.    Let me suggest an alternate routing.   Perhaps on opening day in 1894 the nine holes was . . .
1st.  The current 2nd (kennels)
2nd.  The current 3rd (Miles River)
3th.  The current 4th (shooting box)
4th.  The current 5th (track)
5th.  The current 6th (school)
6th.  The current 9th (bulrushes)
7th.  From the current 10th to current 11th green. (hills)
8th.  The current 12th (dale)
9th.  The current 13th (pond)

In other words, I suspect that the course pretty much looped around the property to the northeast, following the 2nd through the 13th, but skipping the 7th and 8th, and cutting from the 11th tee to the eighth green.  

As for the nine in use in 1898 (which I suspect had been around since 1895) I suspect that it left off the loop out on the Northeast part of the property (current 3rd-6th) and added in the current the 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, and a longer version of the current 16th.  

So the routing would have been . . .

1st.  The current 2nd (kennels)
2nd.  The current 8th
3th.  The current 9th (bulrushes)
4th.  From the current 10th to current 11th green. (alps)
5th.  The current 12th (valley)
6th.  The current 13th (pond)
7th.  The current 14th (Orient)
8th.  The current 15th (high)
9th.  The current 16th (home)

Approximate of course.   I came up with these for multiple  reasons, but most these are based on what I've read and can glean about the holes, and from piecing together a routing that works.  

 Don't have time to explain now, but will try to later.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
"You seem to be saying the original 1894 golf course was partially on land the club did not own."


That's exactly what I'm saying.


 "The club had 200+ acres at their disposal but for whatever reason they ventured off to an adjoining property. Where did you come up with this information?"


From the club's records. The club was a polo and Hunt Club before golf.


"What year did they decide they better get off Dr. Hopkins' land?"


They did not use his land when Leeds created the Long Nine. When Leeds created the eighteen hole course the club bought Dr. S.A. Hopkins 51 acres and that's were the end of #4 is and #5, #6 and most of #7 is today. They also leased some of Dacre Bush's land, the secretary of Myopia Hunt club for #10 until eventually buying it. The back driveway came in along #11 and at one point crossed over the beginning of #2.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 03, 2010, 07:54:14 PM
TEP
What year did they decide they better get off Dr. Hopkins' land?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 03, 2010, 09:55:45 PM
Tom MacWood:

Please try not to ask so many pointless questions!

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 03, 2010, 10:45:24 PM
TEP
I don't think it is pointless to ask when they decided to move from land they didn't own on to property they owned when they had 200+ acres to lay out a 9-hole course at the beginning. I think it is pretty crazy you believe they put themselves in that situation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 04, 2010, 03:09:51 AM
Tom MacWood:

What is really illustrative with this latest remark you've been making about Myopia Hunt having 200 acres to build a golf course in 1894 and therefore not understanding why they would use land of Dr Hopkins is how little you apparently understand the history and ethos of a club like that. It was a hunting and polo club before they established golf there and that was not an easy thing with that club.

If you still have access to Weeks' history book you should try reading the rest of the book about the polo and hunting interests of the club if you ever care to understand it, including why they would use Hopkins' land or Dacre Bush's. This also goes right to the nub of the naive and ridiculous remarks you've made in the past on this thread of the part R.M Appleton played in all this in 1894! By the way Appleton had a six hole golf course on his farm BEFORE golf came to Myopia in 1894!

This club did not move to South Hamilton to use land for a golf course, they went there as a polo and fox hunting club. Or perhaps you are under the impression that fox hunting and polo and golf can use the same ground!? Have you ever considered something as fundamental as what horse hooves do, Tom MacWood?   ;) What this really illustrates is one is not a competent historian simply because he tells the participants of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com that he's an historian!

It is not the same dynamic today but it is certainly still there. I play golf at Myopia and for instance this last year was the first time in 135 years that golfers were allowed hit hit balls on one of the polo fields!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 09:18:11 AM
On that note, I find it very interesting that Appleton, et. al..Were known as "experts" in golf prior to the course even opening.

When was Campbell the pro at Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 09:54:48 AM
TEP
Don't worry I know all about fox hunting, you chase the fox over the entire countryside, where ever he takes you, but isn't that a little different then building permanent greens, tees and bunkers on someone else's land. And under your scenario they obviously realized at some point that it was a mistake and moved the holes on to their own land. Is that correct? What year did they move those three holes? Is that a difficult question.

Mike
Campbell was the pro at Brookline in 1894 and 1895 (he migrated to Essex during the summer of '94), the pro at Myopia in 1896, and was at the public links at Franklin Park from 1897 until his death in 1900. Leeds was at Brookline in 1894 and 1895, and moved Myopia in 1896.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 10:23:20 AM
Wasn't Dr. Hopkins a prominent member of the club and a very avid golfer?

Tom,

It appears from the articles I posted that Campbell was first at Essex in 1894 moving to Brookline in the fall that year...is that your understanding?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 10:30:25 AM
No, he was at Brookline in the spring of 1894, went to Essex for the summer, and was back at Brookline in the fall.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 10:36:03 AM

I also recall one blurb indicating that the course was changed for the 1895 golfing season.  If so, is it possible that changes these changes created the "long nine" before Leeds even joined the club?


There was a report in the Boston Daily Advertiser November 15, 1895:

"New links have been laid out this season which are pronounced the finest in the country by experts. They cover three miles and there are nine holes."

Three miles would make for a Very Long Nine...maybe they were calculating based on 18 holes. By the way CBM held the course record of 46.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 10:37:50 AM
Tom,

Thanks.   What do you make of the Apr 15th report of a Prof. Campbell instructing and launching the golf season at Essex?  Do you think that was Willie?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 10:48:48 AM
What April 15 report? The April 15 report in the Boston Globe:

"At the Country club much earnestness and enthusiasm are displayed among the most prominent members. Instruction in the game is given daily by Prof. Campbell."

Yes, undoubtedly the Professor is Willie. On April 26 it was reported:

"Willie Campbell, the noted Scotch golf player, who is now at the Country club, will be at Manchester during the entire season, and will give instruction and exhibition games on the golf field frequently."

Manchester is Essex County Club.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 10:52:39 AM
Tom,

Thanks, I see what you are saying.

It sounds almost like he was originally housed at Brookline during the early spring  because he was supposedly going to be at Essex when they opened their year June 10th and stayed til October.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 11:08:35 AM
There was a lot of crossover with these clubs. Brookline was a year round club closer to the center of town; Manchester was a summer colony. Many of the members of TCC would have had summer places up north.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 11:46:28 AM
Tom,

How long was a hors and carriage ride between BrOokline and South Hamilton do you figure?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 04, 2010, 12:02:13 PM
"Wasn't Dr. Hopkins a prominent member of the club and a very avid golfer?"

Yes he was. He was of no real difference than Dacre Bush whose land they used a part of for #10 before buying it. Bush only asked for something like a dozen golf balls as an annual rent.  ;)

Frankly, to truly understand the history of Myopia you don't need to understand just the land of the club but also who it was who lived around it.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 04, 2010, 12:09:30 PM
"How long was a hors and carriage ride between BrOokline and South Hamilton do you figure?"


It's a hike---different sides of Boston basically. I did it this October and it took me over an hour in the am (rush hour) but most all of that was that God-Awful Rte 128. It was bad when I went to school up there fifty years ago.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Tom,

Yes, its a bit of a jaunt as I realized this Oct playing Myopia in the morning and then driving down to play George Wright Muni, not far from Brookline in the afternoon.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 04, 2010, 02:59:23 PM
Tom,

Any thoughts on David's take on the original 1894 routing?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 04, 2010, 09:40:03 PM
Mike:

Not really other than the fact that I have no idea why he would come up with what he called that 'alternative.' He did preface it with the admission that he has never been to Myopia so my only assumption is he must think there is some mystery to the architectural evolution of the courses of Myopia. I don't think there is much of any mystery to it at all and the facts of it are pretty much in the archives of the club although perhaps the accounts of it in the newspapers may skew that for reasons that are also understandable---in my opinion.

But David Moriarty did say that he would explain his reasons for that alterantive evolution---so why don't we just wait for his explanation and then comment on it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 04, 2010, 10:31:42 PM

I also recall one blurb indicating that the course was changed for the 1895 golfing season.  If so, is it possible that changes these changes created the "long nine" before Leeds even joined the club?


There was a report in the Boston Daily Advertiser November 15, 1895:

"New links have been laid out this season which are pronounced the finest in the country by experts. They cover three miles and there are nine holes."

Three miles would make for a Very Long Nine...maybe they were calculating based on 18 holes. By the way CBM held the course record of 46.

TEP
I'm familiar with fox hunting, you chase the fox over the entire countryside, and you go where ever he takes you, but isn't that a little different then building permanent greens, tees and bunkers on someone else's land. And under your scenario they obviously realized at some point that it was a mistake and moved the holes on to their own land. Is that correct? What year did they move those three holes? Is that a difficult question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 06:06:53 AM
“There was a report in the Boston Daily Advertiser November 15, 1895:

"New links have been laid out this season which are pronounced the finest in the country by experts. They cover three miles and there are nine holes."”

Three miles would make for a Very Long Nine...maybe they were calculating based on 18 holes. By the way CBM held the course record of 46.”



Tom MacWood:

Yes, a three mile nine would be VERY long indeed!!  ??? ::) It would be very long indeed for 1895 or even 2010, come to think of it. But maybe that Boston Daily Advertiser Nov. 15, 1895 report did mean 18 holes; except Myopia Hunt Club did not have 18 holes in 1895----or are you now trying to suggest it did and Weeks and Myopia’s history got that wrong too?  ;) It seems your “independent” ;) newspaper research sources are just about as historically accurate, reliable and credible as you are. But thanks for the effort anyway. By the way, a three mile nine would be 5,200+ yards and if they meant two of those it would be a 10,000+ yard 18 hole golf course. So who do you think was into that kind of difficulty---Herbert Leeds or Willie Campbell?  




“TEP
I'm familiar with fox hunting, you chase the fox over the entire countryside, and you go where ever he takes you,……”



Is that actually the extent of your familiarity with fox hunting? Ouch! It appears you may know less about fox hunting than you do about the history of golf architecture, golf and 19th century golf clubs, but not much less.



“…….but isn't that a little different then building permanent greens, tees and bunkers on someone else's land.”


You’re asking me if building permanent greens, tees and bunkers on someone else’s land is a little different than chasing a fox over the entire countryside?? I’m not sure I understand your question but if I were to give it a guess I would say, Ah, Gee, well Yeah, I guess you could say that and the remarkably thing is apparently you just did say that!!   ;)



“And under your scenario they obviously realized at some point that it was a mistake and moved the holes on to their own land. Is that correct?”




I’m not sure why you say it was a mistake; Myopia’s records did not mention it was a mistake, but yes, when Leeds developed the Long Nine from the original 1894 nine he did move three holes to what they referred to as the “ridge”----eg where #14, #15 and #16 are today and where #7, #8 and #9 were on the Long Nine.

 

“What year did they move those three holes? Is that a difficult question.”


No, it’s not really a difficult question, but I do not have Myopia’s records in front of me----they’re in South Hamilton, Mass, and I’m in Philadelphia right now, but from memory and Weeks’ history book I would say they decided to move them in 1895 and they did the work and opened them in 1896.

As for when they purchased Dr. S.A. Hopkins’ land, again, I don’t have Myopia’s records in front of me but one source indicates that at Leeds’ insistence they purchased Dr. S.A. Hopkins’ 51 acres in 1897 for $3,500.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 06:11:47 AM
Oh, and by the by, as far as CBM shooting a 46 and holding the course record, so what? CBM was an excellent player in those days. So good in fact that he actually won the USGA's first US Amateur Championship! Are you aware of that, Tom MacWood, and do you happen to think it's as relevent to this subject and its discussion as chasing a fox all over the entire countryside??  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 05, 2010, 09:47:25 AM
Tom,

More and more here I think the irony is that Willie Campbell was apparently brought over to "lay out the course on the ground" to someone else's plan, most likely as the hired help.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 05, 2010, 09:53:13 AM
TEP
Weeks says they began developing new holes on the ridge the first year (1894), which is consistent with that report in 1895. This is at least a year before Leeds became a member. At that time a new golf course and/or new golf holes were laid out ready for play within weeks. And it is inaccurate to call the Long Nine a completely new nine since apparently only three holes were changed.

They purchased the Hopkins land in 1897 for the purpose of expanding the course to eighteen holes, it was at this point Leeds became involved.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 05, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Tom,

More and more here I think the irony is that Willie Campbell was apparently brought over to "lay out the course on the ground" to someone else's plan, most likely as the hired help.

I don't follow you. Explain to us the way you see it...who was involved and how it transpired.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 05, 2010, 10:04:18 AM
Tom,

More and more here I think the irony is that Willie Campbell was apparently brought over to "lay out the course on the ground" to someone else's plan, most likely as the hired help.

Mike

As a matter of interest, what do you think was involved in designing/laying out a course in 1894 ? How permanent would it have been and how often would it have been re-aligned or totally altered. It strikes me that there could well be a course already laid out before Willie did his thing and totally redesigned the layout, which might not have been that big a deal.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 10:47:45 AM
"This is at least a year before Leeds became a member. At that time a new golf course and/or new golf holes were laid out ready for play within weeks. And it is inaccurate to call the Long Nine a completely new nine since apparently only three holes were changed.

They purchased the Hopkins land in 1897 for the purpose of expanding the course to eighteen holes, it was at this point Leeds became involved."



Tom MacWood:

There you go again---just making things up again! I never said the Long Nine was a completely new nine. Matter of fact, just a day or so ago I first informed you (after you continuously ignored my question to you to describe the holes of the original 1894 nine) and this website that only three holes were entirely different and in an entirely different place from the original 1894 nine that were originally staked out by Appleton, Merrill and Gardner in the early spring of 1894.

Herbert Leeds was responsible for the development of the Long Nine. From Weeks' history book:

"Soon after he joined the club, Leeds was appointed to the golf committee. By now the preparation of the uphill holes was begun, and Leeds was asked to lay out the Long Nine, he did so with the determination to make Myopia Links as testing as the lay of the land permitted and never to settle for a level putting surface when undulations or a slope were available."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 05, 2010, 11:13:56 AM
TEP
According to Weeks they began developing the holes along the ridge in 1894/95. According to you those three holes were the holes changed from the original nine. No you are telling us the course was redesigned after Leeds became a member. Those differing stories do not reconcile. Do you have any evidence/contemporaneous info to support your theory?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 05, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Why did Leeds need to be a member to have designed the Long Nine?

He was already the best player in Boston, he'd designed Kebo Valley, he won the opening day tourney at Myopia...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 11:34:34 AM
Tom MacWood:

As usual with other subjects and threads on here you seem to get so confused about what someone actually says on here. What you are confused about is what I said on here and only in the last few days. Go back and reread that post I wrote that explains the differences between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine. That is what Weeks wrote and that is what the club records of the time which he was obviously actually looking at when he wrote his book say and confirm. If you can't understand it I suggest you try to do what I've done and just go to the club and read their records instead of relying on just old newspaper accounts which are inherently indirect and probably just mistaken in various ways.

I've told you for years that if anyone, including you, ever really wants to understand the details of the architectural history of any golf course they  just have to go to that subject itself, get to know it and read its historical records. You just continue to ignore this and your confusion with Merion and others and now Myopia is one good reason for it.

I just don't have the time or the interest or the patience to try to constantly educate someone who seems to be as slow on the uptake and the understanding of the details of this subject as you apparently are. There is no mystery to the architectural evolution of Myopia, just as there basicallly isn't with Merion and a few others you claim there is. However, you just never cease in trying to make it look like there is!   ???
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 11:46:22 AM
"Why did Leeds need to be a member to have designed the Long Nine?"


Apparently the only reason is because Tom MacWood seems to think that has to be necessary for some odd reason. But as you say Leeds was certainly never unknown to Myopia before he joined the club from Brookline. He also apparently has no idea what Boston was like then (and actually still is) in that all those people pretty much know one another anyway no matter which of those prominent old golf clubs they belong to. I suppose he's just trying to bring up all these irrelevent points and questions because ultimately he is trying to make it look like Willie Campbell actually had more to do with the development of Myopia's course than he ever did have. He is trying to do with Campbell and Myopia about the same thing he tried to do with HH Barker and Merion East. This kind of thing is pretty much what Tom MacWood always tries to do on this website; haven't you noticed that yet?   ??? ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 05, 2010, 01:11:47 PM
To date, all we've known or been told here is that Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton were incompetent members unfamiliar with golf, and derided as the "Master of the Hounds", to accentuate the point.

What we've since learned by the articles I posted yesterday is much different.   Willie Campbell did indeed arrive in Boston by March 31st, 1894, but seems to have been housed at the Country Club in Brookline, quite a day's travel in those days from Myopia.   Further, very early on (by April 15th) we see that someone got Campbell a season's assignment not at Myopia right away, but instead at Essex County, where he stayed through Sept 1894, before heading  back to Brookline for a month, and then to Pau in France for the winter that year.

In the meantime, by that same April 15th date it was reported that a subcommittee had already been formed at Myopia with two of the men credited in the Myopia internal archives and mentioned in Weeks' book for staking out the original course.   

By May 13th we know that the location of the holes had already been determined, as the articles mentioned one could see the whole course from the high vantage point (of the original first tee, today's second), so we know the course was designed sometime between April 15th and then, and we also know it opened officially with a tournament (won by Leeds) in mid-June 1894.

We also know that by early June the course was played, probably in something of an exhibition, by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, who are described as golf "experts", probably due to one of them already having laid out a course on his own property, and most likely due to them all being fervent and avid players prior to then, as was Dr. Hopkins and others.

So it seems extremely unlikely to me that both the club's contemporaneous records, which made clear that the original nine hole course was staked out by these three men, AND the contemporaneous news reports that made clear these "experts" were in charge of bringing golf to Myopia that spring, would both be somehow mistaken.

Instead, I believe that Campbell was likely brought up to Hamilton at some point prior to his engagement at Essex, and helped to get the course started, by "laying it out on the ground", most likely to the plan already determined by the aristocratic members.

As regards Leeds, it is likely in his role as the best golfer in Boston, and his opening day tournament win, that he was heavily involved in golf at Myopia from almost the very beginning, and since we already know his expertise was such that he was already asked to design Kebo Valley before that time, it is virtually certain that his historical attribution of both the Long Nine and the following 18 hole course were accurately attributed.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 01:26:42 PM
"To date, all we've known or been told here is that Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton were incompetent members unfamiliar with golf, and derided as the "Master of the Hounds", to accentuate the point."


Michael:

No it isn't. I told you all over a year ago that R.M. Appleton had a six hole golf course on his own farm BEFORE golf came to the Myopia Hunt Club. Just because Appleton happened to also be the Master of the Fox Hounds (essentially the captain of the Hunt in the fox hunting world) Tom MacWood seems to think that made it impossible for him to have known anything about golf. I mean I really can't imagine how anyone could have more of a one dimensional mind than MacWood if he actually thinks that. The appropriate term would probably be a myopic mind actually! That's obviously why he is such a terrible historical analyst! ;)

Herbert Leeds was a remarkable athlete in all kinds of sports----star football and baseball player at Harvard, a world class sailor, a good tennis player and fox hunter, as well as obviously one of the very best golfers in Boston back then.

Once again, Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staked out the original 1894 nine at Myopia, not Willie Campbell. Myopia itself in its historical records never mentioned Willie Campbell except briefly in passing as one of the good Scottish teachers of that very early era. That's meaningful because they surely did mention all the others who worked for them over the years with their golf and their golf course including Robert White and their beloved John (Jack) Jones back in that era and in later years their beloved John Thoren and more recently and to date their highly respected Billy Safrin who's been there thirty years now and actually came to them from Philadelphia and Gulph Mills Golf Club. There is no question that Willie Campbell did something for Myopia, perhaps with their original course and later perhaps as their playing pro and golf teacher for a year but he clearly did not make the kind of impression on them that the others did.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 05, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Tom,

I stand corrected.   I didn't mean that's what you told us about them.

It's how they've been portrayed by others here looking to mitigate/negate their role in the creation of the first nine holes at Myopia.

Apparently not only were the men involved with Mastery of the Hounds, but were known locally as golf "experts" by the time they were asked to bring a golf course to Myopia, which shows clearly how that term was used back then to indicate anyone with golfing knowledge and any sort of proficiency in the game.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 01:46:26 PM
"It's how they've been portrayed by others here looking to mitigate/negate their role in the creation of the first nine holes at Myopia."


It is? Which "others"------other than Tom MacWood of course?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 05, 2010, 03:49:36 PM
Tom,

I'm pretty sure if I scroll back through the pages of this thread that there were others who believe Campbell did the design of the first nine at Myopia with no involvement of the three members in question.

I just want to make sure that ALL of the facts and timelines are put on the table here and folks can make their own determinations.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 05, 2010, 04:27:25 PM
TEP
Your story keeps changing. Do you have any evidence to support your theories? There is plenty of evidence supporting Campbell's involvement.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 05, 2010, 05:23:48 PM
I asked the question a few days ago who had a more impressive resume than HJ Tweedie in 1900, and no one could come up with a name. I'm not sure if this is more impressive or not, but Willie Campbell's list of American designs is pretty impressive:

The Country Club, MA
Essex County, MA
Myopia Hunt, MA
Franklin Park, MA
Winchester, MA
Tatnuck, MA
Salem, MA
Topsfield, MA
Hawthorn, MA
Cambridge, MA
Nahant, MA
Wakefield, MA
Bridgewater, MA
Beaver Meadow, NH
Wannamoisett, RI
Merion Cricket, PA
Belmont Cricket, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Huntingdon Valley, PA
Moorestown Field, NJ
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 05, 2010, 06:35:40 PM
"I just want to make sure that ALL of the facts and timelines are put on the table here and folks can make their own determinations."


Mike:

The facts and timelines of Myopia's architectural evolution are on Post #393. If you want any more details on it I'd be glad to supply them, including a hole by hole evolution.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 05, 2010, 11:55:56 PM
Mike Cirba, This would be a lot more productive if you refrained from misrepresenting the factual record.  

For example, you claim that "By May 13th [1894] we know that the location of the holes had already been determined, as the articles mentioned one could see the whole course from the high vantage point."   We "know"  this? Nonsense.  The article mentions the general location of where the course would be laid out.  It says nothing about whether or not the holes had been planned!  In fact, the article is clear that the course had not yet been laid out, and that one would be able to to see much of the course when it was laid out.  It says nothing about planning.   As for your hypocrisy regarding the meaning of the verb "to lay out," it is beyond the pale and deserves no comment.

For another example, you wrote that "we also know that by early June the course was played, probably in something of an exhibition, by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill . . . "  Huh? An exhibition match?  Surely you aren't referring to the June 10th article are you?    Because that article DOES NOT mention anything about exhibition match that had already taken place.   Rather, the article mentions only the Myopia tournament that would take place on "Bunker Hill Day" which is June 17th, the day of the opening tournament.  You know, the tournament after which three different newspapers stated that Willie Campbell had laid out the course.  

You also base your conclusions on "the club's contemporaneous records," yet you haven't seen those records, have you?  

As for your blatant attempt to exaggerate the qualifications of many involved (exhibition matches, "experts") give us a break already.

Really Mike, your penchant for hyperbolic and unsupported conclusions doesnt help matters.  
__________________________________________

TEPaul, you wrote, in reference to my alternate routing suggested above:

Not really other than the fact that I have no idea why he would come up with what he called that 'alternative.' He did preface it with the admission that he has never been to Myopia so my only assumption is he must think there is some mystery to the architectural evolution of the courses of Myopia. I don't think there is much of any mystery to it at all and the facts of it are pretty much in the archives of the club although perhaps the accounts of it in the newspapers may skew that for reasons that are also understandable---in my opinion.

I still haven't seen the course and that is quite a disadvantage, but I am trying to muddle through and make sense of things.  There may be no mystery to you but then you have better access to the information than I do.   And as I explained above I have to go with the material to which I have ready access.  Based on that information, there remain a few mysteries in my mind, but maybe you can shed some light on those.  

The first mystery to me is that you mentioned that the current 8th hole (2nd hole on the original course and the 1898 version) is now called "school" and was part of the original nine.   I had been trying to figure out the 1894 holes myself, and had thought that the eighth wasn't likely among them because it just doesn't fit very well in the routing.  

Looking at the 1894 article, the next hole after "school" was "bulrushes" which was the short hole, and this makes some sense because "bulrushes" followed the hole you call "school" in 1898.    And according to the 1894 article, then came "hills," then "dale," then the finish at "pond."   Counting backward, that would make the hole you call "school" the fifth hole on the original nine.   But  what about holes 2-4 on that original nine?  The tee on the hole you call "school" is very close to what was the first green (now the second green) and I can't see how the routing came back here.  Where could these holes have been routed to make the routing work?    Plus what is now the 8th hole was called "prairie," not "school," on both the 1898 nine and the 18 hole course.  

In comparison, the course routes smoothly by using the current 2nd-6th, then bulrushes  (leaving off the current 7th and 8th holes.)  

One more question.  Are you absolutely certain that the land purchased was east of the existing course?    It seems strange they would purchase 50 acres of land to the east for just three holes, when most of the expansion was to the west.  



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 12:13:40 AM
Below is a portion of an Atlas from 1910 showing the course as it existed then and some of the neighboring property.  I've marked the routing I had figured in blue and the 8th in red.

Also note that, apparently, a bit of the course was still located on property owned by Bush.  The image makes it difficult to imagine just where the purchased 50 acres was located, which is why I asked whether you are sure that the purchase was for property east of the course.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia-Atlas-1910.jpg?t=1291611811)

_______________________________________________


Excerpt from Myopia Songs and Waltzes, 2nd edition, published in 1898.  (Original published in 1898.)  From the section written by M.K. Abbott:

"Golf has been introduced as a Myopia sport. Its  development has been principally due to the efforts of Mr. Bush and Mr. Parker, who, in the opinion of many, have laid out one of the best inland courses in the country".

While Mike will find that this absolute proof that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner designed the course, I am not so sure what to make of it.  

Interesting, though, that none of the above three are mentioned.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 05:41:08 AM
David:

Holes 2-4 on the original 1894 nine were on or mostly on land owned by Dr. S.A. Hopkins. See Post #393. That is the same land on which the second half of #4, #5, and most of #6 and #7 were on in the 1900 eighteen hole course and are on today. For the Long Nine (1896-1900) three holes were built on the other side of the property (the so named "uphill" holes where #14, #15 and #16 are today and which were #7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine) and the holes on Hopkins' property were given up on the Long Nine (the sequence went from present #2 directly to #8). I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 06:48:35 AM
David
The only problem with your take on how '94 may have looked is the current second hole being involved. If you look at the names of the holes in 1894, if begins Kennels, Miles River, etc. I would think based on the names of the holes your second and third hole should be one and two.

Another problem, the idea that the original nine was changed (and it is possible it was changed) is based on Weeks account. To my knowledge no one has found any contemporaneous reports that the course was changed, with the possible exception of the report in 1895 that said the links was new.

This is what Weeks said in his history: We know the first links was on land of the club and of Dr. Hopkins. He does not say how he knows this. He also says the layout of the course is matter of speculation. He has no idea how the course was configured (he also says the holes on the ridge were not completed for couple of years 1896). He then goes on to describe the course (six holes) as if he knows how the course was configured. He claims it started with the present #2, the present #8, then the present #9 (bullrushes), then the shorter version of the Alps, then the present 12th, then the Pond, the present sixth. That is six holes.

Weeks claims when the snow melted in the spring of '94 Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner were staking out the course. We have no idea what supporting info he has to prove this. They then went to the executive committee and told them the course would be ready in three months. Where does that come from? There is no mention of Willie Campbell despite the fact there are numerous reports he laid out the course.

The one bit of evidence he does present is what he calls a terse entry in the Club records by S. Dacres Bush. "At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia ground. Accordingly the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894..." Does that sound contemporaneous entry into the club records? He is not even certain of the date of the executive meeting reported in the Boston papers as March 13. Again there is no mention of Willie Campbell even though it was well documented he was involved.

Later in the book Weeks give us Dacres Bush's description of the Long Nine, which was in something called 'Golf: the triumph of Hope over Experience.' I suspect Weeks' terse entry in the 'Club records' was actually in this account. I'm curious when it was published.

Also according to Weeks' timeline  Leeds joined the club (no date), soon after he was appointed to the golf committee (no date), the preparing of the holes on the ridge were already begun (no date), then they asked Leeds to layout the Long Nine. This jives with what TEP has been selling us all along, although he seems to be altering his version slightly because he now appears the Long Nine existed prior to Leeds joining the club in 1896 (based on the 1895 report in the Boston paper). TEP recently asked the question why was it necessary for Leeds to have been a member of the club while redesigning the course.

Because of the lack of documented support it appears speculation plays a major part in Weeks account and for that reason I am skeptical of just about everything written in it. Also the fact he has no clue Campbell was involved makes his account highly dubious in my opinion.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 07:33:15 AM
"This jives with what TEP has been selling us all along, although he seems to be altering his version slightly because he now appears the Long Nine existed prior to Leeds joining the club in 1896 (based on the 1895 report in the Boston paper).

Because of the lack of documented support it appears speculation plays a major part in Weeks account and for that reason I am skeptical of just about everything written in it. Also the fact he has no clue Campbell was involved makes his account highly dubious in my opinion."


Tom MacWood:

I am not and have not altered any version of the evolution of the architecture of Myopia. It appears you have misread or misunderstood something I said and thereby called it another version. You have been pretty good at doing that on this website. Leeds developed the Long Nine and that's a fact that is recorded by the club and by Weeks many years later when he wrote this history book which served as a centennial history of Myopia----eg "Myopia, 1875-1975"

Myopia's history does not become fact when someone copies and scans all the details of it on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com----it is fact because the records of the club confirm it and that is what Weeks was looking at when he wrote history book.  

Weeks did describe only six holes of the 1894 nine as I mentioned on here some pages back. That is because three holes that were on or mostly on Dr. S.A. Hopkins' land did not survive on the Long Nine which was developed in 1896-97 and used for the 1898 US Open. They were replaced by three holes on the "uphill" portion of the property. But the club did record that Dr. Hopkins' land was used for a part of the original 1894 nine. Perhaps you don't understand where Dr Hopkins' land was but the club did and does and so do I.

As far as Willie Campbell is concerned obviously you think he was all important to Myopia and that original nine but just as obviously the club didn't think that back then. I'm quite sure he did something at Myopia in the spring of 1894 but he did not lay out that original nine; three members of Myopia Hunt Club did that.

This subject of Myopia isn't much different from the problems you've had understanding the details of the history of Merion East. If you want to understand these things about the history of Myopia or Merion or any other club you're going to basically have to get off your ass and actually go to these clubs and research their historical material from the time in question.

But if you want to be skeptical of what any of it says without doing that then that's your prerogagative and I doubt anyone really cares what you think or say. I know Myopia doesn't and either do I.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 09:53:57 AM
Post #383
“No, the original 1894 nine was not changed PRIOR to 1896; it begun to be changed in 1896 or shortly thereafter when Herbert C. Leeds came from the CC of Brookline to Myopia Hunt club and was asked to change it; which he did into what has long been called the "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played; the first US Open that was separated in time and place from the US Amateur!”


Post #437
MikeC asks: "Why did Leeds need to be a member to have designed the Long Nine?"

"Apparently the only reason is because Tom MacWood seems to think that has to be necessary for some odd reason. But as you say Leeds was certainly never unknown to Myopia before he joined the club from Brookline. He also apparently has no idea what Boston was like then (and actually still is) in that all those people pretty much know one another anyway no matter which of those prominent old golf clubs they belong to. I suppose he's just trying to bring up all these irrelevent points and questions because ultimately he is trying to make it look like Willie Campbell actually had more to do with the development of Myopia's course than he ever did have. He is trying to do with Campbell and Myopia about the same thing he tried to do with HH Barker and Merion East. This kind of thing is pretty much what Tom MacWood always tries to do on this website; haven't you noticed that yet?”


TEP
It would appear you are changing your story from post #383 and acknowledging the course may have changed PRIOR to 1896, the year Leeds became a member. This proves you have no idea what happened and are simply speculating, like Weeks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 10:30:22 AM
Tom MacWood:

If that's the best you can do it really is a waste of time for anyone to discuss the architectural history of Myopia with you. I notice you even listed Myopia as a Willie Campbell golf course above!  ??? That's ridiculous because it isn't; it's a Herbert C. Leeds golf course and everyone who knew anything about golf back then and who knows anything about it today knows that except apparently you. Whatever Willie Campbell did for them in 1894 and it was probably something other than routing the holes, but it obviously wasn't much. Maybe he helped them sod the greens and level areas for tees because I doubt Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did that. If it had been something significant like routing and designing the course the club would've recorded it as they did everything else and everyone else that had anything significant to do with its history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 10:37:52 AM

I asked the question a few days ago who had a more impressive resume than HJ Tweedie in 1900, and no one could come up with a name. I'm not sure if this is more impressive or not, but Willie Campbell's list of American designs is pretty impressive:

The Country Club, MA
Essex County, MA
Myopia Hunt, MA
Franklin Park, MA
Winchester, MA
Tatnuck, MA
Salem, MA
Topsfield, MA
Hawthorn, MA
Cambridge, MA
Nahant, MA
Wakefield, MA
Bridgewater, MA
Beaver Meadow, NH
Wannamoisett, RI
Merion Cricket, PA
Belmont Cricket, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Huntingdon Valley, PA
Moorestown Field, NJ



Tom,

I know you love to create seemingly authoritative listings, and especially love to do so if you think it simultaneously tweaks your regional and socio-economic biases, but I do have to point out that neither Philadelphia Country Club nor Belmont Cricket Club were designed by Mr. Campbell.

Philly CC was originally designed by another itinerant professional, Harry Gullane, with the Green Committee, and was mostly developed in the early years by member George T. Fowle.

Belmont was designed by Harrison Townsend, Dr. H. Toulmin of later Merion Committee fame, and Dr. J.A. Davis in 1896.   I believe later Campbell may have had plans to design a different course for the club, but don't believe that ever happened, as the Golf Association split from the Cricket Club, and became Aronimink.

Also, although Huntingdon Valley was originally designed by Campbell in 1897, notes in 1898 indicate that "The course as originally laid out by Campbell has lately been rearranged and extended by the Greens Committee".

Perhaps that "do it yourself" approach by these early clubs was simply foreshadowing things to come in Philadelphia.  ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 10:51:58 AM
To understand the history of the architecture of Myopia the person to be discussing isn't Willie Campbell, it's Herbert C. Leeds. The man was pretty unusual in a number of ways, that's for damn sure. He may've been about as suspicious and stand-offish with the press as anyone I've ever heard of involved in golf course architecture (has anyone EVER seen an actual interview with Herbert Leeds?  ;))? Frankly, the guy was an out and out martinet and Myopia has always been well aware of that and actually recorded it. I know it personally because Denny Boardman was his nephew and he had some amazing stories about him, that's for sure.

But if you guys want to go on page after page speculating about the importance of Willie Campbell to the history of the architecture of Myopia, be my guest, but it's a total red herring. The architectural history at the golf club is actually remarkably complete for a club of that age.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 06, 2010, 11:43:10 AM
TMac,

Your Campbell list includes many not on the list done by CW in architects of golf and has apparently missed some that were on theCW list, including the two he did in GBI before coming to America.  Out of curiosity, why did you skip those, and what are your sources for the others on the list?  Were you able to find more newspaper articles mentioning his name in connection with those courses?

Really just curious, even though I know it is slightly OT to the main discussion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 11:49:43 AM
Jeff,

C&W lists Torresdale-Frankford as 9 by Campbell, which is in error.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 12:06:46 PM
Mike Cirba, This would be a lot more productive if you refrained from misrepresenting the factual record.  

For example, you claim that "By May 13th [1894] we know that the location of the holes had already been determined, as the articles mentioned one could see the whole course from the high vantage point."   We "know"  this? Nonsense.  The article mentions the general location of where the course would be laid out.  It says nothing about whether or not the holes had been planned!  In fact, the article is clear that the course had not yet been laid out, and that one would be able to to see much of the course when it was laid out.  It says nothing about planning.   As for your hypocrisy regarding the meaning of the verb "to lay out," it is beyond the pale and deserves no comment.

For another example, you wrote that "we also know that by early June the course was played, probably in something of an exhibition, by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill . . . "  Huh? An exhibition match?  Surely you aren't referring to the June 10th article are you?    Because that article DOES NOT mention anything about exhibition match that had already taken place.   Rather, the article mentions only the Myopia tournament that would take place on "Bunker Hill Day" which is June 17th, the day of the opening tournament.  You know, the tournament after which three different newspapers stated that Willie Campbell had laid out the course.  

You also base your conclusions on "the club's contemporaneous records," yet you haven't seen those records, have you?  

As for your blatant attempt to exaggerate the qualifications of many involved (exhibition matches, "experts") give us a break already.

Really Mike, your penchant for hyperbolic and unsupported conclusions doesnt help matters.  


David,

I'm not sure why the grumpy attitude over the newly discovered news articles I presented, or my opinion about what they mean, but I would suggest Metamucil as I understand it's both "new" and "improved" and you're clearly in need.  ;)

For starters, I'm at a loss to understand how guys whose entire modus operandi is to seek the "truth" solely through newspaper articles and web searches failed to find a single article documenting the heavy involvement and authorized responsibility for the course by these members through the spring of 1894.

I spent literally five minutes with a rather crude tool and came up with more to document the Myopia members', HC Leeds, and Willie Campbell's activities during that year than has happened over the many months of this thread.

Are you guys searching for the truth, or searching to try to debunk the official story as documented in the contemporaneous meeting minutes?   I guess if you are looking for evidence of anyone but the official story that's all you'll find.

Secondly, it wasn't me who called Merrill, Appleton, and Gardner "experts".   It was the contemporaneous news article written a few days before the course opened.

Also, it wasn't me who claimed that one could view the "entire" course from the high vantage point...it was the contemporaneous news articles from May of that year that you and I both posted.   How the hell could that be claimed if they didn't know at that point where the holes of the course were going to be located??

And yes, they were still needing to be "laid out", in your parlance, as in "laid the holes on the ground" after they'd been staked out by the members, which is where I think Willie Campbell helped and where he was credited in the local papers after the course opened.

Ask yourself this...which is more preposterous?

A group of aristocratic members at Myopia known as local golf "experts", one of whom already has a golf course on his property, stake out a course on the property sometime between April and May 1894, and then hire a newly arrived hired hand with expertise in these matters in the form of Willie Campbell to oversee construction...

or

A group of aristocratic members like HG Lloyd and Rodman Griscom were appointed to oversee field construction to someone else's plans?   ::)  

Have a nice day.   ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 12:49:21 PM
David
The only problem with your take on how '94 may have looked is the current second hole being involved. If you look at the names of the holes in 1894, if begins Kennels, Miles River, etc. I would think based on the names of the holes your second and third hole should be one and two.

I am pretty sure that "kennels" is the current 2nd hole.  At least that was the name for it in 1898.  My guess is that the outbuilding marked "garage" on the 1910 atlas posted above was the location of the original kennels.    But the next being called "Miles River" is a bit curious, given that in 1901 the current 4th (not the 3rd) was "Miles River."   That said, the name would at least make sense for either hole as the current 3rd plays to the river and the 4th parallels it.  

Quote
Another problem, the idea that the original nine was changed (and it is possible it was changed) is based on Weeks account. To my knowledge no one has found any contemporaneous reports that the course was changed, with the possible exception of the report in 1895 that said the links was new.

Actually I am trying not to rely on Weeks at all, but rather am trying to focus in information contemporaneous with the creation.   Rather, I am focusing on the descriptions of the course from 1898 and the names of the holes from 1894.   The names of the 1898 holes match for 1894's 1st (kennels) and then 6th through 9th (bulrushes, hills-alps, dell-valley, pond) so it may be a matter of finding the three holes in between.

The reason I think it most likely changed after 1894 is because I am pretty certain the location of the holes from 1896 were the current 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th tee to somewhere around the 11th green, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th.   I don't know this from Weeks, but from contemporaneous descriptions of the holes.   So we have the opposite issue I mentioned to TEPaul, and the names of these holes don't match with the names and apparent hole order of all the original holes.  For example there is no hole in that nine which could reasonably be called Miles River.

Speaking of which, can you post again where you got the hole distances from 1896?  I can't recall.   Thanks.  

Quote
This is what Weeks said in his history: We know the first links was on land of the club and of Dr. Hopkins. He does not say how he knows this. He also says the layout of the course is matter of speculation. He has no idea how the course was configured (he also says the holes on the ridge were not completed for couple of years 1896). He then goes on to describe the course (six holes) as if he knows how the course was configured. He claims it started with the present #2, the present #8, then the present #9 (bullrushes), then the shorter version of the Alps, then the present 12th, then the Pond, the present sixth. That is six holes.

This highlights the issue I mentioned to TEPaul above.  This routing works as a six hole course, but when you try to fit in three more between Weeks' 1st (current second) and Weeks' 2nd (current 8th) you run in to routing problems.


Mike Cirba,

My criticisms of your conclusions from those articles are on point.   There is nothing in those articles indicating that the holes had been planned prior to Campbell's arrival, and you really botched the bit about the play on Bunker Hill day, for just two examples.  And Mike, I may be mistaken but believe all those articles have come to light before.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 01:37:02 PM
Tom,

I know you love to create seemingly authoritative listings, and especially love to do so if you think it simultaneously tweaks your regional and socio-economic biases, but I do have to point out that neither Philadelphia Country Club nor Belmont Cricket Club were designed by Mr. Campbell.

Philly CC was originally designed by another itinerant professional, Harry Gullane, with the Green Committee, and was mostly developed in the early years by member George T. Fowle.

Belmont was designed by Harrison Townsend, Dr. H. Toulmin of later Merion Committee fame, and Dr. J.A. Davis in 1896.   I believe later Campbell may have had plans to design a different course for the club, but don't believe that ever happened, as the Golf Association split from the Cricket Club, and became Aronimink.

Also, although Huntingdon Valley was originally designed by Campbell in 1897, notes in 1898 indicate that "The course as originally laid out by Campbell has lately been rearranged and extended by the Greens Committee".

Perhaps that "do it yourself" approach by these early clubs was simply foreshadowing things to come in Philadelphia.  ;)



Mike
Early in the thread Joe Bausch produced an article from the Phila Inquirer that said Campbell assisted Gullane at Philadelphia CC. Joe also produced an article from the Inquirer that Campbell laid out Belmont Cricket. Belmont went under in 1912. According to the Golf Course Guide of 1900 Campbell designed Huntingdon Valley.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 01:41:39 PM
To understand the history of the architecture of Myopia the person to be discussing isn't Willie Campbell, it's Herbert C. Leeds. The man was pretty unusual in a number of ways, that's for damn sure. He may've been about as suspicious and stand-offish with the press as anyone I've ever heard of involved in golf course architecture (has anyone EVER seen an actual interview with Herbert Leeds?  ;))? Frankly, the guy was an out and out martinet and Myopia has always been well aware of that and actually recorded it. I know it personally because Denny Boardman was his nephew and he had some amazing stories about him, that's for sure.

But if you guys want to go on page after page speculating about the importance of Willie Campbell to the history of the architecture of Myopia, be my guest, but it's a total red herring. The architectural history at the golf club is actually remarkably complete for a club of that age.

This thread was started to discuss Willie Campbell's involvement early on. I don't think this thread has done any damage to or discounted Leeds's major contribution. However your reaction to new information involving Campbell has been a little bizarre, although not unprecedented.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 01:44:37 PM
TMac,

Your Campbell list includes many not on the list done by CW in architects of golf and has apparently missed some that were on theCW list, including the two he did in GBI before coming to America.  Out of curiosity, why did you skip those, and what are your sources for the others on the list?  Were you able to find more newspaper articles mentioning his name in connection with those courses?

Really just curious, even though I know it is slightly OT to the main discussion.

I didn't include his UK courses even though are quite a few. I chose to concentrate on his American work since this thread deals with that. I've not been able to confirm Torresdale or Oakley yet.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 01:54:01 PM
David,

If any contemporaneous news articles citing the activities and/or golf course responsibilities of Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton in the spring of 1894 have been found prior, let's just say no one saw fit to publish them here prior.

One would reasonably think that any part of finding "the truth" would have included some search on their whereabouts and/or responsibilities during spring of 1894, but alas...

We now know that by mid April it was already being reported that they were assigned to a subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and we also now know they were viewed as local golf experts.

The Myopia internal records evidently mention that they staked out the course after the snow cleared in spring of 1894.   That is much more likely to be April 15th than May 15th around Boston, don't you think?

Otherwise, what do you think they were doing between the time they were appointed to the subcommittee as men with golf experience (experts) to bring golf to Myopia sometime before that April 15th report and May 13th when it was reported that you could watch play across the entire course from the high vantage point?   Waiting for Willie Campbell to come up from Brookline on the other side of the city?



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 01:55:43 PM
David
My thought is the current #3 would be Kennels because that is where the kennels were located and the next hole today is Miles River (and back then too). The current #2 is not all that close to the kennels.

I have the yardage in 1896 as follows though I'm not able pinpoint where I got that info. I do have the source (Boston Globe) for the total yardage at 2836 in 1896. If the course did change I suspect it happened in 1895, not 1896.
          
380 -              
423 -              
100 -              
250 -              
300 -                
250 -              
400 -              
510 -                
250 -              
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 01:58:26 PM
Tom MacWood,

I'm familiar with the 1896 article that Joe produced about Belmont that said Campbell was going to lay out 3 courses...an 18, a 9, and a women's course, but it evidently never happened to my knowledge as the members were still playing on the 9 hole course laid out by Toulmin, Townsend, et.al. by 1898.

The Philadelphia Country Club article says the plans were the work of the Committee that Fowle was on, with "suggestions" from Gullane and Campbell.   I'm not sure how that connotes authorship for Campbell, but whatever.

Campbell did the original design at Huntingdon Valley, but like I said, it was changed and extended within a year by the Greens Committee and the changes were evidently extensive enough that they were noted to outside sources.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 02:05:14 PM
"This highlights the issue I mentioned to TEPaul above.  This routing works as a six hole course, but when you try to fit in three more between Weeks' 1st (current second) and Weeks' 2nd (current 8th) you run in to routing problems."


You don't run into routing problems at all and that you think so is just another example of both how and why you don't seem to understand that course or its land which isn't much wonder since you've never been there. As I've explained a number of times already those three holes were on or mostly on Dr. S.A. Hopkins' property, but perhaps you aren't even aware of where it was. Logically, those three holes on the original 1894 nine ran from the present second hole probably to a green about where #4 is today. From there the next probably ran on top of the ridge to the right of today's #7 and then back down what is now #7 to next to the 8th tee which was #5 on the original 1894 routing. Those holes (#2-4) would be on or mostly on Hopkins' land just as the records of the club said they were on the original 1894. This isn't rocket science, it's actually very logical and easy to deduce for anyone familiar with the history contained in the documents OF the club itself, and not in some newspaper articles which are necessarily indirect, particularly in that day and age!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 02:08:47 PM
Mike
WB Thomas brought Campbell over early in 1894, and it was a big deal on both sides of the Atlantic. Thomas was a prominent member of Brookline, Essex County and Myopia (and future president of the USGA). In May it was reported Myopia had yet lay out their golf course, and I assume the snow was gone by then. I don't think it makes any sense that any of these early country clubs would choose not have Campbell lay out their golf course; he was arguably the most experienced and qualified man in the country and he had just been brought to Boston for the purpose of teaching and developing the sport. Boston newspapers reported at the time Campbell laid out Brookline, Essex County and Myopia. There is no mention in print (that I have found) of the Squire & Co. or anyone else laying out those courses. Weeks and TEP's story makes no sense in my opinion, and there is no documented support for it. Is there?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 02:17:21 PM
Tom MacWood,

We are both very close to slipping over the total hypocrisy line from opposing directions here, but couldn't the course have been staked out prior to May and still not "laid out" on the ground at that time?

Could you cite for me where that was reported?   Thanks.

By the way...I think both things are true.

I think Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton staked out the original course and Campbell laid it on the ground, probably making revisions as he saw fit, but likely not doing much but helping them get a working course up and going.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 02:20:16 PM
Tom MacWood,

I'm familiar with the 1896 article that Joe produced about Belmont that said Campbell was going to lay out 3 courses...an 18, a 9, and a women's course, but it evidently never happened to my knowledge as the members were still playing on the 9 hole course laid out by Toulmin, Townsend, et.al. by 1898.

The Philadelphia Country Club article says the plans were the work of the Committee that Fowle was on, with "suggestions" from Gullane and Campbell.   I'm not sure how that connotes authorship for Campbell, but whatever.

Campbell did the original design at Huntingdon Valley, but like I said, it was changed and extended within a year by the Greens Committee and the changes were evidently extensive enough that they were noted to outside sources.

The 1900 golf course guide claims Aronimink was organized in 1896 and 9-hole course was laid out that same year. It then give the names and yardages of the holes. Aronimink evidently split from Belmont in 1899 and taken over its golf course. I'm giving Campbell credit advising PCC and the original design of Huntingdon Valley.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 02:21:27 PM
Tom MacWood,

We are both very close to slipping over the total hypocrisy line from opposing directions here, but couldn't the course have been staked out prior to May and still not "laid out" on the ground at that time?

Could you cite for me where that was reported?   Thanks.

By the way...I think both things are true.

I think Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton staked out the original course and Campbell laid it on the ground, probably making revisions as he saw fit, but likely not doing much but helping them get a working course up and going.

What evidence have you seen that supports that theory?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 02:24:00 PM
Tom,

Were the hole names;

Hurdle
Bunker
Hoodoo Hollow
The Cedars
Hump Back
Long Ridge
Round Top
Pons Asinorum
Home wood

?

If so, that's Townsend and Toulmin's course.

p.s.   Which report in May said that Myopia hadn't been "laid out" yet?   Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 02:28:40 PM
I, Cherry Tree, 240; 2, Bunker, 450; 3, Hoodoo Hollow,
330; 4, The Cedars, 175 ; 5, Hunchback, 248; 6, Long Ridge, 280 ; 7, Round
Top, 170; 8, Pons Asinorum, 520; 9, Homewood, 265.

Townsend is president of the club; the course was laid in December 1896, and no mention of a change in 1898.

Regarding the May article see post #385.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 02:42:17 PM
Tom,

That would be the course laid out in 1896 by Dr. Harry Toulmin, Harrison Townsend, and Dr. J.A. Davis.   It sounds as though they renamed their first hole, as the location of the 2nd tee and the fact that the hole was land locked between a road and the ninth hole would have made moving it somewhere else extremely unlikely.

I have the first hole listed at 257 yards....how about you?

Somewhat ironically, the 3rd green was surrounded on 3 sides by a creek, and the 4th green sat at the edge of a quarry...shades of Merion!  ;)

Also ironically, young Hugh Wilson was a member and something of a boy wonder as he held the course record, and was the only scratch player in the club.   The next best golfer was Harrison Townsend with an 8 handicap.

***EDIT*** I think my yardages might be a bit more precise...

257
441
371
158
244
264
174
515
289
Total 2713
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
The actual yardage of the 1898 Long Nine was 2928.

The original first hole (2nd today) on the original 1894 nine was only about 300 yards with the green far short and to the left of the present green (the green was just short of today's 3rd tee). The old tees of the original 1894 1st hole (today's 2nd hole) can still be seen far down the hillside. Today's #8 was about 400 and today's 12th was originally about 300 on the 1894 nine with its green far short of today's green. From there you played over the pond on the 9th (the pond cannot even be seen today; it's in the woods to the left of #13). The original 6th hole of the 1894 nine (today's 9th) was only 100 yards, there was no pond and the green was apparently in a bit of a bowl, very unlike the long narrow deep bunkered green there now and there on perhaps the Long Nine and certainly on the 1900 eighteen hole course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 02:56:38 PM
"There is no mention in print (that I have found) of the Squire & Co. or anyone else laying out those courses. Weeks and TEP's story makes no sense in my opinion, and there is no documented support for it. Is there?"


Tom MacWood:

So, let me get this straight; do you actually think if you can't find something in a newspaper account it didn't happen or its not true? You really should get off your ass in front of your computer in Ohio and start actually visiting these subjects and doing the necessary historic research on site. Of course this doesn't make sense to you----eg you don't know what the place looks like and you're dealing with far less than complete historic information. If you had actually read what Weeks was obviously looking at and what I've read you may have a chance at understanding most of this but knowing you perhaps even that wouldn't do it.

Until you actually visit the likes of Merion GC, MCC and Myopia I can certainly see from all this there is obviously no point trying to discuss the details of their original architectural history with you. You either can't seem to understand what others tell you who've seen this material or you refuse to believe them so it would be better if you just went to read it and research it yourself and then maybe a discussion about it could be more productive with you.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 04:44:30 PM
Otherwise, what do you think they were doing between the time they were appointed to the subcommittee as men with golf experience (experts) to bring golf to Myopia sometime before that April 15th report and May 13th when it was reported that you could watch play across the entire course from the high vantage point?   Waiting for Willie Campbell to come up from Brookline on the other side of the city?

Waiting for him to come to Hamilton from Brookline?  You don't really think they lived in Hamilton during the winter, do you? They lived in Boston from October/November until May/June. Myopia Hunt Club was their summer club.    Their annual meeting took place in Boston. Their annual ball?  Boston. They were in Boston.

They didn't have to wait for Willie Campbell because he was teaching them to golf at the Country Club. Burnam, Merrill, and Appleton were listed among the better players there.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 04:55:40 PM
TEPaul,   The June 1894 newspaper articles read as if someone associated with the club provided the information to the paper, and as you know this was often how things worked with club events   Why would every account state that Willie Campbell laid out the course if he did not?

Also, given that you know Myopia, then you can confirm that it was largely a summer and fall club, with the season generally running from the end of May or beginning of June until October or November.   Is it possible that these three weren't even in Hamilton until May? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 05:40:36 PM

The actual yardage of the 1898 Long Nine was 2928.


TEP
Your yardage comes from Weeks' book. The course played to 2865 yards for the 1898 US Open, this according to the Boston Globe (6/5/1898).
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 06, 2010, 05:44:35 PM
I am frankly amazed that we are so critical and dismissive of media's ability to get it right today, and yet we seem to think they never got it wrong before.......

This is the same argument as on another attribution thread, isn't it?  We don't trust the club minutes to mean what they say?  But we trust a cub reporter from the Boston Globe, in repeating info heard from club members? 

For that matter, I sit around enough clubhouses and here rumors over lunch about what is happening out on the golf course being remodeled to know that they themselves aren't necessarily great sources of info!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 05:45:24 PM
"There is no mention in print (that I have found) of the Squire & Co. or anyone else laying out those courses. Weeks and TEP's story makes no sense in my opinion, and there is no documented support for it. Is there?"


Tom MacWood:

So, let me get this straight; do you actually think if you can't find something in a newspaper account it didn't happen or its not true? You really should get off your ass in front of your computer in Ohio and start actually visiting these subjects and doing the necessary historic research on site. Of course this doesn't make sense to you----eg you don't know what the place looks like and you're dealing with far less than complete historic information. If you had actually read what Weeks was obviously looking at and what I've read you may have a chance at understanding most of this but knowing you perhaps even that wouldn't do it.

Until you actually visit the likes of Merion GC, MCC and Myopia I can certainly see from all this there is obviously no point trying to discuss the details of their original architectural history with you. You either can't seem to understand what others tell you who've seen this material or you refuse to believe them so it would be better if you just went to read it and research it yourself and then maybe a discussion about it could be more productive with you.
 
 

TEP
That is what historians deal with...they require evidence usually in some written form, and the more confirming evidence the better. It could be a newspaper account, magazine account, a letter, a diary, club minutes entry, etc. Have you found any contemporaneous evidence to support your theory regarding the Squire & Co?

There are at least three contemporaneous accounts from three different sources that Campbell laid out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 06, 2010, 05:58:58 PM
Tom aacWood,

Why couldn't it be that the members staked out the locations of the holes and then had Campbell in to lay out the course on the ground, building tees, greens, and bunkers?

If the Myopia "run book" is correct, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, that would be the most plausible scenario, yes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 06:08:09 PM
That comes from a book written in 1975, not a contemporaneous source. It is not a quote, and the source of the information remains a mystery. It reads like complete fiction, and the known facts support the idea that it is fiction.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 06:51:27 PM
Jeff Brauer,

I haven't seen the 1894 records.  Have you?   If not, then what are you talking about?

All is that has been posted on here seems to be from the history, and the part  that seems of that which seems to be from the records doesnt contradict the newspaper articles.

What, specifically, in the club records contradicts these three articles?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 08:31:38 PM
"TEPaul,   The June 1894 newspaper articles read as if someone associated with the club provided the information to the paper, and as you know this was often how things worked with club events   Why would every account state that Willie Campbell laid out the course if he did not?"


David:

I just can't answer that; at least not with anything I've seen from the records of Myopia from that time. I looked back in this thread and I can see a year and a half ago I mentioned that I had read the contemporaneous administrative records of Myopia that recorded that three members routed, staked out or laid out or whatever anyone wants to call it a nine hole golf course in 1894 and before Campbell ever arrived in America.

So, if you ask me why some newspaper accounts mentioned that Campbell laid out the original nine rather than those three members that the club administrative records mentioned was done by three members before he arrived, what do you think I should say to you or about that?

I mean I have my own ideas about why those newspaper accounts in May or June or August or September of 1894 may've said that about Willie Campbell but you probably don't want to hear my ideas and what I read from the records of Myopia in the Spring of 1894 before Campbell arrived and particularly after I have read through this thread from a year and a half ago and noticed what people like you and MacWood and Jim Kennedy said when I mentioned some of the same things I am mentioning now and feeling now.

Judging from those posts a year and a half ago (essentially from about #106 to a little over #200) it seems it would be best to just let you guys discuss this with what you have; it does not appear you are that interested in what I've read unless I can scan it or copy it onto GOLFLUBATLAS.com.

My only response and reaction, at this point, is to encourage you all to just go and read what I've read and decide these things for yourselves, and at that point, and after having read what I have from the records of Myopia, you can decide for yourselves what they mean and whether this endless discussion on here without that contemporaneous material from the club or clubs is necessary and relevent or not to the course's and architects factual history.

If you can do that----read what those contemporaneous administrative records, and what they say, and when they say it---the question becomes---will Myopia, or anyone else, be interested in your analysis and opinions with what else you bring to the table with newspaper articles like those on Myopia about Campbell or what MacWood calls "independent research?"  ::) I couldn't possibly answer that until it happens but my feeling is at least you should try it and then and only then could you be on an equal footing with me to discuss a subject like this one, particularly with the subject club.

As for me, as you know I can't scan that material on here---I don't even know how---and if I did know how I really don't know if I would be willing to. Personally, I feel if you people are as interested in the architectural history of that club and subject, and other ones like it, as I am, or as you say on here you are, you would've found some way by now to have done what I've done.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 09:05:27 PM
"What, specifically, in the club records contradicts these three articles?"


David:

As I'm sure you know, there is only one way for you to find that out, at least the way you couch this subject and the research of it. So, the question becomes, why don't you? I did, and about 5-6 years ago. Does it take some time and money? Of course it does but I did it because I was so intereted in that history. If you are as interested as I was and am, I think you need to prove it and neither you nor MacWood or anyone else on this website can prove it on just a thread on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com without doing the work of going to the source which is the subject. There are certainly telephones, faxes, the Internet or whatever, but my experiences have told me it should probably be more than that when it comes to a show of interest!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 09:47:18 PM
Tom aacWood,

Why couldn't it be that the members staked out the locations of the holes and then had Campbell in to lay out the course on the ground, building tees, greens, and bunkers?

If the Myopia "run book" is correct, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, that would be the most plausible scenario, yes?

Mike
Do you know what the 'run book' is? The majority of the direct quotes from the run book are related to hunting (after all it is a hunt club first and foremost). TEP has misled you into believing it is some sort key to the course's architecture. He has never seen the book and apparently it is lost, but that is no great loss from golfing perspective.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 06, 2010, 09:57:20 PM
"TEPaul,   The June 1894 newspaper articles read as if someone associated with the club provided the information to the paper, and as you know this was often how things worked with club events   Why would every account state that Willie Campbell laid out the course if he did not?"


David:

I just can't answer that; at least not with anything I've seen from the records of Myopia from that time. I looked back in this thread and I can see a year and a half ago I mentioned that I had read the contemporaneous administrative records of Myopia that recorded that three members routed, staked out or laid out or whatever anyone wants to call it a nine hole golf course in 1894 and before Campbell ever arrived in America.

So, if you ask me why some newspaper accounts mentioned that Campbell laid out the original nine rather than those three members that the club administrative records mentioned was done by three members before he arrived, what do you think I should say to you or about that?

I mean I have my own ideas about why those newspaper accounts in May or June or August or September of 1894 may've said that about Willie Campbell but you probably don't want to hear my ideas and what I read from the records of Myopia in the Spring of 1894 before Campbell arrived and particularly after I have read through this thread from a year and a half ago and noticed what people like you and MacWood and Jim Kennedy said when I mentioned some of the same things I am mentioning now and feeling now.

Judging from those posts a year and a half ago (essentially from about #106 to a little over #200) it seems it would be best to just let you guys discuss this with what you have; it does not appear you are that interested in what I've read unless I can scan it or copy it onto GOLFLUBATLAS.com.

My only response and reaction, at this point, is to encourage you all to just go and read what I've read and decide these things for yourselves, and at that point, and after having read what I have from the records of Myopia, you can decide for yourselves what they mean and whether this endless discussion on here without that contemporaneous material from the club or clubs is necessary and relevent or not to the course's and architects factual history.

If you can do that----read what those contemporaneous administrative records, and what they say, and when they say it---the question becomes---will Myopia, or anyone else, be interested in your analysis and opinions with what else you bring to the table with newspaper articles like those on Myopia about Campbell or what MacWood calls "independent research?"  ::) I couldn't possibly answer that until it happens but my feeling is at least you should try it and then and only then could you be on an equal footing with me to discuss a subject like this one, particularly with the subject club.

As for me, as you know I can't scan that material on here---I don't even know how---and if I did know how I really don't know if I would be willing to. Personally, I feel if you people are as interested in the architectural history of that club and subject, and other ones like it, as I am, or as you say on here you are, you would've found some way by now to have done what I've done.



I think you imagined you read the club's administrative records from 1894. If administrative records were available from 1894 wouldn't have Weeks quoted from them? He did not. You would also think the administrative records would have some mention of Campbell, you nor Weeks knew anything about his involvement with the club.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 06, 2010, 10:11:07 PM
TEPaul,

Whatever old posts you've read, perhaps we should just move forward and let bygones be.   

I understand that you've concluded that the three staked out the course sometime before Campbell arrived, and surely you have your reasons for so concluding.  But that is your analysis and your conclusion.  While that may be enough to satisfy Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba, I can't in good conscience simply adopt your conclusions without having analyzed the information myself.  The same would be true if it were Tom MacWood, Tom Doak, George Bahto, or anyone else drawing conclusions that appear contrary to the information I have.

It would be one thing if the available historical record supported the Weeks version, but it doesnt.  And surely Weeks might have reconsidered had he access to these newspaper articles.  As a historian he must have known that these things are always shifting as more information becomes available.

All that said, I haven't asked to you scan anything or post anything from Myopia's record, and at this point I would be extremely surprised if you did.  If the goal is getting the truth out there, then don't understand why you wouldn't want to whether asked or not, but then that is your decision, not mine.  It is not personal, it is just the  way things are supposed to work in order to maximize the possibility of getting out what really happened.

As for your suggestion that I go to Myopia and figure it out myself, that'd be great but I don't think it is all that realistic, at least not for me.  I don't have relationships or connections with Myopia and frankly I don't believe in fostering relationships solely for the purpose of gaining access to clubs, whether it be to golf or to research.  Plus this research stuff is a fairly small part of my life in the greater scheme of things, and Myopia is far down my priority list.

Besides, it is you who is making the claim about what happened at Myopia, not me.  I'm not going to devote my life to try to prove you wrong or right, especially not when three newspaper articles clearly address the matter.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 06, 2010, 10:49:58 PM
"I understand that you've concluded that the three staked out the course sometime before Campbell arrived, and surely you have your reasons for so concluding.  But that is your analysis and your conclusion.  While that may be enough to satisfy Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba, I can't in good conscience simply adopt your conclusions without having analyzed the information myself."


Then go see them and read them yourself, David Moriarty, as I did. I have read them and I'm satisfied with what they say about everything, including Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Willie Campbell (or the lack of the mentioning him). And I'm just weary of brain-dead contributors and contributions like MacWood as is best evidenced by his recent #485. He doesn't even know the difference between the seemingly lost "Leeds Scrapbook" and the Run Book which is how Myopia used to refer to their administrative records---but would you expect someone to understand that who said on here that he's totally familiar with fox hunting and that it is only chasing fox all over the entire countrysid? 

There is no reason for me to continue on a thread like this one with people like you and MacWood. Enjoy your discussion---I can guarantee no one of any importance cares what it is----certainly Myopia doesn't.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 07, 2010, 12:23:09 AM
Tom MacWood,

Can you confirm those hole distances you listed for 1896?   If the distances you listed are correct then there is little doubt that the nines were the same in 1896 and 1898.    Given when Leeds joined the club that would seem to be fairly significant.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 06:18:16 AM
I'm still trying to find the source. I can confirm the total yardage in 1896 was 2836 (Boston Globe), and 2865 in 1898 (Boston Globe and The Golfer).
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 07, 2010, 12:43:04 PM
Thanks Tom.

_____________________________________

I am still quite curious as to why these Myopia members were in Hamilton more than two months before the summer social season began?  I take it from the silence on the issue that no one can think of any reason why these three were out in Hamilton waiting for the snow to melt.  

I suspect that this is because no course would be laid out until they (and Willie Campbell) moved north for the summer.  This is consistent with all the available reports, including the one from gossip column in the Boston Globe on May 13, 1894, which indicated that the course had not yet been laid out.   (quoted above by Mike)  

The same article indicates that sheep would be used to maintain the course.   Another article credits Willie Campbell with the introduction of sheep at the Country Club to maintain the links their links.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 01:38:42 PM
Its my impression June 1, or thereabouts, was the start of the season. On May 13 it was reported in the Boston Globe that Hopkins, Dacres Bush, Parker and few others would take up their quarters at the Kennel on June 1. In the same paper it was reported Polo practice would begin at the end of June. Myopia's champion polo team was Agassiz, Appleton, Shaw and Gardner.

Campbell's first day at Brookline was April 10 and there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground. In mid-May Appleton and Merrill were still at Brookline. They were in the gallery of the Willie Campbell vs Willie Davis match on May 18, the pseudo national championship won by Campbell. On June 10 it was reported the 'expert players' WB Thomas, RM Appleton, AP Gardner and TW Merrill would take part in the inaugural golf match at Myopia on Bunker Hill day. Thomas was the man who brought Campbell to Boston.

Sheep were introduced at Brookline, Essex County, Myopia and Franklin Park.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 07, 2010, 02:12:34 PM
"I am still quite curious as to why these Myopia members were in Hamilton more than two months before the summer social season began?  I take it from the silence on the issue that no one can think of any reason why these three were out in Hamilton waiting for the snow to melt."


David:

Of course there could be a good reason. First of all, the North Shore of Boston is a rather large area comprising a number of summer communities about 10-25 miles north of Boston of which Hamilton is one of about twenty or more. The people who populated those summer communities and their clubs lived in other places in the winter; mostly in Boston but also in the other metropolitan cities of the East. If men such as Appleton, Merrill and Gardner, all of whom had large summer estates on the North Shore, had it in their minds they intended to introduce golf to the Myopia Hunt Club they were more than capable of going to Hamilton to stake out a nine hole golf course any time they decided to do that. The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 02:17:55 PM
It should also be notted, that the original Myopia Club occupied what is now, Winchester CC. From (I believe) 8, 9, or 10, a par 3 downhill, you receive a breathtaking view of the boston skyline, so you at not too far.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia_Club
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 02:19:56 PM
not like the philadelphia families and new york families traveling to Newport. Hamilton was not a long trip from their estates found to the North of Boston, and I would guess it would even be doable coming from the south in Dedham
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 07, 2010, 02:25:16 PM
"On May 13 it was reported in the Boston Globe that Hopkins, Dacres Bush, Parker and few others would take up their quarters at the Kennel on June 1."


Tom MacWood:

Is that really what the Boston Globe reported?? My Goodness, no wonder most of those men from Myopia Hunt Club, the foremost being Herbert C. Leeds, did not like the press and would throw them off the property if they came around. Perhaps the Boston Globe actually did report those men would take up their quarters in the Kennel on June 1. THAT must have given those guys one helluva laugh. Maybe the Boston Globe considered them to be a bunch of dogs or hounds ready to take up their summer residence in the Kennel but I can guarantee you all of those men had some really impressive summer residences sprinkled around Boston's North Shore.  ;)

It looks to me like your primary source of information on this stuff (your newspaper accounts  :-\) is pretty odd, pretty factually unreliable and actually incredibly funny! Could you post that article in the Boston Globe that says those men are about to take up their summer residence in the KENNEL?? I feel the need for a good laugh too, as I'm quite sure they had if that's what some Boston Globe May 13 article said!  ??? ::) ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 07, 2010, 02:38:21 PM
Travis:

Thanks for your help in explaining to these few "expert researcher/historians" who've apparently never been there what the social realities and geographic proximity of Boston's North Shore are all about. Even though they asked the question about the "season" or whatever, I have a hunch they will probably lambast both of us for our explanations, claiming we are trying to divert this thread or whatever.   :(

Some of this stuff and some of these threads really are funny sometimes!  ;)

I have a feeling the next thing we will see is a laundry list of the weather conditions of the first half of 1894!   :-\
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 03:10:31 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=xolPAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA121&dq=myopia+hunt+club&hl=en&ei=j5H-TO_WKYTGlQfGkK24CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=myopia%20hunt%20club&f=false


interesting read, but has to do with the hunting at the club, not the golf.


How can you be certain that all members lived in Boston? ???


At the Turn of the century, many of Boston's elite were moving into quasi suberbs, Newton, Wellesley, Brookline, Winchester, Lexington, all over the greater Boston area. I dont think you can say all members came from Boston. What about the elite that resided in more country/farm like estates?? Of course it had to be a summer club, do you golf and hunt in a Massachusetts January? Not sure i know of any outdoor sporting club, not to be a summer club

Why couldn't they be there in Winter? They were just beginning to move club operations to Hamilton. They were just constructing new facilities. The club was growing in scope. Why not be there to oversee certain things? Even in off season? What if a storm came and they were forced to stay there? What if the club house had not yet been built, or quarters had not yet been built, and that was their only option? How do you know these forefathers of the club, and their personalities? They could have even wanted to stay on site, in shoddy overnight conditions because that was the price they were paying to build their summer club, and they were willing?

Too ambiguous to make any assumptions on a little newspaper clipping, IMO.

Even in bugey, its not a far trip to Hamilton from greater Boston area, and given these gentleman's economic position, few could have even had cars, and driven!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 07, 2010, 03:22:03 PM
Travis:

Was your last post and the questions in it to me?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 03:41:26 PM
Nope,

just to the people that can't fathom the idea that these gentleman had good reason to be in Hamilton, in the Winter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 07, 2010, 03:51:25 PM
Travis Dewire,

I didn't mean to speculate about all the members, but rather those who were reportedly involved in the creation of the course.  The Boston gossip columns often reported when these families would be closing their winter homes and opening their summer homes for the season, and most of those men appear to have been in greater Boston.   As TomM notes, most of the men in question were not expected in Hamilton until late May or early June, and were in greater Boston, and reportedly playing golf and/or watching golf at the Country Club well into May.    

The one exception I have found is A.P. Gardner, who reportedly was at Hamilton in mid-April.

Surely they all could have gone out there earlier in the year, but normally it seems they did not go out until late May or June   And given the reports that the links had not been laid out until just before the tournament and after mid-May, it seems likely they didn't make a special trip this year either.  
______________________________________

Tom MacWood,

Are you sure Campbell started at Essex in April?   I have read reports of him at The Country Club well into May.  Could it be he was hired in April but would not settle in Essex until June.  

_____________________________________________

TEPaul,

Funny take on that, but I believe the article said "at the Kennels" not "in the Kennels" "At the Kennels" shows up quite often and seems to have been a shorthand way of referring to the Hamilton location.  

I suppose one could say that the club apparently did have a "kennel" of sorts for the single men in the main house.  It was reportedly called "The Raving Ward" and consisted of rows of beds like a hospital ward.  As of 1894, that was apparently where Bush, Francis , and other members stayed.

As for the "three months" it would take to lay out the course, did that information come from Weeks history book or the club records themselves? Because there are multiple reports that the course had only been laid out for a short time by the opening, including the one report above indicating that as of mid-1894 it had not even yet been laid out.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 03:54:13 PM
Travis
According to the book you just linked the hunt season at Myopia ran from Labor day until the first frost, which was normally around December 1. So you are right they could have been at Hamilton in early winter.

TEP
Leeds must not have disliked the press that much since he kept a scrap book. The Boston newspapers followed his every move, and I'm guessing he provided some of the information. Mr. Parker mentioned in the first blurb was Leeds male companion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 03:58:16 PM
David
Campbell started at Brookline (The Country Club) in April....that first day was at Brookline.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 07, 2010, 04:06:20 PM
Also Travis, it is not a matter of whether they "could" have gone to Hamilton, for they certainly could have.  The question is, did they?    And for most of them it sounds like a trip out there in winter would have been a bit unusual for that time of year.  

Why do you doubt the accounts that indicate that course was not laid out until shortly before the opening, and that it still had not been laid out as of mid May?  


Note that most of your suggested reasons for them to have gone out there don't apply in this case.   The year in question is 1894, and the club was well established at Hamilton by then.  While the land was not purchased until 1891, they had been leasing the facilities for may years.  They had hunted at the Hamilton location for more than a decade, and had built the kennels a dozen years before.   And the old farmhouse was their clubhouse, so they had a place to stay.  Some of them already had "summer seats" in the area.  

And you are right I don't know the men, and neither do you.  All we have to go by are the facts available to us.  And thus far the facts available to us apparently contradict the conclusions from Myopia's history book, and indicate that Willie Campbell laid out the course, probably sometime in May 1894.  

If there are facts out there that say otherwise, I haven't seen them.  Have you?  
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 05:23:13 PM
Nopppe,

I lost my mind there, haha

I was just saying that there is no reason to deny that they couldn't have been there in the winter


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2010, 05:29:20 PM
David,

Too funny...where do you think S Hamilton is in relation to Boston? 

A summer resort?!  Sheesh...you guys really need to get out from behind your computers.

I'm serious.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 07, 2010, 05:29:38 PM
"TEP
Leeds must not have disliked the press that much since he kept a scrap book. The Boston newspapers followed his every move, and I'm guessing he provided some of the information."


There are a number of people still at Myopia or thereabouts who remember seeing the Leeds scrapbook that Weeks refers to and from which he quoted or referred to in his 1975 Myopia centennial history book. It was apparently more of a diary than something in which he put newspaper clippings or whatever. As such I view it as a potential motherload of valuable information on his ideas on golf and his travels to do with such as well as the evolution of Myopia's golf course etc.

From your #485 it seems you think the Run Book was Leeds Scrapbook or vice versa as it seems you assumed (or mistakenly assumed I said) that the Run Book was lost. It's the Leeds Scrapbook that appears to be lost.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 07, 2010, 06:25:28 PM
David,

Too funny...where do you think S Hamilton is in relation to Boston? 

A summer resort?!  Sheesh...you guys really need to get out from behind your computers.

I'm serious.

As usual your attempt to portray others as fools backfires squarely on you.  I know where Hamilton is in relation to Boston.  In 1894 Hamilton was very much a summer place, and where some the well-off had their "summer seats" or their "summer cottages."   

"Resort" is your description not mine.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 06:34:19 PM
David,

Too funny...where do you think S Hamilton is in relation to Boston?  

A summer resort?!  Sheesh...you guys really need to get out from behind your computers.

I'm serious.

TEP
Will you please explain to Mike the history of the different blueblood summer colonies both north, south, east and west of Boston - the Boston North Shore, Bar Harbor, Newport, Dark Harbor, Berkshires, etc? Don't the old money wealthy typically go north in the summer and south in the winter?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 07, 2010, 06:46:17 PM
Nopppe,

I lost my mind there, haha

I was just saying that there is no reason to deny that they couldn't have been there in the winter


That is true, and there is no reason why they couldn't have been deep-sea diving in Massachusetts Bay looking for sea monsters.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 07, 2010, 08:15:51 PM
Right....

But it doesn't seem that crazy to travel the <30 miles to Hamilton, even in Winter
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 08, 2010, 06:24:27 AM
'''Especially if one was assigned to a subcommittee charged in early spring with bringing golf to the club in the coming season.

Unless of course one's responsibilities as Master of the Hounds.was simply a summer gig as well.

There's about as much chance of finding a sea monster than finding the truth here on this thread because it is less about considering evidence of actual events than propagandizing for another itinerant early pro in an effort to tweak Tom Paul.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 06:35:37 AM
Travis
What makes you think the course was built in the winter? All the evidence points to the course being built in the spring: the annual meeting in mid-March, the report in May the course was yet be laid out, the reports in June the course was coming to fruition.

Mike
That is interesting speculation. Do you have any evidence support it? There are at least three contemporaneous reports (from three different sources) stating Campbell laid out Myopia. There are similar reports stating Campbell laid out the courses at Myopia's sister clubs The Country Club and Essex County during the same timeframe. I'm not sure why you continue to argue the point without any evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 08, 2010, 06:40:46 AM
Tom,

Didn't you read the April 15 and June 10 articles I posted a few days ago?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 06:43:25 AM
Mike
I don't think so...I was too busy propagandizing another itinerant early pro. Why don't you repost them.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 08, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Tom,

Don't let me stop you$  ;).;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 07:34:20 AM
That's what I thought.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 08, 2010, 07:42:22 AM
Tom,

The articles are only a few pages back...I'm not at a computer today or I'd repoat for you.

Just be willing to consider the whole story....I don't see it as mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 09:31:43 AM
TMac,

I won't get into this, because I am the Sgt. Shultz of this topic...."I know nothink!"  But I am tending to agree with Mike C that somehow both the members and WC had some input, with Campbell perhaps "laying out" and building the greens on the ground, since pros were brought over to do triple duty in those days, and just getting it done seemed to be the order of the day back then.

I did spend some time reading the early pages of this thread last night (insomnia) and wanted to thank you for your earlier research and writings on Willie C.  He was quite a fascinating character.

Two questions came to mind in reading your research.  First, would his tendency to challenge the Open winners to later matches and then embarrass them be considered "sporting" in those days?  Did that affect his reputation?

And possibly related, why was he relegated so soon (five or six years max) to the "lowly" public courses after working at high end clubs?  Did they let him go as his energy sapped from early stages of cancer, because he continued some of his possibly abrasive ways (golf challenges?), or did he go willingly to promote public golf with his wife?

I didn't see anything in those quick reads discussing why he moved to Franklin Park, but I may have missed it.  Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 12:24:43 PM
Jeffrey:

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say Willie Campbell embarrassed Open winners by challenging them or that he may've been relegated to a public course (I suppose you mean what he did with Franklin Park).

Those early exhibition matches between the good early Scottish professionals in America beginning in the early 1890s were actually the events which served to truly spark interest in the game of golf with Americans. They afforded the opportunity for those who were first learning the game over here to see how it was played by the best.

And as far as Campbell being relegated to a public course (Franklin Park) I seriously doubt that. Obviously Campbell was a guy who was doing all kinds of things with golf following his arrival in the spring of 1894 and up until he died young in 1900 (aged thirty eight or so). There is no question in my mind that when we was encouraged to come over here (presumably by Washington B. Thomas of The Country Club) it would've been natural for Thomas and his friends in early golf in Boston (the likes of Laurence Curtis, Hunnewell, Bacon, Windelar, Leeds, Appleton etc, etc) to help the guy out by using him and his services such as to teach the game, perhaps supply clubs and balls and do some golf architecture as well as playing exhibitions with other really good Scottish immigrant professionals.

I cannot imagine that Campbell could've been able to do what he did with the numerous clubs he had something to do with or even Franklin Park without the help, politically and financially, of the people in Boston who were socially powerful back then and newly interested in golf. All those people from the early clubs of TCC, Essex, Myopia etc knew one another anyway. And actually many of those prominent early golfers at those clubs used Franklin Park anyway and almost to the exclusion of others they used it so much in the beginning.

And then there is the incredibly interesting story about Campbell's wife, Georgina! She came over here a few years after Willie but her story and history with golf in this country is incredible in a specific aspect----eg she survived Willie by nearly fifty years, she may've been the first woman professional in this country, and perhaps in the world, she ran Franklin Park for years, she was a constant and excellent teacher and one could not possibly deny that the woman was truly loved and admired in golf around Boston for many years.

If American golf and particularly American woman's professional golf has a true "God Mother," in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, it would very arguably be Willie Campbell's wife and widow, Georgina Campbell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 12:37:33 PM
TePaul,

Go back to early pages of this thread and TMac posted an artile showing that WC finished second in many majors in GBI before coming here but was in the habit of challenging the victor to a rematch, and according to the reports would be them by large margins.

While some say that enhanced his reputation, I simply wonder if his reputation would be damaged for not being able to play when the official stakes were high, but could play later when motivated by money and revenge.

I also still question why he departed the country club set and agree they may have been generous benefactors, perhaps setting him up at the public job when his strength no longer afforded him the ability to meet their needs, and thus taking care of one of their own, but perhaps it was too depressing to see him around their places when his cancer struck.  Just speculation, but I don't have the impression that disease was handled all that well socially in those days.  They tended to pack troubles away to homes, asylums, etc. rather than face the awkwardness of dealing with a sick individual.  A gross generalization, I know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 12:52:09 PM
Jeffrey:

One really good new source of information on the details of the early and earliest days of golf in America and particularly in Massachussets is John de St. Jorre's new book "The Story of Golf at The Country Club" (published in 2009). It goes into the very first days of golf here and in Boston with a liberal offering of some personal reminiscences of the first to develop it there as well as enough about them and who they were. It also goes into the experiences of Willie and Georgina Campbell too.

It's a good source of information and very well and logically presented but knowing MacWood, when he gets a look at it, he will probably declare it too to be a work of largely fiction as he did the books of Tolhurst on Merion and Weeks on Myopia. They are not examples of and the purveyors of fiction with early golf and those early clubs----Tom MacWood is, in my opinion. He may find a few heretofore not well remembered newspaper snippets from back then but his problem is, and always has been, he then tries to make far too much out of them and who they mention.

I suppose he does that because he figures they must be his discoveries and he just tends to exaggerate and completely overblow them and their historical significance. And then of course it sure would help if he would ever actually research the records of some of these clubs to see how and why some of those newspaper snippets he finds don't exactly square with the records of those clubs from back then. But on the latter, don't hold your breath; I'm sure not going to hold mine.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 01:02:53 PM
"While some say that enhanced his reputation, I simply wonder if his reputation would be damaged for not being able to play when the official stakes were high, but could play later when motivated by money and revenge."


Jeffrey:

Whatever Campbell's history and reputation was over in the old country with other good professional golfers I doubt translated over here to the earliest days and people in Boston. They probably weren't even aware of it and if they were I doubt they would care. What Campbell did over here was a new world for him and the others like him who were the early immigrant professionals essentially showing the Americans how to play the game because so few of them had ever been aware of it before.

And there was very much a massive social divide over here then, particularly in the world of golf with the likes of TCC, Essex, Myopia etc that Campbell first plied. I know and understand that that historical aspect is both unattractive and perhaps bothersome to most of us today but it was a reality that we just can't deny if we want to be competent and credible historians of that age and area in American golf.

Certainly not all of those types were outright elitists or snobs or whatever we want to call them but some sure were. The worst I have ever heard of that way was actually Herbert C. Leeds. He made absolutely zero bones about it or even any excuses for it and that too is very much part of the history of Myopia----they do not deny it at all. I don't believe they necessarily agree with it but they recognize at least it was an historical reality.

But I doubt that has a thing to do with why Weeks' book never mentioned Campbell because it sure does mention lovingly a number of other Scottish immigrant professional golfers who worked for the club for years. And it does not deny the fact that Campbell probably did do something to help Myopia with its original nine in the spring of 1894; but apparently not something that was significant enough to the club to mention in their administrative records of the time (a club like Myopia did not exactly have to read a newspaper account of what they were doing to inform them of how to understand and accurately record what they actually were doing ;)), and certainly considering that before Campbell got to America, Appleton, Merrill and Gardner had already staked out and measured the club's first attempt at nine holes of golf.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 08, 2010, 02:23:05 PM
Jeff/Tom P,

I've just zoned into the last page of this thread and the discussion on Willie Campbell and his status. In the early 1890's Willie Campbell was a prominent figure in Scottish golf (for that read world golf at the time), particularly in the west of Scotland where he and Willie Fernie were battling it out in a friendly fashion to see who could beat who at matchplay, who could beat who at strokeplay and who could layout/design the most courses. Strokeplay comps in those days weren't the be all and end all that they are now. Back then they were an excuse for pro's to gather and participate in money matches beforehand and after. Willie Campbell, like Willie Park, was adept at issuing challenges and winning more than he lost. That I would suggest would have formed a fair bit of his income.

My impression from those times there wasn't really the specialisation in jobs that later evolved and the likes of Willie played the game, taught the game, layed out and built courses and tended them. No doubt the later being the harder work which might account for Willie's itinerant nature.

In the recent book about Tom Morris there is plenty of excellent background about golf in general in those days (including some background info on Willie Campbel if memory serves me right) and how Old Tom was something of a one man employment agency, referring job opportunities to various St Andrews luminaries such as WC. Whether Willie was of the right social status to get an invite to dinner to the Leeds residence is neither here nor there IMHO. What mattered was his golfing know how and in that regard he is likely to have had Myopias respect.

With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then ?

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 03:24:41 PM
"With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then?"


Niall:

No, it was not new at all. It had been a hunting and polo club for more than a couple of decades before golf was introduced the the club in 1894. It is still known as Myopia Hunt Club.

The administrative records were good as they almost always were with clubs like that---eg a President, Treasurer, Secretary (Executive Committee) and a Board of Directors that almost always included the chairmen of the various committees. At a Hunt Club, generally the most prominent person administratively is known as the Master of the Hunt or "Master of the Fox Hounds."

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 08, 2010, 03:38:15 PM
What did/do they do with the hounds in the winter?  Are they housed and fed inside and are they run outside for regular exercise?

I'd assume professional help is hired and responsible?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 03:43:05 PM
TePaul,

Those articles TMac quoted in his IMO piece were I think American newspapers, so they would know who they had. 

Back to the question of why those guys were up there out of season, I hate to stir the pot, but could they have gone up there, sans family for activities that were family unfriendly, a la gambling or girlfriends?  While not universal, I am sure it was not unheard of.  Maybe WC did do all the work, and the "club members laying out the course" was code for "club members getting laid."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 05:04:24 PM
"What did/do they do with the hounds in the winter?  Are they housed and fed inside and are they run outside for regular exercise?
I'd assume professional help is hired and responsible?"


Mike:

Definitely. In the history and world of fox hunting the hounds are massively important and they are treated with great care and effort. Since it's the hounds that basically find and suss out the fox, and since it is essentially the hounds that the fox hunters on horses follow, and often at great speed while jumping over fences and ditches and creeks and whatnot, they are really important in the etiquette and strategies of fox hunting.

All formal hunts and fox hunting clubs had and have fairly elaborate kennels and "runs" for their hounds and a number of handlers to handle them throughout the year. This is some of what the Master of the Hunt or the Master of the Fox Hounds, that RM Appleton was, oversees for the club, but essentially the Master of the Hounds is the one who runs the hunt club.

Radnor Hunt is within sight of this farm and I can hear the hounds from time to time. Their sound is not that of a normal dog and they are definitely not your normal dog either. I'm not sure they even call them dogs; they call them hounds. To call a hound a dog at a fox hunting club might be about the same as calling your rifle a gun in boot camp in Paris Island----doing that gets you smacked upside the head and hard. Or perhaps to a lesser extent calling a bunker a trap at a respectable traditionalist golf club.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 05:18:47 PM
Jeffrey:

I think you're making too much of this North Shore and Boston thing during the winter and spring of 1894. I don't think we need to speculate on whether Appleton, Gardner and Merrill were slipping out of Boston the 10-20 miles to Hamilton to get laid on the sly or anything like that; I think it's more a matter of the fact that if they were intent on introducing golf to the Myopia Hunt Club in 1894 it would not have been that much of a deal for them to have just gone from Boston up to Hamilton for a day or so on a weekend and walk the property pacing off the distances of holes and staking out the spots for tees and fairways and greens. This is apparently what they did in the late winter or early spring of 1894 or at least that is what the club records recorded they did. If they got laid on the side after that then good for them. Actually the world of hunting, polo, equestrianism and such or basically the world of stables could be and was a pretty randy place from time to time for some reason. I suspect more people got laid in those barns and stables than in bed at home or away. Those are some pretty earthy sports, Mr Jeffrey, Sir, and particularly fox hunting, and don't you forget it. The idea is to go hell bent for leather across the countryside on wonderful horses, blowing horns, cracking whips, yelling tallyho and shit and all that. You get sweaty, you get wet and dirty and muddy and both sexes have historically done it together so at the end of the hunt when back around the stables or clubhouses or parts of them like Myopia's "Raving Ward" I guess they just get to feeling earthy and down and dirty and randy and what do you think often follows that and particularly when men and women do it together, my good man?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 08, 2010, 05:28:55 PM
Reportedly, by 1890. they were no longer fox hunting at Hamilton, but still used the hounds to  run "drag."

Didn't you read the April 15 and June 10 articles I posted a few days ago?

Mike Cirba,

I did.  Regarding the April article, is it a shocker to you that a club that was planning on introducing golf for the season appointed a sub-committee that would be in charge of so doing?   It isn't shock to me.   Only you could go from that to the conclusion that these guys (not even the exact same guys, by the way) definitely designed the course.

Regarding the June 10th article, it simply previewed the upcoming opening that would occur on Bunker Hill Day.   That is all there is to it.   Yet you see this as some sort of confirmation that some of these guys (again not exactly the same guys) designed the course.

As usual your logic amounts to little more than wishful thinking.  

________________________________________________

I don't get it.  We have three different reports that Willie Campbell laid out the course. We have two different reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May, thus further contradicting the history book from 80 years later.  We also know that Campbell was involved at the sister club (Country Club) all spring with these Myopia guys, and that he was laying out multiple courses in the area with which these guys at around the same time.  

And so far no one has brought forth anything contradicting any of this or even calling any of it into question.  Yes, TEPaul thinks he remembers that the records state that three members laid out the course, but it is far from clear what of his information comes from the actual records and what comes from the later history book.   All he has brought forward is a passage from a book written 80 some years later indicating that the executive committee approved the addition of golf!

So what is there to discuss, really?  

And what of this hypocritical notion about how the members must have designed it and Campbell must laid it out?  What support does it have?  Other than the wish of some to salvage the legend despite very strong evidence to the contrary?  

Don't get me wrong.  It is possible that the members were involved in the initial design process, at least in some supervisory capacity, but shouldn't such a notion have at least some factual support before we start drawing that conclusion?    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 05:38:39 PM
TEPaul,

I probably shouldn't relay this story in public but I once dated a very upper crust young lady, and at one point her mother took me aside to fill me in on how things worked in their circles.  Basically, she said if we did get married, she would expect that I would have affairs, but that I should be discrete, adding to keep any affairs "within my social class."  She then commented that they had once caught a niece consorting with a horse stable boy and their reaction was it would be less embarassing if they had caught her consorting with the horses themselves......

That is my complete understanding of high society, if you can call it that.

David,

I forgot to thank you for all the interesting info you have also brought forth here, including potential routing recreations for Myopia.  Good stuff all.  As to what it all means, I am lost.  My only earlier point is that we may be arguing about nothing.  I think most have commented that if Willie was there he probably did something, if the members were there, they probably did something, etc.  Going beyond that is going to be a pissing contest not seen since the....oh never mind.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 06:22:22 PM
"TEPaul,
I probably shouldn't relay this story in public but I once dated a very upper crust young lady, and at one point her mother took me aside to fill me in on how things worked in their circles.  Basically, she said if we did get married, she would expect that I would have affairs, but that I should be discrete, adding to keep any affairs "within my social class."  She then commented that they had once caught a niece consorting with a horse stable boy and their reaction was it would be less embarassing if they had caught her consorting with the horses themselves......
That is my complete understanding of high society, if you can call it that."



Jeffrey:

You know, in my opinion, and believe me I've seen it first hand and lived it my entire life----I just don't think it could be captured more accurately and succinctly than what you just said there.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 09:57:25 PM
TMac,

I won't get into this, because I am the Sgt. Shultz of this topic...."I know nothink!"  But I am tending to agree with Mike C that somehow both the members and WC had some input, with Campbell perhaps "laying out" and building the greens on the ground, since pros were brought over to do triple duty in those days, and just getting it done seemed to be the order of the day back then.

I did spend some time reading the early pages of this thread last night (insomnia) and wanted to thank you for your earlier research and writings on Willie C.  He was quite a fascinating character.

Two questions came to mind in reading your research.  First, would his tendency to challenge the Open winners to later matches and then embarrass them be considered "sporting" in those days?  Did that affect his reputation?

And possibly related, why was he relegated so soon (five or six years max) to the "lowly" public courses after working at high end clubs?  Did they let him go as his energy sapped from early stages of cancer, because he continued some of his possibly abrasive ways (golf challenges?), or did he go willingly to promote public golf with his wife?

I didn't see anything in those quick reads discussing why he moved to Franklin Park, but I may have missed it.  Thanks in advance.

In researching Campbell for that essay I did not detect any bad blood, actually just the opposite. Old Tom, Old Willie Dunn, David Strath, and others had popularized the big match event, but it had lost popularity until Campbell re-popularized it with his well publicized challenge matches. He brought attention to all top professionals of his day, which was good for everybody. If anything Campbell was looked upon as a tragic figure because he never won the Open despite being the most dominant match player of the day, and he had his chances. Nerves were said to be his weakness in metal play. Bernard Darwin wrote a most poignant account of Campbell throwing away the Open at Prestwick. After the event on either side of the shop were upturned buckets "on one sat Willie Campbell and on the other his caddie, both weeping bitterly..."

Franklin Park was not a lowly public course. Unlike Van Cortland Park, which was free to play, FP charged a hefty $.50 per 18 hole round, which was a lot of money in 1897. They also had rule that no beginners were permitted to play. The original concept was to attract all the club golfers in the region with a very good course (said to be the longest nine in the country), a convenient location, and Campbell, one of the top instructors in the country.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 10:07:49 PM

With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then ?

Niall

I wonder about that myself since they apparently had no record of Campbell being a professional at the club, no record of him laying out the original nine, no record of the original lay out of the course, and no record of how precisely or when the course was altered. I suppose it is possible the author of the club history neglected to look at the club records and that is why his account lacks this information, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 10:10:42 PM
Tom MacWood:

With your #533, interestingly, you and I are in complete agreement. You see, that can actually happen if you ever decide to use your head on here to actually analyze something correctly in the context of historical facts.

Brauer, you speculative, nonsensical, good-for-nothing so and so---how could you have even suggested such a thing about Willie Campbell, much less actually mentioned it on this website??  Why are you trying to minimize this otherwise arguably great man, or semi-great man, or semi-great and/or tragic great man, semi-marginally/semi-tragic great man, or.......?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 10:16:01 PM
TePaul,

Okay, guilty as charged.  I would be more embarrassed only by....oh forget it.  But boy, if I can get you two guys on agreement for anything, I must be a friccing genius!

TMac,

Thanks for the info, and as mentioned above, I was just speculating.  When I reread the articles you posted I did get the sense of respect for his playing ability, etc., but he left so quick I thought it was possible that there was a reason.

As to why Myopia didn't record him as their club pro, is it possible he tecnically wasn't?  He worked a lot of places in a short time frame and is it not possible he just used those clubs and later Franklin Park as a base of operations for independent golf lessons, etc>
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 10:16:26 PM
TEP
I don't think anyone cares what you think about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 10:22:45 PM
Tom MacWood:

With your #534, there is a very good and recorded reason the club or its centennial history book did not record or mention Campbell laying out the course if by laying out the course you mean the placements of tees, fairways, green sites and the distances and directions of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole Myopia course. I'm sure he probably did something for them after that fact but for some reason the club may not have seen it as significant enough to mention in their administrative records even if they apparently did not object to some newspapers of the time mentioning what they did report. There is probably a very good and historically logical reason for that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 10:29:45 PM
"TEP
I don't think anyone cares what you think about a subject you clearly know nothing about."


You are really showing your true colors now Tom MacWood and to be honest with you I am just loving it. Myopia cares what I think about their architectural history and ultimately that's who I care about. In the broad scheme of things with them, with their history, with the details of their perceived, received and accepted history, you are a total non-credible nonentity and that is the way it should be and will be.

Your last statement seems to prove that even you are aware of that now and your bitterness shows it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 10:48:59 PM
TMac,

I don't want to get involved with your ongoing personal battle with TP, but really, he is the USGA architecture archivist, MH's contact person for the same, has been given access to club historic records, etc.  Just off the top of my head, I would suspect the USGA and MH both care a bit about what he thinks. 

Your statement would accurately read, "Two people on gca.com don't care what TePaul thinks" but in the so called real world, I don't think you made an accurate statement, really
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 10:58:02 PM
TEP
It has nothing to do with bitterness. This thread has been going on for several pages and the only thing you have offered is innuendo, speculation and conjecture. You clearly do not know anything about the subject matter.

Jeff
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you too could become a USGA architecture archivist, in fact I believe you are on your way. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 10:58:11 PM
Jeffrey:

You just mentioned the "real world" to Tom MacWood. I suppose to him or anyone else what that actually means may be open to some interpretation---not unlike mentioning the word "normal" to a good psychoanalyst who will invariably come back with: "What do you think that means?" ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 08, 2010, 11:10:31 PM
"TEP
It has nothing to do with bitterness. This thread has been going on for several pages and the only thing you have offered is innuendo, speculation and conjecture. You clearly do not know anything about this subject matter."


Tom:

I know everything about the subject matter that is available or extant with or from anyone I know and that sure includes this website and any of the people on it. I know more about it than you do, and by a mile, because I have been to that club and researched its subject matter of this time and subject. Unfortunately you haven't. All you have is some newspaper articles that we have all considered for some years now. Very obviously you don't choose to believe me in what the club's own records of that time say on this subject. I can actually understand that coming from you. You are apparently implying that they can't be right because you don't agree with them because you think they conflict with what you think your newspaper articles mean. So your natural reaction seems to be to blame the messenger and/or claim the club, the source of where the facts of these histories emanate from, are fictional or fantasy, or engaging in some kind of conspiracy, iconization of someone, minimization of someone else or some such. And Myopia is not the only one----you've done this in exactly the same way with other significant clubs and courses and architects.

What you are doing and saying on this website and on this subject and some others is sad, Tom MacWood, very sad, in my opinion and in the growing opinions of numerous others. You aren't doing anything or anybody any good at all, most of all yourself.

But please don't take any of this too seriously; the last thing I want to see is for somebody such as yourself to get emotionally hurt or too angry with something like golf course architecture or its history. This is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's DG; it's a discussion group for anyone and everyone's opinion. It is not some court of law as Moriarty tries to make it or some scientific policy review panel as you seem to want it to be (laughably I might add the way you reason and discuss things on here). What I care about are the club's themselves and how we can work with them and provide them with information and analysis that presents the true facts to them so they can present their histories most factually and historically accurately. In this way, which I think is the best way and the only beneficial way I am winning and you are losing and from your last few posts and your attitude that seems to be apparent, even to you now!

And so for now---"Goodnight Mrs Callabash, wherever you are."

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 08, 2010, 11:24:19 PM

TMac,

Thanks for the info, and as mentioned above, I was just speculating.  When I reread the articles you posted I did get the sense of respect for his playing ability, etc., but he left so quick I thought it was possible that there was a reason.

As to why Myopia didn't record him as their club pro, is it possible he tecnically wasn't?  He worked a lot of places in a short time frame and is it not possible he just used those clubs and later Franklin Park as a base of operations for independent golf lessons, etc>

He battled health problems the last decade of his life and that effected his play. Those health issues were the primary reason he came to America. He died when he was 38. I've read half dozen of Campbell's obituaries and they said he was the pro at Myopia. There are scores of articles from 1896 that mention him as the pro at Myopia. Why do you believe he may not have technically been their pro?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 08, 2010, 11:59:09 PM
Why do I think he may not have been pro?

Just trying to explain why the club records didn't mention it, when all others were mentioned over time.

You think they didn't know what they were writing.  I suspect they do.  And, in the word parsing mode, a pro who regularly taught at Myopia (among others) might have been referred to as the pro at Myopia.  He was a pro.  And he did spend time at Myopia.  So maybe the newspapers didn't know the contractual relationship when they reported it.

Was it reported that WBThomas sponsored him to be pro at Myopia like Ross was recruited, or do we assume that?  Or if he was pro at Brooline and they were related, perhaps he was contracted to be pro there and was on temporary loan.

Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 12:25:32 AM
"Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me."


You know, Jeff, that is a very interesting point and one I think we touched on when we last spoke. It is speculation of course (on the part of all of us) but it is certainly possible that Campbell was a pro for Myopia at the same time another one was. I will check the book and my records but I recall that Robert White was the pro and greenkeeper for Myopia in 1896 and perhaps for a year or two after that before Myopia's long time pro/greenkeeper John (Jack) Jones took over.

I think it is more than possible given the way things worked back in that very early era that Robert White may've been the actual professional on the payroll of Myopia when Campbell played tournament golf for Myopia and apparently gave golf lessons. I don't know that White was a much of a golf teacher or ever did that kind of thing.

Of course we can all try to do the research which shouldn't be that hard to do from that era but my recollection is that Campbell played tournament golf for Myopia for only a year----1896.

It could be more than possible that Campbell just played tournament golf for Myopia without being paid for it by Myopia because of course that is name recognition with a club and he may've just taught or given golf lessons at Myopia for a fee without actually being on the club's payroll. He may've even supplied them with clubs and balls for a fee without being on their payroll. That would make some sense since he seemed to be doing so many other things at other places and clubs at the same time.

This is an historical aspect some of us may not realize today. For instance, some think George Fazio was the pro at Pine Valley. He actually wasn't the way some think of that today. Pine Valley had a regular and permanent club pro at that time and Fazio basically just played tournament golf for Pine Valley.

We can see this and confirm it in many instances for years and decades. Just look at the tournament listings right up until the time the modern PGA TOUR was formed in the late 1960s. In all the years from the beginning of golf in America those pros played tournament golf with a club always listed after their names until the PGA TOUR was formed in the late 1960s or almost 1970.

By the way, who was the first executive director of the PGA TOUR? THAT was perhaps one of the most unbelievable job change in the history of American golf. Why did he do it?

I sure have my own theory about it, and why he did it but the reason I think he did it is not exactly something either he or anyone else would actually record for posterity!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 09, 2010, 01:32:45 AM
TMac,

I don't want to get involved with your ongoing personal battle with TP, but really, he is the USGA architecture archivist, MH's contact person for the same, has been given access to club historic records, etc.  Just off the top of my head, I would suspect the USGA and MH both care a bit about what he thinks. 

Your statement would accurately read, "Two people on gca.com don't care what TePaul thinks" but in the so called real world, I don't think you made an accurate statement, really

This brings up an interesting point, although indirectly.  My understanding is that the USGA Archives isn't being created to tell us what to believe about these clubs, but rather was supposed to be a collection of contemporaneous material - a research resource - so that people could examine the source material and decide for themselves.     

I am having trouble understanding, then, why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what his interpretation of unavailable material.   That certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

TEPaul, is this the type of information we should expect from the USGA archives?  You and other "archivists" telling us what to believe about these clubs, without any back up whatsoever?
____________________________________________ 

Jeff,

I agree that people most likely care what TEPaul thinks, and that is a large part of the fundamental underlying problem here and elsewhere.  Not because it is TEPaul, but because he is refusing to back up his conclusions with anything resembling verifiable facts.   Whether it is TEPaul, Tom MacWood, me, or anyone else, their conclusions must be open to challenge and their facts open for review.  That's the way it has to work if we are at all interested in getting to the truth. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 01:56:29 AM
"This brings up an interesting point, although indirectly.  My understanding is that the USGA Archives isn't being created to tell us what to believe about these clubs, but rather was supposed to be a collection of contemporaneous material - a research resource - so that people could examine the source material and decide for themselves.    

I am having trouble understanding, then, why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what his interpretation of unavailable material.   That certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

TEPaul, is this the type of information we should expect from the USGA archives?  You and other "archivists" telling us what to believe about these clubs, without any back up whatsoever?"



David:

Very fine questions indeed.

Of course not; the USGA Architecture Archive, and most certainly as of now, very much wants and hopes to produce and provide a collection of contemporaneous material---a research resource (as you call it and they call it and I call it)---so that people could examine it and decide for themselves (what it means).

But then you ask and apparently ask me why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what HIS INTERPRETATION of unavailable material (is). You go on to say that certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

I can only answer you by saying this:

The USGA Architecture Archive is most definitely NOT GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its Discussion Group (DG) which is provided by Ran Morrissett to allow us all to express our OPINIONS about golf course architecture and its history and to discuss same!

The USGA Architecture Archive will not and did not initially intend to provide an interactive Discussion Group (DG) like this website has even though that was actually discussed as a possibilty at one of the rare meetings at Far Hills a couple of years ago. At that meeting at the USGA there were some pretty impressive people in the room and the only ones from GOLFCLUBATLAS. com were Bob Crosby and me. We looked at each other and then at them and basically responded in unision; "Are you nuts? Do you see what goes on on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?"

Practically everyone in the room including the person who proposed it said they did know what goes on on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. So then we asked them if they could provide a permanent moderator to control what goes on every day on all kinds of subjects and they said if necessary they could. They even explained to us why they, at that time, would like to have a DG like GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, perhaps as part of an as an adjunct and supplement to the USGA Architecture Archive.

Thankfully, and, in my opinion, sanely, they seem to have changed their minds about that for a variety of reasons.

There is more to come on this subject and those questions of yours, David Moriarty. Do you want to hear them and the rest of this progression and story?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 01:59:52 AM
David:

The subject of these last few posts of ours has nothing to do directly with Myopia or Campbell or that subject and this thread but it is important nonetheless. Would you agree this subject deserves its own thread on here?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 02:45:20 AM
Now listen, Moriarty, I see from one of the incredibly sophisticated options on this website that you are in the midst of posting on this thread and I don’t know what you need to do next in California but here in Philadelphia it’s 2:40 in the morning and I have to hit the rack. I have sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, horses, the odd burro and an elusive wife to deal with no later than 7:15am and if I don’t inform them at that time about the latest on the architectural histories of Merion and Myopia they tend to get vaguely pissed off and fairly hard to manage and frankly that just won’t do.

Good night and good luck.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 09, 2010, 02:49:51 AM
Start a new thread if you like Tom, but it certainly isn't necessary to start a new thread in order for you to address my concerns.  

I do think it is about Myopia, because you are making claims about Myopia's history yet not backing up those claims with facts. More than that you have insisted that your claims are factual, and have harshly criticized those who refuse to accept what you say as fact. More still, rather than trying to make your case with the information to which you have access, you have repeatedly insisted that we ought to develop a relationship with Merion so we too can access their 114 year old records, and if we don't then we are out of luck.

All if this seems to directly clash with the mission of the USGA archives.   And I don't see how your views about "how things are done" can possibly coexist with what the USGA is supposed to be trying to accomplish.  In short, there just isn't a place for "that is for me to know, and you to find out" in proper historical analysis, yet that is the barrier we repeatedly run into in these discussions.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 06:20:51 AM
Why do I think he may not have been pro?

Just trying to explain why the club records didn't mention it, when all others were mentioned over time.

You think they didn't know what they were writing.  I suspect they do.  And, in the word parsing mode, a pro who regularly taught at Myopia (among others) might have been referred to as the pro at Myopia.  He was a pro.  And he did spend time at Myopia.  So maybe the newspapers didn't know the contractual relationship when they reported it.

Was it reported that WBThomas sponsored him to be pro at Myopia like Ross was recruited, or do we assume that?  Or if he was pro at Brooline and they were related, perhaps he was contracted to be pro there and was on temporary loan.

Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me.

No, it was not reported WB Thomas sponsored him at Myopia. At the end of 1895 it was reported that The Country Club would no longer be retaining Campbell's services, no explanation (I'm sure you'll give us multiple theories why that occurred). He apparently went to Philadelphia in early 1896, and laid out several golf courses. He was the pro at Myopia during the summer and fall. You are allowed to speculate, and you speculate a lot, TEP is the only other person who speculates more (although he often presents his speculation as fact), but you also ask a lot of very good questions.

I don't understand why you give that history book the benefit of the doubt (with little or no supporting documentation) when you have a mountain of contemporaneous material painting a completely different picture. I think you suffer from the same ailment as TEP and Mike Cirba, becoming so emotionally attached to these legends that rational thought alludes you. And there was even more info on this thread prior to GCA changing formats. A lot of this best information was lost when that happened. The 1902 article Joe B posted about Mrs.Campbell was one of the most interesting, relating to Myopia, Franklin Park and other subjects.

With so much contemporaneous information out there regarding Campbell's contribution to early Boston golf and so much contemporaneous information showing Campbell as Myopia's pro there are really only two logical explanations why the author did not mention it in the Myopia history. Myopia's early records are not very good, and the author did not conduct much if any independent research into early Boston golf. That is no great crime IMO, after all Myopia was a hunt club first foremost, and the author was writing about a lot more than just golf. One must also understand the book was written in the mid-70s before there was interest in the history of golf architecture.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 06:47:56 AM
I've added the courses in the UK Campbell designed between 1889 and 1893. I suspect there may be more.

Ranfurly Castle, UK
Monmouthshire, UK
Machrie, UK
Cowal, UK
Rothesay, UK
Kilmacolm, UK
Seascale, UK

The Country Club, MA
Essex County, MA
Myopia Hunt, MA
Franklin Park, MA
Winchester, MA
Tatnuck, MA
Salem, MA
Topsfield, MA
Hawthorn, MA
Cambridge, MA
Nahant, MA
Wakefield, MA
Bridgewater, MA
Beaver Meadow, NH
Wannamoisett, RI
Merion Cricket, PA
Belmont Cricket, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Huntingdon Valley, PA
Moorestown Field, NJ
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 07:49:51 AM
I'm emotionally involved with the Myopia history?? 

Now that is indded very funny...thanks TM for the early morning chuckle.  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 09:25:40 AM
Mike Cirba,

Ditto for me on this one.

TMac,

I for one am NOT emotionally invested in anything.  Like other like minded individuals here, I just get wrapped up in the minutia of some of these early clubs.  As noted before, when I get to the NE, I have tried to spend a day touring each of the courses of fame, and love the look of Myopia among the most of any course I have seen.  I am just trying to understand how the architecture came to be and imagine the thought process that went into it.

I just don't understand the personal animosity that has been generated by the need to clearly attribute the design of a rudimentary nine holes that was 90-100% remodeled within two years.  Many have postulated that "no one cares what XXX thinks" but I can say with 100% certainty that the founders of Myopia DID NOT care what gca.com thought, because it didn't exist!  I speculate that they really didn't care about attribution all that much either.  I don't think we can know to the level of detail that you would want to know, just what happened out there in 1894.  I agree with you that looking at the totality of the records may shed some light on what happened.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the process started with three club members and ended with some involvement by Willie Campbell.  And I am perfectly willing to let Myopia decide the official version if they decide to, and let you and/or others bring forth alternate theories.

To me, the most interesting part of this thread is David and TePaul (and you offered input) suggesting where the possible first routing was, how much was eventually used in the second nine (many hole corridors, extended, etc., but it would be nice to know if any of the very first greens survive in original form....from my take, maybe two did) and then how they assembled the land for the final 18 and integrated the long nine.

I was interested to go back and read all your Willie Campbell research and did find it fascinating.  While speculating, I was simply struck by the difference of Ross sticking with Tufts a lifetime, and Willie coming over and not remaining attached to one club in his very short stay here.  I was not trying to knock WC at all and maybe it would be an interesting project to flesh out all those old Scottish pros to see what their sponsor arrangements were.  Obvioulsly, they varied and I hadn't really considered all that in depth before.

Cheers.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 09:32:48 AM


I don't get it.  We have X different reports that X X laid out the course. We have X different reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of X.  

And so far no one has brought forth anything contradicting any of this.

So what is there to discuss, really?  

And what of this hypocritical notion about how X must have designed it and X must have laid it out?  What support does it have? Other than the wish of some to diminish the legend despite very strong evidence to the contrary?  

Don't get me wrong.  It is possible that X were involved in the initial design process, at least in some consulting capacity, but shouldn't such a notion have at least some factual support before we start drawing that conclusion?    
- David Moriarty


Head hurting...Hulk must think...rrrrrggghhh...

Where has Hulk heard this all before??   Must...Must remember....

Hulk tired....very tired.....turning into puny Banner....


(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ScTVFrW-ATg/Sw2FOOqPJeI/AAAAAAAABlE/_oduY_th0Gs/s1600/hulkinksalex.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 09:41:25 AM
Tom MacWood,

If you want to call Philadelphia CC and Belmont CC Willie Campbell courses, be my guest, but I have contemporaneous detailed written evidence to the contrary that is highly factual, coming directly from the clubs in question, including listing the name of each member and a drawing of each course as well as the design history to date.

I don't think you do your great research credentials and abilities any service by continuing to present known inaccuracies as fact.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 09:45:14 AM
Mike,

Trying hard to stay out of the animosity, but I did chuckle when you brought up the so far ignored point that David has to ignore his years of contention that "Laid out" meant to construct on the ground in other places, but here, it must be taken as "to design."

Similarly, TMac considers Worthington, who had laid out one personal course to be an expert co-designer with Tillie at Shawnee, but Appleton, who had designed one personal course, is thought to have no experience and needing Campbell here......

Or that there was "no logic" to putting Myopia on surrounding ground to preserve the hunting grounds, that in a great coincidence, another club of interest has totally wrong minutes and records, and that TePaul is a lying crook with a pathological need to protect a lie, etc.

Now, I fully understand the desire to dig deeper, and I agree newspaper clippings are also a good source to try to do this.  I also understand the frustrations with TePaul's need to bash these guys and admire their relative self restraint in light of this.  So, not trying to bash Tmac and DM, but just point out that we are very quickly getting to another thread where personal animosities (on both sides) dominate.

Frankly, I would be happy to see a revised version of the original nine, provided by DM and tweaked by comments from TMac and TePaul to see exactly where we best envision that original nine to go.  That would be fun, and I think those guys could even work together on that one.

For anyone interested in Willie Campbell, I encourage you to go back a year in time and read TMac's earlier posts which are quite enlightening and fun to read.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 09:52:15 AM
Mike,

Our posts crossed.  And while I have no proof of how or what Willie did in design, I offer two thoughts.

Like you, if TMac Google searches and comes up quickly with some articles that associate WC with courses in some way, I would think a professional historian would wait for a second source as confirmation, rather than post them as quickly as he seems to.  Of course, he may have found two sources, and I could be way off base here.  Whatever he does, quickly adding to the list here just appears to make it look haphazard on this screen.

In my speculations on what WC did at Myopia earlier, it occurred to me that if he was kind of a free agent and trying his hand at design in America, he certainly wouldn't be the first to perhaps "exaggerate" his credit at MH to build up his resume.  Again, just speculation, but gca's have padded their resumes as an aid to getting work since the beginning of time.  We will never know, but the confusion at MH between club records and newspaper articles, your examples, etc., all bring that possibility into play.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:11:55 AM
Mike Cirba,

Ditto for me on this one.

TMac,

I for one am NOT emotionally invested in anything.  Like other like minded individuals here, I just get wrapped up in the minutia of some of these early clubs.  As noted before, when I get to the NE, I have tried to spend a day touring each of the courses of fame, and love the look of Myopia among the most of any course I have seen.  I am just trying to understand how the architecture came to be and imagine the thought process that went into it.

I'll take your word for it...I was simply trying to figure out why you give the benfit of the doubt to the history book with little or no supporting documentation. I have found occasionally people will suspend rational thought when they become emotionally attached to an often told story.  

I just don't understand the personal animosity that has been generated by the need to clearly attribute the design of a rudimentary nine holes that was 90-100% remodeled within two years.  Many have postulated that "no one cares what XXX thinks" but I can say with 100% certainty that the founders of Myopia DID NOT care what gca.com thought, because it didn't exist!  I speculate that they really didn't care about attribution all that much either.  I don't think we can know to the level of detail that you would want to know, just what happened out there in 1894.  I agree with you that looking at the totality of the records may shed some light on what happened.

I'm not really into the personal insults. I just call it as I see it, and sometimes people take offense. For example, the course was 90% remodeled within two years? This is a common problem with your involvement in threads dealing with historical questions. You have an inaccurate or distorted understanding of the facts. And from a historical documentation perspective it really does not matter what the founders or any other historical figure felt about attribution. If historians worried about what past historical figures thought about the potential study of any historical period no one would discover anything.  

I am perfectly willing to believe that the process started with three club members and ended with some involvement by Willie Campbell.  And I am perfectly willing to let Myopia decide the official version if they decide to, and let you and/or others bring forth alternate theories.

And I am perfectly willing to let you and Myopia believe what you collectively want to believe too. That doesn't mean I have to accept it and/or stop trying to discover what really happened, and sharing what I discover, and explaining to anyone interested that what you believe is not supported by any factual ducumentation.  

To me, the most interesting part of this thread is David and TePaul (and you offered input) suggesting where the possible first routing was, how much was eventually used in the second nine (many hole corridors, extended, etc., but it would be nice to know if any of the very first greens survive in original form....from my take, maybe two did) and then how they assembled the land for the final 18 and integrated the long nine.

Two? Whatever you say.  

I was interested to go back and read all your Willie Campbell research and did find it fascinating.  While speculating, I was simply struck by the difference of Ross sticking with Tufts a lifetime, and Willie coming over and not remaining attached to one club in his very short stay here.  I was not trying to knock WC at all and maybe it would be an interesting project to flesh out all those old Scottish pros to see what their sponsor arrangements were.  Obvioulsly, they varied and I hadn't really considered all that in depth before.

The interesting thing about your comparison is that both men were in Boston together briefly, in the last year or two of Willie's life. From memory I thought Ross was convinced to come over by a Harvard professor. He met Tufts who eventually hired him at Pinehurst, but he also had jobs at Oakley and Essex County, and I don't believe Tufts had any connection with either. A major difference between Campbell and Ross, was their stature within the game. Ross was more or less an unknown; Campbell was a well known professional. Beyond that it is difficult to compare the two men's longevity because Campbell had such a short life and Ross lived to a ripe old age.  

Cheers.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:20:48 AM
Tom MacWood,

If you want to call Philadelphia CC and Belmont CC Willie Campbell courses, be my guest, but I have contemporaneous detailed written evidence to the contrary that is highly factual, coming directly from the clubs in question, including listing the name of each member and a drawing of each course as well as the design history to date.

I don't think you do your great research credentials and abilities any service by continuing to present known inaccuracies as fact.

Mike
Why don't you start a separate thread sharing any documentation you might have...to date you've not presented anything convincing.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 10:39:43 AM
TMac,

To be honest, and you won't like this probably, I give the benefit of the doubt to TePaul.  He has seen the actual historic documents that Weeks wrote from and while he can't post them, he has put up what they said here. I know you and DM think its not valid unless you see it, and I understand that, but we don't all need to share that view on a discussion forum.  

So, I believe the club records should be equal to newspaper clippings in being considered factual documentation, rather than be dismissed out of hand.  That doesn't seem to be too big a strecth and to me, not as big as the remarkable coincidence that any club you have an interest in has a history and contemporary records that are flawed.

As to the two greens theory, TePaul and I discussed that at length on the phone, with me having maps you posted in front of me because I didn't understand his written description of how he thought the first nine was, just out of interest.  As he talked me through it, I began to understand it.  And, from my take on the corridor extensions, reroutings, etc. to the long nine, at most, two greens stay in the exact same location, which was my basis for saying that. 

So, you can broad brush my involvement here as useless and without an understanding of the facts (according to you) but I have tried to figure out what was going on out of pure historic interest.  I will say that your opinion that you call them like you see them, and you don't care who might be illogically offended is a bit self serving.  Hey, we all work in some digs at each other, and know damn well we are doing it!

BTW, I agree you and Mike should start a new thread on the career of WC, accoring to protocol and ease of reading on this site.  Your research on his total design career shouldn't be presented in a Myopia thread, should it?  It deserves its own thread, no doubt.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:44:06 AM
Mike,

Our posts crossed.  And while I have no proof of how or what Willie did in design, I offer two thoughts.

Like you, if TMac Google searches and comes up quickly with some articles that associate WC with courses in some way, I would think a professional historian would wait for a second source as confirmation, rather than post them as quickly as he seems to.  Of course, he may have found two sources, and I could be way off base here.  Whatever he does, quickly adding to the list here just appears to make it look haphazard on this screen.

In my speculations on what WC did at Myopia earlier, it occurred to me that if he was kind of a free agent and trying his hand at design in America, he certainly wouldn't be the first to perhaps "exaggerate" his credit at MH to build up his resume.  Again, just speculation, but gca's have padded their resumes as an aid to getting work since the beginning of time.  We will never know, but the confusion at MH between club records and newspaper articles, your examples, etc., all bring that possibility into play.

If you look back to the beginning of the thread there were several articles presented by JoeB dealing with the attributions at Belmont and PhilaCC. It had nothing to do with Google as far as I can tell, but feel free to speculate about me too.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 09, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
Mike,

Trying hard to stay out of the animosity, but I did chuckle when you brought up the so far ignored point that David has to ignore his years of contention that "Laid out" meant to construct on the ground in other places, but here, it must be taken as "to design."

Jeff Brauer, If you cannot accurately represent my positions, please refrain from representing them at all.

Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer.

There is plenty of hypocrisy here, but it is not mine.  My understanding of the verb "to lay out" is exactly the same as it has been, and exactly the same as I have explained repeatedly.  

Again, "to lay out" generally meant to lay the course out on the ground and rarely referred the act of planning the course on paper without having laid it out on the ground.  Sometimes, but not always, a course was planned first and then laid out on the ground later, according to that plan.   According to Merion's Board, that is exactly what happened at Merion; the course was laid out according to the the plan determined by CBM and HJW.  In contrast, I have not seen any evidence that at Myopia the course was planned first by Appleton and friends and then laid it later by Campbell according to plan.

Both of you have mocked and ridiculed this understanding for years, as if "to lay out" and "to plan" were always synonymous.  Yet now without explanation you have now both done an about-face now, I guess because it allows you to reach the result you want to reach.  Yet so far as I can tell, neither of you has any support for your theory that in the case of Myopia the course was planned first and then laid out later by Willie Campbell.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:46:10 AM
TMac,

To be honest, and you won't like this probably, I give the benefit of the doubt to TePaul.  He has seen the actual historic documents that Weeks wrote from and while he can't post them, he has put up what they said here. I know you and DM think its not valid unless you see it, and I understand that, but we don't all need to share that view on a discussion forum.  

So, I believe the club records should be equal to newspaper clippings in being considered factual documentation, rather than be dismissed out of hand.  That doesn't seem to be too big a strecth and to me, not as big as the remarkable coincidence that any club you have an interest in has a history and contemporary records that are flawed.

As to the two greens theory, TePaul and I discussed that at length on the phone, with me having maps you posted in front of me because I didn't understand his written description of how he thought the first nine was, just out of interest.  As he talked me through it, I began to understand it.  And, from my take on the corridor extensions, reroutings, etc. to the long nine, at most, two greens stay in the exact same location, which was my basis for saying that.  

So, you can broad brush my involvement here as useless and without an understanding of the facts (according to you) but I have tried to figure out what was going on out of pure historic interest.  I will say that your opinion that you call them like you see them, and you don't care who might be illogically offended is a bit self serving.  Hey, we all work in some digs at each other, and know damn well we are doing it!

BTW, I agree you and Mike should start a new thread on the career of WC, accoring to protocol and ease of reading on this site.  Your research on his total design career shouldn't be presented in a Myopia thread, should it?  It deserves its own thread, no doubt.

Like I said yesterday you are well on your way to becoming an official USGA golf architecture archivist. By the way, have you read Week's club history?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 10:53:11 AM
TMac,

That is exaclty the kind of snotty comment you regularly make that starts these kinds of threads way down hill fast.  Really no value in that and for you to post anything calling anyone else useless and hypocritical is just uber hypocritical.

Grow up.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:55:38 AM
Jeff
I'm sorry if you took offense. It was not meant to be snotty, I honestly believe you are well on your way.

Have you read Weeks' Myopia history?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 11:06:46 AM
Tom,

Wow another one of your non apoligies.  And more snot.

I have told you I have not read it.  Why ask useless and repetitive questions that you know the answer to if not just trying to tweak fellow gca.com participants?

I'll make the same statements you make, if you are not bringing new information to this thread, then don't bother posting just the snot.  I really do appreciate all the time you spend digging at history, and can tolerate the occaisonal digging at me, but c'mon.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
Tom,

There are copyright issues with me posting here but I trust you are familiar with Prosper Sennat's 1898 detailed book on all of the clubs in and around Philly.

If not, you should really try to get ahold of a copy...it's incredibly thorough and very fascinating.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 11:28:12 AM
David,

Which is more preposterous...that a hired hand with experience in construction would be charged with laying a course out on the ground or that five aristocratic tycoons who were the best players at the club would be?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 11:28:54 AM
Tom,

Wow another one of your non apoligies.  And more snot.

I have told you I have not read it.  Why ask useless and repetitive questions that you know the answer to if not just trying to tweak fellow gca.com participants?

I'll make the same statements you make, if you are not bringing new information to this thread, then don't bother posting just the snot.  I really do appreciate all the time you spend digging at history, and can tolerate the occaisonal digging at me, but c'mon.

You are presented with contemporaneous documentation yet chose to ignore that information and instead put your trust in a book you've never read - bizarre.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 11:31:53 AM
Tom,

There are copyright issues with me posting here but I trust you are familiar with Prosper Sennat's 1898 detailed book on all of the clubs in and around Philly.

If not, you should really try to get ahold of a copy...it's incredibly thorough and very fascinating.

No, I'm not familar with that book. I'm not up on copyright laws but I thought when a book reached a certain age (70+ years?) it went into the public domain. Certaily you can quote from the book.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 11:52:53 AM
TMac,

You have misrepresented what I wrote and I find your continued description of me based on your misrepresentations as "bizarre" to be insulting, since you don't seem to understand that such things are generally considered impolite.  (and yes, I understand the irony of similarly insulting you in the same sentence)

I wrote that I did not rely on the book, I relied on TePaul's understanding of the original document because he has seen them.  We haven't and I basically agree with you that a semi modern history book is not completly trustworthy.

I believe that if they wrote that three club members laid out the course in the original club records, that there is a very, very high chance that three club members did at least something to lay out the original course.  period.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 11:54:58 AM
Tom,

I'd be happy to quote attribution and other info as I have in the past...I just can't scan and post it here.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 12:00:35 PM
"Frankly, I would be happy to see a revised version of the original nine, provided by DM and tweaked by comments from TMac and TePaul to see exactly where we best envision that original nine to go.  That would be fun, and I think those guys could even work together on that one."


Jeff:

To accurately figure out where and what the holes of the original 1894 nine were isn't the easiest thing to do but it's not all that hard either if the people analyzing it and discussing it have all the necessary facts. Unfortunately, most on here don't. The best description of it can be found on Post #393.

The single necessary aspect to understanding it as completely as possible is to know precisely where Dr. S.A. Hopkins property line was where it was contiguous to Myopia's line and land. A map of it is in Weeks' book (with other land acquisitions) but very few have that and so it's hard for them to understand where those three holes on the 1894 nine were on his land and particularly what they looked like. The remaining six holes of the 1894 nine are not that hard to track, including how those six holes changed or not on Leeds' Long Nine.

Hope that helps you.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 12:06:02 PM
Mike:

The Prosper Senat book is a very cool asset for research and information on really early Philadephia golf and architecture. How we came to get a copy of that book is a fascinating story. I have a feeling there may've only been two copies of it originally printed. One went for a ton of money when it came up for auction about 2-3 years ago.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 09, 2010, 12:10:35 PM
David,

Which is more preposterous...that a hired hand with experience in construction would be charged with laying a course out on the ground or that five aristocratic tycoons who were the best players at the club would be?

Mike, I have no idea what this means.  A hired hand with experience in construction?  You cannot possibly mean Willie Campbell.  He was no mere hired hand.  "Professor Campbell" (which is how the papers often referred to him) the one of the best golfers in the world, and had plenty of design experience, and laid out other courses for these same men.

Now it is five "tycoons" and not three?   Which is it?  And Mike, to call them the best golfers among the members (in fact Mr. Henry was the first club champion) was not saying much compared to Willie Campbell.   He was well over 30 strokes better than the lot of them.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 12:13:17 PM
TEPaul,

Our conversation was of great help to me in understanding the evolution of the routing, even if those missing three holes may never be found accurately.  But going over it verbally with maps in front of me, the progression from nine to long nine to 18 seemed logical and easy to understand.

That said, TMac stated (I think and I apologize if I am wrong) that it probably didn't happen because it was "illogical" to use neighbors land.  While it would seem so today, I read in Ross and other old books that placing golf courses on leased or donated land was not all that uncommon in those days, so I have no trouble believing it was on Hopkins land or that Bush donated and then sold cheaply the land for 10 and 11.  

Reading about the strife between old line hunters and new golfers, I can also readily accept that the new golf links would be forced onto other land than what had been used for decades as hunt grounds.  It seems it was at least until golf had proven itself as a popular new game in just a few years time.

Of course, and not being snide, I am not an expert researcher, as noted before and am not applying high standards to myself before offering those opinions based on whatever seemingly relevant reading I have done on the history of early gca in America.  Others have done more, for sure.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 12:20:28 PM
David,

While I agree Campbell was respected for his playing ability, others have posted info here about how Myopia didn't let pros in the clubhouse as late as the second Open they hosted. 

Is it logical to assume the newspapers and city could have loved WC, but that he experienced some lower status at his actual place of employment?  He only lasted a year at MH, for whatever reason and one would expect that he got tired of being a second class citizen?

Again, speculation, but you and Mike are also speculating on how he was viewed, what he did, etc.  I liked it better when you and Mike both suggested he was involved somehow, as were the club members, but left the discussion as to "his place" out of it, although this post is also testament to how intriging such speculation is.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 12:22:23 PM
David,

You missed ny point...the five were the commiTtee at the other club we oft refer to here whoise name should not be mentioned.

Campbell did have construction experience, as well as maintenance experience.  Having him build greens, tees, and bunkers was not some imaginative stretch.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
Jeff:

While using some of Dr S.A. Hopkins land for three holes or portions of them for the 1894 nine may seem illogical to some on this website, it really doesn't matter. It is a fact that is exactly what Myopia Hunt did on that 1894 nine. It was well recorded at the time by the club itself.

But the interesting thing is when Leeds developed the Long Nine the club did not use any of Hopkins land even though they did buy it in 1897 and it was used for the development of the eighteen holes course by Leeds.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 12:32:36 PM
Mike,

Well, he did have at least two courses of design experience before coming over here (according to CW) and more (according to Tom Mac Woods post this morning, which by the way, I don't doubt completely)

He was sponsored by WHThomas to come over here, to work at Brookline and quickly seemed to have performed work at Essex and Myopia, no?  I am not sure what that says, but can easily conclude that his golf layout experience (whether design or construction) was in demand at those socially interrelated clubs)  Exactly how he was under contract to each is currently undiscovered, but in those days it may have been less formal.

Most or many of those pros "did it all" for clubs including design, teaching, maintenance and construction.  I have no doubt that in his brief time at Myopia he did most of that, and somewhere its recorded, as in the newspapers.

The only problem is we want to know if the club members did any stake out, as their club records claimed happened before Willie C got here, and how it got from that to an open golf course in June.

If they laid sod in May, some work had to be done in leveling tees and greens (flatten, but not flat on the greens unless they were perfectly naturally sited)  Not much, but some.  It also strikes me that even today it takes weeks for sod to knit in and root in.  Could they really have laid so in late May and been open in June back then, even with lower putting quality expectations?

Just saying it seems to me that the entire process probably did start in March, before Willie even arrived, but then he got there as soon as he could!

TePaul,

Who knows, maybe they felt bad going back to the well, or maybe the Bush offer was just too good, or maybe current holes 10 and 11 were simply the best holes Leeds saw out there......One thing that strikes me is that we are reaching the point on this thread where its taking longer than the original design process did! ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 01:25:47 PM
Jeff:

Having spoken to you yesterday I realize how interested you are in determining what the 1894 nine was, what the Long Nine was and what the eighteen hole course was when it was developed and put into play in 1900-1901. It is also very important to know and understand just how little the routing and those holes (not exactly considering bunkering) have changed from that time (1900-01)until today.

I realize my Post #393 is pretty hard to understand in how these three iterations changed from one to the other because it is essentiailly just in paragraph form and so if given some time I would be glad to put together a hole by hole evolution explaining the holes of those three iterations and how they changed from 1894 to 1900-01 when the course became very largely as it still is today.

As you can imagine, those three original holes on Dr. S.A Hopkins' land on the original 1894 nine are going to be the hardest to track and explain because they were given up early and there is just no drawing or record of precisely where they were on Hopkins' land or even what they were.

Other than those three holes of the 1894 nine (very arguably 2-4) I can do a very comprehensive design evolution explanation and description of the rest of the holes of those three iterations. Would you like that?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 01:27:51 PM
TePaul,

NOt if done JUST for my account.

I would also really like to look around the property as you suggest and see if there are any hint of remnants from those first holes.  That would be cool!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 01:54:50 PM
TEPaul,

Our conversation was of great help to me in understanding the evolution of the routing, even if those missing three holes may never be found accurately.  But going over it verbally with maps in front of me, the progression from nine to long nine to 18 seemed logical and easy to understand.

Were you aware that TEP's version of how the routing evolved is completely speculative?

That said, TMac stated (I think and I apologize if I am wrong) that it probably didn't happen because it was "illogical" to use neighbors land.  While it would seem so today, I read in Ross and other old books that placing golf courses on leased or donated land was not all that uncommon in those days, so I have no trouble believing it was on Hopkins land or that Bush donated and then sold cheaply the land for 10 and 11.

It is an interesting theory that the original nine was on Hopkins land unfortunately nobody seems to have any proof, but of course that has never been an issue with you.  

Reading about the strife between old line hunters and new golfers, I can also readily accept that the new golf links would be forced onto other land than what had been used for decades as hunt grounds.  It seems it was at least until golf had proven itself as a popular new game in just a few years time.

If the club records are as good as TEP claims wouldn't there be some mention of the course being partially on Hopkins' land? And if the records are so good wouldn't there be a mention of when the decided to move those holes off Hopkins land and onto their own property? TEP has pinpointed it to somewhere between 1896 and 1898 although he also said its possible it was done prior to Leeds becoming a member (1895). Based on the vagueness of the change, if there was a change, I'd say the records do not appear to be very good.

Of course, and not being snide, I am not an expert researcher, as noted before and am not applying high standards to myself before offering those opinions based on whatever seemingly relevant reading I have done on the history of early gca in America.  Others have done more, for sure.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 01:57:01 PM
Mr Jeffrey Brauer, SIR, Past President of ASGCA, all around August and Great Guy, CME, IOU, IRS:


Why NOT JUST for your account?

Whose account would you like me to do it for? Cirba's? I would be glad to do it for his account too, as he really does seem interested in learning the entire architectural history and evolution of Myopia Hunt Club.

Do you expect me to do it for David Moriarty's and Tom MacWood's accounts?

That may be tough to do since they don't seem to want me to even be allowed to mention any of this stuff much less actually discuss on here any of this or what I know from the club or anywhere else unless I supply them with copies of what I know and have read FIRST!  ??? ;) And they both have stated such on here constantly in terms and words that don't even require their type of parsing!  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 02:01:20 PM
David,

While I agree Campbell was respected for his playing ability, others have posted info here about how Myopia didn't let pros in the clubhouse as late as the second Open they hosted.  

Is it logical to assume the newspapers and city could have loved WC, but that he experienced some lower status at his actual place of employment?  He only lasted a year at MH, for whatever reason and one would expect that he got tired of being a second class citizen?

Interesting speculation, but what does that have to do with who designed the golf course? Pros were second class citizens for at least a couple of decades, but it didn't prevent them from designing golf courses. Instead of continually speculated why don't come up with some solid information?

Again, speculation, but you and Mike are also speculating on how he was viewed, what he did, etc.  I liked it better when you and Mike both suggested he was involved somehow, as were the club members, but left the discussion as to "his place" out of it, although this post is also testament to how intriging such speculation is.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 02:03:47 PM
David,

You missed ny point...the five were the commiTtee at the other club we oft refer to here whoise name should not be mentioned.

Campbell did have construction experience, as well as maintenance experience.  Having him build greens, tees, and bunkers was not some imaginative stretch.

Apples and oranges comparing 1894 to 1911. From a historical perspective those two projects were lightyears apart.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 02:05:03 PM
Jeffrey:

A bit OT but would you care to venture a guess as to why MacWood has reverted into one of his "Flaming Yellow Text" modes again?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 02:15:19 PM
With all due respect TEP's account that the club records claim the Squire & Co laid out the course Weeks does not claim the club records show that, in fact he does not mention where he got the information, and his account of what happened is contained in one paragraph, actually one sentence:

"When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, 'Squire' Merrill and AP Gardner, footed over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs."

I find it hard to believe these fine club records would have record of these gents pegging out the course in the spring, but no record of Willie Campbell ever being involved at the club. And according to TEP's theory they footed off the club acres too. That account reads like fiction to me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 02:26:26 PM
TMac,

You are entitled to your opinion, and of course, I see where you are coming from, even if I don't happen to agree.  

That said, I think TePaul has fairly established that Weeks was looking at those same records when he wrote, and was a fairly experienced researcher and journalist himself, no?  Are you trying to throw another historian under the bus on the slimmest of your hunches?

He has also explained why in an overall history he devotes the barest of minimum to the original design.  Brevity doesn't imply inaccuracy in any way. And if Weeks did all that, the phrase "walking the property and probably putting pegs in the ground at greens and tees", it seems pretty clear to me that his take on the original records was that they routed the course.

But, we have covered this ground. I am sure we would all like some new info, along the lines of the TePaul account or beter yet, the DM graphics of the early routing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 02:32:22 PM
"Based on the vagueness of the change, if there was a change, I'd say the records do not appear to be very good."



Tom MacWood, you old sly dog you; you know what, you really are some kind of "expert researcher/historian." Have you actually been over to South Hamilton from Ivory Tower, Ohio between yesterday and today and read all those records? If not how could you possibly know if those records are vague or not vague about what they say about anybody or anything, including Hopkins' land?   ??? ;)  


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 02:40:35 PM
Jeff
You are at a disadvantage having not read the book. Weeks himself said the make-up of the original nine was a matter of speculation, obviously he had no record of the original nine, and he presented no proof that the original course was on Hopkins' land.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 02:50:52 PM
Jeff:

You know what you said there in your #591 is frankly really interesting and should be further developed and explained!

It is probably not that often that we read something in any kind of history book and then ask ourselves where in the world the author came up with his explanation and description of someone or something. But in what some of us do on some subjects to do with golf architecture and clubs and courses we sometimes actually do wonder that and even further we then try to go and do go to what we feel may've been the author's sources when he wrote what he did to see what those sources actually say.

I will give you a few really interesting examples of where and when and how that happened later. In some of them what we found really was most interesting.

You know, it's a bit like looking at say that "blue/red" line topo map of Pine Valley that's been hanging on the wall for decades and you realize all the people who've looked at it, and you realize they were probably interested in it but not a one of them ever actually thought to even ask themselves what those blue lines are or what those red lines are, and much less who may've done them or why. And then you realize you are actually looking at something that Harry Colt held in his hands for perhaps a week and you imagine him drawing those thin light blue lines, and maybe doing it in Crump's tent by the pond. And then you imagine Crump holding that thing in his hands for about four years and drawing those bold red lines on it over the years! You may even put your hand right where theirs was so long ago and you realize the only thing that separates you is a thin piece of glass!

WOW! It really gives you some pause when you realize that and think about it, and that it was 93 to 97 years ago and that with what you are looking at with those blue and red lines was how they were just beginning to figure out how and what to design and make what is right outside and so world famous. It's probably something like walking off the first tee of TOC and perhaps stepping in the footprint of Alan Robertson, Old and Young Tom Morris, Willie Park Jr, even Willie Campbell, or Bob Jones or Arnie and Jack and the Boys.

Incredible feeling really, and I guess that's why some of us gravitate to this kind of history the way we do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Bryan Izatt on December 09, 2010, 03:08:32 PM
Tom,

There are copyright issues with me posting here but I trust you are familiar with Prosper Sennat's 1898 detailed book on all of the clubs in and around Philly.

If not, you should really try to get ahold of a copy...it's incredibly thorough and very fascinating.

Mike,

Was the book published in 1898?  Is there a copyright notice in it from that date?  Or is your version a later publishing?  Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain.  So, you should be able to scan and post.

Is this the same Prosper Senat who was a painter, inventor of a golf tee, patented a design for a sailboat centerboard, and who designed a golf course in Twombly Pastures called the Cape Arundel Golf Club?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 03:17:17 PM
Mike:

You must have gotten a copy of that Proper Senat book from Wayne Morrison, right? Because if you have an actual one you might have only one of two in the world, and it would be worth a ton of money. The other one was bought by Alister Johnson in the last 2-3 years and for a lot.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 03:36:41 PM
TMac,

Weeks said "We know the course was on our grounds and that of Hopkins."  He did not know exactly where but does describe the opening hole, the remnants of the tee on that hole, and corresponds some of but not all of the holes to current holes.

He sounds confident.  He knows where some of the holes were. I presume he had his sources and that was the old club records, maybe the old scrap book, and the same articles you have found and more. 

Again, because he doesn't cite his sources because this is not a scholarly type work, but a popular read for the members, do you believe that indicates inaccuracy in his work?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 03:59:46 PM
Jeff,

No.  I'm sure Weeks just made it all up to lie to the members.

Tom,

It's a copy...not original, but it is an amazingly comprehensive view of these early clubs and courses, as you know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 04:03:18 PM
"It's a copy...not original, but it is an amazingly comprehensive view of these early clubs and courses, as you know."

Mike:

Did I ever tell you how we came to get a copy of that book?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 04:09:17 PM
"I presume he had his sources and that was the old club records, maybe the old scrap book,"


Jeff:

I should reiterate that Weeks had the Leeds Scrapbook and certainly referred to it but now it seems to be gone perhaps not seen since 1975, although some from Myopia seem to feel they last saw it later than that. I just have a feeling that Leeds Scrapbook was a comprehensive diary of much of what he thought about golf and architecture and wrote it down in that. It may've even gone back to his trips abroad in the early days. I sure wish I could find it; not that I have searched everywhere for it and who may have it or know its whereabout. It could be a treasure trove of architectural information particularly to do with Leeds' Myopia over the years.

Actually, Weeks does cite a number of his sources but again I think one must understand how to view them and the importance of them given that club was first one of only hunting interests and today it remains one of horse sport. There was a lady who had all the Run Books and I believe those essentially were that club's chronicle/administrative records logs, but for how long into the club's history that lasted I'm not completely sure.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 04:10:49 PM
Tom,

Nope...I'm all ears.

Bryan,

I don't know the answers to your questions but am pretty sure Tom might.  Good to hear from you.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 04:27:45 PM
"Tom,
Nope...I'm all ears."

Mike:

Wayne heard about it somehow, and then it came up for auction. As I said I think there may've only been two copies of it or even only two copies published. He felt the USGA should bid on it but it was real pricey (actually the USGA may have the only other copy). So I called my buddy in Mass who is a great friend, on the Lesley Cup and presently the Pres of the Mass Golf Assoc. and often a buyer for Alister Johnson, arguably the biggest collector of golf textual material in the world. I asked him if he was aware of this book that had been up for auction and he said funny I should ask as he just bought it for Alister. Well, I asked him if Alister might consider printing us a copy of it and he said he would ask. Literally, the next day I went over to GMGC and into the office and they handed me a letter from Alister. He wanted to buy one of my GMGC Design Evolution books! I've never even met Alister. So I gave him one (the last one I had actually) and he was appreciative for that and of course made us a copy of the Prosper Senat book.

Nothing like some good old fashioned quid pro quo collaboration, Huh, Mikey Boy?!

By the way, Mikey Boy, even though the book was published in 1898 it does make it clear that everything about Philadelphia golf architecture or golf golf architecture in America generally was traceable up until that point to the influence of C.B. Macdonald and would remain so for all time to come and that included Merion East which would be designed and built within the next 13-14 years. It also mentioned Hugh Wilson and that he was just coming out of high school then and that he didn't know the difference between a golf course and a bowling alley and he very likely never would!!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 04:35:55 PM
Tom,

Great stuff!

I wonder what I could get in trade for the Cobbs Creek book?  On sheer size alone - may be able to fund my retirement!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Bryan Izatt on December 09, 2010, 04:40:17 PM
Mike,

I try to only dabble on these threads on rare occasions for obvious reasons.  

Based on Tom's story and the multiple copies already made and the publishing date, I doubt that there is any copyright issue.  If you got a copy of the cover and front pages and there is no copyright in there, then it was probably never copyrighted.  In any event, it would be public domain now anyway.  So, ................  can you scan and post relevant parts of it?  It'd be most interesting.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 09, 2010, 05:47:44 PM
Bryan,

I was told that the owner of the book asked that we not reproduce it further so I want to respect that.

If there is specific info that others are interested in I'll be happy to tell you what it says.

Hope you can understand.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 06:09:43 PM
TMac,

You asked earlier why I thought perhaps Campbell was never the pro at MH.  A post last year by Neil Carlton rings a bell.  Note, all his newspaper arrticles, which cover WC's time frame in America never get around to saying WC was hired at MH.  If you read this chronology of "engagements" it pretty well fills in his time in America.  So, if he got to Myopia to teach (which he did) he got there independently or on loan from Brookline.


For the record, the newspaper article (Glasgow Evening Times) that I found that referred to WC going to America was dated 9th March and not the 19th as I had originally thought. What it says is that WC had accepted appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC and that "he sails for the states next week".

Then in 14th June 1895 the same paper states that he has been re-engaged as professional and greenkeeper for another year by the Brookline CC, Massachusets USA.

Another report dated 28th Feb 1896 states that he has left the CC of Brookline.

The final mention I have for him is a report dated 26th Nov 1896 which says the following;

"Courses are still being laid out in the States. Philadelphia, aided by Willie Campbell, has added another to its large number of links. St Andrews, having bought a lot of land at a cost, it is said, of 80,000 dols, will lay it out when the frost goes."

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 06:35:59 PM
Also note that despite his playing prowess, at least over in the UK, they had the impression he was also going to work as a greenskeeper.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 07:52:14 PM
"I presume he had his sources and that was the old club records, maybe the old scrap book,"


Jeff:

I should reiterate that Weeks had the Leeds Scrapbook and certainly referred to it but now it seems to be gone perhaps not seen since 1975, although some from Myopia seem to feel they last saw it later than that. I just have a feeling that Leeds Scrapbook was a comprehensive diary of much of what he thought about golf and architecture and wrote it down in that. It may've even gone back to his trips abroad in the early days. I sure wish I could find it; not that I have searched everywhere for it and who may have it or know its whereabout. It could be a treasure trove of architectural information particularly to do with Leeds' Myopia over the years.

Actually, Weeks does cite a number of his sources but again I think one must understand how to view them and the importance of them given that club was first one of only hunting interests and today it remains one of horse sport. There was a lady who had all the Run Books and I believe those essentially were that club's chronicle/administrative records logs, but for how long into the club's history that lasted I'm not completely sure.

Jeff
But yet you give TEP the benefit of the doubt when he tells you he saw in the Myopia club records that the Squire & Co first laid out the course. Did you ask him where exactly he read this? Club minutes, Run Book, letters, club history, etc.?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 08:06:33 PM
TMac,

You asked earlier why I thought perhaps Campbell was never the pro at MH.  A post last year by Neil Carlton rings a bell.  Note, all his newspaper arrticles, which cover WC's time frame in America never get around to saying WC was hired at MH.  If you read this chronology of "engagements" it pretty well fills in his time in America.  So, if he got to Myopia to teach (which he did) he got there independently or on loan from Brookline.


For the record, the newspaper article (Glasgow Evening Times) that I found that referred to WC going to America was dated 9th March and not the 19th as I had originally thought. What it says is that WC had accepted appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC and that "he sails for the states next week".

Then in 14th June 1895 the same paper states that he has been re-engaged as professional and greenkeeper for another year by the Brookline CC, Massachusets USA.

Another report dated 28th Feb 1896 states that he has left the CC of Brookline.

The final mention I have for him is a report dated 26th Nov 1896 which says the following;

"Courses are still being laid out in the States. Philadelphia, aided by Willie Campbell, has added another to its large number of links. St Andrews, having bought a lot of land at a cost, it is said, of 80,000 dols, will lay it out when the frost goes."



Like you said in a previous post these pros were jacks of all trades, teachers, architects, greenkeepers, clubmakers. Everything you posted is confirmed in American newspaper articles. I'm not sure what your point is...are you saying if Campbell was on loan (which he wasn't) Myopia might not have had record of him?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 09, 2010, 09:11:19 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Why do you keep speculating that Willie Campbell was never the professional at Myopia?  He played in multiple tournaments in 1896 and was listed as "Willie Campbell of Myopia" in a number of tournaments beginning in June 1896 and continuing into October 1896.    Here is just one example from the New York Herald Tribune, October 20, 1896:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MyopiaCampbellNYHT18961020.jpg?t=1291944991)

Given that you've never seen Myopia's records, have no idea of their format, their completeness, or the type of information contained therein, how can you use this non-information to dismiss multiple newspaper accounts about Campbell and Myopia.  

Is this yet another newspaper error?   What of other 1896 reports in the Boston Globe,  Boston Journal, and Newport Daily news listing Willie Campbell of Myopia?     Are all these examples of newspapers that just happened to get the exact same thing wrong, only about a variety of events?    

Perhaps you should redirect some of your skepticism about the accuracy of the old newspaper articles onto the accuracy of your source material.   I realize that might be hard to do since you've never even seen the material on which you base your opinion, but instead just apparently believing what TEPaul tells you to believe.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 09:46:39 PM
Bryan,

I was told that the owner of the book asked that we not reproduce it further so I want to respect that.

If there is specific info that others are interested in I'll be happy to tell you what it says.

Hope you can understand.

Mike
You brought it up. If you weren't willing to share the information don't think you should have kept it to yourself? Who is the owner?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 10:16:01 PM
"You asked earlier why I thought perhaps Campbell was never the pro at MH.  A post last year by Neil Carlton rings a bell.  Note, all his newspaper arrticles, which cover WC's time frame in America never get around to saying WC was hired at MH.  If you read this chronology of "engagements" it pretty well fills in his time in America.  So, if he got to Myopia to teach (which he did) he got there independently or on loan from Brookline."

Jeff:

That is an interesting point to raise and to try to look into. It very well may tell us something about the way the early professional immigrant golfers worked in that early era. It sure does seem that Campbell was a man who was moving around very quickly from place to place and service to service in his mere six years in this country. I suspect he may've provided some services to Myopia in 1896 or so such as playing lessons and perhaps playing tournament golf for Myopia in that year. I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional and greenskeeper, before John "Jack" Jones who was there for years thereafter took over for White. This is the same time Campbell is listed with Myopia. Did they have two head pros at the same time? I doubt that. White may've been on their payroll as their pro/greenkeeper then and Campbell just being listed as their tournament pro and perhaps a guy who gave lessons for an individual fee to Myopia's members and others at other clubs as well as traveling and doing other things such as fairly quickly laying out courses in a day or so for a fixed fee.

When I get back to Myopia I will see if their financial records from that time might reflect on that somehow. Of course, I can see MacWood and Moriarty histrionically caterwalling that this is just more speculation. Well, at this point, of course it is but it is going to turn into research at and with the subject---Myopia! Are they going to do this? Of course not. They will just rely on me and then criticize my efforts after I've done what they should have done if they really were dedicated researchers and historians on this particular subject!  ;)


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 09, 2010, 10:29:45 PM
Jeff:

That is an interesting point to raise and to try to look into. It very well may tell us something about the way the early professional immigrant golfers worked in that early era. It sure does seem that Campbell was a man who was moving around very quickly from place to place and service to service in his mere six years in this country. I suspect he may've provided some services to Myopia in 1896 or so such as playing lessons and perhaps playing tournament golf for Myopia in that year. I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional and greenskeeper, before John "Jack" Jones who was there for years thereafter took over for White. This is the same time Campbell is listed with Myopia. Did they have two head pros at the same time? I doubt that. White may've been on their payroll as their pro/greenkeeper then and Campbell just being listed as their tournament pro and perhaps a guy who gave lessons for an individual fee to Myopia's members and others at other clubs as well as traveling and doing other things such as fairly quickly laying out courses in a day or so for a fixed fee.

When I get back to Myopia I will see if their financial records from that time might reflect on that somehow. Of course, I can see MacWood and Moriarty histrionically caterwalling that this is just more speculation. Well, at this point, of course it is but it is going to turn into research at and with the subject---Myopia! Are they going to do this? Of course not. They will just rely on me and then criticize my efforts after I've done what they should have done if they really were dedicated researchers and historians on this particular subject!  ;)


TEP
Your first sentence highlighted in yellow is your speculation presented as fact unless you have supporting documentation, which is highly unlikely. The second sentence is completely unfounded speculation. When you get back to Myopia they should put you on the payroll as their lead archivist because who ever is now in charge is not doing a very good job.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 09, 2010, 11:24:09 PM
For those that might find this of interest. From the website of the Society of Hickory Golfers, from the article "Scottish Exiles - The Foot Soldiers" written by Frank Boumphrey, can be found the following:

Robert White - Early Years
[/b]

Robert White had been a school teacher in his native St. Andrews and came over to the United States in 1894. He obviously found that instructing novice adult golfers was more congenial and rewarding - and probably better paying - than pedagogy, and quickly found work at the Myopia Country Club. From there he went to Cincinnati Golf Club, then Louisville, then in 1902 to Ravisloe in Chicago where he stayed until 1914.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 09, 2010, 11:24:56 PM
I will amend the first sentence to read Robert White "may've been" and then yes of course that and the next sentence would purposely qualify as speculation. Aren't you the same person who claimed on this website that speculation is a good and necessary thing that can sometimes help to lead to avenues and areas where one may discover actual fact?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 09, 2010, 11:31:04 PM
For those that might be interested:

From the website www.golfcoursearchitecture.net, in an article about Donald Ross, the following is found:

"At St Andrews Ross met another young Scot, Robert White. White emigrated to America in 1894 to study agronomy, and, upon his arrival, became pro/greenkeeper at Myopia Hunt Club in Hamilton, Massachusetts. There he first met a man named Leonard Tufts. At that same time, Ross returned to his hometown to become the first professional and greenkeeper of the Dornoch Golf Club. According to Dornoch native Rod Innes (whose father was a schoolmate of Ross’), Donald soon made improvements to the links."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 11:40:46 PM
TMac and David,

Yes I am speculating or more correctly, exploring possible scenarios to fit what all the various records - newspaper accounts of his employment, no mention of his employment by his employers, despite mentioning others in the same position only a year later, and some accounts that he was the professional there.

The "on loan" theory is one way these reports could all be true.  Not sure why that makes me such a pariah in your eyes. In the name of historic research, I suspect it beat presuming (again in an extraordinary coincidence among clubs you two study) that yet another club kept bad records and the cub reporters must have it right.

I wiil go so far as to say that I suspect the on loan theory is wrong, but that eventually, someone will find out why he wasn't mentioned in club records. TePaul may have it, with the tournament pro thing. One of those articles mentions the top two finishers were both pros (I think) out of the same club and I have heard of other such arrangement.

I will also concede that it really doesn't have much to do with design attribution of Myopia, but then again, this thread is titled "Willie Campbell and Myopia" and not "Willie Campbell and Myopia's Design", so it seems fair game, no?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 09, 2010, 11:42:18 PM
For those that might be interested:

From the article, "Where Innovation Was The Hallmark, MacGregor: The First 100 Years"
 
"Robert White, born in St. Andrews, Scotland, was among the vanguard of his countrymen who emigrated to the United States and became its first golf professionals. He was never much of a golfer, by professional standards, but he had a long and distinguished career in American golf that included helping found the PGA of America; he was the association's first president.  Incidentally, he also helped create MacGregor Golf.
 
"Golf pros of the time were jacks-of-all-trades -- they taught golf, maintained the course, made clubs.  One day, in 1894, while the professional at the Myopia Hunt Club, in Massachusetts, White was in his shop laboring over a new wood clubhead.  A local carpenter, named Gardner, happened by..."  

Tom Paul, I think you're doing a pretty good job as archivist for Myopia even if others don't think so...  ;)

I do have a question and the answer may certainly explain the "Campbell" question; if Robert White WAS the PROFESSIONAL at Myopia in 1894 as these and quite a few other sources maintain, then it would certainly seem to agree with the speculation that Campbell, although giving lessons at Myopia, was not officially affiliated with the Club, what role did WHITE play, if any, in the design of the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 09, 2010, 11:49:02 PM
Phil, if WC was also in that shop in 1894 it would have been pretty crowded, no?

If anything, it may increase the chances that Willie was actually retained to do something on the golf course at Myopia as an outside consultant.  I am just curious as to how these things worked.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 10, 2010, 12:02:10 AM
Jeff,

I brought up this information about White to demonstarte how very little is really known and recorded about the beginnings of the golf club. Speculations have been made by some whoi have never seen the Myopia records, and I admit that I also have not, that they arec woefully inadequate because some have not trusted Tom Paul's account of what they conatin, that is, no mention of Campbell. Well apparaently, unless Tom corrects me, they contain no mention of White who was their professional when they first opened for play (according to some cources).

So if they then name certain members who they specifically state in these notes as being the ones who laid out and/or created the original course I would put more faith in that information than extent newspaper accounts.

I am hoping that Tom can share whatever information may be at Myopia about Robert White as I think that his time there clearly has a bearing on this discussion... 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 06:17:36 AM
Here is a link to a thread on Robert White from a couple of years ago. In this thread TEP tells us the information on the Squire & Co comes from the board minutes and Secretary Dacres Bush.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35863.0/

TEP
Apparently those board minutes didn't have information on White because you had no idea when he was the pro, actually you thought you knew but your information was wrong. And according to the same source Phil quoted White was in Cincinnati in 1896. Why would the board minutes have detailed info on the Squire & Co laying out the course but no information on when White and Campbell actually worked at the club?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 06:33:50 AM
Weeks does quote Secretary Dacres Bush in his history of Myopia:

"At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began on June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held, June 18th, 1894. About twenty-five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score, first round, 58; second round, 54; Total 112. Laurence Curtis made 63-59--122. WB Thomas 63-62--125. The second tournament was held on July 4th, 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert C. Leeds, scratch 52-61--113."

This is what Weeks wrote about Robert White:

"Robert White served briefly as Myopia's greenskeeper and profestional and in 1897 was succeeded by chubby, good natured John Jones, who remained for many years."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 06:58:57 AM
Phil
How come you did not include the info on White going to Cincinnati in 1896?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 10, 2010, 07:17:07 AM
Tom,

You asked, "How come you did not include the info on White going to Cincinnati in 1896?"

Because that fact has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with who designed Myopia two years before and how Campbell was viewed by Myopia two years before or if Campbell was the proferssional two years before. Neither does his being hired as the superintendent at Shawnee in 1913 or his move to North Shore in 1914 or anything else he may have done in the years that followed.

I find it quite hard to believe that Campbell was Myopia's paid professional, regardless of what contemporary newspaper accounts might be interpreted as meaning if White was. To quote a well-known Scot, "There can be only one." Was he there giving lessons? I would certainly think the proof is there for that. Was he the Club's official professional? I think THAT is highly debateable.

Since it isn't all that far from you, and with your interest in this subject, why not take a run over to Dayton and ask if there is any information about White at Myopia in their archives and historical records?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 07:27:04 AM


Mike
You brought it up. If you weren't willing to share the information don't think you should have kept it to yourself? Who is the owner?


But Tom...I am willing to share any information from the book and have already.   You just don't seem to want to accept it.

What would you like to know?

I already shared the illuminating drawing of Tweedie's nine hole course for Atlantic City the other day and was told that the owner did not want the book physically reproduced so I respect his wishes...I do wish I could show you the drawings of Campbell's work at Merion and Huntingdon Valley, as well, frankly.  

But more I wish I could show you Belmont.   As mentioned, whatever the plans in 1896 for Campbell to design an 18 hole, a nine hole, and a woman's course there never came to fruition, and by 1898 the club was still playing at their nine hole course designed by Dr. Toulmin, who fifteen years later served on Merion's Committee, and Harrison Townsend, and a third member.   That attribution is cited in the book, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

The course itself looks to be the most interesting of all those early Philly courses.  As mentioned, the third green was surrounded on three sides by a creek, and the fourth was a par three perched on the edge of a quarry.   There was very little in the way of crossing hazards, and it looked a step ahead of the rest architecturally.

In any case, I also previously cited for you from the book that a dozen years before he was to lead the Merion Committee, Hugh Wilson at the early age of 18 was already one of the very best golfers in Philadelphia, having won the first club championship at Belmont (which became Aronimink), and was a scratch player when the next best player in the club was Harrison Townsend who played to an eight.   Wilson also was "first man" on Belmont's golf team, so he was something of a boy wonder in these parts in early Philly golf circles, as opposed to the ignorant insurance man you've portrayed him to be.

Each course/club profile lists the architecture, the membership committees, a drawing of the course, photos, a listing of all the members, and any and all other pertinent info.

It's also where I found that the Green Committee had largely revised and extended Campbell's course at Huntingdon Valley in the first year of play.   It's also where it is listed that Philadelphia Country Club was designed by the members with help from pro Harry Gullane...Campbell is not listed although the one news article Joe found says he did offer some "suggestions".

Yet, despite all of the evidence I gave to you here already, your "list" for Campbell architecture continues to list Belmont, Philly Country Club, and Huntingdon Valley as his creations, which is inaccurate, or highly misleading.

I would think an accurate portrayal of his architecture would be more beneficial to his memory.   No need to fluff him up, Tom...he was an important figure no doubt, but to cite him as some great early architect is really not an accurate portrayal.


David,

In the 1940s, Byron Nelson was the pro here at Reading Country Club, Ben Hogan played out of Hershey Country Club, and as Tom mentioned, George Fazio was the "pro" at Pine Valley.

I seriously doubt they were in the shop shilling golf shirts and balls, but instead merely representing these clubs as something like figureheads, which given Campbell's expansive duties around Boston in 1896 seems to be a similar situation as Jeff pointed out.


Jeff,

I do think Campbell likely had some input into the design of the original Myopia course if he laid it out on the ground as those early news accounts tell us.  

As I mentioned, I think the members staked out the course in early spring and then Campbell helped them build it, probably offering his own insight.

I don't see the accounts as mutually exclusive in the least.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 07:38:17 AM
Phil
In my post just prior to yours I highlighted TEP's statement below and said it was speculation presented as fact, and presumably that is why you posted your quote:

"I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional..."

Obviously the fact White was in Cincinnati in 1896 had everything to do with TEP's statement. White being at Myopia in 1894 has nothing to do with who designed Myopia either so I was curious why chose not to include it. Just wondering.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 10, 2010, 08:20:12 AM
Tom,

"White being at Myopia in 1894 has nothing to do with who designed Myopia either so I was curious why chose not to include it..."

I disagree with that statement and here is why. Part of the rationale presented as "proof" to why Campbell must have designed Myopia is because of the newspaper accounts that you presented. The problem that I have is that they are portraying him as the PRO at Myopia as well as the one who "laid out" the course.

If Robert White was actually the pro at at time and NOT Campbell, then the veracity of everything else in the article must be called into question. Typically, especially at a new course where a Scot was brought in as professional, he would be expected to either design and/or lay out the course, yet here we have a case of an important club that appears to have not done that. That is why I believe that it is important to identify exactly WHAT each of those two were doing at Myopia in 1894. For example, as the Professional hired by Myopia, was White ONLY responsible for the maintenance of the golf course and the making of the golf clubs? That was a common set of the primary duties that the professional, especially if he was Scottish, would have expected of him at many turn of the century courses. Was Campbell hired to give lessons ONLY? Or was he there on a very limited basis for a short period of time and, if so, why? All of these questions are important because if he was hired by Myopia to lay out and/or design the golf course, one must wonder WHY he wasn't hired to be the professional there as White evidently was.

There are social dynamics to this that need looking into that may explain the why's of what actually happened, and though you don't take Tom Paul's claim of understanding the social dynamics of either the class of people or the specific club members as being of true import in this historical question, the fact that White was the professional and not Campbell certainly leads one to believe that it was important.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 08:26:44 AM
Phil
Its no big deal I was just curious. TEP & Jeff had just been speculating that Campbell was working simulatenously with White in 1896...perhaps you weren't following the thread. Carry on.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 10, 2010, 08:35:48 AM
No Tom,

I've been following this from the beginning. I just became curious about White and his role and the dynamics of it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 10, 2010, 09:00:27 AM
TMac,

Just so we are clear on the dynamics of this discussion when you are involved is this a true statement:

If you post/discuss a newspaper article its "verifiable evidence."

If I re-post Neil C's newspaper article about WC accepting an appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC, its speculation.

If Mike C or TePaul retypes something from a document they have seen, its speculation.

Do I have that about right?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 09:19:40 AM
Tom MacWood,

This is the type of Info found in the Sennat book, which I'm transcribing;

       The Belmont Golf Association
               colors, Red, White, and Black

Locality At Forty-Ninth Street Station, on the Pennsylvania Railroad.   Ten minutes from Broad St. Station

Organized December, 1896

Annual Meeting Second Thursday in December

Membership Charges Twenty dollars per year, including Club House privileges of the Belmont Cricket Club, whose members only are eligible 

      Officers for the Current Year

 etc ...
        .....

         Par of Greens is 84
         Scratch is 90

            List of Players to 14 Handicap
                    (18 Holes)

Hugh I. Wilson        0               Dr. H.W. Cattell 14
Harrison Townsend  8               Crawford Coates 14
M. B. Huff               8               J.A. Scott          14

                
              Record for 18 Holes
         By a Member (In Competition)

Out 4, 6, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 7, 6 = 44
In   5, 7, 6, 4, 5, 4, 5, 6, 5 = 47  Total =91

Made by Hugh I. Wilson

....

Links laid out by H. Townsend, Dr. H. Toulmin, Dr. J.A. Davis

Number of Holes Nine

and so on...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 10, 2010, 10:24:54 AM
Phil, If you have been following the discussion then I really don't understand why you would neglect to mention that White was in Cincinnati in 1896.    Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1896, not 1894.  In 1894 he was at the Country Club until May and then at Essex.  So this conflict with White and Campbell being the pro there at the same time is of your own creation, yet your own information shows that this was not the case.

And, given that TEPaul has claimed that the Myopia records indicate that White was the professional in 1896 and 1897, we have yet another reason to doubt this alleged source.

Yet you "put more faith" in TEPaul's account of what the supposed records say than in every other source?   Fascinating analysis.  Does this include the source you just quoted (or neglected to quote) about White being in Ohio in 1896?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 10, 2010, 10:58:59 AM
According to those articles Neil C posted, it appears Campbell went right to Brookline. It says in 1894 he was at Boston CC, but in 1895 he was "re-engaged" at Brookline, sounding like that was the same club.

It does say he left Brookline in Nov 1895, so DM could be right that he was engaged at Myopia for a year, but from where do we see Willie was hired at Myopia? 

And, the implications earlier were that he was the pro at MH in 1894, which is why he laid out the course, no?  Since Leeds is widely credited with the expansion in 1896, was Campbell hired to construct the links?  And, if he left for Philly right after, I gather he felt that was his true calling, despite his playing reputation?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 11:01:06 AM
TMac,

Just so we are clear on the dynamics of this discussion when you are involved is this a true statement:

If you post/discuss a newspaper article its "verifiable evidence."

If I re-post Neil C's newspaper article about WC accepting an appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC, its speculation.

If Mike C or TePaul retypes something from a document they have seen, its speculation.

Do I have that about right?

Jeff
I don't follow you. I wrote that Naill Carlton's articles were confirmed by other reports I've seen. What specifically are you referring to that Mike or TEP retyped? I don't recall TEP retyping anything on this thread, and I don't recall commenting about something Mike C retyped on here either.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 11:04:52 AM
According to those articles Neil C posted, it appears Campbell went right to Brookline. It says in 1894 he was at Boston CC, but in 1895 he was "re-engaged" at Brookline, sounding like that was the same club.

It does say he left Brookline in Nov 1895, so DM could be right that he was engaged at Myopia for a year, but from where do we see Willie was hired at Myopia? 

And, the implications earlier were that he was the pro at MH in 1894, which is why he laid out the course, no?  Since Leeds is widely credited with the expansion in 1896, was Campbell hired to construct the links?  And, if he left for Philly right after, I gather he felt that was his true calling, despite his playing reputation?

Jeff
You are obviously confused. No one has ever claimed Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1894. He was the pro at Myopia in 1896.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 11:10:47 AM

Mike
Campbell was the pro at Brookline in 1894 and 1895 (he migrated to Essex during the summer of '94), the pro at Myopia in 1896, and was at the public links at Franklin Park from 1897 until his death in 1900. Leeds was at Brookline in 1894 and 1895, and moved Myopia in 1896.


Here is a post from a few days ago.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 10, 2010, 11:18:27 AM
TMac,

You are right this time.  Neil's articles confirmed that WC was not hired as a pro at Myopia originally (although they do not preclude him being hired in 1896) but I thought I had read many posts from earlier saying he was pro there n 1894, based on the newspaper articles coincident with the opening tournament.

I guess we figure that if he did have something to do with Myopia, whether design or construction in 1894, he still would have had to do it on loan from Brookline in 1894, or had a contract with Brookline that allowed him to do outside work, no?

Now I am wondering about him and Leeds, him and White (as he probably influenced White's later career).  We have focused on WC's contribution to the original nine hole design but then he may have been therehad some involvement and with Leeds in 1896.  And again, since he left quickly, from the Glasgow articles it appears he really wanted to design and build golf courses, so he went to Philly.  Or, he didn't get a fair chance from Leeds. I am still  interested as to the backstory of why he didn't stick around.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 11:19:07 AM
On April 15, 1894, it was reported;

In Hamilton.
Messrs J. Watson Merrill, R. M. Appleton and W. A. Burnham of the Myopia
Hunt club's committee on field sports, have been appointed as a sub committee to take
measures for the introduction this season of the game of golf at the Kennels.


That same day it was reported;

The season at the Essex county club at West Manchester will begin about .lune 10.
Among the new features in field sports will be introduced the same of golf, instruction
in which will be imparted to club members by Prof Campbell.



When did the golf season begin that year at Brookline?   He was at Essex in 1894 all summer and fall until October, when he went back to Brookline for a month before going to France (Pau) for the winter.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 10, 2010, 11:30:56 AM
Jeffrey:

I think your Post #630 is a good and necessary one. It should be asked and answered cogently and hopefully adhered to for a decent discussion to take place on here rather than getting bogged down in the irrelevent minutae and non-productive argumantations the likes of MacWood and Moriarty commonly produce on this threads and others like it.

I note this thread is nearing 20 pages. I took the time to go back through the whole thing as best I could yesterday. I also note it was begun by MacWood on Aug 1, 2009. It ran for 12 days at that time and then went into the back pages. It was reprised March 14, 2010 by MacWood. It ran for 6 days at that time and slide into the back pages again. It was reprised on Dec. 2, 2010 by Moriarty and has been running since. This may indicate something of a pattern or MO on the part of those two contributors.

But having gone back through this entire thread yesterday I would like to say that close to 650 posts on this subject I tend to identify Niall Carlton's #286 and Mike Cirba's #625 as perhaps the most logical and reasonable regarding this thread's basic subject and question----eg What did those three members do in the spring of 1894 as far as staking out an original nine hole course before Campbell arrived in America and what did Campbell contribute after he arrived on March 31, 1894 that is reflected in a few newspaper articles of the time that claim he laid out the course? We have two separate contemporaneous information sources that reflect that three members originally paced off nine tees and greens that does not mention Campbell's participation and we have up to three newspaper articles somewhat later that mentions Campbell laid out a nine hole course that do not mention those three members.

I tend to embrace Niall Carlton's and Mike Cirba's opinion and logic that these two apparently differing stories may not, probably weren't and probably aren't mutually exclusive. Of course I wish I could interview the reporters of those three newspaper reporters and S. Dacre Bush who was the secretary of Myopia Hunt at the time and later became the club's president, to ask them in detail what else they may've known about the creation of that original nine in early 1894 and who did what in detail but unfortunately I can't do that as they are both long dead.

But I must also say that in the last 2-4 years I have tried to run to ground various source materials of Myopia, particularly that potentially valuable Leeds Scrapbook that appears to be lost after being used by Weeks in his 26 year effort to put together the book he published in 1975 for the club's centenial. I have done that not just on the computer but in Boston and Myopia. I have gone as far as I think I can with Weeks' family and a few other families who knew him well; but it now occurs to me I may also search via the families of S. Dacre Bush and a man by the name of W. Lincoln Boyden. There is also a potentially valuable collection of family papers of the Leeds family reposited in a Boston University I'm aware of.

SO, the search goes on with this subject as it does with most of them!  ;)

Happily, there has been renewed interest and personal participation at the club and from a few members in recent years to recompile the various aspects of the club's 135 year old history, including its golf and golf architecture history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 10, 2010, 11:53:25 AM
TEPaul,

I tend to agree with you.  I believe that at one time or another, all participants have suggested that Campbell had something to do with Myopia.  I have stated that if the records referenced by Weeks (which almost certainly were club records) said the members started the process they had something major to do with it, too.

From the newspaper articles posted, we know Campbell got here about late march, and settled right in at Brookline.  It also appears from the May articles that he had been working on the course at Myopia in that time frame, but we don't know how early he started, or if he just went up there to grow in the sod, lay the sod near the last minute.  We also don't know under what contractural arrangement he did so, if any.

I can sympathize with anyone who wants to know exactly what days and in exactly what ways Willie may have interacted with the club members to implement the nine holes.  I think we all want to know and its fascinating stuff, really. 

I have learned a lot, and maybe provided some questions worth looking into further by someone.  Reading back on your insights from years of research there and from articles posted by TMac on Willie C and others on Myopia and Willie C has been a learning experience for me.

Only several dozen of the 650 posts have provided new information or analysis.  The others are just bickering as usual among the usual suspects, with barbs directed many ways.  I am sorry for my part in any of that, but we all get frustrated from time to time as we seem to talk past others understandings of stuff.  And sadly, there is still a little one upmanship going on as to who has better methods, sources, etc.  This has been really good in spots though!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 10, 2010, 11:58:22 AM
Mike:

With your good newspaper account offerings of the going-ons at Myopia (Hamilton) in the spring of 1894, a good amount of experience can, will and has taught us that we should not make the mistake of just assuming, and worse still, concluding, that the date of the newspaper article is the same date and time that the events reported (in those articles) and the details that go into the event reported (in this case the planning, decision making and the creation of a golf course) are one and the same date and time.

I can't tell you the number of times this mistake is made in various ways that potentially can and occasionally have thrown off an accurate analysis of events and their details, and sometimes massively.

Probably the greatest example of this, and a most unfortunate example because he really is a wonderful golf and architecture writer and analyst, was Mr. Finegan when for some reason he assumed, and then concluded, that the date on the "blue/red" line topo map of Pine Valley was the date the work on that map had been finished and done. It was, in fact, the surveyor's date that preceded the map being given to George Crump in the first place.  That date preceded Colt's arrival by about two months and it preceded Crump's cumulative work on that map by over four years!! The discovery of that reality was what first made me aware over ten years ago of the real importance of comprehensive "timelining" in these kinds of historic analyses that we who are involved in these things do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 12:26:28 PM
Tom Paul,

Agreed...when I saw that article the first thing I thought was that this isn't "hard news" that's time dependent.   It may have happened a day prior, a week prior, or a month or more prior.    My guess is that it was end of March or so when snows melted as was recounted elsewhere, but we don't know for sure.

All,

Is peace, love, and understanding (aka rational conversation and civil discourse) actually coming to these religious attribution wars here on GCA?   What are the odds?   Anyone want to bet on the outcome??

Stay tuned...  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 10, 2010, 12:27:24 PM
"I can sympathize with anyone who wants to know exactly what days and in exactly what ways Willie may have interacted with the club members to implement the nine holes.  I think we all want to know and its fascinating stuff, really."



Jeffrey:

I can certainly sympathize too with anyone who wants to know all the details of these events long ago, and that includes sympathizing with the likes of MacWood and Moriarty in their interest in knowing all the details of these clubs and courses such as Merion or Myopia and others of that age and significance.

However, one always needs to be realistic in these searches and analyses. I explained that to MacWood back in February, 2003 when he began a thread on here entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" I believe that thread was the beginning of the endless debates on here about the details of the creation of Merion East and who precisely and exactly was responsible for what and even on a hole by hole basis and context. I believe that eventually evolved into Moriarty producing his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" which certainly was considered controversial and even fallacious by some or many, not the least reason being he was obviously working on it with something much less than complete contemporaneous source material and information of what was or could be actually available.

I informed him (MacWood) right at the beginning of that thread in Feb, 2003 ("Re: Macdonald and Merion?") that that kind of detailed information is probably just not available and never was simply because those kinds of details are never or very, very rarely recorded in the first place at that time----eg essentially by Wilson as his committee as they went through the planning, design and construction of Merion East over a period of perhaps over two years before its opening for play in September of 1912.

Do you think MacWood took that advice under consideration? Of course not (his response was what it usually is---eg "Thanks for the advice but I don't need it as an 'expert researcher/historian' from someone like you or Wayne Morrison"), and I think the following nearly eight years of irrelevent and contentious argumentation is the result of it, and particularly when Moriarty, at some point later, basically jumped onto MacWood's inquisitive band-wagon about Merion East and its architectural and architect history.

Historians really do have to be cognizant of this reality and take it to heart in their analyses or they will always run the risk of just trying to make too much out of something or even nothing, unfortunately.  I believe that is what happened on these subjects like Merion and Myopia and unfortunately is continuing to happen.

Again, I applaud your #630. Those are necessary points and a necessary question about them and they need a cogent and well considered answer and agreement from all to proceed productively. What will MacWood's (and Moriarty's) responses be to this post and message? I suspect, from experience, it will be the same as it's always been which is wholly non-productive but we shall see, shan't we? Perhaps he (they) will change; I suppose there is always hope, at least! At some point we must realize that we just may not have truly "verifiable" material and source material and that we will just get into opinion and speculation, if we don't have it. I have no problem with opinion and speculation on here but apparently a few others do. The problem is they tend call their own offerings "verifiable" evidence when in fact it probably falls well short of that-----and they tend to discount the offerings of others when it may not be only outright speculation, as they invariably claim it is. But at the very least if they claim it is without first seeing it for themselves, and they also claim that those providing it to them are not realiable or credible or whatever in the way they describe it and provide it, then they most certainly do have a responsiblity to this website and the rest of us they try to discuss these things with, to go see it for themselves first! And THAT is a Fact!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 01:10:32 PM


When did the golf season begin that year at Brookline?   He was at Essex in 1894 all summer and fall until October, when he went back to Brookline for a month before going to France (Pau) for the winter.


Mike
The golf season began at Brookline on April 9. Campbell did not go to France. I believe his friend Joe Lloyd eventually took that Winter position at Pau. Lloyd was the pro at Essex County.

"Golf has 'caught on' and the fashionable representatives of society are making great preparations for future tourneys. At the Country club much earnestness and enthusiasm are displayed among the most prominent members. Instruction in the game is given daily by Prof. Campbell. It is surprising that the golf germ, which has flourished in England so long should only lately have reached our shores. Throughout England the game is a recognized institution."

The above article was also found in the April 15 Boston Globe.

Merrill, Appleton and Burnham were all members of The Country Club, and were on hand at Brookline when Campbell defeated Willie Davis on May 18, a psuedo national championship match..
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 01:14:18 PM
TEP
You indicated in the old Robert White thread that you found the information regarding the Squire & Co designing Myopia in the Board Minutes, written by Dacres Bush. What other information were you able to extract from those minutes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 10, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Tom MacWood:

Given the nature of these threads and discussions on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, at least the way this one (this thread) has evolved and given the nature of those discussions with particularly you and David Moriarty, I would prefer to basically just recuse myself from some of this and certainly the answering what I consider to be just another of your endless irrelevent questions that I feel includes your last one.

You and Moriarty have apparently concluded and stated on here that my opinions and my reporting on here of what I've read at and about Myopia is nothing more than speculation. That's fine with me if you two think that; I really don't care. What I care about is the search for the accuracy of as many of the details of Myopia's history as I can manage and with Myopia, frankly; not with you and Moriarty, at least not unless and until you do the kind of research work I have on that club and golf course.

So, if you two believe that I have no right to report on here what I have read at, from and with Myopia, that it is only speculation if not provided to you two and therefore not acceptable on here because of that, then that's fine. I really don't need to discuss any of this with you two anymore because I don't see it as important or productive. I read that material on Myopia at and around Myopia in the last 2-3 years, as I recall it; I did not copy it, photograph it, or take copies of it in any form home with me. This is of course different than most all of the material I have here on Merion.

So, I really don't see the purpose of discussing any of this with you anymore even though I certainly may reserve the right to comment on what my opinions are on some of the things you say on here on this subject. If you view them as insulting and sarcastic as apparently Moriarty does, then I'm sorry about that----perhaps the two of you should find a way to grow thicker skins and certainly given the way you two present yourselves on this website.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 01:45:56 PM
I figured as much.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 10, 2010, 02:04:43 PM
Very good then and congratulations on figuring as much----that's a decent start. At least it seems you are beginning to figure out what actually goes on outside your computer somewhere in Ivory Tower, Ohio, and how things actually do work in the real world.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 02:06:14 PM
Tom MacWood,

If the golf season started at Brookline on April 1st in 1894, is it fair to assume that the snows melted sometime in March?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 02:14:57 PM
No, there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground April 9.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 02:21:17 PM


"Golf has 'caught on' and the fashionable representatives of society are making great preparations for future tourneys. At the Country club much earnestness and enthusiasm are displayed among the most prominent members. Instruction in the game is given daily by Prof. Campbell. It is surprising that the golf germ, which has flourished in England so long should only lately have reached our shores. Throughout England the game is a recognized institution."

The above article was also found in the April 15 Boston Globe.



Must have been some very interesting golf that had "caught on" under 18 inches of snow between April 1 and April 15th!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 10, 2010, 05:52:32 PM
I'm not 100% certain, but after hearing about that snowy winter, I'm starting to believe that Campbell's spring in 1894 prior to his assignment at Essex CC was spent teaching here.  

Who knew those early pros were so resourceful?  ;)  ;D


(http://www.forekicks.com/images/drvrng1.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 10, 2010, 07:13:13 PM
Tom MacWood,  I think the correct date of that article is May 18, 1894. 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 10, 2010, 08:22:15 PM
David
Which one?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 10, 2010, 11:09:26 PM
The one re-quoted directly above my Mike.   I don't have anything in front of me, but a recall an similar article from around May 18, but I think it was the Jounal or Daily Advertiser, not the Glob.  I could be wrong, but you might want to double check the date and paper. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 09:54:49 AM
David
I have 4/15/1894 jotted down, and I'm pretty sure that is right because the blurb above it talks about Mrs. Moulton will be leaving on her annual trip abroad in May. I've seen a few articles that refer to Prof Campbell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 10:03:47 AM
Tom MacWood,

Serious question...

If the foot and a half of snow on the ground on April 9th, 1894 was clearly too daunting for the Myopia members to have staked out a nine-hole course on their grounds before then, where do you think Willie Campbell was giving lessons and/or golf was catching on among the populace by April 15th?

Might there have been a big early spring storm in early April that accounted for the snow you cited, or would it have just been a late Boston spring that year?

Or, might that blurb from April 15th have been sort of a simple advertisement rather than a report of hard news?   Recall that at that point Willie Campbell would have been in Boston all of two whole weeks!  

It certainly reads like an ad...wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 10:23:56 AM
Tom MacWood,

Serious question...

If the foot and a half of snow on the ground on April 9th, 1894 was clearly too daunting for the Myopia members to have staked out a nine-hole course on their grounds before then, where do you think Willie Campbell was giving lessons and/or golf was catching on among the populace by April 15th?

Might there have been a big early spring storm in early April that accounted for the snow you cited, or would it have just been a late Boston spring that year?

Or, might that blurb from April 15th have been sort of a simple advertisement rather than a report of hard news?   Recall that at that point Willie Campbell would have been in Boston all of two whole weeks!  

It certainly reads like an ad...wouldn't you agree?


Mike
Willie Campbell was giving lessons on the links at Clyde Park, the alternate name for TCC / Brookline. There were reports of them playing golf on 11th. Were not talking January or February here, this is April. April showers bring May flowers. I don't believe The Country Club was in need of a membership drive. That is a goofy theory IMO. There was a lot of hype about golf in Boston in 1894, and Willie Campbell was a major reason for all the excitement.

If you are hell bent on proving the Squire & Co laid out the course, instead of worrying about the weather I'd be looking for some shreds of evidence, a single report would be a good start IMO. And I have a strong suspicion TEP's board minutes came to him in a dream so I wouldn't count on that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 10:42:23 AM
Tom,

Aren't you the one who just told us yesterday that there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground around Boston on April 9th?

And now you say they were playing golf on the 11th?   Quick melt perhaps?

I'm just following your meteorology lead and wondering where the heck Willie could teach unless Boston had indoor golf teaching facilities in 1894?

Yesterday you told us that the snows hadn't melted so there was no way that the members could have staked out nine holes prior to April and now everyone in the city was out on the links two weeks later.

Which is it?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 10:43:07 AM
Tom MacWood:

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground in Boston on April 9th and they were playing golf at TCC on April 11th?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 11:22:22 AM
Tom,

Aren't you the one who just told us yesterday that there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground around Boston on April 9th?

And now you say they were playing golf on the 11th?   Quick melt perhaps?

I'm just following your meteorology lead and wondering where the heck Willie could teach unless Boston had indoor golf teaching facilities in 1894?

Yesterday you told us that the snows hadn't melted so there was no way that the members could have staked out nine holes prior to April and now everyone in the city was out on the links two weeks later.

Which is it?



Mike
I just looked it up in a Boston newspaper and there was big storm on Sunday the 8th. They reported eight inches in places (Boston was the center of the storm) with 37 mph winds. The author of the golf article was either exaggerating or talking about 18 inch drifts, which could be possible. Whatever the case there was too much snow and none showed up for his lesson on Monday, including Campbell.

The weather report also said the snow would be a thing of the past within a day. It was 50 degrees on the 15th. Like I said before instead of worrying about the weather you should be looking for some reporting of the Squire & Co laying out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 11:34:13 AM
"Mike
I just looked it up in a Boston newspaper and there was big storm on Sunday the 8th. They reported eight inches in places (Boston was the center of the storm) and 37 mph winds. The author of the golf article was either exaggerating or talking about 18 inch drifts, which could be possible. Whatever the case there was too much snow and none showed up for his lesson, including Campbell.

The weather report also said the snow would be a thing of the past within a day. It was 50 degrees on the 15th. Like I said before instead of worrying about the weather you should be looking for some reporting of the Squire & Co laying out the course."




Tom MacWood:

I don't think any of us should be looking for any reporting about Squire & Co----not right now anyway. I think what we should do is look a bit more carefully at your credibility with this weather information you've been handing us as some sort of fact. It looks to me like about the biggest load of crap ever offered on this website, even from you. Are you actually trying to pass off this weather garbage you've been handing us as "verifiable" evidence and fact that proves something about who routed Myopia? If so, so much for the credibilty of your newspaper articles if that's where you're getting this information. Or are you just making it up yourself? Let's see those articles on Boston weather in 1894 you're referring to on April 9th and 11th. How about March 1, 1894 or March 7th or even Feb. 26? Can you supply us with weather conditions in Boston or South Hamilton then? ;)
 
 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 11:43:15 AM
Tom MacWood,

So it's possible that for purposes of staking out nine holes in South Hamilton "the snows" may have cleared by sometime prior to April?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 11:43:46 AM
TEP
My advice to you is to change the subject as much and as often as possible - the credibility of the weather reporting; Finegan's folly and the PV map; rehashing the Merion debate; HH Barker and plight of the itinerate professional; WC as a touring professional - anything and everything but discussing the truth regarding the supposed board minutes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 11:48:57 AM
Tom MacWood,

So it's possible that for purposes of staking out nine holes in South Hamilton "the snows" may have cleared by sometime prior to April?

Mike
Of course it is possible. It is possible they could have staked out the course in February or the year before, and before the club even voted on it. The question has never been is it possible, the question is wether there is any proof. And I have not seen any proof suggesting the Squire & Co laid out the course, and I have seen plenty of proof Campbell did. Based on the documentation presented so far why are you even questioning the fact Campbell laid out the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 12:07:27 PM
Tom MacWood:

So, what exactly was or is your point with posting those articles and posts about snow in Boston in the spring of 1894?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 12:11:01 PM
Tom,

As mentioned, I think both things are true.

I find it too much for coincidence that Weeks cited them, TePaul saw minutes, the April news said they were responsible for brining golf to Myopia, and in June they were called golf "experts" for them to have no role in the design of the course.

I think Canpbell laid the course out on the ground and certainly provided input.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 11, 2010, 12:41:45 PM
Mike

I asked a couple of pages ago what you thought was involved in building/laying out a course back then. For instance did they build a gun platform style tee or did they just find a level piece of ground near the previous green and bang a stake in and call it a tee. Or did they shape the greens, seed them/turf them or simply find a suitable flat bit of ground, rolled it, cut it and called it a green. Likewise did they build any "hazards" or was the rough state of the ground enough to be going on with. Basically what was this original course like ? That to me is what this discussion should be about.

Personally I have no problem believing the club records saying that a group of club members laid out the first course, and by that I mean something fairly crude and rudimentary but that allowed them to flex their golfing muscles until Willie arrived. That it also allowed them to claim credit for the first course probably boosted their ego as well.

I also have no problem believing newspaper reports saying that Willie laid out a course their if indeed that is what they say, I haven't been paying too much attention to this thread of late. I dare say Campbells layout would have looked fairly crude to our eyes also but then we have the benefit of over a hundred years of golf course design evolution to look back on.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 11, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
A couple of questions Mike.
1.  How do you get from a Myopia formed a subcommittee, to the subcommittee designed the course?   Wouldn't any club form such a committee in these situations?   Surely membership on a committee does not equate to design credit, does it?  And it isnt even the exact same guys as TEPaul credits, is it?
2.  How do you go from a paper called them "experts" who would be playing in a tournament in a week, to these men designed the course.  Again, it is not even the exact same guys, is t?   And surely you don't really think their expertise compared to Campbell's, do you?  These guys may have been among the better of the members (given most had never played that is not saying much) but they were still beginners relative to Campbell, weren't they?  Wasn't he 40 or 50 strokes better than them?   Is there something magical about a newspaper mentioning the word "expert" in this context?  Does it contain hidden meaning about how this amorphous group must have designed the course?

--------------------------

Niall,

I would likely have no problem believing the club records either if we knew what they said, but we don't.  And there are some things about TEPaul's remembrance of the records that doesnt quite make sense and clashes with other reports.

Also, they weren't waiting for Campbell to get there.  The season began in June, and most of those involved were still golfing at Brookline, probably taking lessons from Campbell himself.  Reportedly, as of mid-May no course had been laid out.

There are at least  three different contemporaneous accounts explicitly stating that Campbell laid out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 02:41:20 PM
Niall,

I think our impressions of how things happened are pretty similar, although if I recall correctly I think the greens were sodded.   Even today though most of them are pretty much at natural grade.

I'm not sure they were waiting for Campbell per se, but I'm sure they were happy to have his input and expertise but I think that happened after the wheels were in motion, not before, and I think reports from May that the course was not yet laid out referred to the minimal construction activities that followed and not to the stakinf of the basic routing, which I think happened earlier as described.

There were apparently also a few basic cross hazards constructed as well, I believe.

David,

I believe the totality of the Weeks account, TP's concurrence, as well as the news articles I found naming two of the men to a committee responsible for bringing golf to Myopia, as well as their status as "experts" to the locals (presumably due to prior experience on an estate course) is all indicative of their involvement in routing and staking out the original course.

In isolation, they are not conclusive but together make a compelling circumstantial case in my opinion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 02:59:05 PM
Mike
Willie Campbell laid out 25+ golf courses during his too brief design career, I'm not aware of a single instance where he constructed a course to someone else's design. Are you?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Tom,

However many courses Campbell was involved with, I don't think either of us know the answer to your question.

For instance, we do know his work at Phill CC was limited to offering "suggestions" along with Harry Gullane to a design committee made up of members and that George Fowle was the one most responsible for the design of that course during the early years.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 04:00:52 PM
Mike
Unless you know of a report of Campbell building a course to someone else's design I think we can safely assume he never did it. And why would he when he was undoubtedly the foremost expert (by a mile) at any project he was involved.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 04:01:09 PM
This is an excerpt from an article in the Boston Globe 5/20/1894.

"The royal and ancient game of golf which has been played for two centuries or more in the old country has come to Boston, seemingly to stay.

From a few improvised links at Mr. James Lawrence's country place at Groton, where the game in this part of the country started some four years ago, the golfing interest in and about Boston has now reached a point where there are three course or set of links at the Country Club at Clyde park, a professional instructor who teaches would be golfers the mysteries of the game every fine afternoon, and in the mourning has a class of member of the Boston athletic association, who knock the ball about on a few home-made links out in the Berkeley oval just across Huntington Ave.

This instructor is Willie Campbell, formerly of Musselburgh, then of Prestwick, Scotland, and a golfer of much note in the old country.

He came into prominence some six years agom when he was defeated by Jamie Morris, with whom he was matched for £25 a side. A few months later Campbell had a return match with Morris and won handsomely. He then beat Willie Park at Musselburgh and Nroth Berwick.

He then sent out a standing challenge to play anyone for £100 a side. This challenge was taken up by Archie Simpson of Carnoustie. St.Andrews, Musselburgh, and Carnoustie were the four greens selected for play. Campbell won easily.

It is said that Campbell's reputation at Prestwick is, to quote the aforesaid authority, 'monumental', he having 'holed the round' there in the marvelous score of 71, which does not mean a whole lot to the lay mind which does not grasp what holing the round means and does not know where Prestwick is and can't see any reason why rounds should be more difficult to hole at Prestwick than at any other place.

Campbell may be seen any afternoon wandering on the green at the Country club dressed in a loose dirt colored tweed with with cap to match, and usually with a 'brass' or 'a niblick' or a 'massie' or some other implement of the trade slung over his shoulder. He is a tall, sturdy, square shouldered man, with a light mustache. Next summer he will be at the Essex county club at Manchester.

In addition to the links at the Country club and Essex county clubs there are links at Mr. HH Hunnewell's place at Wellesley hills, Mr. Wickerson's at Dedham, Mr. Francis Peabody's place at Danvers and the Hoosicwick club at Milton, and undoubtedly in the near future there will be links at many more country places about Boston. The number of those who play golf for 'golf' in which way the game is called by those who practice it in these parts may be inferred from some of the entries in the recent tournaments at the Country club: Mr. HC Leeds, Mr. Bavard Thayer, Mr. SB Bennett, Mr. Arthur Hunnewell, Mr. Lawrence Curtis, Mr. EB Haven, Mr. Washington Thomas, Mr. TJ Coolidge Jr, Mr. George Dexter, Mr. FL Higginson, Mr. George Lee, and Dr. W. Appleton.

Every pleasant day the golf enthusiasts, under the towering eye of Willie Campbell, foregather on the lawn of the Country club, appropriately attired 'put across the greens' looking for all the world like pictures of Mr. Balfour in Punch, and the 'caddies' (pronounced cardies heavens knows why) then trail patiently in the rear heavily loaded with great quire shaped arrangement filled with golf clubs.

Among the most prominent figures seen every afternoon at the Country club in addition to those before mentioned is Mr. Richard Sweet Milton, who takes a deep and abiding interest in the game and divides honors with Willie Campbell in teaching the young idea of how to golf.

Mr. William Pratt Lyman, Mr. Summner Paine, Mr. John L. Gardner, Mr. William Silsbee, Mr. HG Otis, Mr. William Paige Lawrence, Mr. Jinx Taylor, Mr. Henri Sigourney, Mr. De Blois, and Col. George Bernard daily practice on the Irvington oval."

"...The Country club has 110 sheep from Capt. Perkin's place in New Hampshire with a shepherd to look after, or rather tend the flock. The entire duty of those sheep is to keep the grass short on the links. It is said that a committee has been appointed by the Newport golf club to come up and examine the Country club links, as they are supposed to be the best in the county."

A couple of things standout: apparently the course at Myopia was not laid out yet, and likewise it seems Appleton's course was not either. I would not be surprised if it turns out Campbell laid out Appleton's course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 04:36:30 PM
Tom MacWood:

Yes, your reporting of the weather in the spring of 1894!!! You said some newspaper article said there was a foot and a half of snow on April 9th 1894 and another newspaper article said they were playing golf on the 11th 1894. Do you suppose those newspaper reporters in 1894 bothered to look out the window or are you just making this stuff up? Either way neither you nor those newspaper articles has much credibility. Doesn't bode well either for the credibility of those other newspaper articles that claim Willie Campbell laid out Myopia in 1894! ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 04:58:16 PM
The six hole Appleton Farm course was in existence in 1892 or 1893. Appletion Farm in Ipswich is still there and it appears to hold a most unique distinction in American history.

According to the good new history book "The Story of Golf at the Country Club" (2009) by John St. de Jorre, golf first was seen in Massachussets when George Wright had a course temporarily laid out in Franklin Park. Golf was established in Massachussets when Florence D. Boit brought some golf clubs and balls from Pau, France, in 1892 and a course was laid out on the estate of her uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur B. Hunnewell, in Wellesley. It goes on to say that the man there at that first exhibition of golf on the Hunnewell estate who introduced golf to TCC was Laurence Curtis. He would become a president of the USGA and a founder of the Mass. Golf Assoc. of which Herbert Leeds was the first president. Curtis was the father of the famous Curtis sisters, Margaret and Harriot, both of whom won US Amateurs and for whom the Curtis Cup (the women's counterpart to the men's Walker Cup) is named.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 05:03:55 PM
The six hole Appleton Farm course was in existence in 1892 or 1893. Appletion Farm in Ipswich is still there and it appears to hold a most unique distinction in American history.

Sure it was...did that come to you in a dream too? Some of us prefer contemporaneous reports to invented records.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 05:20:34 PM
Tom MacWood:

Then you should visit the Appleton Farm. I did about three years ago. If you do perhaps you could stop in and visit Myopia for the first time. It is certainly not far away.

Speaking of dreams---how about those newspaper articles that report there was a foot and a half of snow in Boston on April 9th and the other one that reported they were playing golf at TCC on April 11th? Who was dreaming with those---the reporters or you or all three of you?

By the way, I don't believe you adequately answered Jeff Brauer's question on his #690? Would you care to do that?   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 05:55:31 PM
TEP
From another article in the Boston Globe 4/2/1899 there is was good article on the beginnings of golf in New England. The article quotes Lawrence Curtis:

"Golf was first played in New England at Wellesley, Mass, on the estate of Arthur Hunnewell. A young lady from Pau, visiting his family in the summer of 1892 brought with her a set clubs, balls, etc, and showed the manner of using them. Mr. Hunnewell, owning adjacent estates, all ardent lovers of out-of doors sports, were quick to recognize the attractions of the game and they and a few of their friends eagerly adopted it."

The article goes to say members of The Country Club tried the game at Wellesley and subsequently introduced it at Clyde Park. Brookline was followed by courses at Essex County, Prides Crossing and Myopia. There is no mention of the Appleton Farms.

This article also goes into the story about George Wright. On December 10, 1890 a party of men who were prominent in baseball, cricket, tennis and lacrosse went to Franklin Park to play the game. Some of those involved: George Wright (cricket and baseball). Fred Mansfield (tennis), Sam Macdonald (lacrosse), and two or three others. The next day a Boston paper reported: "The royal game of golf was played on the local grounds yesterday for, it is believed, the first time in the history of the city." On March 28, 1891 the same group essentially went to Crescent Beach and again tried to play the game.

The article goes on to list all the courses in New England, including some private ones, but no mention of Appleton Farms, perhaps because it was only six holes. Where did you get the information that the course was laid out in 1892 or 1893?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 05:58:10 PM
#690?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Tom MacWood:

It seems the article did not mention the Phillip's course at their Moraine Farm on Wenham Lake so I suppose in your mind it didn't exist either and Weeks and others are wrong again. It is interesting to me how when you are not aware of something you automatically conclude it can't be true. REALLY strange for sure! Is that some kind of "condition" we should  be aware of so at least we can begin to understand why your logic is so bizarre on these subjects on this website and for so long?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 06:14:46 PM
"#690?"


#630
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 06:35:26 PM
TEP
I answered Jeff in post #635, and then in post #637 he admitted he was confused when he asked the question.

Your information on Appleton Farm and Moraine Farm comes from Weeks' book, and he does not date either course. I would suggest you try to confirm his info.

Where are you coming up with the date of 1892 or 1893 for Appleton Farms?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 11, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
Niall,

They were reportedly playing on these early courses very soon after they were laid out.   According to multiple press accounts Myopia had not been laid out as of mid-May, yet the course opened with a Bunker Hill Day tournament in mid-June.  As I said, three separate accounts from around this time note that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  The most detailed account of the opening (the one that lists the hole names) noted that course has only been laid out for a few days.

Campbell was at the Country Club well into May.  My impression from the various newspaper accounts is that Willie Campbell laid out the course at Myopia right before the summer social season began, which was right around the first of June.

Mike Cirba wrote:
Quote
David,

I believe the totality of the Weeks account, TP's concurrence, as well as the news articles I found naming two of the men to a committee responsible for bringing golf to Myopia, as well as their status as "experts" to the locals (presumably due to prior experience on an estate course) is all indicative of their involvement in routing and staking out the original course.

In isolation, they are not conclusive but together make a compelling circumstantial case in my opinion.

Mike, aside from the bit about the estate course, you are just repeating yourself.  And frankly it seems like more than a bit of alchemy to me.  

You did explain your reliance on the "expert" mention, so thank you for that.  Let's take another look at the June 10, 1894 blurb previewing the opening tournament which was to take place about a week later.  The blurb was from a society "Gossip" column:

Bunker Hill day will be observed at the Myopia Hunt by the initial games in two newly laid out golf links. The expert players who will take part are Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton, Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Watson  Merrill.

You had already come up with some far fetched theories based on this blurb.  First you claimed that article meant that these four had played a match on the course in early June, and you speculated that it was an "exhibition match," presumably because they were experts worthy of such an exhibition.  Yet it is obviously previewing the opening tournament.  Next you speculated that they were playing on only two new holes, because of the mention of "two new links."  Given that they played two rounds over the 9 hole course, and given it was written by a gossip columnist and not a golfer, a better explanation is that the "two new links" were her garbled way of saying they would play over the new links twice.

Now you have really outdone yourself.   

You posit that they were called "experts to the locals (presumably because of their prior experience on an estate course.")

Huh? What "prior experience on an estate course?"   Given the context you must mean design experience; after all they mostly golfed at the CC and if you don't mean design experience your reliance on this blurb makes even less sense.  But apparently not even you have the chutzpah to come right out and say that you are inferring design experience from this blurb, so you just left it vague.   I don't blame you. 

Could you tell us what exactly we are supposed to take from this article?  And why we should rely on a Gossip columnist who apparently doesn't know much about the game?  Or why the people mentioned weren't even the exact same people who were allegedly involved with the estate course, a course that may not even have existed at the time and the origins pretty fuzzy as well?

Or we could just cut to the quick and you could admit that the article indicates nothing more than:  1) These four would be playing in Bunker Hill tournament; 2) As bad as they may have been, they were among the better golfers around at the time.  Excepting Campbell of course.  

Likewise, the other blurb establishes nothing more than those different men were appointed with the sub-committee to bring golf to Myopia.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 11, 2010, 06:55:09 PM
"TEP
I answered Jeff in post #635, and then in post #637 he admitted he was confused when he asked the question."

Tom MacWood:

Then you should read #630 again. It is just amazing how confused you are on this website. You just seem to say anything, no matter how irrelevent. Look at Jeff Brauer's last point on #630.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 07:09:59 PM
TEP
One more time, I answered his question in post #635, he then responded in post #637 and admitted he was confused. As I said in my post I don't recall you re-typing anything on this thread, and I don't recall commenting about something Mike C retyped on here either. What did you re-type that I said was speculation? When did I say something Mike C re-typed was speculation

You are constantly speculating, but believe me speculation is the least of your problems.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 11, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
Turning to the Weeks' account and TEPaul's recollection of the club records, there are a few things I don't understand, and was hoping that someone - anyone - could explain.  

One thing I don't understand is from the descriptions of what happened "after the snow melted?"
- TEPaul has repeatedly written that in the early spring of 1894, after the snow melted, Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner staked out the course.  
- Weeks wrote that after the snow melted, the paced off the course and "probably" used pegs to mark the greens.  

The "pegs" vs. "stakes" part doesn't bother me, but the "probably" part does.  Weeks was obviously speculating about whether they marked off the course.  Yet TEPaul is not speculating when he claims the same?  So what gives?  How can TEPaul present something as fact when Weeks was obviously speculating about basically the same thing?  They are supposed to have looked at the same records, except that Weeks supposedly had even more (the scrapbook) so how come TEPaul is sure of himself where Weeks was speculating?

Another thing I don't understand about the records concerns Robert White.   TEPaul has claimed more than once that the Myopia records indicate that, in 1896-1897 (and possibly 1895) Robert White was the professional at Myopia.  Again, this is supposed to be from the club records which should be a contemporaneous account of what happened and therefore ought to be reliable.   Yet Robert White was reportedly in Ohio in 1896 and beyond (In the old papers I have found mention of him at Myopia in 1895, but not beyond.)

If White was in Ohio, what gives?  Are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's claimed recollection of the records incorrect.

Is it a coincidence that (according to TEPaul a few years ago) Week's account puts White at Myopia during this time period?  According to TEPaul, Weeks even has White helping Leeds lay out the "long nine" in 1896.  How did Weeks know that?  Where did Weeks get his information?  If White was in Ohio, how could both Weeks and TEPaul have him at Myopia?

Tom MacWood, are you sure that White was in Ohio in 1896?  Or are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's recollection of what he read in the records incorrect?   And what about Weeks? If he had the contemporaneous records, then how could he have put White at Myopia helping Leeds when White was apparently in Ohio?

Also,  If they had the records and the records identify the professionals and their tenure, then why the hesitance about 1895?  Surely the records don't say White was possibly the professional in 1895?  Was there something about the records that made this unclear because there seems to be speculation here on the part of Weeks and TEPaul.

Bottom line is that there is something askew with the Weeks history and TEPaul's recollection of the records. And/or Myopia's records leave much more to the imagination than TEPaul has let on.  

And this is even before considering all the apparent conflicts between TEPaul's account and Weeks account, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the contemporaneous press clippings about how the course had not yet been laid out before mid-May, and the press clippings clearly stating that Campbell designed the course.  

TEPaul?  Mike? Anyone?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 11, 2010, 10:49:49 PM
This thread is indeed becoming comical.

Please show us anywhere that it says Campbell "designed" the course.

The press reports in mid-April indicate that three members were responsible for bringing golf to Myopia in the coming season.

A report in mid-May indicates the course has not yet been Llaid outL, yet you can see the entire course from a high vantage point. How could this be?   Simply because the staked out course has not yet been constructed, or laid out on the ground.

A report a month later calls the three men who Weeks tells us the contemporaneous records state planned the course are "experts" in the new game, so its not surprising they would have the confidence of the membership in their appointed task..

Pro Campbell is evidently brought over sometime to help get the course going, most likely building tees and greens and likely placing some cross bunker hazards.

This is not rocket science...sheesh..

Why in the heck would poor Mr. Weeks lie about any of this? 

Yet, two guys who have never been there or even tried to see the clubs records think nothing of dragging his name thru the mud without a clue of what he saw or read or relied on...

Pretty comical and pretty pathetic, I'd say.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 11, 2010, 10:53:57 PM
David asks a very good question:

"TEPaul has claimed more than once that the Myopia records indicate that, in 1896-1897 (and possibly 1895) Robert White was the professional at Myopia.  Again, this is supposed to be from the club records which should be a contemporaneous account of what happened and therefore ought to be reliable.   Yet Robert White was reportedly in Ohio in 1896 and beyond (In the old papers I have found mention of him at Myopia in 1895, but not beyond.)

"If White was in Ohio, what gives?  Are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's claimed recollection of the records incorrect..."

It appears that White WAS the professional at Myopia in 1896, at least according to the New York Evening Post, June 24, 1896 (bottom several lines)

(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/Whitemyopia1896.jpg)

So it appears that Tom Paul's "claimed recollection of the records" is correct as far as 1896 is concerned...

This brings up the question then of WHEN did White go to Ohio? If it was in 1896, it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later since he was playing in professional tournaments representing Myopia at the end of June 1896...

As David has brought up before this, there are a number of newspaper accounts that also mention Willie Campbell as being a professional from the Myopia Golf Club in 1896. Exactly WHEN did this come about as you'll note that there is also a "William Campbell, UNATTACHED" playing as well!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 11, 2010, 11:42:37 PM
I should have said that he reportedly "laid out" the course.  As for the rest, come on.   


The April article They were put in charge of bringing golf to Myopia, it hadn't happened yet, and wouldn't until Campbell reportedly laid out the course.

The May articles (there are two) did not indicate you could see the the whole course.   It said that you would be able to see the whole course.  There was no course yet.   So they had chosen the general location of the course, but it had not been laid out, and there is no indication that they had gone beyond this.  Your speculation that the course must have been already there is ridiculous, especially when the same article said the course had not yet been laid out.

As for your "expert golfers," give me a break.

And no one is dragging Weeks in the mud, Mike.    Surely he did the best he could with the information he had, and was trying to write an interesting narrative to boot.

I agree it is not rocket science.  So you need to come back to earth and find some sound factual grounding for your theories.  Because you have none. 

____________________________________________

Philip, thanks for posting the article, but that is sure some spiffy parsing you did of my quote, especially how you managed to leave out the part where I asked Tom MacWood to confirm whether or not White was in Ohio in 1896.  Nice.  Given that it apparently takes only one old article to convince you of a fact, then you must be convinced that Campbell laid out Myopia at least three times over.  Or, like with Mike, does it have to be an article you agree with?  And how do you go from a June 24th article to the statement that appears that he must not have left until "at least the fall of the year if not later?"    Why couldn't he have left any time after June 24?

All that said, it looks like he may still have been at Myopia in June 1896.  But I'd still like to hear why Tom MacWood had him in Cincinnati in 1896.  Or was it you who put him in Cincinnati in 1896?

I have a report of Robert White traveling to Cincinnati on business in April 1896, but nothing beyond that, so far, but I'd like to nail it down further.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 11, 2010, 11:44:31 PM
Phil
I think you are right White was at Myopia for part of 1896, but did he play in the 1896 Open? I don't think so. Was Campbell unattached when the championship was played? No, he was attached to Myopia. As I said a page or two back late in 1895 it was announced TCC was not rehiring Campbell, early in 1896 he was hanging around Philadelphia and then showed up at Myopia in the summer. White did play in the 1897 and 1898 Opens attached to Cinti.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 12:12:19 AM

All that said, it looks like he may still have been at Myopia in June 1896.  But I'd still like to hear why Tom MacWood had him in Cincinnati in 1896.  Or was it you who put him in Cincinnati in 1896?


David
The article Phil quoted about White working at Myopia in 1894 also had White working at Cinti in 1896, although Phil decided for whatever reason not to include that part. I think it is very possible White was in Cinti in 1896. White's father migrated to the US in 1896, and White's brother lived in Cinti.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 12:38:38 AM
David,

Take it easy. I did not "parse" or intentionally leave out things from what you wrote in any attempt to make you look bad as you apparently feel because of the tenor of your response. I quoted DIRECTLY from what you wrote and as far as "parsing" of what was written goes, you seem to be doing a bit of it yourself.

You seem to be ignoring what I asked, "This brings up the question then of WHEN did White go to Ohio? If it was in 1896, it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later since he was playing in professional tournaments representing Myopia at the end of June 1896..."

I was under the impression that he had gone out to Ohio in the beginning of 1896 and was quite surprised to find this article. It clearly states that as of June 24, 1896, that White was the professional at Myopia and also that Campbell was NOT ("unattached"). Why should it be so hard for you to simply say that here is a contemporary piece of factual evidence that shows that tom Paul was at least partly correct? It certainly doesn't have anything to do in anyway in the question of who designed and/or laid out Myopia 2+ years earlier.

You also asked, “And how do you go from a June 24th article to the statement that appears that he must not have left until "at least the fall of the year if not later?"    Why couldn't he have left any time after June 24?”

Once again you ignore what I ACTUALLY wrote: “it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later…”

APPEAR is the word I used. I did so because I would find it quite surprising to see him changing positions in the middle of summer as these were more likely to occur for the professionals of the day in either the Fall or spring. Heck, he could have left their employ on June 25th; so what? Isn’t the REAL point that Tom Paul was correct in his statement that he was working as Myopia’s professional in 1896? You just can’t seem to admit that Tom made even a partly correct statement. Be gracious on that David. White’s being employed by Myopia in 1896 doesn’t mean that Tom and/or Jeff’s supposition that he worked on Myopia with Campbell is correct. Does it make it a little bit more likely? Yes, but it doesn’t even begin to approach the actuality of factual proof.

By the way, you did ask Tom Macwood if White was in Ohio and not at Myopia in 1896. I can’t help that he didn’t answer it for you. Then again you did end that post by asking “Tom, Mike, ANYONE?” I believe I fall into the latter category.

Tom did address the question of White being at Myopia or Ohio in 1896 prior to your question and each time he gave answers that appeared to state that He was in Ohio and NOT at Myopia:
 
Post #626
Obviously the fact White was in Cincinnati in 1896 had everything to do with TEP's statement. White being at Myopia in 1894 has nothing to do with who designed Myopia either so I was curious why chose not to include it. Just wondering.

Post #628
Phil
Its no big deal I was just curious. TEP & Jeff had just been speculating that Campbell was working simulatenously with White in 1896...perhaps you weren't following the thread. Carry on.

Post #635
Jeff
You are obviously confused. No one has ever claimed Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1894. He was the pro at Myopia in 1896.

Actually, I think there is a rather fascinating picture being painted about Robert White that hasn't been touched on and deserves its own thread later. That is, exactly WHEN did he begin doing architectural work? It seems that it was the common practice for nearly all Scottish professionals who emigrated to the US to get into the design business very quickly, yet Myopia didn't hire him to design their course or participate in the laying out of it or adding any features during his 2+ years there. That seems to be the exception to the "Scottish pro in America designs courses" rule that was so prevalent at that time. What held him back? Is it possible that he was hired by Myopia with the intent that he would take part in the laying out of the course and then when Campbell arrived on the scene, more established and a much bigger name, that they kept him on and used Campbell for what he was going to do?

Those are reasonable questions, all that come about because of the dynamics of the time period and the evolution of the game in America and how professionals were viewed and courses designed. I think what happened at Myopia is a great case study for all of this and when all is fleshed out will be of great help in understanding what might have happened elsewhere.

Tom, I apologize as I didn't see your latest post regarding White in Cincy in 1896 until after I posted this.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 12, 2010, 12:46:03 AM
Phillip.   You should read my post again.  I used the word "appears" when referring to your post as well.   As for the rest, whatever you say.
____________________

Back to the topic at hand.  Tom is right, it was you who brought in that White was in Cincinnati in 1896, not Tom.  

And I am not so sure what the list in your latest article is all about, or what we can draw from it.  It purports to be a list of players "all of whom will start with reasonable certainty."   What does that mean?  Are they applicants?  If so, when did they apply?  That would tell us when Robert White still thought he was working at Myopia.  

Anyway is difficult to tell what exactly we can take from this or from when or where this guy got his information.  

The Boston Globe, July 19, 1896, reported the results of the tournament.  Robert White was not listed among the competitors, and Campbell is listed as from Myopia.  

By the way, in that article, whoever that amateur was who predicted the results did pretty well, going two for three, with Whigham and one of the Foulis Brother's winning.

_______________________________

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 12:59:33 AM
David,

I'm sorry you have obviously taken what I posted as a personal attack. Again, it wasn't meant that way.

As you stated, though, "back to the topic at hand."

Yes, I did state that White went to Ohio in 1896. I even said so again up above and that I was "surprised" to see that this article state that he was working for Myopia on JUNE 24th and that Campbell evidently was not. That is one of the things that you can take from the article.

Secondly, the 7/19/1896 article is one that YOU need to post. (C'mon now, I accept that you aren't misquoting, but you demand that Tom Paul and the others post their sources so you need to do so as well). I have no doubt of your accuracy but simply because it doesn't list Robert White as being AMONG THOSE WHO FINISHED the tournament doesn't mean he DIDN'T compete. I have seen far too many newspaper accounts of tournaments during those early years where not all those who start are around at the finish. I would consider what you POSTED as proof of nothing more than that Campbell PROBABLY had been hired to take his position by then and that MAYBE White didn't play. Just as you want a date for the "applications" list I want a LIST of all those who BEGAN PLAY.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 12, 2010, 01:46:56 AM
1. I don't think the article tells us where they each worked on June 24.  It tells us where the reporter thought they worked according to whatever list he had, but we'd need to know more about the list.

2.  Dont tell me what i need to post.  I've never demanded that TEPaul or Mike post information or articles that are easily accessible, and I have certainly never made such demands out some warped sense of tit-for-tat justice, like you are doing here.

3.  I don't give a damn what you want.  Unlike you previously with the other article i didnt broadly speculate about what the Globe article meant. I merely informed you that it didn't list White, and that Campbell was listed as from Myopia.  Beyond that look it up yourself.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 04:26:41 AM
"Those are reasonable questions, all that come about because of the dynamics of the time period and the evolution of the game in America and how professionals were viewed and courses designed. I think what happened at Myopia is a great case study for all of this and when all is fleshed out will be of great help in understanding what might have happened elsewhere."


I do too, Phil; I do too. I think what happened at Myopia may be a great case study that may be of great help in understanding what  happened elsewhere on some of the most impressive and respected architecture in American golf architecture's history. I've felt that for some years about Myopia since it and Leeds were so early. Myopia's architect and its architectural history was part of the reason I wrote that article for the program of the 2009 Walker Cup held at Merion entitled "Hugh I. Wilson and the Age of the Amateur/Sportsman Architect."  The theme of the article essentially concentrated on six amateur/sportsman architects and their long term project courses---eg in chronolgical order, Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 08:16:33 AM
David,

Thank you for the very gracious reply!

Tom Paul, as you can see, I've produced contemporaneous, factual, evidentiary proof that YOU were Correct when you stated that Robert White was definitely the professional at Myopia during the year 1896. It was most encouraging to see that David has seen the light when it comes to the new era of congeniality and showing respect on the Discussion Board and admitted that he was mistaken in his perception that YOU were wrong in this!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 08:56:57 AM
I guess I must have missed that, Phil, but I trust you will point it out to me. ;) What I do notice, however, is when the same "usual suspects" are participating on these kinds of threads they all seem to evolve in a remarkably similar way. They include Merion, NGLA, GCGC, North Shore, Shawnee, and now Myopia.

I did think you made a very good point in the end of #693 but I doubt that subject would develop and be discussed on here very well if a couple of our "usual suspects" participated in it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 09:45:50 AM
Jeff:

That is an interesting point to raise and to try to look into. It very well may tell us something about the way the early professional immigrant golfers worked in that early era. It sure does seem that Campbell was a man who was moving around very quickly from place to place and service to service in his mere six years in this country. I suspect he may've provided some services to Myopia in 1896 or so such as playing lessons and perhaps playing tournament golf for Myopia in that year. I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional and greenskeeper, before John "Jack" Jones who was there for years thereafter took over for White. This is the same time Campbell is listed with Myopia. Did they have two head pros at the same time? I doubt that. White may've been on their payroll as their pro/greenkeeper then and Campbell just being listed as their tournament pro and perhaps a guy who gave lessons for an individual fee to Myopia's members and others at other clubs as well as traveling and doing other things such as fairly quickly laying out courses in a day or so for a fixed fee.

When I get back to Myopia I will see if their financial records from that time might reflect on that somehow. Of course, I can see MacWood and Moriarty histrionically caterwalling that this is just more speculation. Well, at this point, of course it is but it is going to turn into research at and with the subject---Myopia! Are they going to do this? Of course not. They will just rely on me and then criticize my efforts after I've done what they should have done if they really were dedicated researchers and historians on this particular subject!  ;)


Phil
TEP said White was at Myopia in 1896? You have twisted and misrepresented what TEP wrote. You should go back and actually read what he wrote, it was a lot more than just White was at Myopia in 1896. And I don't believe you understand exactly what he was speculating. If anything the article you just posted (and subsequent reports of the actual event) supports the idea the two didn't work together at Myopia. According to your article White is with Myopia in June and Campbell is unattached, according to the reports of the event Campbell is with Myopia in July and White is a no show.

I find it humorous you are now giving yourself credit for telling us White was in Cinti in 1896. The article you posted said White was in Cinti, but for whatever reason you did not post that part of it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 12, 2010, 09:55:52 AM
Niall,

I think our impressions of how things happened are pretty similar, although if I recall correctly I think the greens were sodded.   Even today though most of them are pretty much at natural grade.

I'm not sure they were waiting for Campbell per se, but I'm sure they were happy to have his input and expertise but I think that happened after the wheels were in motion, not before, and I think reports from May that the course was not yet laid out referred to the minimal construction activities that followed and not to the stakinf of the basic routing, which I think happened earlier as described.

There were apparently also a few basic cross hazards constructed as well, I believe.


Mike

Thanks for responding to my earlier post. I have no real knowledge of what happened at Myopia in the earlier days and nor do I really care beyond a general interest in how these early courses came about. The reason I asked those questions was it seemed to me that there might be an assumption on your part that because the course had been laid out by members prior to Campbells arrival then all he did was build the course according to that plan or something similar, would that be correct ?

I find that assumption interesting and perhaps contrary to experience back in Scotland. I appreciate that Scotland and Amercia are different but given that you had a lot of these Scottish pro's coming over to show how its done, its perhaps a fair assumption that they did things in a similar fashion. That (possibly) being the case, given that the members course was rudimentary and with minimal construction, Campbell would likely have felt no compunction in advising the members on how the course should be laid out (ie. designed) and the members, having hired an expert or professional (I think round then a lot of these phrases were interchangeable, same as laid out/designed etc) would likely have been happy with his imput. I say likely because all this is speculation on my part.

Would Campbells course have been much different from the members course ? Well perhaps not in terms of simplicity of construction but in terms of layout I imagine it would have followed the good design principles of the day, whatever they were. The final thing I would add is that this was some 15 to 20 years before MacKenzie started preaching about the finality of design, mainly I suspect because of the increased muck being shifted to make courses by then and consequently the increased costs. Back in the 1890's I suspect they looked at things differently and seemed to have had no compunction in making significant changes on an almost continious basis.

Phil,

Re the employment of professionals. Again, my impression from newspaper reports of the day is that it was not uncommon for more than one professional to be attached to big clubs and neither was it uncommon for pro's to migrate south during the winter season to take up an "engagement" at another club. Therefore not sure that finding out when White or Campbell was at Myopia tells you whether or not the other was there.

I've got some nice articles from Golf Illustrated (UK) from 1924/1925 by Harold Hilton and others on the retiral of Willie Fernie which reflects on his career and golf about 1890's and which mentions Campbell. If you or anyone else is interested give me a shout and I'll happily email them over to you.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 09:57:48 AM
This thread is indeed becoming comical.

Please show us anywhere that it says Campbell "designed" the course.

The press reports in mid-April indicate that three members were responsible for bringing golf to Myopia in the coming season.

A report in mid-May indicates the course has not yet been Llaid outL, yet you can see the entire course from a high vantage point. How could this be?   Simply because the staked out course has not yet been constructed, or laid out on the ground.

A report a month later calls the three men who Weeks tells us the contemporaneous records state planned the course are "experts" in the new game, so its not surprising they would have the confidence of the membership in their appointed task..

Pro Campbell is evidently brought over sometime to help get the course going, most likely building tees and greens and likely placing some cross bunker hazards.

This is not rocket science...sheesh..

Why in the heck would poor Mr. Weeks lie about any of this?  

Yet, two guys who have never been there or even tried to see the clubs records think nothing of dragging his name thru the mud without a clue of what he saw or read or relied on...

Pretty comical and pretty pathetic, I'd say.

Mike
I think it is safe to say every golf course Campbell laid out he designed...unless you are aware of one that someone else designed that he constructed. I asked that question before and from your non-answer I assume you are not aware of one. So hopefully we can avoid the game playing with the term laid out.

I'm not sure what this an indication of some frustration, but now you seem to be saying any moron could have laid out a golf course in 1894, so who cares who laid out the course. If that is the case why are you even involved with this discussion?

To my knowledge no one has called Weeks a liar. As I have said before, he had a lot more than golf to write about in this history, after all Myopia is a hunt club first and foremost. Plus the book came out in the mid-70s, prior to any great interest in golf architecture history, and prior to any good information on golf architecture history. I'm sure he did the best he could based on the information he had, that being said IMO it is mistake to put any great stock in the book, especially now after we have been able to uncover new information.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 10:00:22 AM
TEP
Where did you come up with the date of 1892 or 1893 for Appleton Farms?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 10:54:54 AM
Tom Macwood,

It surprises me not that you distort what I wrote and that you once again show little to no capacity to understand what someone else has said.

You wrote, "Phil, TEP said White was at Myopia in 1896? You have twisted and misrepresented what TEP wrote. You should go back and actually read what he wrote, it was a lot more than just White was at Myopia in 1896..." No Tom, it is you who needs to go back and see exactly what Tom Paul wrote and what I did as well. Tom Paul stated, and I know this because YOU HAVE QUOTED THIS STATEMENT SEVERAL TIMES, even going to the extent to highlighting it in yellow, that he said, "note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional... Now, what did I state? "So it appears that Tom Paul's "claimed recollection of the records" is correct as far as 1896 is concerned..." That statement proves that I completely understood that Tom Paul was speaking to a larger issue and greater time period. It also proves that, as I have pointed out that, AS FAR AS 1896 is concerned, that he was CORRECT. Just like David, you simply can't seem to admit that Tom was correct in even a small portion of a statement. That speaks volumes...

"And I don't believe you understand exactly what he was speculating." See above as I've just answered that.

"If anything the article you just posted (and subsequent reports of the actual event) supports the idea the two didn't work together at Myopia." Not at all. The article simply states that as of June 24th, 1896, that White was Myopia's professional and that Campbell was not. Or are you saying that Campbell needed to be the professional at Myopia in order to do any architectural work there? Of course that's not what you are doing."

"According to your article White is with Myopia in June and Campbell is unattached, according to the reports of the event Campbell is with Myopia in July and White is a no show." No Tom, you are wrong there. First of all there has been no "July article" presented as evidence, ONLY DAVID'S QUOTING of a SUPPOSED ARTICLE. I put it that way because both you and David have treated many on this site the same, demanding that they post what they are citing from or remembering BEFORE you will accept it as proof. I simply asked the same thing of David and get responded with "I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU WANT." Come now, I think asking for the article isn't that big a deal here, or maybe he's just "bluffing?" No, David wouldn't do that and I also don't believe he is misquoting it; however, simply for fair play's sake, he needs to post the article. In any event, all the article states, and this is taking David's quoting of it as truth, is that White POSSIBLY didn't FINISH THE TOURNAMENT! We have no way to state anything else as he may have been eliminated earlier or decided that he played so badly that it wasn't worth going on, or any number of other things including that he played the entire tournament but that the paper simply chose to only give a partial listing of those who did. So, your reading in to it that White was a "No Show" is far too loose of an interpretation of a document that hasn't even been presented. Maybe he didn't show, but no one can make that conclusion based upon what has been presented.

"I find it humorous you are now giving yourself credit for telling us White was in Cinti in 1896."Once again you are making what I stated to be far more than what I said. I NEVER CLAIMED that I was the one who informed any and all that White was in Cincinnati in 1896. I stated that "By the way, you did ask Tom Macwood if White was in Ohio and not at Myopia in 1896. I can’t help that he didn’t answer it for you. Then again you did end that post by asking “Tom, Mike, ANYONE?” I believe I fall into the latter category." Why didn't YOU answer your buddy's question when you had ample opportunity to do so? Actually, I am quite surprised that you didn't refer to an earlier posting on this thread where you referred to another thread that discussed White's involvement at Myopia and where he would be in 1896, but you must have forgotten, just as David either missed, forgot or chose to ignore it.

"The article you posted said White was in Cinti, but for whatever reason you did not post that part of it." Once again, in your final statement here, you show your arrogance. You know you already asked me about this and I answered it, not once, but TWICE, yet you make the statement again as if it has some sort of diabolical meaning toward my motive in what I posted when it clearly didn't and doesn't. Here's what you posted in #623 "Phil, How come you did not include the info on White going to Cincinnati in 1896?" Evidently my answer in post #624, although quite clear, was unsatisfactory for you because in your post #626 you stated, "Phil, in my post just prior to yours I highlighted TEP's statement below and said it was speculation presented as fact, and presumably that is why you posted your quote: 'I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional...' Obviously the fact White was in Cincinnati in 1896 had everything to do with TEP's statement. White being at Myopia in 1894 has nothing to do with who designed Myopia either so I was curious why chose not to include it. Just wondering." I responded in Post #627 in depth to which you responded in #628 "Phil, Its no big deal I was just curious..." But now you're making it a big deal? Disingenuous to the last.

All of this because neither you nor David can admit, graciously or grudgingly, that Tom Paul was CORRECT as far as Robert White having been the professional at Myopia in 1896.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 11:00:59 AM
Phil
Was White at Myopia in 1897?

It is no big deal I just found it humorous you were taking credit for something you failed to do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 12:17:17 PM
Before this thread totally degenerates into flames as it seems rapidly and increasingly intent on doing, I would like to post one fact and ask one question.

First, there was some speculation earlier asserting that these men of Myopia would never be up at a "summer" colony in the spring, so how would/could they have staked out nine holes after the snow melted?   Well, in going back to the April 15th1894 article I posted, with some AMAZING COINCIDENCE I saw that the blurb above the one that tells of the appointment of the subcommittee for golf at Myopia shows us that the other of the three men credited with the original nine holes was indeed also in Hamilton at that same exact time as the others!;


Mr and Mrs A. P. Gardner have returned
from their visit in Washington to
Mrs Gardner's parents, Hon Henry Cabot
and Mm Lodge, and are now at their country seat, in Hamilton.

Messrs J. Watson Merrill, R. M. Appleton and W. A. Burnham of the Myopia
Hunt club's committee on field sports, have been appointed as a sub committee to take
measures for the introduction this season
of the game of golf at the Kennels.


So, we now know that in the beginning of April, 1894, it appears that all of the protagonist members credited in Week's account, and according to Tom Paul, from the administrative records, and all point to not only all three men being there, (along with Mr. Burnham), but also point out that two of them are in a subcommittee assigned to TAKE MEASURES for the introduction of the game of golf at Myopia.

So, what measures do we think they took?   What would be the logical first steps?    One might think locating holes for a course would be the first priority, right?    

If we believe the contrarians here, they did absolutely NOTHING in this regard.   In fact, over a month later on May 19th we're told nothing at all was done, supposedly.  

Except for the fact that we know by mid-May two things were indeed done.   We know that from a high vantage point one would be able to watch play across the entire course, correct?    We also know that sheep were purchased that would be fielded on the location of the golf holes.

So, how is that possible if the location of the golf holes was not yet determined?   It would neither be possible to know one could watch play across the entire golf course unless their location would be known any more than one would know where to graze the sheep.  

So, what were the "measures" that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill and Burnham were doing to bring golf to Myopia for the new season, scheduled to open in June.   Clearly by June of that year the local paper called them golf "experts".

We now know they were there at Hamilton...we now know they had responsibility and authority to make things happen to bring the game to the club...and we know Weeks tells us and Tom Paul's account of the administrative records confirms that they staked out the first nine holes.

Niall Carlton may be correct that Willie Campbell in helping build the course may have made changes...they may even have been significant, and I'm not denying his importance in early Boston golf.

But we also know that whatever he did it was not deemed to be of great enough significance to include it in the official Myopia administrative records, and we also know that to deny any role in the building of the original golf course to Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner in the face of a rapidly increasing amount of circumstantial evidence that gives them motive, means, and opportunity is simply yet another case of bad revisionist history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 12:22:07 PM
Tom,

You have such a hard time admitting when you are wrong... I did not take credit for that and no matter how many times you now purposefully misrepresent what i state it will not make it any more true.

Tom, was White the professional at Myopia in 1896? Its no big deal, I just find it pitiable that you and David simply can't admit that Tom Paul was right when he stated that he was...

Enjoy the rest of the day and however you choose to take the discussion...

Mike, don't worry, for my part, since the self-proclaimed "seekers of truth" seem to have forgotten that it some times forces one to admit when they are wrong, I am done with this. As Johnny Storm would say, "Flame out!"
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 12:36:46 PM


So hopefully we can avoid the game playing with the term laid out.



Tom,

Funny...I don't recall you having any problem with the following definition posited by David a few years back, or accusing him of "playing with the term" when it suited your theories?    I believe you in fact concurred heartily, if memory serves.  

David argued so convincingly, in fact, that I can see personally how they could be two separate efforts, and I think it makes perfect sense in this case where the members staked out a course after the snow melted in the spring and then had Campbell in with his experience to help them build it on the ground.   Don't you?

It certainly seems to fit all the theories together very nicely and comprehensively and all of the evidence to date offered supports an "inclusive" reality, especially the newest stuff I just found and produced here.
  

"To the contrary, X was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how X used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.’ The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan.." - David Moriarty


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 12:42:04 PM
I got the dates on the Appleton Farm while in Massachussetts. It comes from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends (a number of the same names from Myopia Hunt Club and other Boston clubs and summer communities). Those families had been into a number of sports including foxhunting, polo, tennis, golf, sailing, yachting etc for generations. It's remarkably to me how many of those families are still there in the same places and clubs. Boston and some of its surrounding summer communities such as the North Shore seems to be far more generationally enduring than the same basic societies around New York or Philadelphia from back in those days and before. I'm not sure why that is.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 12:51:42 PM
In case anyone thinks I'm making this stuff up, here's the April 15th 1894 news article that in a few short blurbs amazingly manages to talk about;

1) A.P. Gardner's location at the time in Hamilton
2) The Creation of the Golf Committee at Myopia that included Appleton and Merrill
3) Willie Campbell's assignment for the golf year to Essex CC

Coincidence?   Please recall that as of this publication date, Willie Campbell was in the United States for a total of two weeks time, and being housed south of Boston at Brookline.   I'm not sure of any suburban rail line going to the North Shore at the time, but it is 33 miles on horse and carriage between TCC and Myopia.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5254372435_a46ceacf93_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 01:12:15 PM
It also appears that "Squire" Gardner spent much of his year around Hamilton, as his in-laws lived there, and he had a cottage in neighboring Wenham.   In fact, in 1894 they were still there in October of that year where his daughter was delivered.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5255047610_96c7c07d30_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 01:27:34 PM
Phil
I think you are right White was at Myopia for part of 1896, but did he play in the 1896 Open? I don't think so. Was Campbell unattached when the championship was played? No, he was attached to Myopia. As I said a page or two back late in 1895 it was announced TCC was not rehiring Campbell, early in 1896 he was hanging around Philadelphia and then showed up at Myopia in the summer. White did play in the 1897 and 1898 Opens attached to Cinti.

Phil
Since you're having difficulty answering my simple question I will go ahead and drop it. I've never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong or someone else is right. The quote above is from last night, not that long ago.

TEP wrote: "I note that in the 1896 to 1897 timeframe or perhaps even the 1895 to 1897 timeframe Robert White was actually Myopia's permanent professional and greenskeeper, before John "Jack" Jones who was there for years thereafter took over for White. This is the same time Campbell is listed with Myopia. Did they have two head pros at the same time? I doubt that. White may've been on their payroll as their pro/greenkeeper then and Campbell just being listed as their tournament pro..."

As far as TEP is concerned I will give him credit for guessing correctly that White was (apparently) at Myopia in 1896, and give him credit for being wrong that White was there in 1897. I'll give him credit for 1895 too, although that is not documented. And for not knowing he was at Myopia in 1894 that should be noted too don't you think? And for speculating that Campbell was the tournament pro and White was the permanent pro/greenkeeper I will continue to say the facts do not back him up on that either. But for your sake let me say once again his statement was not completely inaccurate, he got one fact right, White was at Myopia in 1896.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 01:30:27 PM
In case anyone thinks I'm making this stuff up, here's the April 15th 1894 news article that in a few short blurbs amazingly manages to talk about;

1) A.P. Gardner's location at the time in Hamilton
2) The Creation of the Golf Committee at Myopia that included Appleton and Merrill
3) Willie Campbell's assignment for the golf year to Essex CC

Coincidence?   Please recall that as of this publication date, Willie Campbell was in the United States for a total of two weeks time, and being housed south of Boston at Brookline.   I'm not sure of any suburban rail line going to the North Shore at the time, but it is 33 miles on horse and carriage between TCC and Myopia.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5254372435_a46ceacf93_o.jpg)

Carriage? Why would he take a carriage when he could take a train?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 02:16:14 PM
Tom,

That's why I asked the question...wasn't sure about a suburban rail corridir at that time tween Hamilton and Brookline.

That you'd avoid the more relevant info I provided isn't surprising.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 02:28:04 PM
Mike Cirba:

I don't know if you're aware of it or thought of it but some of the names in those old newspaper articles are interesting for other reasons. A bit OT to this thread but the Lodges were quite the generational political force in Mass and US Government. The name you see there, Henry Cabot Lodge, I believe was a Senator from Mass, and the father of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, long-term US Senator from Massachussets who was eventually unseated by a young political rising star from Boston named John Fitzgerald Kennedy!!  ;)

The Appleton family is certainly fascinationg too for longevity of their farm in Ipswich (Appleton Farm) that may've been in a single family longer than any other farm in American history. Some of the names connected to that family are pretty interesting too. It looks like one of the Appleton gals married Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and another married Sen. Levertt Saltonstall, another august long term US Senator from Massachussetts. And that brings things home to roost with me and pretty much full cycle with those people. I lived in Washington DC for close to ten years in the 1970s with the ex-wife of a US Senator from California who was Senator Edward Kennedy's best friend and we lived in the house in Washington that they had bought from Massachussets Senator Leverett Saltonstall.

What goes around comes around and back around again, I guess. You go to a club like Myopia today and it's just amazing that just about all those old names are still there. ::)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 02:41:26 PM
All the rail lines from Boston to those surrounding summer communities were there in those days. When you drive through any of those old Boston summer communiites today you cannot help but notice how often you cross those old train tracks.

So, I suppose some on here may then logically ask why those people back then did not just live out there permanently inside of almost always living in Boston in the winter. That question would be logically answered if any on here just took a look at what most of the houses back then of those summer communities looked like.

I guarantee you noone would want to heat those behemoths in the Massachussets winters, certainly not back then! They just closed them done at the end of the season and moved back into what was always referred to back then as "town." Back in those days New York City was referred to by those people the same way and so was Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 03:15:21 PM
Tom Macwood,

I've never had a problem answering that question. As far as I know, White was not the professional at Myopia in 1897. In fact it appears that he was in Cincinnati for PART of 1896 as well, but that is just conjecture still.

I am glad to see that you admit that Tom Paul was correct about the 1896 date. As far as, "And for not knowing he was at Myopia in 1894 that should be noted too don't you think?" I see nothing of any noteworthiness in his not knowing that. I understand that you view it critically and as some sort of proof that he doesn't know the history of Myopia as well as he claims, but then again he did know about White in 1895-96 when others disagreed with that showing he does know a bit more than they thought.

What I think is of noteworthiness is something I mentioned in an earlier post, that is, the question of WHEN White began designing or performing any formal architectural work. You know more about White's history than most on here, and so I am surprised that you apparently haven't thought much about why he wasn't considered to lay out and/or work the course. This was the common practice and expectations of the Scottish pros who came to America at that time. I'm not looking at derailing this thread, but it certainly is an area of architectural history with White that is surprising, that is, why did it take him so long to begin doing that type of work. Everything about his history appears a bit different. From professional to greenkeeper to architect to mixing in being one of the founders of Macgregor sporting goods. There doesn't seem any consistency to what he was doing whereas so many other Scottish pros who came here had very opposite careers.

Anyway, I think that White's early career deserves some looking into and a thread all its own. Unfortunately I am simply too busy at the moment to pursue it...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 12, 2010, 03:40:18 PM
TEP,

Love the post about the brahmins!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cabot_Lodge,_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_family - more information on the Lodge politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabot_family - the Cabot's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmins - and no talk of these families would be complete without the master list!!!!!


And, about the Appleton Farm, here is a quick list of the oldest family business still in the family, in America. A few farms from MA on the list. OT but I schooled with the next in line to take over Zildjian Cymbals. I believe her mother is CEO now, so it will be interesting to see how the gender change will affect them long term. Mother was first woman president in the company's long, long history

http://news.everest.edu/post/2009/08/america-s-oldest-family-run-businesses
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 12, 2010, 05:53:01 PM
Travis:

There's some fairly interesting stuff online and in two repositories of his papers on Edward Weeks too, the man who wrote the Myopia centennial history book (1875-1975). The man was the editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine for almost thirty years and with that and the fact he belonged to Myopia for years and knew those people going fairly far back I would say he would have a whole lot better shot at getting the facts of Myopia's history right than a couple of Internet dudes today who've never even been there and have only seen a couple of old newspaper articles like MacWood and Moriarty.  ???

Weeks died in something like 1989 at 91.

I also have one last chapter in my experiences with the Appleton family to tell and I believe it's what I think it is and pretty amazing really. I sort of hesitate to tell it but what the hell a lot of water has gone under the bridge now and I just might.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 12, 2010, 06:18:35 PM
David,

Thank you for the very gracious reply!

Tom Paul, as you can see, I've produced contemporaneous, factual, evidentiary proof that YOU were Correct when you stated that Robert White was definitely the professional at Myopia during the year 1896. It was most encouraging to see that David has seen the light when it comes to the new era of congeniality and showing respect on the Discussion Board and admitted that he was mistaken in his perception that YOU were wrong in this!  ;)

Phillip,

I think you confuse brevity and honesty with rudeness.   If you want more congeniality and respect from me perhaps you drop the self-righteousness and . . .
1.  Stop making unreasonable and rude demands what what I need to do for you and what you want from me.
2.  Stop misrepresenting my past dealings with TEPaul and Mike, especially as a justification for your rude demands.
3.  Stop the condescending lectures intimating that I have misused the source material or drawn unsupported conclusions when I have not.

And you misstated my position once again.  I never concluded that TEPaul was wrong about 1896, I explained what did not make sense about the various stories, and asked a number of questions which have yet to be answered by anyone.    Do you not recall me asking Tom MacWood to confirm that White was in Cincinnati in 1896?  Interesting that you would overlook this yet again.  Besides, TEPaul claimed that the Myopia records indicate that White was the professional at Myopia in 1896-1897 and maybe 1895.  You certainly have not proven that correct.   And to my mind if that information come from club documents recording contemporaneous events, then it all ought to be correct.  As for 1896, you overstate and oversimplify your case, as I explained above.   

Again Phillip your reliance on this single article as "factual" astounds me, especially when it is not really clear when or why that list of professionals was compiled.   I take it then that you have as little doubt about the three separate articles stating that Campbell laid out Myopia?   Or do you only take single articels as "factual" when you like the information? 

_________________________________

Mike

Cirba, I noted pages ago that Gardner returned to Myopia in April.   

But how you put the others there too is beyond me.   You do realize that their winter meeting occurred in Boston, don't you? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 08:05:45 PM
David,

What "measures" do you think Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner took to bring golf to Myopia after being charged with that task sometime prior to April 15th, 1894?

Do you believe they sat around Boston for the next two months hoping perhaps a golf course would magically appear on their club's land by the start of the mid-June season?  Or perhaps that the sheep might design some holes for them?  Why do you think the newspaper called them golf "experts" before the course at Myopia even opened?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 12, 2010, 10:09:54 PM
Mike
Are you really that delusional?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 10:16:32 PM
Tom,

Excellent post!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 12, 2010, 10:21:15 PM
David,

What "measures" do you think Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner took to bring golf to Myopia after being charged with that task sometime prior to April 15th, 1894?

Who?   The article did not say anything about Gardner having been appointed.   The article said Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham.    So why would you include Gardner?   Come to think of it, if Gardner would be designing the course with Appleton and Merrill within the next few weeks, why wasn't Gardner reported to have been on this committee?

As for what Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham, they (or someone else at Myopia) must have arranged for "Prof." Willie Campbell to lay out a golf course on Myopia's property.  

This would have been an obvious and easy thing to do, given that:
1.  These three were golfing at the Country Club that spring, where Campbell was the well-regarded professional;
2.  Their friends at the Country Club had already arranged for Campbell to be over at Essex County for the summer; and
3.  Campbell was not only an real expert golfer -one of the best of the world he was an expert at designing and laying out golf courses.  He had reportedly done so abroad, had reportedly already done work on the Country Club's course, and would be doing similar work for Essex County.  

Quote
Do you believe they sat around Boston for the next two months hoping perhaps a golf course would magically appear on their club's land by the start of the mid-June season?  Or perhaps that the sheep might design some holes for them?

Neither. As I said, I think they that they arranged for Campbell to plan and lay out a golf course, and according to at least three reports, the course had not been laid out by the middle of May.  

Quote
Why do you think the newspaper called them golf "experts" before the course at Myopia even opened?

It didn't call "them" anything.  The article referred to Appleton and Gardner as "expert players" along with W.B. Thomas, and T. Watson Merrill (not J.W. Merrill.)   Again, it is not even the same grouping.  

Looking at these old papers, these four were apparently called "expert golfers" basically because they played golf (at the Country Club) and were among the better of a bunch of beginners there.   But this was not saying much.   (Keep in mind, Mike, that this is a Gossip column and the columnist very likely has no idea what she is talking about.)

For example, Leeds was reportedly a beginner as well, yet at Myopia's opening day, Leeds was scratch,  giving Appleton 6 strokes, J.W. Merrill 10 strokes, and Burnham 24 strokes (Gardner got 18.)   And Leeds who was often referrred to as the "crack golfer" won the tournament with a 112!  The others didn't make the top four net, but Appleton reportedly shot a 63 on the second nine.  

Just fine for a bunch of beginners, but Willie Campbell was one of the best players in the World, 30 or 40 stokes better than they were.  And he had substantial design experience.
___________________________________________________

You should take a step back, Mike, and think about how ridiculous your leaps of logic have become.  It is embarrassing.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 10:42:32 PM
David,

I'm not sure why you think I should be embarrassed?

I'm not the one here who only has one other person...Tom MacWoodN not coincidentally...who wholly agrees with my viewpoint.

I detect a pattern, but I am glad that you both are so simpatico because it's clearly the season for that type of understanding.

I think it is very funny that you see this matter as either/or when it is so clear it is not, but please do keep at it and perhaps someday both of you will actually use actual club records to bolster your revisionist theories at some future course on some future date.

Or...perhaps not..
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 12, 2010, 11:18:00 PM
Hey Willie...we jist got charged with creating golf at our club this year...do yo think you can come by in about eight weeks or so to build us a course two or three weeks before opening?

Oh...and please bring some sod for the greens.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 12, 2010, 11:31:48 PM
.  :o
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
Mike Cirba,

You are relying on the club records?  Well why didn't you say so?   What did they say, exactly?  When did you see them?   What was the format?

And maybe you can clear a few more things up for me . . .  
- Who was it again who designed the course, and how did they design it?
- Did they definitely stake out the course, or probably mark it off with pegs?
- Why was Burnham appointed to the subcommittee and not Gardner?
- When was Campbell hired?  How long was he at the course?   Did the committee supervise him to make sure he laid it out according to what they wanted?
- Why are there so many reports that, as of mid-May, the course had not been laid out?  
- When did Robert White leave Myopia?

I have more questions, but let's start with these.  

As for your sarcasm about when the course was laid out, at whom is it directed?  Me?  Or the multiple reports indicating that the course had not been laid out as of mid-May?

And how does scoffing at me and these reports fit in with your theory that the members designed it and then Campbell laid it out?    When exactly do you think the course was laid out on the ground by Campbell, Mike?  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 07:27:38 AM
David,

Please show us any evidence you have that Willie Campbell was involved with planning the holes or routing the golf course at Myopia?

The news reports simply state that he "laid out" the course, presumably "on the ground" as you told us was the meaning of the term in those days,  as they were all reporting after the fact, and there is no evidence at all I've seen from either you or Tom MacWood (or anyone for that matter) that he was involved in the planning or routing stages, which as you've told us is the real "design" stage and the heart of golf couse architecture.

I even quoted your definition above, which as I said, you convincingly argued for a long time and I conceded that I can now see how in some cases (like this one) I can see how laying out a course on the ground could be a separate task from routing or designing holes.   So, you have that going for you.

Please just be consistent in applying the same standards you've demanded of others for several years here.   I cannot for the life of me understand the double standard you are no seemingly insisting we all now suddenly swallow.

So, if you or Tom have any evidence in this regard, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Otherwise, I believe, as do others here, that the members likely staked out a course (routed and designed) and then Willie Campbell built it (laid out), perhaps to their plans or perhaps somewhat modified.

What else is there to discuss?   I produced new evidence here after you resuscitated the thread a few weeks ago...if you or Tom have nothing further to add to the evidence, let's just move on rather than just continue this silly arguing.

Thanks


"To the contrary, X was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how X used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.’ The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan.." - David Moriarty


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 07:40:40 AM
Mike,

I think that is a very rude posting, filled with ridiculous leaps of logic. I especially think it highly insulting to twist and misapply what he said...  :o
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 13, 2010, 07:46:34 AM

Niall Carlton may be correct that Willie Campbell in helping build the course may have made changes...they may even have been significant, and I'm not denying his importance in early Boston golf.

But we also know that whatever he did it was not deemed to be of great enough significance to include it in the official Myopia administrative records, and we also know that to deny any role in the building of the original golf course to Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner in the face of a rapidly increasing amount of circumstantial evidence that gives them motive, means, and opportunity is simply yet another case of bad revisionist history.


Mike

I'm not going to suggest on this thread that newspaper articles are better than club records or vice versa. I think however how you interpret the information comes down to common sense. With club records, often its not whats in them but what isn't thats interesting.

A striking example is Troon. In the early 1920's MacKenzie totally redesigned the relief course which later became known as the Portland. This was a couple of years before Troon hosted its first Open and the Portland was the main qualifying course for that Open. Famously Saracen, who along with Hagen was favourite to win the Open failed to qualify over the Portland and later had a spat with MacKenzie about the design of the course. MacKenzie talks about the course in The Spirit of St Andrews. At the time he was probably the second most reknowned architect after Colt. There were numerous newspaper and magazine articles about the course and his work. The Portland course today is largely as MacKenzie designed it.

And yet when Neil Crafter contacted the club a couple of years ago their own "historian" was blissfully unaware that MacKenzie had ever been to Troon. Now this is a club that is proud of its history. Proudly on show in the clubhouse are letters from Jones, Saracen, Chick Evans and every Open Champion who won at Troon There is a plan from 1888 of the Old course as well as various photos of Old Tom etc. Yet nothing of MacKenzie. I have read the club history from 1975 (just over 50 years from when MacKenzie was there) which is an excellent read which gives some great information on the evolution of both courses, yet again MacKenzie isn't mentioned.

Clearly club records, and club histories derived from club records are an invaluable source, however I think there is a danger in the way you assume that because something isn't mentioned in those records then it didn't happen. Sometimes magazine and newspaper articles do provide additional information that is worthwhile.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 08:14:40 AM
Phil,

What words did I twist?  I quoted David directly, no?

I'm no the one arguing that it was a summer resort so they couldn't have been there, or telling us that a foot and a half of snow on the ground would have precluded the members efforts to stake out a course, while telling us at the same time that Willie C was outside giving lessons and the citizens were happily golfing at the same time!

Sheesh...what a comedy!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 08:21:32 AM
Niall,

Point well taken, thanks.

I would agree with you that very few of these stories are as clear cut as we all might prefer.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 08:27:30 AM
Niall:

The example you gave of Troon is interesting but not very applicable to Myopia as an analogy. With your Troon example Mackenzie redesigned the course in the 1920s and for some reason the club doesn't recognize that despite the fact that the course today is as Mackenzie redesigned it.

Myopia's architectural evolution from the 1894 original nine to the Long Nine (1896-1898) to the eighteen hole course of 1900 which is remarkably similar to today is a vastly different situation.

In other words, what is left on the course today (or was left from the 1894 nine when the 1900 18 hole course was done) from that original 1894 nine is pretty mininmal. There are only perhaps three greens left that were the same place and probably only two that are the same as in 1894. There are approximately six holes that are basically in the same landforms but two of them had tees coming from quite different directions.

Whomever was responsible for the development of the 1894 nine, the point is, unlike Mackenzie's 1920 Troon redesign, there was not much left of the original 1894 course when the eighteen hole Myopia course was done. Therefore to call Myopia today a Willie Campbell golf course (or that of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) doesn't make much sense because it just isn't an accurate description of what was accomplished on that golf course by Leeds from app 1896 into the 1920s and what is there today.

The architectural attribution of Myopia for over 110 years has been Herbert C. Leeds and that is an accurate architect attribution and beyond dispute. The men who were around golf in the first and second decades of the 20th century knew that and wrote that and we know it today.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 08:37:41 AM
Now Mike,

There you again with those ridiculous leaps of logic!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 08:39:17 AM
If this is comedy, I am not laughing....maybe tragicomedy.

Phil, since you seem to be involved, I have a pre-coffee question this morning for you.

There seems to be some contention about whether the Weeks history is reliable, mostly because it has no reference to WC as pro.  Even if it should (there are some posts saying maybe he never was offically pro) here is my question:

When charged with writing a club history, do you mostly use the club records?

If so, do you often find small sections missing, presumably due to loss, damage, removal, etc?  With no records, what do you do in reporting that area?  Get more info from newspapers?  Say nothing? Speculate?

And most importantly, how do you think that type of omission relates to other portions of the history?  Specifically do you think its likely that because Weeks omitted mention of Campbell, that this caused him to misinterpret key elements of the architectural history when looking at the old club records and scrapbooks?  Or can a club history have a mistake or two and then be pretty accurate the rest of the way?  (Going against the logic some use here)

What do you make of Weeks saying they "probably" put pegs in the ground?  It seems to me he states what the record says when he says they footed the ground, and lets us know where he is speculating by inserting that word in the latter part of the passage when he doesn't really know.  Does inserting that word modify just that part of the sentence, or do you think it calls all of that sentence into question as unauthentic?

Obviously, these questions go to the point of whether the Weeks history, which many have seen, but which some consistently discount as unreliable, should be one of the many accepted sources when piecing together the Myopia history.

Thanks in advance, should you choose to offer your considerable opinion on this question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 08:39:33 AM

Sorry Phil...

Am I embarrassing myself again?  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 09:02:31 AM
Mike
First you tell us they were traveling out to Hamilton on horseback a la Paul Revere and/or John Adams. Then you tell us any simpleton could lay out a golf course in 1894. And then you try to prove simpletons did design the course by giving us the article with the subcommittee (two of your three are involved) and the article of the four experts playing on opening day (although you claim it is an exhibition prior to the opening). Your three are among the four, with fourth being WB Thomas, the man responsible for bring Campbell to America. You then tell us these two article taken together are a strong indication the Squire & Co were involved in the design. And to top it off you found one of the three visiting his in-laws in Hamilton in the spring, which proves he was in the area presumably on horseback. Anyone could be in the area via relatively short train trip. This may be the most far fetched and convoluted attempt in golfclubatlas history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 09:10:00 AM
Niall:

The example you gave of Troon is interesting but not very applicable to Myopia as an analogy. With your Troon example Mackenzie redesigned the course in the 1920s and for some reason the club doesn't recognize that despite the fact that the course today is as Mackenzie redesigned it.

Myopia's architectural evolution from the 1894 original nine to the Long Nine (1896-1898) to the eighteen hole course of 1900 which is remarkably similar to today is a vastly different situation.

In other words, what is left on the course today (or was left from the 1894 nine when the 1900 18 hole course was done) from that original 1894 nine is pretty mininmal. There are only perhaps three greens left that were the same place and probably only two that are the same as in 1894. There are approximately six holes that are basically in the same landforms but two of them had tees coming from quite different directions.

Whomever was responsible for the development of the 1894 nine, the point is, unlike Mackenzie's 1920 Troon redesign, there was not much left of the original 1894 course when the eighteen hole Myopia course was done. Therefore to call Myopia today a Willie Campbell golf course (or that of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) doesn't make much sense because it just isn't an accurate description of what was accomplished on that golf course by Leeds from app 1896 into the 1920s and what is there today.

The architectural attribution of Myopia for over 110 years has been Herbert C. Leeds and that is an accurate architect attribution and beyond dispute. The men who were around golf in the first and second decades of the 20th century knew that and wrote that and we know it today.

TEP
You have to admit the board minutes seem to have a lot of holes in them which brings all of it into question, including what exactly Leeds is responsible for. For example the board records had nothing about Campbell laying out the course, which clearly he did. The board records had no record of him being the pro at Myopia, which he was. And they had no idea what years or in what capacity Robert White worked there.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 09:37:28 AM
TMac,

Please see my post above.  I am not sure omitting mention of WC calls all of the minutes, or Weeks history into question, even if you think it does.  If whatever Weeks was relying on omitted Campbell, because the records were lost, damaged, etc., why doesn that necessarily mean all the MH records are faulty?  I don't think that logic follows.

And, given some of the other documentation saying WC was unattached in 1896, I am not sure we need to accept that as fact quite yet.  That is part of the frustration here is that all of us argue that "our" facts are the right ones while "their" facts are clearly wrong because they contradict "our" facts.

The only facts we know for sure is that, as per usual, the record is somewhat contradictory.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 09:40:47 AM
Tom Macwood,

I've never had a problem answering that question. As far as I know, White was not the professional at Myopia in 1897. In fact it appears that he was in Cincinnati for PART of 1896 as well, but that is just conjecture still.

I am glad to see that you admit that Tom Paul was correct about the 1896 date. As far as, "And for not knowing he was at Myopia in 1894 that should be noted too don't you think?" I see nothing of any noteworthiness in his not knowing that. I understand that you view it critically and as some sort of proof that he doesn't know the history of Myopia as well as he claims, but then again he did know about White in 1895-96 when others disagreed with that showing he does know a bit more than they thought.

What I think is of noteworthiness is something I mentioned in an earlier post, that is, the question of WHEN White began designing or performing any formal architectural work. You know more about White's history than most on here, and so I am surprised that you apparently haven't thought much about why he wasn't considered to lay out and/or work the course. This was the common practice and expectations of the Scottish pros who came to America at that time. I'm not looking at derailing this thread, but it certainly is an area of architectural history with White that is surprising, that is, why did it take him so long to begin doing that type of work. Everything about his history appears a bit different. From professional to greenkeeper to architect to mixing in being one of the founders of Macgregor sporting goods. There doesn't seem any consistency to what he was doing whereas so many other Scottish pros who came here had very opposite careers.

Anyway, I think that White's early career deserves some looking into and a thread all its own. Unfortunately I am simply too busy at the moment to pursue it...


Phil
The earliest design activity I have seen for White is 1895. According to the 1900 Golf Course guide White was involved in the layout of Cincinnati CC with the golf committee in 1895. Also according to the 1900 guide he designed something called the Avondale Athletic Club course in 1897, also in Cinti. The 1895 date is interesting.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 09:44:45 AM
Jeff,

An interesting set of questions that deserves its own discussion topic. I’ll put together an answer and start one for you as there are a number of participants in the DG who write them and so it might provide for a lively discussion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 09:49:09 AM
Phil,

Thanks.

TMac,

The fact that White and possibly Campbell both left Myopia fairly quickly still has me wondering if they were tough on their early pros and tough to work for, or if the Scotch Pro market was just a sellers market in those days, and they tended to get better offers elsewhere quickly and often.  Do you think its the latter?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 09:57:38 AM
Tom,

Thanks for the info on White. I, too, think the 1895 date is significant since, if we are to believe the newspaper accounts, and in this case I do, White was at Myopia for a good part of 1896. Those at Myopia must have known that he was working elsewhere and so questions come to mind such as:

1- Having a Scottish professional on staff who was known to design golf courses in the U.S., why wouldn't they involve him in their own course work?
2- While it seems apparent that his doing this work at & for another club to be the reason that he left Myopia, was it a voluntary leaving or was he let go for doing it?
3- How does the Macgregor Company play into all of this as he was one of the founders?
4- Why didn't White do more architectural work between then and the mid-teens that we know about? He seems to have been almost reluctant, if that is the right way to put it, to go all out in the four areas in which he was invovled in the golf business hoping one would take off. These four areas are as golf professional, architect and designer, greenkeeper and businessman (Macgregor). It seems that he spent many years having limited success during a time when Scottish Professionals in America were viewed as unquestioned experts and were given preference in teh areas of design and professional positions.

I know this is off-topic, but I think that it would serve for a very good discussion topic, and I'm certain you won't believe this, but I think you should consider starting one and oversee it as it were...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 10:01:57 AM
Phil,

Not sure if TMac started it, but we did discuss White at length last year.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 10:17:04 AM
TMac,

Please see my post above.  I am not sure omitting mention of WC calls all of the minutes, or Weeks history into question, even if you think it does.  If whatever Weeks was relying on omitted Campbell, because the records were lost, damaged, etc., why doesn that necessarily mean all the MH records are faulty?  I don't think that logic follows.

And, given some of the other documentation saying WC was unattached in 1896, I am not sure we need to accept that as fact quite yet.  That is part of the frustration here is that all of us argue that "our" facts are the right ones while "their" facts are clearly wrong because they contradict "our" facts.

The only facts we know for sure is that, as per usual, the record is somewhat contradictory.

I have at least six separate reports from four different sources that report Campbell is the pro at Myopia in 1896, and I'm sure I could find more. I've seen one report that says he was unattached. That being said I do believe he was unattached in the early part of 1896, when he was barnstorming in Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 10:30:00 AM
"TEP
You have to admit the board minutes seem to have a lot of holes in them which brings all of it into question, including what exactly Leeds is responsible for. For example the board records had nothing about Campbell laying out the course, which clearly he did. The board records had no record of him being the pro at Myopia, which he was. And they had no idea what years or in what capacity Robert White worked there."


Tom MacWood:

No, I do not have to admit that at all and either does Myopia.

First, I think what you need to consider a whole lot more is that Campbell just may not have been or at least may not have been considered by some of those people back then (viz. Myopia) to be anywhere near as big a deal as you think he was and as you have been saying on here he was!

Second, you have a few old newspaper articles that claim Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original nine but what does that mean and when did they say it? A couple of weeks before the course opened for play and after the fact of a few tournaments! What happened before that and what do newspaper articles say about that? Nothing as far as I can see because the club obviously didn't feel like telling the newspapers anything when they began planning a course and those members laid it out. Furthermore do you think one could sod greens and have them in play in a couple of weeks? Did those newspaper articles explain what they meant when they reported Campbell laid it out? No they did not. Did they explain anything he did in detail? No they did not. Does that mean, in your logic, that those newspaper articles have holes in them too because they didn't go into detail?

Not to mention that Myopia recorded three men creating the layout of a golf course before Campbell first arrived in this country. You may want to just discount that because you've never seen it and probably never will but I'm not and either does Myopia, via Weeks or today.

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 10:30:49 AM
Tom,

Might he have been the "playing pro", as opposed to the resident pro?

In other words, if White was resident in 1896 might the club have simply leveraged WCs rep for pro competitions and preumably inter-club wagering?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 11:02:24 AM
Tom,

Might he have been the "playing pro", as opposed to the resident pro?

In other words, if White was resident in 1896 might the club have simply leveraged WCs rep for pro competitions and preumably inter-club wagering?

Mike
That is an interesting theory. Can you give any similar examples of a 'playing pro' circa 1896?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 11:03:56 AM
Mike:

I just don't know. I guess that is certainly possible. It's possible given that time and the way those early immigrant Scottish professional golfers worked back then that they did a little bit of a lot of things for a lot of people and clubs. It sure seems some of them never stayed anywhere long, certainly including Campbell and even White.

John "JacK" Jones came to Myopia in 1897 as their golf pro and greenkeeper and he stayed at Myopia for many years. He is certainly mentioned by the club records and by Weeks many times and very fondly. The reason the club never mentined Campbell and White only briefly is probably because they just weren't there long and the club didn't feel they did much of significance for them.

Tom MacWood may see it differently but he doesn't know anymore about Myopia than what a few brief newspaper articles said in 1894. And he doesn't seem to appreciate how much of a difference there is between what was there with that original nine in 1894 and what was there in 1900 that is basically the same routing and holes as today without taking into consideraton the bunkering of 1900.

But a pro who only played tournament golf for a club was not uncommon back then or frankly much later and until the beginning of the PGA TOUR which actually began around 1969-1970.

I was going to say a few days ago that when I get back up there I will see if I can take a look at some old financials of the club to see if they actually paid the likes of Campbell a salary or whether it appears he just gave lessons and was paid individually etc. If I see White on their payroll that could explain how long he was there and when. The same with Campbell if he ever was on their payroll.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 11:22:20 AM

Tom MacWood:

No, I do not have to admit that at all and either does Myopia.

First, I think what you need to consider a whole lot more is that Campbell just may not have been or at least may not have been considered by some of those people back then (viz. Myopia) to be anywhere near as big a deal as you think he was and as you have been saying on here he was!

Second, you have a few old newspaper articles that claim Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original nine but what does that mean and when did they say it? A couple of weeks before the course opened for play and after the fact of a few tournaments! What happened before that and what do newspaper articles say about that? Nothing as far as I can see because the club obviously didn't feel like telling the newspapers anything when they began planning a course and those members laid it out. Furthermore do you think one could sod greens and have them in play in a couple of weeks? Did those newspaper articles explain what they meant when they reported Campbell laid it out? No they did not. Did they explain anything he did in detail? No they did not. Does that mean, in your logic, that those newspaper articles have holes in them too because they didn't go into detail?

Not to mention that Myopia recorded three men creating the layout of a golf course before Campbell first arrived in this country. You may want to just discount that because you've never seen it and probably never will but I'm not and either does Myopia, via Weeks or today.


The three reports that he laid out the course are from around the time the course opened and a couple of years later, which is what you would want and expect when trying to document a design:

"It has but few days since the new links at the Myopia Hunt Club were laid out by the professional Campbell, but so keen are the members of the club that the first open handicap golf match took place yesterday." ~~Boston Daily Advertiser 6/19/1894

"The new golf links recently laid out on the Myopia grounds by Willie Campbell, the professional player, were first used on Monday, and the grounds were crowded all day by the North Shore people who accepted invitations to witness the opening of this sport." ~~Boston Evening Transcript 6/23/1894

"It was Mr. WB Thomas, of the Myopia and Country club clubs, who having met him in Scotland, induced Mr. Campbell to come to this country as a professional instructor at the Myopia and the Country clubs. It was Mr. Campbell who laid out the course at Hamilton and Brookline, and taught most of the members of both clubs the mysteries of the game, and it was largely through the efforts of Mr. Campbell that golf secured such a hold on the people of Massachusetts." ~~St. Paul Globe 7/2/1902 (from an article and interview with Mrs. Campbell)

I think it is pretty clear what laid out meant in all these articles. Campbell laid out numerous course in New England, the UK and elsewhere, and I think you and Mike are the only ones holding out on what laid out means at Myopia. The board minutes apparently have no record of him laying out (whatever definition) Myopia, why is that? And as far as him being the professional at Myopia, as I said there are scores of contemporaneous reports (I'll list them if you have any doubts) and numerous obituaries that mention he was the pro at Myopia. Why don't the board minutes have record of this?

You've seen the board minutes, what other facts or information were you able to extract from them (other the Squire & Co designing the course)?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 11:28:00 AM
Mike Cirba, Again my definition and understanding of the verb "to lay out" has remained the same.   The hypocrisy is all yours on this one.    We know that at Merion the course was laid out and built on the ground according to the plan determined determined by CBM and HJW.  But with many of these early pros the act of designing the course and laying out (marking out, staking out, marking off, etc.) was all done in the field.  I have written this dozens of times at least.  That is likely what happened here, unless of  there is some factual reason to believe that others designed the course.    But I have not seen anything close to that.  

All you have offered is an article noting that a sub-committee was formed and charged with bringing golf to Myopia.   They likely hired Campbell, did they not?Other than that you have offered plenty of sarcasm and insistence that it is all very clear, but I don't see it.  Not even close.  

Any FACTS that make this so clear?    

And why do you avoid my questions?  Here are just a few, so as to not overwhelm you:

If Gardner was to be involved in designing the course, then why was Burnham appointed to the committee, and not Gardner?

You have suggested that Willie Campbell must have laid out the course on the ground according the the member's design, yet you have also sarcastically dismissed the notion that the course was not laid out until after mid-May.    

In not after mid-May, when did Campbell laid out the course on the ground?   And if the course had already been staked out then what did laying out the course entail?  

_____________________________________________

Phillip,

While I can see that you and Mike are really enjoying your immature sniggering and lame attempts at mockery, it really doesn't do much for advancing the conversation or for the level of "graciousness and respect" on the thread.   It does, though, confirm the appropriateness of my earlier comments.  It is fascinating how comfortable you are lecturing others about their behavior, yet when it comes to yours you take critique rather poorly.

Turning again to the topic at hand.  

You overstate your case by suggesting that White was at Myopia for "a good part" of 1896, at least if you mean Myopia's golf season.   While he was reportedly Myopia's professional he was reportedly in Cincinnati on business in April, 1896.   At that time the Myopia golf season generally did not begin until mid to late May.  White or someone listed him as being attached to Myopia sometime before June 24, 1896, but we really don't know for sure when or by whom.   Presumably it was because White listed Myopia on his application but I can't say for sure.  Can you?

Maybe White was a no show at Myopia for the summer season, or that the club got sick him going back and forth to his other job(s) in Ohio, and Campbell was brought in for a last minute.   I don't know what happened, but there is something more to the story, surely.  

Regardless, TEPaul claimed the records indicated that White was at Myopia in 1896-1897.   Was he?   If not, then are the records wrong, or TEPaul?

_____________________________

Can anyone explain why TEPaul claims to know for certain that the course was staked out in the early spring 1894, but that Weeks is speculating about the same thing?




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 12:02:22 PM
David,

If you truly wanted to "advancing the conversation or for the level of "graciousness and respect" on the thread" then when a reasonable request is made of you you wouldn't respond by stating "I don't give a damn what you want." You could have simply said no, yet you chose the low road.

In every comment I made to you or question asked I never once acted in the manner that you have and seem to want to portray for myself and others. I'm sorry you see no humor in my remarks to Mike or in his chuckling at them; they are though, after all, just YOUR REMARKS and no one else's.

Yet I'm the one with the problem. About what I'd expect you to say...

As you say, "Turning back to the topic at hand" you stated:

"You overstate your case by suggesting that White was at Myopia for "a good part" of 1896, at least if you mean Myopia's golf season."

I disagree. He was involved with Myopia through at least the end of June which is half the year. Half a year is a "good part" of to my mind and that is why I used that phrase.

"While he was reportedly Myopia's professional he was reportedly in Cincinnati on business in April, 1896.   At that time the Myopia golf season generally did not begin until mid to late May.  White or someone listed him as being attached to Myopia sometime before June 24, 1896, but we really don't know for sure when or by whom.   Presumably it was because White listed Myopia on his application but I can't say for sure.  Can you?"

Sorry David, but you are trying to make a black pot look red with this line of reasoning. One must take the information in the article at face value otherwise one can't do the same when looking at any other article. You choose to say that Campbell designed Myopia because the newspaper accounts shown state that he "laid out" the course and therefor you are defining that in a certain manner. You are using a line of reasoning that has an arguable merit to it in that case. That is a far cry from saying that where an article that lists "Robert White, Myopia" may have been from an application written by someone else is far too much of a stretch to be given any serious consideration whatsoever. Your claim that he didn't play in the tournament because his name isn't listed in the results is another stretch as there are reasonable explanations for that ranging from his not qualifying for the final rounds to his withdrawing to the article simply not listing everyone who finished play. Do you know the names of everyone who began play on the first day of the tournament? If not, then you certainly can't state with any certainty whatsoever that he didn't participate. Am I saying that he did? NO! But I'm also not saying that he didn't since I only have your word on what the article states. Just as you take Tom Paul to task in your same post asking, "Regardless, TEPaul claimed the records indicated that White was at Myopia in 1896-1897.   Was he?   If not, then are the records wrong, or TEPaul?" I, too, am asking "David claimed the article indicated that White did not play in the July tounrament he was listed as having entered. Is that what happened? If not, is the newspaper account wrong is is David's interpretation of it?"
"Maybe White was a no show at Myopia for the summer season, or that the club got sick him going back and forth to his other job(s) in Ohio, and Campbell was brought in for a last minute.   I don't know what happened, but there is something more to the story, surely."

Did you read what I asked Tom Macwood on that subject above?   

Regardless, TEPaul claimed the records indicated that White was at Myopia in 1896-1897.   Was he?   If not, then are the records wrong, or TEPaul?

Actually, that is NOT what Tom Paul wrote. He stated that it was in the TIMEFRAME of 1896-7 OR 1895-7. This is important because it shows that he wasn't QUOTING from the records in that comment (my belief), but rather that he was writing from memory. So if White was not there in 1897 then he most likely rememberred it incorrectly. Before you make a big point out of that, just as White was involved with Cincinnati while working at Myopia as their official professional, he may very well have been involved at Myopia while being Cincinnati's official professional in 1897. That information may be in the Myopia records and so Tom's use of the 1897 date might actually be correct even if it was written out of memory. That is not an unreasonable possibility. There may have been work that he had undertaken for the club that he promised to come back for the following year. For example, we know that White was one of the best turf specialists in America, especially in the early years. It is entirely reasonable that they would have had him back in 1897 for the turf alone as those early years and clubs histories are filled with nightmarish tales of turf problems. The only way to say for certain is by examining Myopia's records themselves.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
David,

As usual, you are wrong again.

That wasn't a "snigger".

It was an exasperated sigh.
Title: Re: TEP & the Flat Earth Society
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 12:24:42 PM

Can anyone explain why TEPaul claims to know for certain that the course was staked out in the early spring 1894, but that Weeks is speculating about the same thing?


David
I don't know, but I do have a theory.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 12:27:51 PM
TMac,

I understand the sources saying Campbell laid it out. I thought there were two presented here, and did not know you had six.  That probably makes no difference, other than the fact that as per DM, the two newspaper accounts probably both came from club supplied information, and were probably copied word for word (or close, knowing the typical news reporter of today) so that might qualify as just one in some minds.  What are the others just out of curiosity.

I would also put some weight on the unattached report because is comes from the tournament list and thus the application forms of the players.  Thus, Willie Campbell himself probably thought of himself as unnattached when he applied.  Of course, that doesn't preclude him perhaps filling in later in the year, after the application was made to the tourney, at Myopia, and perhaps as noted, to replace White temporarily or until the end of the season when the club thought he might have defected to Cincy.  That bears some fleshing out, I think.

I still think the Weeks report of the members "footing" the property is also a valid source and should be considered.  The "probably" comment by Weeks was only referring to the exact method of marking the locations of greens, tees, whatever and we know it was all with minimal earthworks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 12:35:36 PM
"Can anyone explain why TEPaul claims to know for certain that the course was staked out in the early spring 1894, but that Weeks is speculating about the same thing?"

The answer to that is YES. Unfortunately (for you) the answer then is that it is Tom Paul who can explain it if he so chooses. There is no reason to ask this of anyone else other than Tom...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 01:16:34 PM
Phil, when it comes to you lecturing me on what I "need" to do, and misrepresenting my dealings with TomP and Mike, I really don't give a damn what you want.  That is honesty, not rudeness.

White was there through the end of June?  On what is that based?  What is the source and basis for the list which appeared in the New York paper on June 24?

I must take the article at face value or I cant take any article at face value?   Again with your strange tit-for-tat reasoning.  I take every article for what is and in the context it was written.  This includes considering the SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE.    

For example in the Advertiser article about the opening, there is quite a bit of information (such as the scores, the hole names, and approximately when the course was laid out) that must have come from someone involved, so when such an article states that Willie Campbell laid out the course, then it is reasonable to assume that the information came from the someone involved.    

Most of the NY article comes from a supposed well traveled yet an unnamed amateur with a definite Chicago bias and strong opinions about who will win the years USGA events.  Then there is a list of professionals who will probably play in a tournament that was a few weeks away.   In order to take the list of professionals and their clubs at "face value" we need to know a bit more about the SOURCE of the list, don't we?  Was this list from the USGA and based on the applicants?   If so, then the club affiliations would depend on when the applications were receive, would they not?  

And there you go again lecturing me on things I didn't write.  I don't know if White played in the tournament or not, but I have never seen his name listed as having played.   And again with the tit-for-tat logic?    TEPaul claims TO KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT WHITE WAS THERE BASED ON CLUB DOCUMENTS CREATED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY CREATED WITH WHITES TENURE.   That is not comparable to my statement that I have never seen White in the results of the tournament.

I agree with you that we'd have to see Myopia's records to know what they say.   And except for TEPaul's claim that he has, we haven't seen them.  So why are all of you who haven't seen the records acting as if you know what is in those records?

___________________________________

As to definitely staking versus probably pegging, why can't I ask others?   You guys are the ones all putting such great faith in TEPaul's dubious recollections, so I would think you would have some idea of why TEPaul seems to know for certain that which Weeks could only speculate.  

Or perhaps then I should ask you why are you willing to believe TEPaul and not Weeks?  

_________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Will you please cut snottiness and try to productive answer my questions?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 01:28:01 PM
David,

"Phil, when it comes to you lecturing me on what I "need" to do, and misrepresenting my dealings with TomP and Mike, I really don't give a damn what you want.  That is honesty, not rudeness."

Sorry David, that may be honest but it is definitely rude.

Have a good day.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 01:49:44 PM
Rude or not, that is how I feel about it Phil.   And I want you to know it, so as maybe you will take a look at yourself and stop with the unreasonable demands and misrepresentations.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
The more I think about this, the more it comes down to one simple thing:

Do we take on faith what TEPaul claims?

In order to take on faith what TEPaul claims, we must:
1.  Ignore three separate contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course.
2.  Ignore Mrs. Campbell's account that Willie Campbell laid out Myopia.
3.  Ignore the multiple contemporaneous accounts that Myopia had not been laid out as of mid-May 1894.
4.  Overlook the fact that Campbell was by far more qualified to plan and lay out a course than any of the members.
5.  Overlook the fact that those reportedly appointed to the sub-committee to bring golf to Myopia were all golfing at Brookline, where Campbell was the pro, well into May.
6.  Ignore the inconsistencies and oddities about TEPaul's version of what happened as compared to Weeks version, and the possible inconsistencies of both compared to contemporary reports.

And what has been offered to quell these concerns?  
1.  TEPaul's insistence, that as usual, he knows everything and if we want to know we should develop a relationship with the clubs.
2.  A few newspaper articles stating that a committee of Burnham, Merrill, and Appleton were charged with bringing golf to Myopia for the season.  
3.  A gossip column entry that referred to Appleton and Gardner as expert golfers, even though one was a decent beginner and one was a beginner.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 02:15:27 PM
David,

Your posting an artricle that you are quoting from so that we can actually see what it says rather than simply taking you at your word is an "unreasonable demand?"

Absurd brand of logic you have there.

And I haven't misrepresnted what you've stated.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 02:18:00 PM
Phillip it is if the only reason you are doing so is because you falsely claim I have done the same.

It is also unreasonable for you to demand that I quell your curiosity about whether Robert White started the 1896 open but didn't finish.   Your the professional here, look it up if you want to know.

You have misrepresented what I have stated repeatedly.   To name two.

1.  I have made demanded that Tom and Mike post articles containing information that was readily available.  
2. I have never stated that White did not start the 1896 tournament, only that he wasn't listed among the competitors after the tournament after.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 02:22:59 PM
TMac,

I understand the sources saying Campbell laid it out. I thought there were two presented here, and did not know you had six.  That probably makes no difference, other than the fact that as per DM, the two newspaper accounts probably both came from club supplied information, and were probably copied word for word (or close, knowing the typical news reporter of today) so that might qualify as just one in some minds.  What are the others just out of curiosity.

What the hell are you talking about? I said I had at least six reports from four different sources that reported Campbell was the pro at Myopia in 1896. I have three reports from three different sources that reported Campbell laid out Myopia, and they aren't that similar so I'm not sure why you speculate they probably came from club supplied information. You can read them in post #751.

I would also put some weight on the unattached report because is comes from the tournament list and thus the application forms of the players.  Thus, Willie Campbell himself probably thought of himself as unnattached when he applied.  Of course, that doesn't preclude him perhaps filling in later in the year, after the application was made to the tourney, at Myopia, and perhaps as noted, to replace White temporarily or until the end of the season when the club thought he might have defected to Cincy.  That bears some fleshing out, I think.

You can put as much weight into the unattached report as you'd like. As I said he spent part of the early part of '96 in Philadelphia, and the golf season at Myopia started relatively late. As far as your speculation about White I wouldn't hazard a guess at this point.

I still think the Weeks report of the members "footing" the property is also a valid source and should be considered.  The "probably" comment by Weeks was only referring to the exact method of marking the locations of greens, tees, whatever and we know it was all with minimal earthworks.

I think it should be considered too, although not necessarily as a valid source. Club histories are notoriously inaccurate about golf architecture, especially when written by someone unfamiliar with the subject. That combined with the fact that Weeks's story has lots of holes in it based on contemporaneous accounts recently uncovered, and also the amount of speculation in his account, as a result I don't put much stock in it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 02:29:06 PM

Mike
First you tell us they were traveling out to Hamilton on horseback a la Paul Revere and/or John Adams. Then you tell us any simpleton could lay out a golf course in 1894. And then you try to prove simpletons did design the course by giving us the article with the subcommittee (two of your three are involved) and the article of the four experts playing on opening day (although you claim it is an exhibition prior to the opening). Your three are among the four, with fourth being WB Thomas, the man responsible for bring Campbell to America. You then tell us these two article taken together are a strong indication the Squire & Co were involved in the design. And to top it off you found one of the three visiting his in-laws in Hamilton in the spring, which proves he was in the area presumably on horseback. Anyone could be in the area via relatively short train trip. This may be the most far fetched and convoluted attempt in golfclubatlas history.


Tom MacWood,

All of us, yourself included, engage in speculative discussions at times and in retrospect, all of us make some comments that are foolish and historically irrelevant.    

That being said, I reject most of the categorizations you presented above out of hand.

Before I found those articles and posted them here recently, it was you who had presented the story of the three members as having absolutely no other support other than what you suggested was Weeks' speculation.   In fact, you regularly derided the story, mocking Appleton as the "Keeper of the Hounds".   It was you who suggested that the whole story was made from cheesecloth, suggesting that this was yet another attempt to create a legend or puff up the membership history, all at the expense of the poor laboring foreign golf pro who actually did the work, and you insinuated that Weeks was simply making it up, or in effect, lying to the reader.

What I found and presented here is not conclusive, but it does support Weeks in circumstance, and it also supports what Tom Paul tells us he has seen of the club administrative records.

So what have we learned new here with the articles I posted?

1) We learned that at least two of the three members who Weeks tells us staked out the first nine holes after the snows melted that spring were appointed sometime before 4/15/1894 as a subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.

2) We learned that the third member, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton during that same time period, spring 1894.

3) We learned that these members were known as golf "experts", such as it was back then, before the course at Myopia was even opened.

4) We learned that sheep were purchased in May and fielded on the golf course land, and we learned (from articles David and I produced) that you could watch all the golf holes from a high vantage point by mid-May, both at least suggesting that the location of those holes had been determined.

5) We learned that despite protestations first that South Hamilton was a summer colony only that indeed members were there during this period and we learned despite protestations to the contrary that there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground that golfers were playing in Boston on April 11th, so we really don't know when the "snows melted", as Weeks described, but presumably they were prior to April 11th, so the three members could have done their work as early as March.

6) We learned that as early as April 15th, Willie Campbell was Essex CC bound for the season, with his assignment beginning in June and ending in September of that year.

7) We also learned from the articles that you posted that the course was "laid out" by Willie Campbell supposedly just a "few days" before the opening in mid-June.    I'm surprised no one questioned this, because what the heck could his work have involved Tom, if he could do it in no time at all and have it opened for play in just a "few days"?   I mean, what the heck were the other members doing from early spring til then if Campbell could just snap his fingers and voila!, a golf course appeared out of thin air in just a "few days"?

My "theories" are simply that both the membership was involved, and that Campbell was involved.   While none of us but Tom Paul have seen the administrative records, I don't believe Tom would make up a story here and I seriously doubt Weeks did as well.   When you and David call my supporting evidence "ludicrous", or say I'm "embarrassing" myself, I take heart in knowing that at heart you and David have seen no more of the real evidence than you can from the comfort of your living room.   If you were indeed interested in the truth more than just trying to embarrass Tom Paul here I would think you'd dig deeper and I think others here realize that too.

Moreover, as regards course architecture during that time period, it does appear from much of the work by Campbell, et.al, that indeed it was "simpleton" in nature.    What else could be had in a day's work, Tom?   It was simply locating tees, greens, and perhaps some cross hazards, and anyone with a familiarity with the game at all could have designed the type of courses that were the order of the day in this country at that time.   The courses lacked sophistication, interest, and elegance, but they were functional for the nascent game.

Frankly, I think the pros did the work because that was deemed to be manual labor back then, and not a pursuit for "gentlemen".   I recognize that this is politically incorrect in today's parlance, but it was the reality.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 02:38:28 PM
David
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or not, but the June 19 report in the Boston Daily Advertiser says the course at Myopia had only been laid out days earlier which seems to support the reports in mid-May that the course had yet been laid out.

On July 13, 1894 there was a report in the Boston Globe about Essex County:

"This spring golf links of nine holes were laid out under the experienced direction of Willie Campbell, professional golf champion of this country. These links are one and three quarters miles round and are probably the most perfect in America at this present time."

One normally thinks of these claims of being the best as hyperbole, but in 1894, with Campbell, each new course probably was the best, with Myopia the next to rightfully make the claim.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 02:48:46 PM
These last two posts are a great example of how this little group of participants can talk right past each other and never really answer any questions.  Its happened both ways, but in this case, Mike asks in No. 765 how a course could be made ready in just a few days (especially when the greens are known to have been sodded, which takes a while to knit roots in)

TMac ignores that and supplies the same newspaper article that says the course had just been laid out "days earlier" by June 19.....then ignores the fact that Campbell had been in the US only months, and had done no other US designs, and from two to however many Tmac has dug up in England.  I am not sure the marketing machine was in full force just a few days before opening, so I think this is probably not the case. I could be wrong, and both TMac and I are speculating as to how much was hypberbole and what was not.

By the way, using reasoning and logic, who do we think would know more about the timing of getting the links ready to play - the appointed sub committee (three months) or the cub reporter, who reports (IMHO almost certainly erroneously, that they had been laid out a few days before?  I think the reporter got it wrong.

Again, that doesn't say whether WC had anything to do with it.  But, that little snippet of supposed "fact" just can't be right from what we collectively know about growing turf.  

And if we use TMac's logic, if that part of the report is wrong, then the whole report has to be called into question, right? ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 02:52:51 PM

Mike
First you tell us they were traveling out to Hamilton on horseback a la Paul Revere and/or John Adams. Then you tell us any simpleton could lay out a golf course in 1894. And then you try to prove simpletons did design the course by giving us the article with the subcommittee (two of your three are involved) and the article of the four experts playing on opening day (although you claim it is an exhibition prior to the opening). Your three are among the four, with fourth being WB Thomas, the man responsible for bring Campbell to America. You then tell us these two article taken together are a strong indication the Squire & Co were involved in the design. And to top it off you found one of the three visiting his in-laws in Hamilton in the spring, which proves he was in the area presumably on horseback. Anyone could be in the area via relatively short train trip. This may be the most far fetched and convoluted attempt in golfclubatlas history.


Tom MacWood,

All of us, yourself included, engage in speculative discussions at times and in retrospect, all of us make some comments that are foolish and historically irrelevant.    

That being said, I reject most of the categorizations you presented above out of hand.

Before I found those articles and posted them here recently, it was you who had presented the story of the three members as having absolutely no other support other than what you suggested was Weeks' speculation.   In fact, you regularly derided the story, mocking Appleton as the "Keeper of the Hounds".   It was you who suggested that the whole story was made from cheesecloth, suggesting that this was yet another attempt to create a legend or puff up the membership history, all at the expense of the poor laboring foreign golf pro who actually did the work, and you insinuated that Weeks was simply making it up, or in effect, lying to the reader.

What I found and presented here is not conclusive, but it does support Weeks in circumstance, and it also supports what Tom Paul tells us he has seen of the club administrative records.

So what have we learned new here with the articles I posted?

1) We learned that at least two of the three members who Weeks tells us staked out the first nine holes after the snows melted that spring were appointed sometime before 4/15/1894 as a subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.

2) We learned that the third member, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton during that same time period, spring 1894.

3) We learned that these members were known as golf "experts", such as it was back then, before the course at Myopia was even opened.

4) We learned that sheep were purchased in May and fielded on the golf course land, and we learned (from articles David and I produced) that you could watch all the golf holes from a high vantage point by mid-May, both at least suggesting that the location of those holes had been determined.

5) We learned that despite protestations first that South Hamilton was a summer colony only that indeed members were there during this period and we learned despite protestations to the contrary that there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground that golfers were playing in Boston on April 11th, so we really don't know when the "snows melted", as Weeks described, but presumably they were prior to April 11th, so the three members could have done their work as early as March.

6) We learned that as early as April 15th, Willie Campbell was Essex CC bound for the season, with his assignment beginning in June and ending in September of that year.

7) We also learned from the articles that you posted that the course was "laid out" by Willie Campbell supposedly just a "few days" before the opening in mid-June.    I'm surprised no one questioned this, because what the heck could his work have involved Tom, if he could do it in no time at all and have it opened for play in just a "few days"?   I mean, what the heck were the other members doing from early spring til then if Campbell could just snap his fingers and voila!, a golf course appeared out of thin air in just a "few days"?

My "theories" are simply that both the membership was involved, and that Campbell was involved.   While none of us but Tom Paul have seen the administrative records, I don't believe Tom would make up a story here and I seriously doubt Weeks did as well.   When you and David call my supporting evidence "ludicrous", or say I'm "embarrassing" myself, I take heart in knowing that at heart you and David have seen no more of the real evidence than you can from the comfort of your living room.   If you were indeed interested in the truth more than just trying to embarrass Tom Paul here I would think you'd dig deeper and I think others here realize that too.

Moreover, as regards course architecture during that time period, it does appear from much of the work by Campbell, et.al, that indeed it was "simpleton" in nature.    What else could be had in a day's work, Tom?   It was simply locating tees, greens, and perhaps some cross hazards, and anyone with a familiarity with the game at all could have designed the type of courses that were the order of the day in this country at that time.   The courses lacked sophistication, interest, and elegance, but they were functional for the nascent game.

Frankly, I think the pros did the work because that was deemed to be manual labor back then, and not a pursuit for "gentlemen".   I recognize that this is politically incorrect in today's parlance, but it was the reality.


The rest of it is irrelevant once you get to point #7. There are no reports that the Squire & Co had anything to do with laying out the golf course. And why would they, they were relative beginners and they had one of the foremost experts in the country (and the world) at their disposal? Your theory makes no sense.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 02:54:56 PM
These last two posts are a great example of how this little group of participants can talk right past each other and never really answer any questions.  Its happened both ways, but in this case, Mike asks in No. 765 how a course could be made ready in just a few days (especially when the greens are known to have been sodded, which takes a while to knit roots in)

TMac ignores that and supplies the same newspaper article that says the course had just been laid out "days earlier" by June 19.....then ignores the fact that Campbell had been in the US only months, and had done no other US designs, and from two to however many Tmac has dug up in England.  I am not sure the marketing machine was in full force just a few days before opening, so I think this is probably not the case. I could be wrong, and both TMac and I are speculating as to how much was hypberbole and what was not.

By the way, using reasoning and logic, who do we think would know more about the timing of getting the links ready to play - the appointed sub committee (three months) or the cub reporter, who reports (IMHO almost certainly erroneously, that they had been laid out a few days before?  I think the reporter got it wrong.

Again, that doesn't say whether WC had anything to do with it.  But, that little snippet of supposed "fact" just can't be right from what we collectively know about growing turf.  

And if we use TMac's logic, if that part of the report is wrong, then the whole report has to be called into question, right? ;)

How do we know the greens were sodded?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 03:05:22 PM
BTW,

To be honest, I would think the sod would have been laid sometime after the snow melted (April 15 to about May 15 at the latest to allow enough time for rolling, root knitting, mowing by sheep.  Mike says one of the reports say the sheep were bought in May.  To me, logic says they were bought concurrently with having some grass to eat/mow, whether just to start mowing down the fw where they were anticipated, or perhaps to start gnawing the greens down to height, Or maybe both, no?  

Sure, they could have been bought earlier, than needed, but we have to consider it.  (Maybe they put the sheep through some kind of "spring training" before setting them out on the golf course?)

It also strikes me that the laid out as used in the newspaper may (and yes, strike me with a lightning bolt since I am speculating again) possibly simply referred to the final preparations, which may very well have been done by Campbell (again, regardless of who routed the course) and which in the mind of an inexperienced reporter (even if experienced, they HAD to be inexperienced in reporting on golf, since it was so new and so few courses had opened) was all that was necessary to do to play golf.  

And the truth is, as far as design to get a course open quickly for play. getting the turf ready was probably the more time consuming and skill requiring job.  No one ever said this was to be a masterpiece.  The record shows speed in opening was more of a concern than quality, despite the newspaper hyperbole, and also because they had no qualms about bringing Leeds in to make it right for the Open just a few years later.

I only mention this to support Mike's contention that it wasn't much more than rudimentary.  If I was tasked with getting a course open in a few months time, just to have one, I don't think I would wait around for an overseas expert.  I would start right in, and to me, it makes sense they had troubles, or got behind, and then got Willie over there from Brookline to finish what they couldn't.

But, then, that is just my take on the matter.  Others opinions may vary.

TMac,

I just saw your post.  In answer:

I am not going back to look, but some report somewhere mentioned laying sod on the greens. 

Second, the Weeks book says the club members footed the property and laid out the course.  You can keep saying there is no mention of them doing that, and we understand that you don't want to accept Weeks for reasons you have stated, but there is something in the record for both claims.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 03:06:49 PM
Jeff
You should get your facts straight before you begin lecturing us.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 03:28:06 PM
TMac,

You just do what you think you need to do. I don't think I misquoted the gist of your interchange with Mike, and I went out of my way to note that this happens both ways.  Lastly, I still stand by my post 630 which pretty much sums up the attitude you and David typically bring to this.  Basically, if we disagree, we have our facts wrong, or are speculating, etc. whereas you two apparently never do.

Post 630 rules!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 03:40:40 PM
Jeff
You have continually confused the facts; have gathered no information on the subject and have no apparent ability to gather info; have speculated morning, noon, and night - usually with a little or no information or the wrong information; and now you have the have the gaul to tell us what is wrong with this site. That is funny.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 04:00:16 PM
TMac,

I have admitted from time to time when I have been wrong on this site.  That is a lot more than many here can say!

I admit that I don't have time to research as you do, but enjoy the discussions providing the rudeness prevalent on all sides doesn't dominate.

What I won't admit for the moment (although will be glad to if that smoking gun ever appears to prove your or anyones point) is that:

1.  Disagreeing with your speculation as to what happened at Myopia is being wrong, or that
2.  Somehow, my speculation (on such common sense things as it takes sod then and now more than a few days to knit in and be ready for walking around upon) is any less valuble than yours.

You have the perspective as someone who loves to research many, many old documents and I applaud that and always have.  I have some real life perspective on how projects tend to go, and yes, realize things were different back then (although grass is grass in this case)  In reality, it takes a lot of different perspectives to best arrive at the truth of something like this and I throw in comments from time to time when I think the perspective may be valuble.

And, being honest, I know some of mine are wrong. You have had some facts wrong (Cough, Cough.. Barker)

On the other hand, you often twist things as I posted above, and then cover then with an accusatory question, and then accuse others of the same again and again.  You can come across with a feeling of misplaced arrogance in some of your posts in thinking that your perspective is the only one to be reckoned with and that most others here would agree with you from the sidelines.  As per above, I think many of us can contribute to an undestanding of history here, so I am simply not sure that is the case.

Last I heard, this is a discussion group, not a "I am required to produce documents group."  As near as I know, I have never demanded that anyone produce anything here, although I have tried to politely request some from time to time.  It is hard to go back and read a 23 page thread (and yet I did do that recently)

So, you have your problems with my approach here, and I have some problems with your approach.  We bump heads from time to time, and usually get over it and back to productive discussions.  It is what it is.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 04:09:11 PM
Jeff,

You should actually feel some comfort when these guys get ornery and personal because it usually means that the conversation based on facts is not going well for them.

Personally, when I'm called "ridiculous", or told I'm "embarrassing" myself that I'm pretty sure I've struck an important point, so I just have decided in recent months that I'm not going to hurl personal insults in return.

I might joke, or try to introduce humor, ala "The Hulk" mulling things over or Willie Campbell's Indoor facility the other day, but generally I've decided that their theories aren't really worth getting worked up about, or being nasty and insulting in return.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 04:24:57 PM
I have tried the humor approach, too.  From time to time, both DM and TMac have showed they can be hilarious (and I mean that, not in the TePaul way where hilarious means "wrong."  Often, the humor goes way in light of serious topics like this one......Tis the season, and I just want to wish everyone "Happy Everything" just to make sure I don't offend.


BTW, I basically agree with your middle road position here.  I am trying to figure how much of that is my conciliatory nature vs what might really be the truth, although I wonder if anyone else has pondered their posts in light of their own potential biases?  We all have them, and they may not be wrong, but they do affect posting style and often, conclusions drawn from the same bits of evidence.

Mostly what I agree with you on (and tried to get across in that last post and othes) is that at THAT TIME, Myopia probably didn't care a whit about credit for design.  If their guys started it, called Willie over for some consultation, it was nowhere near the formal process it is today, but IMHO, we are all trying to apply 21st century attribution rules to these situations.

And, lets not forget that the phrase permanent architecture, mentioned in this thread, probably came about for a reason related to the number of courses that were obviously not considered permanent pre 1900 or even 1910, pehraps even as they were being built.  I think Myopia is one of those.  Get er done was the objective of the March meeting.  And we think people are impatient today!

They got it done by hook or by crook.  Why is it so important to challenge the club minutes, attribute it to Campbell or the Club, etc.?  If I read you right, that it sort of your question, too.  IMHO, most of the motivation is a pure love of argument here, but as always I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 04:35:10 PM
I'm sorry, I have little patience for ignorance.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 04:38:05 PM
Give us a break Mike, as of yesterday you were hurling insults with the best of them.  Or is it like TEPaul where your insults are supposedly jokes?


Jeff Brauer,

TomM is correct, you should really consider letting the facts shape your theories rather than the other way around.  The mid-May report about the sheep did not say they had already been introduced. It said sheep would soon be introduced onto tbe parcel where the gf course would  be laid out.  

So according to this article (and consistent with every other article) as of mid-May the course had not yet been laid out. And there were no sheep yet.

And I dont think you can impose modern time tables for sodding in 1894.

The most detailed account of the opening said the course had only been laid out for a matter of days, but the went ahead with the tournament because they were anxious to play.  Apparently they were playing on the course before it was ready
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 04:38:39 PM
Jeff,

I agree with you 100%.

I don't know how it's not obvious that a project begun by a couple of members with some prior experience (the reason they were called "experts") in the new game set about across the land far from the hunts and the polo fields (which is up on the other side of a large hill that sort of splits the property) and tried to stake out where some golf holes would be placed.  

To think that didn't happen is to believe that Weeks just made that up, which is simply something I can't even get my mind around.   I mean, c'mon...why would he do that?

Of course, that's what was in the administrative records, or so Tom Paul tells us.    But, to believe otherwise we also have to believe that Tom Paul lied to cover Weeks, and presumably to protect the membership.    Again, I can't even begin to get my mind around that type of thinking, so perhaps it's just me and my trusting nature.   ::)

Then, over the next few months it's clear that Campbell played some role of getting the course finished, but the fact it's reported he did it in a couple of days says to me that whatever "laid out" meant to the reporter I'm pretty sure it's not architecture as we know it!   From my perspective, that could have been as simple as laying out formal tees and cutting holes on the greens, or putting out flag sticks and/or perhaps digging some bunkers.    It sure doesn't seem like you could take a pasture-land of any sort and have something "golf-like" on it in just a few days, does it?

In any case, there is enough unknown here that I don't know how anyone can claim that anyone else's theories are embarrassing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 04:57:51 PM


7) We also learned from the articles that you posted that the course was "laid out" by Willie Campbell supposedly just a "few days" before the opening in mid-June.    I'm surprised no one questioned this, because what the heck could his work have involved Tom, if he could do it in no time at all and have it opened for play in just a "few days"?   I mean, what the heck were the other members doing from early spring til then if Campbell could just snap his fingers and voila!, a golf course appeared out of thin air in just a "few days"?

My "theories" are simply that both the membership was involved, and that Campbell was involved.   While none of us but Tom Paul have seen the administrative records, I don't believe Tom would make up a story here and I seriously doubt Weeks did as well.   When you and David call my supporting evidence "ludicrous", or say I'm "embarrassing" myself, I take heart in knowing that at heart you and David have seen no more of the real evidence than you can from the comfort of your living room.   If you were indeed interested in the truth more than just trying to embarrass Tom Paul here I would think you'd dig deeper and I think others here realize that too.

Moreover, as regards course architecture during that time period, it does appear from much of the work by Campbell, et.al, that indeed it was "simpleton" in nature.    What else could be had in a day's work, Tom?   It was simply locating tees, greens, and perhaps some cross hazards, and anyone with a familiarity with the game at all could have designed the type of courses that were the order of the day in this country at that time.   The courses lacked sophistication, interest, and elegance, but they were functional for the nascent game.

Frankly, I think the pros did the work because that was deemed to be manual labor back then, and not a pursuit for "gentlemen".   I recognize that this is politically incorrect in today's parlance, but it was the reality.


Yes, a few days was not usual in 1894. At that time golf courses were laid out and ready for play in weeks, not months. I'm not aware of a single course built in Boston that year with sodded greens.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 05:01:47 PM

Of course, that's what was in the administrative records, or so Tom Paul tells us.    But, to believe otherwise we also have to believe that Tom Paul lied to cover Weeks, and presumably to protect the membership.    Again, I can't even begin to get my mind around that type of thinking, so perhaps it's just me and my trusting nature.


Tom Paul lying? Are you kidding me?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 05:27:04 PM
We know Myopia was sodded, according to Weeks. He QUOTES Dacres Bush as saying:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

Later he says the fairway are cropped by sheep, but does refer to the greens being “cut” so I wonder if there were some kind of crude mowers.”  I am asking and I really don't know, other than TMac's earlier postings on Worthington mowers, but that was a decade later.

Either way, original club minutes say that the club members walked the ground, suggesting they had something to do with routing, layout of the course, etc.  And, these greens were sodded.  Thus, in this case it has nothing to do with TePaul, since we have eliminated him as a middleman.  If you have a beef, its with Bush misrepresnting what happened in 1894, or Weeks misquoting what he wrote in the club minutes.

TMac,

I will also ask from where you speculate that it only took weeks for their wonder grass to grow when it still takes months from seed and at least weeks from sod, but most likely 8 weeks, even with all our technology?

The committee thought it would take months, and from March to June 1 is exactly three months.  And Now, TMac, given I am quoting Weeks who is quoting the club minutes in his history, are you going to say I have my facts wrong again?

Dare I say you should get your math straight?  And respectfully ask where you get this info?  Really, were there other newspaper articles that have told you this?  And, I am asking, not tweaking you. You have them, I don't, but I still wonder if you mean the layout/design or the actual getting into play in weeks.  I understand that on many early sites, it may have been a matter of sheep doing what they do for as long as it took after the greens and tees were leveled.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 13, 2010, 05:34:38 PM
Jeff,

Yes, hand mowers were introduced many years prior to this. The first Worthington Mower was simply a gang of these push mower blade assemblies tied together in a rickshaw-looking type of arrangement and pulled by a horse.

(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/HorseDrawnMower.jpg)

The above mower is actually an improvement over the original 1906 version...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 05:59:36 PM
Jeff:

With the original 1894 nine and for a few years after that at least, the fairways were apparently "cropped" by sheep. There is no question Myopia had a flock of sheep for that purpose on the original 1894 nine and few years thereafter. The sheep were penned in a "fold" near the kennels. This was the same that was explained in the words of Col Francis Appleton on the six hole course on the Appleton Farm that preceded the first golf course at Myopia. The sheep were kept off the greens by a low wire netting. Some years later when Leeds ran the course the fairways were mowed by horse-drawn mowers. They mentioned this because it could become a problem on #5 and #6 which had low wet areas and in those areas Leeds had the horses wear large leather boots.

On the timing of this project this is what I said back on Post #493:

"The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!"


Of course a reality like that never gets a response from these guys! They obviously just choose to ignore it. And apparently the reason they are trying to convince themselves and others that the golf course could not have been laid out before the middle or end of May or so is simply because that is the earliest newspaper report they found about it and newspaper reports are all they ever seen about Myopia so they apparently just figure nothing could have happened before the first newspaper report they're aware of.  

I guess that is one way to look at history and that sure is the way MacWood looks at it or says he does and Moriarty seems to concur. Luckily for the people who ran Myopia back then they did not need to read newspaper reports to inform them what they had just done, were doing, and intended to do in the next three months.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 06:29:56 PM
Jeff
Where did you come up with 8 weeks?

Yes you do have your facts wrong. Weeks does not say he is quoting the club minutes, and certainly it does not read like an entry into the club minutes.

The first golf course I'm aware of that had sodded greens was Ardsley in 1896, and that was a huge project comparatively - $75,000 and six months to build. But for the sake of argument lets say the greens at Myopia were sodded, who would have been qualified to carry out that work? The Squire & Co or Campbell or someone else? If it were the Squire & Co. 3 months before Campbell, then what you are suggesting is the course was designed and built prior to Campbell's involvement. Why would they even need his involvement in May or June? If you can lay out 9 holes, build and sod greens, you can certainly do anything else required. Again your story makes no logical sense based on how the golf courses in the area (Brookline, Essex County and Myopia) were reported to have developed, and base on the numerous reports Campbell laid out those golf courses. There are no contemporaneous reports of the Squire & Co being involved in any way in the laying out the golf course.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 13, 2010, 06:39:24 PM
Tom MacWood,

I am still trying to get over the part about Mike Cirba having a trusting nature.  I don't recall that trusting nature during any of his multiple witch hunts.

Mike Cirba,  

I never said Weeks was lying or even that TePaul is lying.  You made the same sort of bombastic allegations throughout the Merion discussions, especially regarding Wilson's trip.   But I never claimed that the various Hugh Wilson legends were lies.   People make mistakes, information gets lost or forgotten , and better information sometimes comes around later. And there is a strong instinct among these clubs to come up with a narrative they can be proud of, and this may influence the way they read some of the information.   These things happen.  

If you aren't embarrassed that your key document is a gossip column referral to four beginning golfers as "expert golfers" then that is your prerogative.

I am not sure why you keep saying it everything is so obvious though.   Again we've heard that all before from you, especially when you were dead wrong.     I wish you'd answer my questions.  I don't think you can.  
______________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, you state that "the original club minutes say that they walked around the grounds."  Do they?   How do you know that.   Weeks did not attribute that bit to the "original club minutes," did he?     If not, how do you know this?

As for the sod issue, is that really Weeks quoting from Dacre Bush?  Because if so, then it is NOT not from any sort of "Run Book" or "Log Book"  but of some recollection by Dacre Bush.  Records of club business would certainly list the date of the Annual meeting. And F. Warren, Jr. was reportedly the Secretary in 1893-94, not Bush, so he would be doing the recording, not Bush.  This raises the question of whether Weeks was even relying on club records at all, or some early account of the history by Bush.  

But let's take a closer look at the sod issue because something just hit me.    

Dacre Bush (which Dacre Bush?) reportedly wrote:
“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

What do you suppose the members were opposed to?  Using sod?  I originally thought the members must have been opposed to using sod, presumably because it must have come from somewhere else on the grounds, and that this passage just poorly worded.  But it doesn't really say that, does it?     Besides, they were opposed to something "because of the rough ground." You'd think they'd be in favor of sod because of the rough ground.

I think that the members may have been opposed to beginning play on the course in June 1894, because the course was still so rough.    Instead of waiting, I think Myopia sodded the greens and cut and play began.  

In other words, this may have been all happening in the beginning of June, or just before.  The course had just been laid out and was too rough to play, and many were opposed to starting play on such conditions, but they sodded the greens and started play anyway, with the opening tournament in mid-June, 1894.  

It seems a more reasonable reading than any other, and it is consistent with the newspaper articles.  
______________________________________

As for your question to TMacWood about how long it takes for grass to grow, you are again foisting your modern understanding on a primitive process.  They didn't wait for grass to grow, they generally marked off greens, mowed, and played on what they had.   Except that what they had was so rough they decided to sod the greens so they could play anyway.

Where did you get three months?  Report after report noted that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May.  I suppose again it comes from records you have never seen?    Once Weeks had that March date and the opening date from Dacre Bush, how do you know he just didn't do his best on the details of how it could have happened ("probably marking the greens with pegs")  Or do you really think they did all this in March 1894?  

It is looking more and more like Weeks was just trying to make sense of some information that was none too clear, and that he was trying to write an interesting narrative to boot.  

_____________________________________

TEPaul,  I've done the math, and I have a hard time believing they laid out the course by March 1, 1894.   Yet that is your three months.  

Reportedly, sheep had not yet been introduced (and the course not laid out) by mid-May 1894.    Anyone is welcome to do the math on that one but they won't find three months between mid-May and the first of June.   Or between mid April and the first of June for that matter.  

TEPaul,  

1. How come you know for certain that they staked out the course, yet Weeks is speculating about the same thing?

2. Have you seen actual administrative records at Myopia, or some sort of recollection written by Dacre Bush?  If the latter when was it written and what was the format?

3. You have repeatedly claimed that the records indicate that Robert White was the professional at Myopia in 1896-97, and maybe 1895.   But it seems that Robert White might have moved on to Cincinnati sometime in 1896.   What exactly do the records say about this, and about Robert White?

4.  You refer to your statement the following statement as a reality:   "The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!"  A reality based upon what, exactly?  

___________________________________

Tom MacWood,

Shinnecock may have sodded some greens with regular lawn grass.   I'll explain in another thread when I get a chance.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 06:41:14 PM
Tom MacWood:

Do you really believe it means much historically if the first farm YOU are aware of that sodded was Ardsley in 1896?  ;)

You should go to Massachussets and visit the Appleton Farm. It's one of the oldest farms in America in the possession of a single family (Appletons). Into the 19th century it became a very progressive farm for all kinds of techniques including grasses and given the Appletons were fox hunters, steeplechasers and particularly polo players for generations, not to even mention they had a golf course before Myopia, they obviously knew a bit more about grasses and sodding than you do. Sodding in polo is not uncommon at all and that isn't hard to tell if one actually ever went to see a polo match personally. Apparently that is not something you ever bothered to do either. And unfortunately it ain't that easy figuring that out just sitting behind a computer in Ohio searching the Internet.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 06:49:49 PM
"If you aren't embarrassed that your key document is a gossip column referral to four beginning golfers as "expert golfers" then that is your prerogative."


David:

And what's your prerogative? Is it labeling a newspaper article Mike Cirba produced a "gossip column?" How do you know it was a gossip column? Did that newspaper call it a gossip column (not that a number of them back then did not have sections like that, mind you, because they surely did)? And what about those 2-3 newspaper articles you've cited to prove Campbell laid out Myopia? Who were those reporters? What did they know? Where did they get their information? Who did they get it from? Did any of those articles say, and if so why not? Have you any idea at all?  If you do then why don't you produce it? You're the guy who is always demanding "verifiable evidence" for everything aren't you?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 13, 2010, 07:13:10 PM
Tom,

The funny thing is that the articles David posted are from the exact same "gossip column" as mine!  Too funny, but absolutely true!!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 07:14:36 PM
"TEPaul,  I've done the math, and I have a hard time believing they laid out the course by March 1, 1894.   Yet that is your three months."


Yes it sure is three months. It's not my three months, it's their three months in 1894. The course opened for play June 1, 1894 and three months before that sure is March 1. It's pretty much like that mathematically every year and sure has been from 1894 to 2010, but yet you have a hard time believing they apparently meant what they said when they reported in the spring of 1894 they had paced off a nine hole golf course at Myopia Hunt Club and it could be ready for play in three months. All they apparently needed to do or did with that original nine is pace of the lengths from nine tees to nine greens, level areas for tees, sod the greens, crop the fairways with sheep and cut the sodded greens when they were ready. As for hazards all they said they used that spring was natural hazards and high rough. Apparently you two think Ted Weeks just made all that up right out of whole cloth. He didn't.

Not to even delve that deeply into the subject that grass hasn't changed that much and any of us who've had any actual experience with golf courses sure do know one just does not sod something like a green and then get a membership and a couple of tournaments to play on it in a few weeks. You can sure do that but you'll very likely make quite the mess out of them. The thing is David, when anyone sods something it does take generally a month or two or three for the roots to take in the soil beneath them to stabilize things and to get the grass growing well in its new medium but perhaps you and Tom MacWood weren't aware of that reality either. And why would you be? I doubt either of you have ever experienced that either first-hand. Have either of you two ever even belonged to a golf club? To me that's a simple straight-forward question and I sure hope neither of you take it as some kind of personal insult!  ::)

Would speaking to any superintendent at least get you two to consider that that's a reality or are you two going to tell them they are speculating or dreaming or even imply that they're lying too?  ;)

I noticed you two just sort of blanched right by what I mentioned to you about Edward Weeks. He was the editor of Atlantic Monthly for almost thirty years. You can still find some of the seminal editorials and articles he wrote in the print medium on the Internet. And to think that some closeted self proclaimed "expert researcher/writer" like Tom MacWood has criticized, as he has on this website, a man like that about his centennial history book on a club he belonged to for years when neither MacWood nor you have ever even had the inclination to go there is pretty much beyond chutzpah and arrogance, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of everyone else other than you two. You two are quite the pair on here for criticizing the histories of clubs you know a limited amount about except on the Internet and have just about never even seen.

I think that pretty much speaks what needs to be said about this thread (and others) and you two!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 07:34:12 PM
Tom MacWood:

Do you really believe it means much historically if the first farm YOU are aware of that sodded was Ardsley in 1896?  ;)

You should go to Massachussets and visit the Appleton Farm. It's one of the oldest farms in America in the possession of a single family (Appletons). Into the 19th century it became a very progressive farm for all kinds of techniques including grasses and given the Appletons were fox hunters, steeplechasers and particularly polo players for generations, not to even mention they had a golf course before Myopia, they obviously knew a bit more about grasses and sodding than you do. Sodding in polo is not uncommon at all and that isn't hard to tell if one actually ever went to see a polo match personally. Apparently that is not something you ever bothered to do either. And unfortunately it ain't that easy figuring that out just sitting behind a computer in Ohio searching the Internet.

TEP
Farm? I have no idea if Ardsley was the first or not to build sodded greens, but it is earliest report I have found in America.

The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 07:44:22 PM
"The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?"


Tom:

Why do you even bother to ask me questions if you neither read my answers to you nor understand them? I answered the very same question from you in the last 24 hours at least.

Unlike you, I have done a whole lot of "independent" :) first-hand research on this golf course, club and its history and its membership IN MASSACHUSSETS!-----Not just on the Internet looking for old, limited, undetailed and probably inaccurate newspaper articles like you.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 07:52:50 PM
"The funny thing is that the articles David posted are from the exact same "gossip column" as mine!"


Mike:

Well, whatever. Those little mini-subjects just aren't relevent to this subject really, in my opinion, even though Moriarty and some of the others on here sure do take them super-seriously.  I guess that is bound to happen when all of you are dealing with and discussing such limited information on this golf course like about 2-5 newspaper articles from the 19th century. I mean this thread has basically been about nothing but a couple of old newspaper articles and that is definitely NOT the whole and compleat story of the architectural history of Myopia Hunt Club. But I do know at this point that that is almost impossible to get through to some people on this website these days.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 08:04:45 PM
"The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?"


Tom:

Why do you even bother to ask me questions if you neither read my answers to you nor understand them? I answered the very same question from you in the last 24 hours at least.

Unlike you, I have done a whole lot of "independent" :) first-hand research on this golf course, club and its history and its membership IN MASSACHUSSETS!-----Not just on the Internet looking for old, limited, undetailed and probably inaccurate newspaper articles like you.

TEP
Just asking. I've asked the question several times and for whatever reason you refuse to answer it. I know Weeks mentioned Appleton Farms and 1892, although not together, and knowing your practice of embellishment, I thought maybe you got confused or worse.

Back to your sodding expertise on the polo field I think the better comparison would be grass tennis courts. I found a report from 1893 in which big tennis tournament was played at Saratoga and the courts had been sodded just three weeks before the event. So I guess Jeff's eight weeks may not be accurate.

On a related topic Bush says the new greens were sodded and cut...I don't believe greens or tennis courts were cut in those days, they were rolled.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 08:18:17 PM
"TEP
Just asking. I've asked the question several times and for whatever reason you refuse to answer it. I know Weeks mentioned Appleton Farms and 1892, although not together, and knowing your practice of embellishment, I thought maybe you got confused or worse."


OK, Tom, this one last time I will go find my answer to your question and post it for you. I do get sick of you asking me and everyone else these questions you do and then when they honestly answer them you either ignore them completely or tell them they're confused or speculating or have no right to discuss it because you tell them they haven't done any "independent" research or some other crap. You've got a real problem here with this kind of thing, fella, everyone on here tells you that and you just go on blithely if nothing is happening. It's happening; it continues to happen and the problem has just got to be you, plain and simple. There are a number of us who think you have some kind of psychological problem some kind of ADD, ADAD, DDA, DAD, IOU, IRS, CIA or some such acronym disorder. If you do, why don't you just come clean on it and get it out there? I think you will be surprised and completely relieved in the capacity this website has for understanding if you do.

So, I'll look back and find the answer to your question but why didn't you see it yourself---it's right here on this thread in the last 24 hours? If you tell me that you ask me these questions over and over and over again but yet don't even bother to really read my posts and responses to you do you blame me in the slightest if I get really pissed off at you on here?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 08:28:53 PM

I got the dates on the Appleton Farm while in Massachussetts. It comes from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends (a number of the same names from Myopia Hunt Club and other Boston clubs and summer communities).


I found it. Why the confusion over 1892 or 1893? Did you make copies of the chronicles or take notes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 09:26:36 PM
Tom:

Once again, I already answered that question of yours about copies and such and I answered them on this thread. I certainly encourage you to go find my answers and responses if you feel like ONCE AGAIN accusing me of changing my story or altering things or speculating or being confused or whatever as you so often do on this website in your ever devolving discussions on here into greater and greater triviality and irrelevence.


Look, you and I are very different people---we come from very different backgrounds and sensibilities but that does not mean those differences and diversity cannot get along on here and survive without adversity and even become symbiotically beneficial, educational and productive for all.

You're a good raw researcher but you do not get personally involved with clubs, memberships and such. You have even stated on here you feel that just might impede your objectivity, historically or otherwise.

I am not much of a raw researcher, at least not on the Internet because I'm not very good or very tech-savy at it. But I sure do have my collaborators with research and I probably have 300,000 "assets" on my computer from it all now! I come at this subject of GCA more from an analytical perspective through my history, my golf experiences and families' experiences and they go back far because I'm 66 and my families' history in the game and its American culture is historically rich. Am I proud of that? Yeah, sure, but I do have some conflicts about it I am willing to explain and discuss for the greater good and the greater understanding of other people on here participating or just viewing.

I think we can do this, you and I. I don't think the mindbendingly competitive minutae that is the majority of a thread like this one is necessary or the way to do it.

Here it comes, Tom MacWood---the ball is coming over into your court now. We can do it----go hit it back and let's have a really good old fashioned rally that is exciting, educational and memorable for the right reasons, not the wrong ones which primarily seem to be with you to just compete on here with anyone and everyone on the item of just research. There is more to truly understanding GCA and its history than just research and more and more of it. We need the informed, experienced, and objective ANALYSIS of all that. Of course we can always throw in the subjective too, but at the end of the day we do need to be OBJECTIVE historians if we ever want to do this odd and interesting subject justice on this Internet website.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 09:29:41 PM
Tmac and David, (I just realized I addressed the first part of this to David, and TMac asked about the club minutes)

Yes, it says club records whatever that may be.

The exact quote from the Weeks book is:

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed in which their recommendation was followed is evident in THIS TERSE ENTRY IN THE CLUB RECORDS BY SECRETARY S. DACRE BUSH:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

How do I know?  I read it.  Are you saying Weeks and Bush are both wrong about what happened?  He is quoting club contemporaneous club records by the club secretary. although it does sound like Bush might have been the secretary a bit later, given the "about March" comment.  Are the wrong?  If so, how do you know?  

As to some of your other reasoning about events I can understand it and have done the same in trying to figure out all the meat on the bone.  So, no problem with that here.  I am still wondering about the whole time line in that three month period.  With a lot of different phrases, and no definitive sentences, its still hard to piece together to the degree we want.

BTW, while I am just as guilty as anyone in trying to fit information into an existing pattern, my first thought was that the ground from tee to green was too rough, and hence, by Mid May.....sheep!  IMHO, the greens were a separate issue and were always intended to be sodded to get the best possible surfaces, and the tees and fw were problems.  Again, that is just me and my take.  Who knows?

Tmac,

8 weeks is common time for modern golf courses to be ready from sod, and seed takes longer, perhaps twice.  I have trouble believing that with 100 years of USGA research and other advancements in irrigation, sod growing, etc. that it would be shorter then than it is now to mature a course, even with lower acceptable standards.  Maybe its just me.

I just saw your three weeks on a tennis court reference and I am sorry that I missed that.  Also to factor in are the types of grasses and times of year.  I doubt that sod grows a lot in early spring most years in Boston.  I think it takes nighttime temps of 59 degrees, or what not.  (from memory of northern grasses and maybe the old grasses were a little different in that regard.....) so in April, it could be more,  in summer less. I have seen sod knit in in three weeks in warm weather, but not be anywhere near perfect, but then again, standards were lower, or maybe, as David suggests, they were rushing, perhaps knowing the grass wasn't fully ready.

And something else occurs to me, albeit a bit unlikely, the phrase "lay sod" and "lay out" are similar enough to perhaps be confused, again by a gossip column reporter who may have had no idea that anything was required to put a golf course in play, as opposed to our knowledge today.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 09:44:49 PM
"I found it. Why the confusion over 1892 or 1893?"

I don't call it confusion; you do. I have no idea why the history of Appletons Farms was not more specific to a particular date. As I told you many years ago when you posted that thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion" where you wanted to know whose idea every hole was that history just never recorded that kind of specifiity at the time or later. It is really too bad you do not get the sense and drift of that reality in golf course architecture to either understand or appreciate that reality.


"Did you make copies of the chronicles or take notes?"

I did not. Much of it I read on my own or with other people, many of which were really old showing me chronicles and diaries and letters and such and a good deal of it was verbal and colloquial----a form of communication I happen to love but perhaps one, in this particular context, you do not really understand or appreciate.

The point is if you or I sat down and discussed Myopia with the sons or grandsons of the men wrote those 1894 newspaper articles for the Boston Globe or whatever on Myopia and Campbell they would probably have one helluva lesser idea about any of it than the future generations I talk to of the families of Leeds, Shaw, Boardman, Knowles, Appleton, Curtis, Bacon, Merrill, Hunnewell, Gardner, Weeks or any of the rest of them who are still around Myopia today.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 09:46:43 PM
 tePaul,

Had you anticipated this debate, you might have taken better notes!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 09:59:38 PM
"tePaul,
Had you anticipated this debate, you might have taken better notes!"



Speak for yourself, not for me. Maybe you do, but I definitely do not feel I have anything to prove here to the likes of MacWood and Moriarty. And believe me, if I were to show these threads to all the people I know and have known from the likes of Myopia and Merion, I have no doubt at all that their feelings about this would not be half so accommodating as mine are.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 10:04:51 PM
David,

The exact quote from the Weeks book is:

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed in which their recommendation was followed is evident in THIS TERSE ENTRY IN THE CLUB RECORDS BY SECRETARY S. DACRE BUSH:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

How do I know?  I read it.  Are you saying Weeks and Bush are both wrong about what happened?  He is quoting club contemporaneous club records by the club secretary. although it does sound like Bush might have been the secretary a bit later, given the "about March" comment.  Are the wrong?  If so, how do you know?  

As to some of your other reasoning about events I can understand it and have done the same in trying to figure out all the meat on the bone.  So, no problem with that here.  I am still wondering about the whole time line in that three month period.  With a lot of different phrases, and no definitive sentences, its still hard to piece together to the degree we want.

BTW, while I am just as guilty as anyone in trying to fit information into an existing pattern, my first thought was that the ground from tee to green was too rough, and hence, by Mid May.....sheep!  IMHO, the greens were a separate issue and were always intended to be sodded to get the best possible surfaces, and the tees and fw were problems.  Again, that is just me and my take.  Who knows?

Tmac,

8 weeks is common time for modern golf courses to be ready from sod, and seed takes longer, perhaps twice.  I have trouble believing that with 100 years of USGA research and other advancements in irrigation, sod growing, etc. that it would be shorter then than it is now to mature a course, even with lower acceptable standards.  Maybe its just me.

I just saw your three weeks on a tennis court reference and I am sorry that I missed that.  Also to factor in are the types of grasses and times of year.  I doubt that sod grows a lot in early spring most years in Boston.  I think it takes nighttime temps of 59 degrees, or what not.  (from memory of northern grasses and maybe the old grasses were a little different in that regard.....) so in April, it could be more,  in summer less. I have seen sod knit in in three weeks in warm weather, but not be anywhere near perfect, but then again, standards were lower, or maybe, as David suggests, they were rushing, perhaps knowing the grass wasn't fully ready.

And something else occurs to me, albeit a bit unlikely, the phrase "lay sod" and "lay out" are similar enough to perhaps be confused, again by a gossip column reporter who may have had no idea that anything was required to put a golf course in play, as opposed to our knowledge today.



Jeff
That is not the exact quote. Bush's 'minutes' don't end there...he goes on to describe the tournament in mid-June. A three month story is not a minute entry, that is a recollection from some time down the road, probably years down the road. I don't believe greens were cut in 1894, they were rolled. If this was written contemporaneously he probably would have remembered that.

As far the sodding is concerned I think you are putting a modern expectation for conditions on a fairly crude early design.

But for the sake of argument lets say the greens at Myopia were sodded eight weeks prior, who would have been qualified to carry out that work? The Squire & Co or Campbell or someone else? If it were the Squire & Co. eight weeks before Campbell, then what you are suggesting is the course was designed and built prior to Campbell's involvement. If that is the case why would they need his involvement in May or June? If you can lay out 9 holes, build and sod greens, you can certainly do anything else required.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 10:06:57 PM
"tePaul,
Had you anticipated this debate, you might have taken better notes!"


If you were a golf architecture historian you might have taken notes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
TMac,

I can reasonably see that the club started it, ran into trouble, and called in Willie C to finish the job with his greenskeeping experience.  Who knows who the club hired first to do the work.  I have no trouble believing Willie finished it.  I really don't see the connection between design ability and growing grass. Case in point is CBM a decade or so later, designing a masterpiece and having trouble growing it in. 

For that matter, having just got off the boat from a place where the grasses grow very naturally, and coming to a new area, I am not sure Willie Campbell could have been an expert in local growing conditions, but they could have very well called him in as the best last resort.  As you say, he had more experience then they did.

But, to stave off any critiques, we are just speculating here as to exaclty how they got from point A to point B which is fascinating stuff.  At this point, for reasons described, I don't care who gets credit for what.

I would love to see those financial records.  From my limited experience in historic research, they often provide what was really going, and its hard to dispute that Willie, locals before him or working under him, etc. would be working if not getting paid.  Things change, but not that part of human nature!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 10:19:53 PM
Jeff
Ran into trouble? You've got a vivid imagination. Why would Myopia attempt to design a golf course on their own with Campbell on call when The Country Club & Essex County (sister clubs with basically the same membership) had turned their golfing operations over to him completely?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 10:25:07 PM
"If you were a golf architecture historian you might have taken notes."


Gentlemen who are also golf architecture historians do not take notes at dinner parties, social gatherings and such at Myopia or its membership but I'm quite sure you've never known that, and even if you did you would be able to understand why.  
 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 10:29:12 PM
Thats good to know, I thought you were actually conducting research. Carry on.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 10:46:34 PM
Yes indeed, carry on. At a place like Myopia what you consider to be note-taking research to me is basically just osmosis.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 13, 2010, 11:10:26 PM
TEP
You must have a mind like a steel trap.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 13, 2010, 11:18:45 PM
I don't know, did Macdonald, Barker, Tweedie, Hutchinson or Campbell invent the steel trap? If you say so I guess it must be "verifiable," right?


I'm going to hit the hay momentaritly, Tom, but I've had a question for you on my mind for some time now which is----who do you think is more intelligent---you or David Moriarty?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 13, 2010, 11:55:30 PM
TMac,

I don't have a vivid imagination. I have a vivid memory of projects having trouble staying on schedule.  It happens all the time in the real world, something you obviously have no concept of.

As to why they would start designing the course themselves, well Willie didn't leave Scotland until the end of March and they started sometime in March.  While they may have known he was coming to America, since he would be under contract to Brookline, are we sure they knew he would be available?  For that matter, since Appleton somehow got his course built in 1892-3 without the great Willie C, perhaps they figured they could do it without them?  Now, once he got to America, and settled in, and got a break in his early golf lessons that he gave "every afternoon" according to some reports, then yes, I can see them ringing him up (if phones were invented) and bringing him up for a look see.

And when you try to introduce your "logic" into things, it shouldn't be allowed in as "evidence" any more than the speculation of others, because your logic really is speculation, too.  No matter what you call it.

BTW, I typed the quote from Weeks book exactly and word for word. I guess you just get used to saying I am wrong without really double checking it.  You might be right that Bush said more, although Weeks doesn't quote it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 12:56:29 AM
David:

And what's your prerogative? Is it labeling a newspaper article Mike Cirba produced a "gossip column?" How do you know it was a gossip column? Did that newspaper call it a gossip column (not that a number of them back then did not have sections like that, mind you, because they surely did)?

The gossip column in question was a regular feature in the Globe and called "Table Gossip."  
 
Quote
And what about those 2-3 newspaper articles you've cited to prove Campbell laid out Myopia? Who were those reporters? What did they know? Where did they get their information? Who did they get it from? Did any of those articles say, and if so why not? Have you any idea at all?  If you do then why don't you produce it? You're the guy who is always demanding "verifiable evidence" for everything aren't you?

I havent gone back and checked all three articles so I will just focus on the one from the Advertiser.  No author given, but the article contained quite a lot of information that seems to have come from someone who knew what was going on with golf at the club, including:
-- That Willie Campbell, the professional, had recently laid out the course.
-- The day the links were first used (Monday, June 18th)
-- Attendance (crowded with spectators)
-- An opinion of the course (exceptionally good for an inland course, with formidable hazards to prevent monotony)
-- A few of the physical features, including a pond one must drive over.
-- The names of every hole.
-- That local rules were in use.
-- The conditions.  (New and rough, but bound to improve.)
-- The winner and the runner up.

The article is a far cry from an off hand gossip column description of Gardner and Appleton and two others as "expert players."  And there is no requirement that I take a huge leap of logic like Mike must to go from beginner "expert golfers" to design credit.

RE sodding greens, I do know approximately how long it takes for sod to properly set  But I also have read that the course was very rough and that some of the members were upset about play beginning before the course was ready.   So I don't necessarily think that they waited as long as they ideally should have.


Now TEPaul, why won't you answer my questions?  
 
____________________________________________________

Mike Cirba.  You are mistaken when you claim that the articles I have cited were "absolutely" from the same gossip column.  I've gone through and posted articles from at least three different papers..   And I have found corroborating information elsewhere (except for the report about when Gardner returned to Hamilton.)  And I have not made any logical leaps like you have with the "expert golfers" blurb.

One must look at each article to determine what can and cannot be gleaned from them, and one must consider the source when doing so.  One can get terrific information from gossip column, but one must not infer m more than the columnist ever could have intended, yet that is exactly what you do.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 01:47:25 AM
Tmac and David, (I just realized I addressed the first part of this to David, and TMac asked about the club minutes)

Yes, it says club records whatever that may be.

The exact quote from the Weeks book is:

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed in which their recommendation was followed is evident in THIS TERSE ENTRY IN THE CLUB RECORDS BY SECRETARY S. DACRE BUSH:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

How do I know?  I read it.  Are you saying Weeks and Bush are both wrong about what happened?  He is quoting club contemporaneous club records by the club secretary. although it does sound like Bush might have been the secretary a bit later, given the "about March" comment.  Are the wrong?  If so, how do you know?

1. Whatever Weeks calls them, that quote is NOT from any sort of business or administrative record I have ever seen or even heard of.  Such records are supposed to be contemporaneous recordings of events that occur in the regular course of business, in this case club business.  Such records would not reference an Executive Meeting occurring "about March 1894."  Such records would have been created at the meeting and would record the place, date, participants, etc.  

2.  Reportedly, S. Dacre Bush was NOT the club Secretary in 1894.    According to Abbott's 1897 book, Frederick Warren, Jr. was the Club Secretary from 1892 until C. G. Rice became Secretary in 1895.   Through 1896, Bush had been a "Steward" but never Club Secretary.  

So I don't know what is up with Weeks and these supposed records, but thus far I have seen no reason to believe that Weeks was actually relying on anything we would call a club record such as a minute book or "log book."  Didn't TomM mention that Bush had done an early history of golf at Myopia? 
  
Also, as everyone ignored when I mentioned it earlier, Abbott's book noted that Bush and Parker were responsible for laying out the course.

Golf has been introduced as a Myopia sport. Its development has been principally due to the efforts of Mr. Bush and Mr. Parker, who, in the opinion of many, have laid out one of the best inland courses in the country.

No mention of Appleton, Gardner and Merrill having done it, and no mention of Campbell at all.    And no mention of Leeds, even though TEPaul claims he was creating his long nine by then.

Maybe we need a list of all those club members who supposedly laid out the course.  Let's see, we have Appleton, J.W. Merrill, Gardner, plus we have Burnham who was on the sub committee that Mike thinks designed the course, and then we have Thomas and T.W. Merrill who were called experts so they must have designed it too, and then we have Parker and Bush.   Whoops I forgot Leeds.  Quite a list.   Perhaps we should just say it could be anyone in the membership, so long as it is not Campbell.  


If it was in the club records or even known in the club that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill laid out the course, then why did this book, written by a member, indicate that Bush and Parker had laid out one of the best inland courses in the country?

Quote
BTW, while I am just as guilty as anyone in trying to fit information into an existing pattern, my first thought was that the ground from tee to green was too rough, and hence, by Mid May.....sheep!  IMHO, the greens were a separate issue and were always intended to be sodded to get the best possible surfaces, and the tees and fw were problems.  Again, that is just me and my take.  Who knows?

I don't get this.  Why would it be reported in mid-May that sheep would be added if sheep were already there?  

Quote
And something else occurs to me, albeit a bit unlikely, the phrase "lay sod" and "lay out" are similar enough to perhaps be confused, again by a gossip column reporter who may have had no idea that anything was required to put a golf course in play, as opposed to our knowledge today.

The reports of Campbell laying out the course are not from the gossip columnist.  They are from three different papers.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 06:07:20 AM
David,

Aren't you embarrassed to be cobbling articles from the "Table Gossip" column or would you prefer just being grossly hypocritical?

Or, are you prepared to just honestly admit that those columns was the best source in Boston for reporting on the doings of the upper class at the time and by far the best source for golf-related info?

Why don't you admit that your chief article came from a similar Gossip Column titled "Summer Gayeties"? 

Would you like me to reproduce it here in full for everyone??

God, I have no idea how you can misrepresent things here so blatantly and seemingly without conscience.   Are you really looking for the truth of what happened or just taking an advocacy position without any regard for accuracy?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 06:32:37 AM
Mike
I don't remember that article, what was it about?

Jeff
I have my doubts about the Appleton Farm golf course being made in 1892 or 1893. That would have made it one of the first golf courses in New England, and back then no one seemed to know anything about it even though they were aware of other private courses of other members of The Country Club and Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 06:46:59 AM

And when you try to introduce your "logic" into things, it shouldn't be allowed in as "evidence" any more than the speculation of others, because your logic really is speculation, too.  No matter what you call it.


In order for speculation to be taken seriously it has to be plausible and based on known verifiable facts.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 14, 2010, 07:00:56 AM
TMac,

No matter what you call what any of us do on this type of thread, its speculation, if nothing else to try to determine which document we believe best reflects the truth.  The documents you argue are signifigant, and the ones you deem should be excluded are really a matter of your speculation.  Again, call it logic, call it research, or call it interpretation for a nicer term, but we are all doing it and that is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

And now for some more of it!  I started thinking last night that WC was unattached earlier in 1896 and possibly called back to MH later in 1896 coincidentally with Leeds planning the new nine.  That may be a similar pattern to being called in May to finish what the club started in March back in 1894, but this time, with Leeds at the helm in planning.

Does this suggest to anyone that they did value Willie's ability to "get er done?"  Of course, it could be simply an emergency replacement for White who left.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 08:15:12 AM


 
I havent gone back and checked all three articles so I will just focus on the one from the Advertiser.  No author given, but the article contained quite a lot of information that seems to have come from someone who knew what was going on with golf at the club, including:
-- That Willie Campbell, the professional, had recently laid out the course.
-- The day the links were first used (Monday, June 18th)
-- Attendance (crowded with spectators)
-- An opinion of the course (exceptionally good for an inland course, with formidable hazards to prevent monotony)
-- A few of the physical features, including a pond one must drive over.
-- The names of every hole.
-- That local rules were in use.
-- The conditions.  (New and rough, but bound to improve.)
-- The winner and the runner up.

The article is a far cry from an off hand gossip column description of Gardner and Appleton and two others as "expert players."  And there is no requirement that I take a huge leap of logic like Mike must to go from beginner "expert golfers" to design credit.


____________________________________________________



David,

Far be it for a serious researcher like yourself to rely on anything from a "gossip column".

Not sure if Tom MacWood has posted these before or not, but here are two more snippets about the beginning of golf at Myopia, both from the Boston Evening Transcript.

From May 19, 1894, suggesting that the course had not yet been laid out.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940519BDT.jpg?t=1291347896)

From June 23, 1894, indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course and also providing a number of details, thus suggesting that the information came from someone involved with the course. (This almost always seems to have been the case with these newspaper blurbs.)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

Note also that the article lists the names of the holes.  Three of the names (kennels, bulbrushes, and pond) were still in use in 1898.  Two other of the names (and their relative order) somewhat correspond to names from 1898 (hills-alps and dale-valley.)  Four of the names were different in 1898 (Miles River, shooting box, track, and school vs. the orient, high, home, and prairie.)  

I also recall one blurb indicating that the course was changed for the 1895 golfing season.  If so, is it possible that changes these changes created the "long nine" before Leeds even joined the club?



Hmmm...let's see where that second article came from?   Just click on the following link and see the article to the right of the "Oriental Cream and Magical Beautifier".   ::) 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DQo0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=eCMIAAAAIBAJ&pg=5886,4800784&dq=myopia+golf&hl=en

Serious-minded researchers using gossip columns??

I'm shocked...Shocking...SHOCKING I'd say!  

(http://www.aidthoughts.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/renault.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 08:24:02 AM
"-- The day the links were first used (Monday, June 18th)"



According to the secretary and board member of the club, the links were first used about June 1, 1894 but for a crack Boston Advertiser reporter on golf in 1894 being off by over two weeks probably isn't so bad really. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 08:31:12 AM
"And now for some more of it!  I started thinking last night that WC was unattached earlier in 1896 and possibly called back to MH later in 1896 coincidentally with Leeds planning the new nine.  That may be a similar pattern to being called in May to finish what the club started in March back in 1894, but this time, with Leeds at the helm in planning.

Does this suggest to anyone that they did value Willie's ability to "get er done?"  Of course, it could be simply an emergency replacement for White who left."


Jeffrey:

Apparently not enough for the club to actually mention Willie Campbell's name at the time, or ever actually. Perhaps they secretly realized that they had the greatest golfer in the world in their sway at the time and they felt they shouldn't mention it for fear that some other club may steal him away.  

I mean, come on, if you were a club and you had Ben Hogan or Bryon Nelson as your pro would you actually want to tell anyone?   ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
"If it was in the club records or even known in the club that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill laid out the course, then why did this book, written by a member, indicate that Bush and Parker had laid out one of the best inland courses in the country?"


David:

We need to be quite careful of the terms we use here such as "laid out" (verb: to lay out) and particularly after we all understand from a crack researcher on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on the subject of Merion East that "laid out" according to the Oxford English dictionary can only mean the building or constructing of something to someone else's "plan."

I don't know that the club records indicate that Bush and Parker were technically involved in any "laying out" of the Myopia course (if they actually touched or picked up a shovel or some such, unfortunately posterity neglected to record that important act).

What Weeks said was:

"A golf committee consisting of Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker was responsible for the maintenance of the course that first summer and while the club voted to bear the modest expense, a subscription was started for seeding and developing the holes on the ridge."

Or, alternatively, I suppose Edward Weeks could've just made all that up. That would certainly square with Tom MacWood's logic that these clubs and their history book writers essentially just engage in fantasy and the iconization of someone. For some odd reason that iconization from and within Myopia never seemed to include the greatest and most famous person in golf and architecture at that time, Willie Campbell.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 11:13:27 AM


Or, alternatively, I suppose Edward Weeks could've just made all that up. That would certainly square with Tom MacWood's logic that these clubs and their history book writers essentially just engage in fantasy and the iconization of someone. For some odd reason that iconization from and within Myopia never seemed to include the greatest and most famous person in golf and architecture at that time, Willie Campbell.





"It was Weeks from the beginning.   He knew that if he foisted this tale on the unsuspecting public he'd confuse future generations about the origins of Myopia long enough to get through the second Golden Age of architecture undetected and unscathed.  We've been on to him for some time, but thankfully that Tom Paul inadvertently led us right to his hidden lair.....Master of the Hounds, indeed!"

(http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/captain-renault.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
David,

Far be it for a serious researcher like yourself to rely on anything from a "gossip column".

As usual Mike, your logic and understanding are rather suspect, as is your willingness and ability to accurately portray the positions of others.  I never claimed I didn't use gossip columns.   I readily admitted I used them and explained . . .

"One must look at each article to determine what can and cannot be gleaned from them, and one must consider the source when doing so.  One can get terrific information from gossip column, but one must not infer more than the columnist ever could have intended, yet that is exactly what you do."

But of course in your mock outrage and indignation you won't let anything like the facts get in your way, will you?

________________________________________________

TEPaul,

-You wrote that according to the "secretary" golf began about June 1, 1894.   To what "secretary" do you refer?   Because so far as I can figure, S. Dacre Bush was not the Club Secretary.  Surely if you have actually seen the records then you should know who was secretary.  What is your basis for saying Bush was secretary?    Is it Weeks?   If so then what was Weeks' basis?

-Also, the Advertiser account is not the only account of play beginning on June 18, 1894.  All the accounts said the same thing.   Perhaps your information is suspect, or "about" is broader than you think.

-You have not addressed why Parker and Bush were given credit for laying out the course by Abbott, and perhaps more importantly why why Appleton Merrill and Gardner were not.

-  You mention that in "that first summer" they had started a subscription for seeds to develop the ridge.   Isn't this yet more evidence that the course was changed from the original nine to what you claim was the "long nine" by 1895, and that the legend about Leeds beginning work on the long nine in 1896 is incorrect?

-  Again, I never once suggested that Weeks made it all up.   Surely he did the best he could with the information he had.  But it is looking more and more like he may not have been relying on anything resembling club minutes when he wrote the history, but rather was relying on some other early account written by S. Dacre Bush.  

- This brings us back to my questions above, that you have yet to answer.   Were you looking at anything resembling club minutes, or were you looking at some early account by Bush?    Or are you just relying on Weeks?

Here again are the unanswered questions:

1. How come you know for certain that they staked out the course, yet Weeks is speculating about the same thing?

2. Have you seen actual administrative records at Myopia, or some sort of recollection written by Dacre Bush?  If the latter when was it written and what was the format?

3. You have repeatedly claimed that the records indicate that Robert White was the professional at Myopia in 1896-97, and maybe 1895.   But it seems that Robert White might have moved on to Cincinnati sometime in 1896.   What exactly do the records say about this, and about Robert White?

4.  You refer to the following statement as a reality:   "The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!"  A reality based upon what, exactly?  



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 11:46:33 AM
Cirba, you unspeakable jack-wagon, perhaps I did lead you to Weeks's hidden lair (or is it liar?)-----the Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds (R.M Appleton).

But that photograph above is definitely not RM Appleton, that great fox hunter, golfer, and college athlete and over-all man of action and deeds of the North Shore of Boston and far beyond. That looks to be some actor from central casting in the 1930s who played the part of an ineffectual dandy officer of the British or German Empire in some B-grade movie set in Marrakesh about the Arabians Nights (or is it Knights?) or some such garbage foisted on the gullible American public.

R.M (Bud) Appleton was the true renaissance sportsman of that controversial WASP class of that age and era who was a world class fox hunter, and "expert" golfer and original golf architect, and a great college athlete. He was actually the captain of the 1883 Havard football team----a team, I might add, that H.C. Leeds also played on and starred on in a game against Yale in which he scored the first points.

Both they and a number of their close friends in more or less the next decade went on to revolutionize golf architecture in America or at least in Massachussets. These were men of high intelligence and even higher education;  :-X they were men of ideas and action and the last thing they did was wait around for some working stiff from Scotland who was best known for losing an insurmountable lead in a British Open to show up on their shores to tell THEM what to do about anything!   ::) :( ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 11:57:12 AM
"-  You mention that in "that first summer" they had started a subscription for seeds to develop the ridge.   Isn't this yet more evidence that the course was changed from the original nine to what you claim was the "long nine" by 1895, and that the legend about Leeds beginning work on the long nine in 1896 is incorrect?"


No, not at all; it is not incorrect that Leeds developed the Long Nine and the holes on the ridge in 1896. Weeks mentioned that the seeding and devlopment of those uphill (ridge) holes began in the summer of 1894 but that those holes were not created and completed for two years and apparently in play until the end of 1896 or perhaps the beginning 1897 when the Long Nine began to be used instead of the original 1894 nine. This was when those three holes mostly somewhere on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's property on the original 1894 nine were taken out of play and replaced by the three new holes on the ridge (#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on Leeds's eighteen hole course in 1900 and today).

The differences between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine are worth noting as that august golf course architect and past president of the ASGCA, Jeffrey Brauer, has suspected and stated even though you and MacWood have failed to contemplate that and/or admit it (apparently because you are both trying to make Myopia look more like it should be attributed to Campbell, not Leeds). And this does not even take into consideration all the numerous changes made when Leeds developed the eighteen hole course that came into play in 1900. These are the true facts of the architectural evolution of Myopia Hunt Club and they are indisputable no matter how hard you and MacWood try to minimize, deflect and/or ignore them.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 12:02:16 PM
Both they and a number of their close friends in more or less the next decade went on to revolutionize golf architecture in America or at least in Massachussets. These were men of high intelligence and even higher education;  :-X they were men of ideas and action and the last thing they did was wait around for some working stiff from Scotland who was best known for losing an insurmountable lead in a British Open to show up on their shores to tell THEM what to do about anything!

TEPaul, whether or not in jest, I think this paragraph pretty much encapsulates your attitude toward early golf course design, doesn't it?

But how, if you have have seen Myopia's records, could you get the identity of Myopia's Club Secretary WRONG?  

For that matter, how could Weeks have gotten it wrong?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 12:10:00 PM
"TEPaul, whether or not in jest, I think this paragraph pretty much encapsulates your attitude toward early golf course design, doesn't it?"



No Sir, whether or not in jest, I think it (that paragraph) pretty much encapsulates THEIR attitude at Myopia back then towards early golf course design!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 12:12:11 PM
TEPaul, You haven't seen any actual club records, have you?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 01:21:03 PM

No, not at all; it is not incorrect that Leeds developed the Long Nine and the holes on the ridge in 1896. Weeks mentioned that the seeding and devlopment of those uphill (ridge) holes began in the summer of 1894 but that those holes were not created and completed for two years and apparently in play until the end of 1896 or perhaps the beginning 1897 when the Long Nine began to be used instead of the original 1894 nine. This was when those three holes mostly somewhere on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's property on the original 1894 nine were taken out of play and replaced by the three new holes on the ridge (#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on Leeds's eighteen hole course in 1900 and today).


"Was the original nine changed prior to 1896?"

Tom MacWood:

No, the original 1894 nine was not changed PRIOR to 1896; it begun to be changed in 1896 or shortly thereafter when Herbert C. Leeds came from the CC of Brookline to Myopia Hunt club and was asked to change it; which he did into what has long been called the "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played; the first US Open that was separated in time and place from the US Amateur!

Actually, the primary reason the US Open was separated in time and place from the US Amateur in 1898 is historically very, very interesting. Can you imagine what that primary reason was, Tom MacWood? Has your "independent" research ever given you any inclination into why that may've been?  ;)


The original 1894 nine hole course at Myopia was originally routed and designed by three "amateur/sportsmen" Myopia Hunt Club members;  R.M. (Bud) Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P Gardner. That original nine was reworked by Herbert C. Leeds and the Golf Committee in 1896-97 and became known as the "Long Nine" over which the 1898 US Open was played. In 1899 and 1900 Leeds increased the course to eighteen holes and by 1908 three more US Opens had been played on it. The Myopia course today is remarkably similar to that latter eighteen hole course of the first decade of the 20th century.



Some or at least one on here ;) may ASSUME that Campbell had something to do with Leeds's "Long Nine" which was devoloped between 1896 and 1898 simply because he was there for a single year (1896) but the club records show nothing of the kind. That attribution has always been famously given to Herbert C. Leeds by the club and others right from that time (1896) and I see no reason from those Myopia contemporaneous club records to indicate the club was lying about any of it or trying to create a "legend" of Leeds at that time or at any other time. It's simply a fact of American golf architecture's history.

He was just given that job by Myopia, he accepted it in 1896 and he dedicated himself to it for the next 20-30 years.


It does not say much particularly specific about White and Myopia architecturally but when White was there, probably in or around 1896, was the same time Herbert Leeds came to Myopia as a member from TCC and when he basically took over total control of the architectural development of the course. White was the combined pro/greenskeeper at that time and it seems completely logical to assume that Robert White worked hand in hand with Leeds on the development and improvement of the course around that time into what would become known as "The Long Nine" on which was held Myopia's first US Open in 1898.


It seems like TEP's story keeps changing and evolving with time. That is somewhat surprising since he had access to the board minutes and one would assume those records don't change.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 01:24:03 PM
TEP
Why did it take them three years to build three holes? When in 1896 did Leeds join Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 01:52:05 PM
"TEP
Why did it take them three years to build three holes? When in 1896 did Leeds join Myopia?"



Tom MacWood:

Weeks said it took two years from 1894 to do the holes on the ridge. I don't know why it took them two years. I suppose there could be all kinds of reasons such as they had three other holes on Dr Hopkins's property that made up a nine in play during that time that they gave up when they put the three holes on the ridge into play with the Long Nine. Why did it take Crump five years without eighteen holes in play at Pine Valley? One reason was it was so easy to play the first four again that totalled eighteen and be right back at the clubhouse. There are all kinds of reasons for things given individual circumstances.

I do not know the exact date that Leeds joined Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 14, 2010, 02:17:20 PM
Niall:

The example you gave of Troon is interesting but not very applicable to Myopia as an analogy. With your Troon example Mackenzie redesigned the course in the 1920s and for some reason the club doesn't recognize that despite the fact that the course today is as Mackenzie redesigned it.

Myopia's architectural evolution from the 1894 original nine to the Long Nine (1896-1898) to the eighteen hole course of 1900 which is remarkably similar to today is a vastly different situation.

In other words, what is left on the course today (or was left from the 1894 nine when the 1900 18 hole course was done) from that original 1894 nine is pretty mininmal. There are only perhaps three greens left that were the same place and probably only two that are the same as in 1894. There are approximately six holes that are basically in the same landforms but two of them had tees coming from quite different directions.

Whomever was responsible for the development of the 1894 nine, the point is, unlike Mackenzie's 1920 Troon redesign, there was not much left of the original 1894 course when the eighteen hole Myopia course was done. Therefore to call Myopia today a Willie Campbell golf course (or that of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) doesn't make much sense because it just isn't an accurate description of what was accomplished on that golf course by Leeds from app 1896 into the 1920s and what is there today.

The architectural attribution of Myopia for over 110 years has been Herbert C. Leeds and that is an accurate architect attribution and beyond dispute. The men who were around golf in the first and second decades of the 20th century knew that and wrote that and we know it today.

Tom

I wasn't in any way suggesting that Myopia today is a Willie Campbell golf course. The point I was making to Mike was not about design attribution as such, it was about Mike assuming that the club records have all the information and that if they didn't mention something then it couldn't have been worthwhile mentioning. In that respect the Troon example is apt, unless of course you think that the fact that probably the most famous gca ever designed the course which is still in existence and on which one of the all time legends of the game famously came a cropper in the clubs first hosting of the greatest golf tournament in the world (yes, I'm biased) isn't worth noting.

The other thing I think needs looking at is the assumption by some that courses weren't laid out one day and played on the next back at that time. My impression, and happy to be proved wrong, is that courses were fairly rough and ready back then, and that foot traffic was one way of helping them into shape therefore there I'm not sure the concept of the course having to be finished to some high standard to be ready for play was about back then, but as I say I could be wrong.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 02:41:54 PM
TEPaul,

Have you seen the Myopia's administrative records?  

If you have, then how come you don't know who the Club Secretary was?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 05:06:59 PM
Niall:

I do understand what you mean with Troon and Mackenzie and the club not recognizing that or not recognizing it well enough. Something that substantial from an architect, and particularly one of Mackenzie's stature, that is so much of the course today sure is a significant historical oversight. But the circumstances of Campbell and Myopia are entirely different and not recognizing him back then or now is not historically significant, in my opinion or apparently in Myopia's. Campbell probably didn't spend more than a day or two working with Myopia's original nine (that is some ways did not last long) in 1894 but Leeds spent over twenty years working with the course, first the Long Nine and later and much longer, the eighteen hole course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 06:10:10 PM
Niall, I agree with you about how soon they played on these very early courses.  To compare it to how things are done today makes no sense at all.

I do understand what you mean with Troon and Mackenzie and the club not recognizing that or not recognizing it well enough. Something that substantial from an architect, and particularly one of Mackenzie's stature, that is so much of the course today sure is a significant historical oversight. But the circumstances of Campbell and Myopia are entirely different and not recognizing him back then or now is not historically significant, in my opinion or apparently in Myopia's.

Not historically significant?  Aren't you the one who claims that Myopia was the first great American golf course?  Aren't you the one who claims that little has changed since the course was expanded to 18 holes?

By your account aren't their something like five or six of the original holes on that 18?   And if the original 9 was as I suspect it was, then as many as 8 of these holes may be still be in use (with some changes over the years of course.) And now that you have noted that they were already planning on adding the ridge holes in 1894 we cannot take Campbell out of the mix on those either.

At the very least, it is of sufficient historical interest to try and figure it all out.  

Quote
Campbell probably didn't spend more than a day or two working with Myopia's original nine (that is some ways did not last long) in 1894 but Leeds spent over twenty years working with the course, first the Long Nine and later and much longer, the eighteen hole course.

This is another snippet that exemplifies your approach to these things.   You care more about who put in the time over they years rather than who came up with the golf holes.   But coming up with the golf holes is the major component of designing a golf course.   And it doesn't matter it it takes 2 days or 20 years.  

By the way, do the "records" say that he probably didn't spend more than a day or two there?  

_____________________

TEPaul, my questions are not at all complicated or inappropriate.   Why won't you answer them?  
Have you seen the Myopia's administrative records, circa 1894?  
If you have, then why don't know the identity of the Club Secretary?  


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 06:24:20 PM
Jeff Brauer, Mike Cirba, Phillip Young,

All of your theories are based primarily on blind faith in TEPaul's claim that he has seen Myopia's administrative records and that he has accurately conveyed the information within.  Yet it is becoming more and more apparent that something is amiss here.    

Aren't you guys at all curious why TEPaul has claimed to have seen the administrative records of Myopia Hunt, yet he does not even know the identity of the Club Secretary who would have created those very records?  Correction, it wasn't as if he didn't know, he has been claiming that the Secretary was S. Dacre Bush.  

Or is it that the 1897 account written by a club member is inaccurate as to the officers of the club?   And if so, why wasn't this corrected in his 1898 edition?   After all it was distributed amongst the members.

And there is plenty of other things askew.  How could he not know the exact date of the Executive Meeting?  Club's and corporations did not have annual meetings 'sometime in March,' they had them on specific days.   Or the exact persons who were appointed to the various committees?  If these are administrative records, he ought to be able to tell us about the administration of the club, but he cannot.   And there is the Robert White issue as well as the issue of TEPaul knowing for certain thing about which Weeks could only speculate.

TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 07:10:24 PM
Niall,

I can certainly understand how a course on sandy links land could be ready in a couple of weeks back in those days because of finer grasses and less in the way of rocks, stumps, swamps, mud, et.al, to try to get into some type of playable shape.

I don't think you could create an inland golf course of any quality in a few weeks, or even a couple of months....even if the sheep could have shorn the grass short enough to have something like a playable surface, I can't imagine what a green might look like...

Signed,

Grown up playing inland muddy, clay-based soils, including trying to play some rudimentary "field golf" as a kid on makeshift courses we tried to put together.   It was completely unplayable, in reality, and every other shot was a lost ball.   Putting?...forgettaboutit!   ;)


David,

There are more than enough contemporaneous accounts crediting Leeds with the golf course at Myopia.   I guess having another aristocratic amateur designing golf courses is too much for you guys and your ivory tower liberal sensibilities (and I say that as a Democrat myself), and you'd rather credit the poor, itinerant working class guy Campbell, but good luck there.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 07:46:26 PM
"TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access."


David:

Of course I will explain myself.

But reading this thread since you reprised it in the beginning of Dec, 2010 (it had slide into the back pages after a stint in March 2010) I do ask myself what the purpose of this thread really is for you and Tom MacWood (who reprised it in March 2010 after it slide into the back pages from a longer stint after MacWood started it in August, 2009).

I've explained on here probably a dozen times I read some contemporaneous meeting minutes from 1894 because I wanted to know (perhaps after it was brought up on this website at some point) why Weeks said what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staking out nine holes in the spring of 1894 in his book. I don't even recall now just when I did that or even how much I read. I think all I wanted to know back then was what Weeks was essentially referring to and looking at when he wrote some of the things he did in his history book. I feel strongly that I found that. I  also feel very strongly I read what Desmond Tolhurst was referring to in his history book of Merion when he wrote some of the things he did which you and MacWood have continued to question. Those things were in the archives of MCC and Wayne Morrison found them; and certainly not either of you two. You two self-promoting "expert researchers" didn't even know they existed when you began to take Merion's history and Tolhurst's history book to task for numerous historical inaccuracies. We had to point all that out to you----eg what was in the MCC archives such as Macdonald's letter and all those board meeting minutes.

As for the secretary of Myopia in 1894, frankly, I'm not sure about that; I don't remember even thinking about that or looking. S. Dacre Bush was a secretary of Myopia at some point, I believe, but perhaps later on his way up the Myopia Executive Committee ladder. He became the president of the club at some point. I know he was that in 1908 and he was the president for some years although I'm not sure how long. But all that is obviously in Myopia's archives.

I guess I could go back and look for some of those details but I doubt I will be there again until at least next summer.

But frankly, I'd want to know what your purpose is here; you and MacWood. If you are just trying to put me through the ringer because you two jerks just contribute on here to prove someone and some other club wrong about anything at all, then I guess I'm really not interested; certainly not in you two.

I've told you many times on here I am not interested in your philosophy and your suggestions that to speak about something one knows and has read on this website they must first post it or show it to other contributors. To me that is bullshit; it's your stupid suggestion and rule and I'm not interested in it in the slightest. As I've said many times before on threads like this one with you two on them I don't even know how to post material and even if I did I would definitely think twice about it and run it through any club for their permission to do it.

If you want to vet what I say on here then you can just go do the research work I have on the sites and at the clubs I have and if for whatever reason you can't or don't want to do that then in my opinion you two self-proclaiming and self-promoting "expert independent researchers" are just shit outta luck.

THAT is what any good researcher on any subject does, in my book----eg GO TO THE SUBJECT itself and research what they have in their archives, and in my mind there is no reason whatsoever that a couple of people like you and MacWood should be the only exceptions to that modus operandi and that basic research responsibility!

I just took the time to read through the first ten or so pages of this particular thread, and very carefully. What is happening now after you reprised this in Dec, 2010 is no different than the other two stints of this thread in Aug, 2009 when MacWood initially posted this thread and when MacWood reprised it in March, 2010. I note a couple of posts on this thread from Jim Kennedy and Tony Muldoon that they think my feelings and philosophy about a working relationship with a club first or being a requirement  is essentially worthless and unimportant and they took me to task for saying it was. In my opinion, like you and MacWood, they are just shit outta luck too if that's the way they feel about it.

I care about these clubs and what they think, particularly about the unasked dissemination of their private material, and I care about what they think about Golfclubatlas.com. I care because I have friends in all of them and I care about GOLFCLUBATLAS.com too and the opinions of those clubs about it. If some of you people who don't understand that or don't believe in it think otherwise then all I can tell you, AGAIN, is I just don't agree with you and I doubt I ever will.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 07:56:44 PM
Tom,

Cmon man...can't you just catch the next puddle-jumper up to Boston and grab a cab to South Hamilton and see if anyone is hanging around there in the middle of December and report right back to us, pronto.

Cmon...while the rest of us sit here looking up old newspapers warmly esconced behind our computer screens we need someone to actually do some legwork with the club itself and we know sure as shootin' that these guys aint going anywhere in the real world!

So get to it!  We expect a full report by morning.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 08:25:48 PM
Michael:

You know me a bit or at least enough to know I am not exactly a busy guy. If I had the kind of research and collaboration relationship with those I mentioned in the post above that I have with a number of others around the country I would seriously consider getting on a plane and going up there and arranging for a real research session. I may do that anyway but not for GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com, at least not while the likes of Moriarty and MacWood are participating on it. In that vein, I'm more interested in the USGA Architecture Archive and in Myopia's research interests itself. They actually have a new guy on the block and he is gung-ho. I think there are numerous assets some of my best collaborating friends have discovered that can be passed on to him. But that I can probably do via download first.

But with the way these subjects have gone on here with pretty much only MacWood and Moriarty souring them, these things are not going to happen on here at least not via me. In my opinion, they don't deserve it for the way they've been and the way they act on here and what they expect from others without the slightest inclination to do it themselves. But if they ever change their minds and their attitudes they know where to find me, but I ain't gonna hold me breath, that's for dang-tootin' sure.  ;)

Matter of fact, at this point, with those two guys anyway, I shouldn't even appear to promise that; at this point, I think, for me anyway, it is pretty much the old proverbial "Three strikes---You're Out!"
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 08:29:40 PM
David,

There are more than enough contemporaneous accounts crediting Leeds with the golf course at Myopia.   I guess having another aristocratic amateur designing golf courses is too much for you guys and your ivory tower liberal sensibilities (and I say that as a Democrat myself), and you'd rather credit the poor, itinerant working class guy Campbell, but good luck there.

Mike Cirba,

Herbert Leeds?  Not even TEPaul has bothered to claim that Leeds had anything to do with the lay out until sometime in 1896!

And TEPaul noted above that they were already taking steps to use the "ridge" in 1894.    As I suggested earlier, I believe that the supposed long nine may have been in existence from 1895 on.  After all, how long could it take a bunch of rich guys to get enough money for grass seed, anyway?   Didn't TEPaul say that Appleton Farm was basically a scientific grass lab?   Surely they got the seed in time to have grass by the 1895 season.  

I guess you just don't care about all the problems in TEPaul's version of the "minutes" but I expected that.  

TEPaul wrote:
Quote
"TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access."


David:

Of course I will explain myself.

But reading this thread since you reprised it in the beginning of Dec, 2010 (it had slide into the back pages after a stint in March 2010) I do ask myself what the purpose of this thread really is for you and Tom MacWood (who reprised it in March 2010 after it slide into the back pages from a longer stint after MacWood started it in August, 2009).

I've explained on here probably a dozen times I read some contemporaneous meeting minutes from 1894 because I wanted to know (perhaps after it was brought up on this website at some point) why Weeks said what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staking out nine holes in the spring of 1894 in his book. I don't even recall now just when I did that or even how much I read. I think all I wanted to know back then was what Weeks was essentially referring to and looking at when he wrote some of the things he did in his history book. I feel strongly that I found that. I  also feel very strongly I read what Desmond Tolhurst was referring to in his history book of Merion when he wrote some of the things he did which you and MacWood have continued to question. Those things were in the archives of MCC and Wayne Morrison found them; and certainly not either of you two. You two self-promoting "expert researchers" didn't even know they existed when you began to take Merion's history and Tolhurst's history book to task for numerous historical inaccuracies. We had to point all that out to you.

As for the secretary of Myopia in 1894, frankly, I'm not sure about that; I don't remember even thinking about that or looking. S. Dacre Bush was a secretary of Myopia at some point, I believe but perhaps later on his way up the Myopia Executive Committee latter. He became the president of the club at some point. I know he was that in 1908 and he was the president for some years although I'm not sure how long. But all that is obviously in Myopia's archives.

I guess I could go back and look for some of those details but I doubt I will be there again until at least next summer.

But frankly, I'd want to know what your purpose is here; you and MacWood. If you are just trying to put me through the ringer because you two jerks just contribute on here to prove someone and some other club wrong about anything at all, then I guess I'm really not interested; certainly not in you two.

I've told you many times on here I am not interested in your philosophy and your suggestions that to speak about something one knows and has read on here they must first post it or show it to other contributors. To me that is bullshit; it's your stupid suggestion and rule and I'm not interested in it in the slightest. If you want to vet what I say on here than you can just go do the research work I have on the sites and at the clubs I have and if for whatever reason you can't or don't want to do that then in my opinion you are just shit outta luck.

THAT is what any good researcher on any subject does----eg GO TO THE SUBJECT itself and research what they have and in my mind there is no reason whatsoever that a couple of people like you and MacWood should be the only exceptions to that modus operandi!

TEPaul,

It sounds to me like you do not have you have much of a recollection of whatever it was you looked at other than that, in your mind, it confirmed Weeks account.  

I am not surprised that in your mind whatever you looked at confirmed what you wanted it to confirm, after all as you said you did the same thing regarding Merion's records; you took a look at them and then repeatedly claimed that they confirmed everything you had always known about the creation of Merion and that you had always had it right.   You claimed you had definitive proof that it was Wilson and his committee who designed the course, that the Francis land swap occurred in the spring, that CBM and HJW were not integrally involved, etc. and on and on.  Yet as more slipped out it turned out that the records actually strongly bolstered the case FOR CBM's involvement, not against it, and the records essentially confirmed most of what I  had argued.

Here, though, you didn't take notes, and you have no record of what you saw, so it seems you are just filling in details as you see fit, sort of shadowing Weeks as you go along.  It seems pretty clear that whatever you read, your information comes from Weeks, and not some minutes or club "records."
-- You've repeatedly claimed Bush was the club Secretary and the one who created these supposed records.  He wasn't.   But Weeks said he was so you acted as if you knew he was.  You got your information from Weeks.
-   You've repeatedly claimed that according to the records White was the professional in 1896-97, and possibly1895.   Surely this information too came from Weeks, did it not?   Because Weeks said exactly this, didn't he.   What kind of club records indicate a pro was there "probably" in 1895.
-  You have repeatedly indicated that the Dacre Bush quotes were recorded in the club minutes or some equivalent administrative records.   Because that is what Weeks said.   No contemporaneous club records would identify a meeting as occurring "sometime in March"
-  You claimed they "staked out the course" and you probably got this from Weeks as well, only you couldn't help exaggerating it even here, claiming to know for certain things about which Weeks could only speculate.  
_____________________________

As for what happened with Merion minutes, your recollection and accuracy are about as bad as they are with this Myopia stuff.   I knew of the existence and location of those minutes long before Mr. Capers and Wayne finally bothered to go look at them.   I had contacted the Cricket Club when I first figured out where these records were.  It was no big secret, had you ever bothered to read Merion's first history you'd have realized that minutes existed as well, and if Merion didn't have them (and you guys claimed they did not) then they had to be at the Cricket Club.   But you guys had written them off as lost in some sort of a natural disaster, along with Wilson's plans.    A flood, wasn't it?   Ask Wayne.  He knows I knew of the minutes and their location.   Tell him to check his old emails if he doesn't recall.  
______________________________________________

You never explained the conflict between what you are doing for the USGA and what you are doing here.  You keep insisting that we must develop relationships with these clubs, but my understanding is that USGA Archives is trying to make information available to everyone, regardless of their "relationships" or club affiliations.    And the amount of times that insiders get it wrong shows that there is very good reason for this!  

Yet your modus operandi directly contradicts this goal, to the point that I have absolutely no idea how you can possibly represent the USGA's interests while still carrying out your agenda of controlling information and dictating only your vision and interpretation of histories.  

Mind explaining that?  
_____________________________

Mike Cirba, I guess that you need reminding, again, that you haven't seen Myopia's records either, and you have absolutely no idea what they actually say or even if they exist.  Yet here you are, hanging on TEPaul's every word, as if he wrote the supposed minutes himself.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 14, 2010, 08:45:24 PM
"Mind explaining that? "


Yes, David Moriarty, I do mind explaining that to you after you used that question to punctuate a post on this website as obnoxious as that last one. I am going to cut and paste that last post of yours and send it to the USGA, Merion, Myopia, and any other club I can think of that remotely may have some need to know. I have a whole lot of good working relationships on this thing we do---golf course architecture and its histories, but you two are certainly the exceptions to that!

Your time has come and gone, in my opinion, David. I'm not so sure yet about MacWood but it's real close.

Have nice life, whatever it is.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 14, 2010, 08:59:16 PM
Well, once again it appears this is more a personal vendetta than any search for the truth so I'm out of here.   

I guess the idea that we can have real discussions about all the facts is simply a pipe dream and obviously not realistic here.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 09:42:11 PM
TEPaul wrote:
Quote
Yes, David Moriarty, I do mind explaining that to you after you used that question to punctuate a post on this website as obnoxious as that last one. I am going to cut and paste that last post of yours and send it to the USGA, Merion, Myopia, and any other club I can think of that remotely may have some need to know. I have a whole lot of good working relationships on this thing we do---golf course architecture and its histories, but you two are certainly the exceptions to that!

Not sure what has you so upset, TEPaul.  There are no personal digs in that last post of mine, and no "jokes" that might be misconstrued as such.  It accurately reflects what I view as having happened.  I am not sure why you insisted on inserting Merion into this conversation, or why you misrepresented what went on regarding their records, but surely you must know by now that I will set the records straight when this happens.  I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression.

As for the comments about the USGA archives, it is again you who inserted that in here, about how what you care about most is in the USGA Architecture Archive and in Myopia's research interests itself?   If that was the case I'd think you'd put aside your mantra about how it is all about developing a relationship with the clubs, and start sharing the primary source material with anyone remotely interested.   After all, isn't that what the USGA archives are supposed to be about?    Gathering all the source material and making it reasonably available for research purposes to all interested parties.  Isn't this the antithesis of what you espouse around here?   How many times have you ridiculed us for not having relationships with these clubs, as if your relationships with these places weren't a direct byproduct of your ancestor's good name? Your USGA Archives are supposed to break the very barriers that you insist on keeping up.  

Not sure why any of this offends you now.  The other night you thought these were good questions which needed to be addressed.  Did you forget about that?  

And feel free to send my post to anyone you want.  When you do, perhaps you should explain to them that you believe that only those with sufficient "relationships" with the clubs should be allowed to study those clubs, and that anything written about these clubs should essentially be an inside job.  And ask them about how that fits in with the mandate of their Archives.   Maybe they will adopt and incorporate your elitist, closed-door attitude toward research into the history of the game, if they haven't already.     Maybe they could require membership in an old line club before anyone can gain access to the archives.  

That would sure be good for the game.  

_________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Give me a break. My responses directly addressed TEPaul's posts and yours.  He is the one who brought up Merion and made inaccurate claims about what transpired there.  And he is the one who brought up his role of the USGA Archives.  

If there is a personal vendetta here, it is found in TEPaul's last post, not mine.    Or what do you suppose he meant by "your time has come and gone."    Was this an indirect reference to Robert White's brief tenure at Myopia?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 10:44:14 PM
Here is what TEPaul wrote about the "records" in September 2008:

Mr. MacWood:

I've seen the 1894 Myopia Club record by Board secretary S. Dacre Bush. The original nine was laid out before Campbell arrived in America. Play began around June 1, 1894. The three months is accurate not the least reason being S. Dacre Bush's recorded those events in 1894, including the first two tournaments both of which Leeds won just after all those facts of 1894.

If you want to dismiss those kinds of contemporaneous board records of golf clubs such as Merion and Myopia and exaggerate some peripheral people who were not even part of these projects when they began that's just fine but I guarantee you noone takes that seriously.

Keep searching and maybe someday you may find your way to Myopia or Merion and figure all this out from their archives although I doubt it.

Well there you go.   TEPaul has seen the Myopia club records, created in 1894, by Board Secretary S. Dacre Bush.  Not sure why now he suddenly doesn't know who the Secretary of the club was, given he has read the minutes Secretary Bush created.

What I find interesting is that TEPaul's recollection of the minutes is almost exactly the same as the quote of S. Dacre Bush which appears in Weeks' book.  Fascinating that his recollection of the Board minutes is exactly the same as the Bush quote, even though Bush was not the Secretary.  

Anyway, a few months before, on July 23, 2008, TEPaul provided a long excerpt from the Weeks book including the quote from "S. Dacre Bush, Club Secretary." Here is part of the quotation, with the quotation of the "Club Secretary" in bold:

          It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.
         Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:

         'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.'


It seems TEPaul's recollection of the club minutes was identical to the Weeks, quote, and that since then his recollection has just expanded to include more of the quote.  

But what really fascinates me is TEPaul's version of the "record" recorded by Club Secretary S. Dacre Bush.   Anyone notice anything funny about it?  Here let me help. Here is Jeff Brauer's transcription of some of the material from about a page above ( the Bush quote in bolds.)

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed in which their recommendation was followed is evident in THIS TERSE ENTRY IN THE CLUB RECORDS BY SECRETARY S. DACRE BUSH:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.'


Anyone notice anything, other than that TEPaul's quote included the first two tournaments, and Jeff Brauer's didn't.

TEPaul must have a different book.   In TEPaul's book, the Executive Committee met "March 1894."  Not "about March 1894."   And in TEPaul's book "play began June 1, 1894." It didn't begin "about June 1, 1894" like in Jeff Brauer's book.  

Incredible! TEPaul has a real rarity on his hands: A misprint version of what is already a fairly rare text.  And his version includes specificity where the Jeff's book lacks it!

Either that or TEPaul misquoted the text in order to create the false impression that these "records" were more certain than they really were.  

So which is it TEPaul,  do you have a rare book worthy of a high price on EBay?  Or have you manipulated the source material for rhetorical gain?

Or are you going to tell us that this was yet another innocent error, like when you accidently dropped the key sentence from the Alan Wilson letter?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 10:47:58 PM
David
TEP is not going to admit he never saw the Myopia board minutes. And no one is going to hold him to the same standard as the rest of us. I think the best thing to do is to humor him and ignore him.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 14, 2010, 10:55:42 PM
Well, once again it appears this is more a personal vendetta than any search for the truth so I'm out of here.   

I guess the idea that we can have real discussions about all the facts is simply a pipe dream and obviously not realistic here.

Mike
There is only one person on this site who has been outspoken about vendettas, and amazingly the reaction has been mostly positive from educational and informational standpoint. So I don't know why you are protesting now, knowing you certainly weren't protesting then.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 14, 2010, 11:00:46 PM
TomM,

Yes, but in addition to his suspect story about the minutes, here he is again selectively misrepresenting the source material.

Will they really just ignore this as well?  Even though all of their respective theories rely on little but blind faith in his representations about this very same source material?  

If he cannot be trusted to accurately provide a quotation out of a book (albeit one he didn't think you had or that anyone would check) then how on earth can they believe what he says about the records he supposedly has seen?

Surely this is too much.  

__________________
Here is TEPaul's complete quote of the Weeks passages.  Note how his recollection of the "minutes" starts at the Bush quote and spreads out from there
Now here is a bit of potentially interesting info when it comes to what may've influenced Herbert Leeds (made him tick) early on in golf and perhaps even golf architecture and may be a direct influence or even direct and accurate attribution on the first holes of Myopia in 1894 before Leeds belonged to the club or became involved in Myopia's architecture. These were the same original holes MacWood has been claiming Willie Campbell designed.

The Myopia centennial history book attributes the laying out of the original nine holes of Myopia (not exactly the very same so-called "Long Nine" that Leeds was responsible for improving and on which the 1898 U.S. Open was played) but the very first holes which had some greens and such that were not in the same place as some of their landforms have them today.

Myopia's history book attributes the laying out and design of those early rudimentary holes to three men who were members of Myopia. They are:

1. R.M (Bud) Appleton, the recently elected "Master of the Fox Hounds" at Myopia (don't forget for many years previous to golf at Myopia Hunt Club, the club was a polo and hunting club. Still today it's a golf club and polo club).

2. A man by the name (in the history book) of "Squire" Merrill.

3. A third man named A.P. Gardner.


To preface the history book slightly, the author, Edward Weeks (not exactly a slouch in writing as he was the Editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine), tells us that the first few rudimentary golf courses to appear in Boston in the early 1890s weren't even clubs---they were created on some of the big estates of some of those Boston Brahmans.

What were those early "estate" courses that Weeks says preceded the courses at the clubs by a few years and what did he have to say about them? Here it is from the Myopia centennial history book:




"In the early 1890s golf made its debut in New England, and importation which could best be afforded by the well-to-do. Newport fashioned the first course of nine holes and the first open championship in America was held there in 1895 with eleven entries---ten professionals and a single amateur. In Massachusetts, the game was played informally on private estates as early as 1892. At Appleton Farm in Ipswich, six holes were laid out for the entertainment of the family and guests, and Colonel Francis Appleton recalled that sheep cropped the fairways and were kept off the putting green by low wire netting such as enclosed a croquet lawn. At Moraine Farm on the shore of Whenham Lake, the Phillips family maintained a number of holes, as did the Hunnewells in Wellesley on their picturesque acres bordering the Charles River.
       Four Massachusetts courses emerged within a few months of each other and at an unbelievably low cost. Two were close to the sea: the Prides Golf Course (1893) consisting of nine flat, short holes, (long since abandoned), and Essex County Club (1893) at Manchester, six holes, very much more difficult. Further inland were the six holes of The Country Club, laid out in 1893 at a cost of fifty dollars and soon increased to nine holes, and the nine holes of the Myopia Hunt Club (1894). At both The Country Club and Myopia there was opposition, not to say derision, from the horse lovers: at Clyde Park idiots intent “on chasing a Quinine pill around a cow pasture,” as Finley Peter Dunne put it, were warned not to foul up the race course; at Hamilton (Myopia) they were not to interfere with the Hunt!
       It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.
         Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:

         “At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.”


That is the architectural attribution of the first nine holes of Myopia Hunt Club directly out of the club records including some of the words and recordings of the very people there at the club at that time. This is contemporaneous. And because it’s direct and contemporaneous, I sure do know I do not want to see somebody on here like Tom MacWood suggest it is all hyperbole or lies and should be thrown out (as he said about Leeds’ own diary) so the club can start again and revise their early architectural history about 115 years later because HE ;) has recently become interested Willie Campbell or even in the club and it primary architect, Herbert Leeds. The way he is coming at Myopia right now is the very same way he came at Merion and us over five years ago on this trumped up claim that Macdonald had been minimized by Merion and continues to be by some of us in Philadelphia. It was garbage then and it’s garbage now.

If the info on Willie Campbell designing the original nine rather than those three Myopia members as the club's history says, is real and valid (assuming the nature and origin of your Boston Globe information), I'm sure the club would love to know about it, Tom MacWood. If you want credit for providing the information, I have no problem at all with that. But as seems always the case as you try to prove this you also will be attempting, once again, with another major American golf course to prove those there at the club and from the club were lying somehow about what they recorded they did. Don't you think this tack of yours is getting just a bit tiresome and more than a little illogical and unbelievable??  ;)


By the way, Tom MacWood, who do you think the Appleton Farm was mentioned above that had one of the first golf courses in Massachusetts even before the clubs? It was A.M. Appleton's, the very same man from Myopia who became the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia in 1894 and who Myopia's history says laid out their first nine hole course with two member/friends 2-3 years later. Who do you think layed out the six hole course on the Appleton Farm, Willie Campbell? He hadn't come to America at that point but I'm sure you will avoid or dismiss that fact somehow! Maybe the time has come for you and David Moriarty to realize and understand that these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" back then who their clubs claim designed those early course really did do it themselves and they did not exactly have to depend on some "expert" that you constantly try to find to do it for them.

An historical point of trivia----"Appleton Farm" in Ipswich, Massachussets is considered to be the oldest farm in America still under the control of the same original family!


Note also that even two years ago TEPaul was having trouble distinguishing between a club record and a club history created 80 some years later.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 15, 2010, 12:27:40 AM
David,

How many times have you claimed that I have "misrepresented" what you have stated on here and yet here you go doing the same with me!

"Jeff Brauer, Mike Cirba, Phillip Young, All of your theories are based primarily on blind faith in TEPaul's claim that he has seen Myopia's administrative records and that he has accurately conveyed the information within.  Yet it is becoming more and more apparent that something is amiss here."

You need to actually start READING what you are writing about. Please show me a SINGLE INSTANCE on this thread where I have stated who I believe originally designed Myopia. You can't because I HAVEN'T!

Who on here has actually suggested that Tom Paul has written from memory rather than quoting directly from what he is looking at? Let's see, when you do it its incisive reasoning but WHEN I DO IT its blindly supporting him, unless you once again have missed or ignored what I wrote!

Do I believe that he has seen their records? Yes, I do. Have I taken ANY stance on who designed the original course? NO! Have I suggested anyone who may have been involved? YES! Is it who you think I may be refering to since you state "my theory" is based upon "blind loyalty" to what Tom has stated? NO, you are wrong again because you simply are not paying attention to what I have written yet you have no problem with MIREPRESENTING THOSE SAME COMMENTS!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 15, 2010, 01:03:10 AM
You are correct Phil,  I pay very little attention to what you write, and I have no idea of who you think designed Myopia.  I am sorry if I have mischaracterized your position, if you have one.  Frankly, every time I read your posts you seem to be scolding me, Tom MacWood, or someone else for some perceived slight, no matter how irrelevant or unrelated to the topic at hand, and so I generally tune you out.   But then that is probably some shortcoming or failure on my part, perhaps some inability to understand you.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 15, 2010, 01:11:52 AM
Phil,

Don't feel badly.

The only one David seems to understand here is Tom MacWood and visa versa, so perhaps it's best that we just all leave and let them have at it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 15, 2010, 01:37:06 AM
Mike,

I am not surprised that you would run and hide at this point.  I cannot think of any justification you could offer for your continued reliance on TEPaul's representations about the supposed "minutes" either.   

But perhaps before you go you should take pause to consider your latest swipe in the post above.   It is true that while Tom MacWood and I often disagree, we generally understand each other.  Why do you suppose that is?  Given your track record in these matters, it might help if you could figure that out.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 15, 2010, 05:06:57 AM
David,

Thank you for the apology.

What I am wondering about is the part that Robert White might have played. That is why I am interested in exactly when he started doing design work over here and if he may have already done some in Scotland before coming. If he had, and I have no information one way or the other at this point, I am wondering if that may have been the reason that he was originally hired by Myopia.

From everything presented so far by all on here, I think that the following questions are valid and MIGHT be involved in the story of what occurred to create Myopia:

1- Who was hired first, Campbell or White? If White, was it expected that he would be involved in the creation of the course, either in design aspects or building? If that is the case, why hire Campbell for anything? If Campbell was hired first, was White hired based upon his recommendation?
2- Was White Myopia’s first hired professional? Again, I have no proof of that as of yet just non-contemporaneous reports that state it.
3- What was the “SOD” that was used for the greens and “WHERE” did it come from?
   I ask this question because I believe that the problem in understanding this aspect lay in our view of “sod” in today’s world. The use of sod for numerous applications in America goes back to before any Europeans came here. It has been used in everything from plantings for crops to use as roofs on homes in America. In the 1890s it was not uncommon for someone to purchase sod directly from a farmer for use in whatever form they wanted to. It has been presented that the case for using sod at Myopia was something new and so the need for an extended growing period would be required. While the use of it on a golf course may have been something new, its use wasn't. There would have been many places on any nearby farm where grasses could be cut into transportable sod and that had been growing for numbers of years already. Again, this wasn’t a specialty item, but rather a specialty application. And so the sod used may have been cut out of the ground any time or it may have been specifically grown for the job. There is more than enough evidence though to suggest that this was normal sod harvested in a normal fashion and was possibly already available.
   Since there is debate on who did what and when based upon the sod used, I think a proper understanding of its use at that time is of utmost importance. I also think that it might show a possible early involvement with White who has always been appreciated for his expertise in turf management issues. It might be the prime reason for his being hired by Myopia.
   That is all conjecture, but based upon what has been presented they are reasonable areas of conjecture for further research if only to eliminate or define any or no involvement that he might have had.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 15, 2010, 06:34:47 AM

1- Who was hired first, Campbell or White? If White, was it expected that he would be involved in the creation of the course, either in design aspects or building? If that is the case, why hire Campbell for anything? If Campbell was hired first, was White hired based upon his recommendation?
2- Was White Myopia’s first hired professional? Again, I have no proof of that as of yet just non-contemporaneous reports that state it.
3- What was the “SOD” that was used for the greens and “WHERE” did it come from?
 

Phil
White came to the USA September 1894. He was 18 years old. So obviously he wasn't involved in the creation of the course. The only contemporaneous mention of him being associated with Myopia, that I have seen, was the 1896 article you posted. I have found no mention of him in any of the Boston papers. If he was working at Myopia I suspect it was as a club-maker; that was his speciality early on. When his father came over in 1896 he listed his profession as club-maker. I have no idea if they used sod or not at Myopia, there is no mention of sod being used in any of the early reports of Brookline, Essex County or Myopia's creation. I don't put a lot of stock in Weeks story based on its inconsistencies with published reports at the time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 15, 2010, 02:06:56 PM
Niall:

I do understand what you mean with Troon and Mackenzie and the club not recognizing that or not recognizing it well enough. Something that substantial from an architect, and particularly one of Mackenzie's stature, that is so much of the course today sure is a significant historical oversight. But the circumstances of Campbell and Myopia are entirely different and not recognizing him back then or now is not historically significant, in my opinion or apparently in Myopia's. Campbell probably didn't spend more than a day or two working with Myopia's original nine (that is some ways did not last long) in 1894 but Leeds spent over twenty years working with the course, first the Long Nine and later and much longer, the eighteen hole course.

Tom

With respect, and I do mean that, you are missing the point I'm making about Troon. They simply do not know that MacKenzie largely designed the Portland course. Its not that they choose to ignore it or think it not worthy of mention, they simply don't know he was there. Basically club records and their histories are not infallible and therefore I personally think that for Mike to assume that because Willie didn't get a mention in a club history or is not mentioned in the administrative records that either his contribution wasn't significant or didn't happen. Maybe a small point in relation to Myopia, I don't know as I haven't been following the minutia of the argument but I thought it worth making in a general sense.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 15, 2010, 03:07:37 PM

Mike,

I am not surprised that you would run and hide at this point.  I cannot think of any justification you could offer for your continued reliance on TEPaul's representations about the supposed "minutes" either.  



David,

Here's the thing...I've never relied or not relied on what Tom Paul saw or not at Myopia or what he wrote on this thread to come to any determinations or conclusions.

Frankly, before you resuscitated this thread a few weeks ago I would have said that it seems likely that Willie Campbell designed the course on his own based on those articles that were produced here.  

I didn't know much about the origins of Myopia, never pretended to, never had been at the club until October of this year, wasn't familiar with the course, and had only peripherally and periodically followed the thread prior and grew bored and distracted each time as it turned into a sideshow like most of these threads.

However, once you brought it up again I decided to do some of my own searching to see what my news archive sources had to say on the matter, and having been there and actually seen the course, thought I could possibly add more relevant personal perspective.

First, the only thing I new about the members role is that the Weeks book said they staked out the course in the spring after the snow melt and that Tom MacWood was deriding them as buffoons, with his repeated putdown "Keeper of the Hounds".  

So, it was with a great deal of surprise that I found articles that 1) Said that at least two of the three members in question had been tasked sometime before 4/15 with bringing golf to Myopia that season, that 2) Another article mentioned them as "experts" before the course even opened, and 3) The other member credited in Weeks book was in Hamilton at the same time (early spring) as their supposed activities, and 4) the article you produced (and one I found that was similar) stated that they could see the whole course from a high vantage point in May and that it hadn't been "laid out" yet  (but which indicated to me that it had at least been located) and that sheep would be fielded where the course was to be located.

All of that suggested to me that the story was probably more complex than just a simple Campbell/No Campbell, as most of these things are.

We also learned that Campbell wasn't here until the beginning of April, that he was housed at Brookline  33 miles away from Myopia until early June when he went to Essex for their golf year.   To me, it's clear he was involved in getting the golf course up and running at Myopia and was credited as such, but for the life of me I don't see how you can just summarily preclude the members having staked out a course prior to his arrival, or sometime in April??  

I mean, why would they not?   Wouldn't that be the first order of business if you were tasked with bringing golf to a club?   Where are we going to play?   Where can we locate our holes so as to not piss off the polo players and hunters or to not have horse hoof tracks all over our greens?  

These guys had all played golf prior and were avid.   Appleton seemingly had a course on his own property, and the fact they were known locally as experts before Myopia even opened tells me that they were known to have knowledge of the game.  

That you and TM are not open to even discuss this possibility/probability is to me indicative of having a different agenda than truth-seeking.   Did Campbell follow their initial routing, or change it entirely?   We don't know, do we, but to suggest that these members absolutely didn't do it when it's what Weeks reported, and apparently S. Dacre Bush remembered at the very least (and Bush was right alongside these guys in hunts and polo matches ALL through that period) is to me simply either intellectual dishonesty or just another attempt to prove Tom Paul wrong, the first of which makes rational discussion with anyone else here impossible and the latter of which grows absolutely boring and really...who gives a fu*k at this point, David?

Then, to have the audacity to suggest that my theory that says the members probably staked out a course and then it was built and/or modified by Campbell before opening as "embarrassing", or "ludicrous", or any number of other insults just tells me that you want to argue for arguments sake, and I don't have time to do that anymore.   It seems to me that most likely scenario that encompasses all the evidence we know, or that has been presented to date.   I'm sorry that you and Tom don't agree but I really don't think I need to defend it further and really think that becomes redundant and boring to anyone reading at home.

Truthfully David, I enjoy the benefits of this site too much to get aggravated and irritated here when I come to discuss topics that interest me.   I'm not looking to engage in courtroom theatrics, or deadly serious invective about a light and fun topic.

So, given the tone and direction of this thread, I'm leaving it, but wish you and Tom MacWood a healthy and happy holiday season.




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 15, 2010, 04:30:24 PM
David,

Just to be sure I wasn't losing my mind, I went back and re-read the earliest pages on this thread.  

For crying out loud, I was the guy who produced Willie Campbell's ships manifest here.

Please re-read it yourself, as you'll see I was perfectly willing to accept that Campbell designed the first nine holes and conceded it based on what I knew at that time on page one.  

My thinking only changed based on my doing my own research since seeing/playing the course in October once you resuscitated this thread.  

Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 15, 2010, 08:49:50 PM

My thinking only changed based on my doing my own research since seeing/playing the course in October once you resuscitated this thread.  

Sure it did. Thanks for the holiday greetings. I wish you and everyone on GCA, and around the world, a happy holiday too. God bless us, every one!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 15, 2010, 11:28:34 PM
Phillip,

I don't think Robert White was involved in the initial creation of Myopia.   We have three contemporaneous reports that Willie Campbell laid out the course sometime in the late spring or early summer of 1894, and I have never seen anything indicating that White was there then.  And according to Tom MacWood he was not in the country yet. 

1- Who was hired first, Campbell or White? If White, was it expected that he would be involved in the creation of the course, either in design aspects or building? If that is the case, why hire Campbell for anything? If Campbell was hired first, was White hired based upon his recommendation?

    Hired for what?  Reportedly Campbell laid out the course in late spring or early summer of 1894, so someone at Myopia must have retained him for this purpose.   But Campbell was not the professional at Myopia that summer, he was the professional at nearby Essex County.  Give the clubs' cross-over membership, Campbell was probably giving lessons to Myopia players but the reports indicate he was the professional at Essex. 
    White was apparently hired as the professional at Myopia sometime before mid-June 1895.  I have seen one report of him being the professional at Myopia (and available for lessons) from around then.  As of mid or late April (I don't have the article in front of me) he was reportedly away for business in Cincinnati, but was still referred to as the Myopia professional in the that blurb.
-- Campbell was apparently hired by Myopia before the USOpen in mid-July of 1896, but possibly after he sent in his entry.   

So in sum, it appears that Campbell was brought in to lay out the course first, then about a year later White was the professional, then a year later or a bit over,  Campbell was a professional at Myopia. 

Quote
2- Was White Myopia’s first hired professional? Again, I have no proof of that as of yet just non-contemporaneous reports that state it.

It is possible.  The first mention I have seen as White as the professional there was from June 1895.  I am not aware of whether Myopia had their own professional before that.

Quote
3- What was the “SOD” that was used for the greens and “WHERE” did it come from?

The report on the use of sod apparenlty comes from Weeks' book, particularly a quote from S. Dacre Bush.   While TEPaul told us this was an entry into the club minutes, it doesn't appear to be.  Perhaps it is from some later report or remembrance by S. Dacre Bush (Bush was on the golf committee in 1895) but it is not a recording of contemporaneous events as they occurred, and so we ought not to give it the deference we usually give such records.   I am not sure how much we can make of the quote until we know more about its origins.  When did Bush write this (if he did) and what was the context?  Did it come from the writing Tom MacWood mentioned, which was also apparently quoted in the Weeks book?   Without knowing more it is difficult to know how much weight to give it.

Also, assuming the information in the quote is accurate, I am not sure that the understanding the normal requirements for using sod at the time will help us much.   First, the quote itself indicated that a number of members were not happy about the decision to begin play, because of rough conditions. So it is not clear that they were following any sort of best practices when it comes to sod. Second, while sod had been around for quite some time, it had to be relatively new to golf, at least in the U.S., so I am not sure that best practices would yet exist the application to golf. 

___________________________________________________

Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to try and explain your position.   While I understand why you would want to distance yourself from TEPaul's claims about the "minutes" I think your past posts indicate much more reliance than you are currently letting on.  At least that is the impression I get looking back through your posts.  If you look back you might see what I mean. 

I think most of the details have been covered so I will try to stick to a few general points.
 
Contrary to your claims, I don't treat this as a zero sum game and I have not summarily dismissed the possibility of membership involvement in the design.   But while it is possible that the membership played some role in the design process, such a determination cannot be reached by wishful thinking, compromise, to save face, or to salvage the current working legend.  Such a determination must be based on facts.  Thus far you have not presented anything factual that suggests that anyone but Willie Campbell created the original course.   

I obviously touched a nerve when I referred to your attempt to parley the "expert golfers" blurb into evidence of design experience and even evidence of who designed the course as "embarrassing."   While I probably should have come up with a better description,  I firmly believe that your logic completely fails you here.   Your conclusions just don't logically follow from these articles.   You seem to be starting at your conclusions, then working your way backward.  It would be as if I reasoned:

If Campbell designed Myopia, it must have been after April 1, 1894.   Therefore, since Myopia was designed after April 1, 1894, Campbell must have designed it.

Obviously that logic does not follow.  Obviously, if Myopia's course had been created before Campbell was in the US, he couldn't have laid it out.  But this logic is not commutative.  It would make no sense to conclude that Campbell designed the course just because he happened to be in the United States.

I think the above example is analogous to your logic here.  Something like:

If Myopia was designed by members, then those members were probably relatively decent golfers as compared to those who had never played.  Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner were called "expert golfers" therefore they probably designed the course.   
or
If Myopia was designed by members, then those members were probably on the sub committee.  Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham were on the subcommittee, therefore they probably designed the course.
or
Whoever designed Myopia must have been at Hamilton in early March.  Gardner was in Hamilton in March (was he?), therefore he designed Myopia.

Surely you can see that these just don't follow.  Yet as near as I can tell, this is precisely what you are trying to claim here;  that AMG must have designed the course because a blurb in a gossip column called them "expert players" and because two of them were on a sub committee.   If not, then can you explain to me how do these articles indicate that AMG designed the course in early March?

And please do not again tell me that it is everything taken together, because everything taken together adds up to very little or nothing, especially when one discounts TEPaul's suspect claim that the Board Minutes definitely indicated that AMG  staked out the course in March 1894.    Without this claim what is their that actually points to AMG?  We have Weeks' account, but Weeks is obviously speculating, otherwise he wouldn't have to say the "probably" marked out the greens with pegs.   

So what is there but Weeks' narrative which on its face is speculative? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 16, 2010, 05:01:33 AM
David,

Thank you for those answers. The reason for the first question were the non-contemporaneous reports (some of which I posted on here a number of pages back) that indicated that White was hired as Myopia's professional in 1894. As these are all non-contemporaneous I was unsure of how much weight to attach to them and yet what has also been posted appears to indicate that White was the first professional hired by Myopia, which would seem to corroborate that date. I trust Tom's information that he didn't arrive until after the course was built and open for play so that eliminates that line of research.

The reason for the "Sod" information has to do with how Weeks' writings on it is interpreted. It has beensuggested that the use of sod on the greens requires a longer time period from initial design to laying out and building the course. Because it was most l;ikely readily available, a special growing of it wouldn't have been required. It would have been available for harvesting and transplanting from local sources immediately after the spring thaw and so it would not have impacted on the time frame from design to laying out and building the course and when it would open.

What is actually quite historically important about their use of sod for the greens is this is the earliest mention of sod use on a golf course in America that I know of. That alone, if it happened as Weeks wrote, makes it significant and important. It also brings up the question of whether or not it grew in well over time and so, if it did, would it or did it influence other courses to go that route in building their new courses. Likewise, if it didn't, did it prevent others from doing so?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 16, 2010, 07:22:57 AM
David,

I'll try to respond later today to your questions.

In the meantime, I came upon two facts last night that I'm not sure I read here previously.

First, it qppears that the second nine holes were under development during the 1898 US Open but didn't open until the last tournament that year, most likely in November.

Secondly, there has been some question about S.Dacre Bush whose remembrances have been quoted here, as well as what role James Parker played.  

James P. Lee's book, "Golf in America", published in 1895 list for Myopia Hunt Club;

Golf Committee

James Parker; S.D Bush, Secretary



***EDIT*** So, it appears that even though Bush was not the "Club Secretary", he was in fact Secretary of the Golf Committee, so it's not possible at this point to know what meeting records Weeks was referring to.   What is quite clear, however, is that Bush was there in a responsible role from the very beginning of golf at Myopia and would have certainly been aware of everything going on at the time, which I believe makes him the only first-person observer we have as a witness to events which should lend much greater credence to the details he related in his "rememberances".
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 16, 2010, 10:19:35 AM
Mike,

The additional fifty acres used for the expansion to 18 holes was reportedly purchased by a syndicate of members in 1897, and the 18 hole course was to have been used in mid October 1898.

I believe it has been mentioned a number of times that S. Dacre Bush was on the golf committee in 1895, most recently by me above in my comments to Phillip.    I think I said that the quoted passage could have even been from some sort of a report given by Bush after the fact.  

So I don't doubt Bush was in a position to know what happened, at least in 1895 and probably before.  And surely what he wrote is generally correct, but oftentimes after-the-fact reports and memories don't get all the details correct, so it is worth trying to confirm what can be confirmed.

More importantly, even if we take the Bush quote entirely at face value, nothing in the Bush quote indicates who laid out the course.    Nothing about members trudging through the mud or staking out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 16, 2010, 10:39:49 AM
"What is actually quite historically important about their use of sod for the greens is this is the earliest mention of sod use on a golf course in America that I know of. That alone, if it happened as Weeks wrote, makes it significant and important. It also brings up the question of whether or not it grew in well over time and so, if it did, would it or did it influence other courses to go that route in building their new courses. Likewise, if it didn't, did it prevent others from doing so?"



Myopia had grass tennis courts before it had golf in 1894. If you know how to establish and maintain grass tennis courts for "lawn tennis" you certainly have the know-how and wherewithal to sod and maintain putting greens. In 1903 Myopia (with Leeds's help) erected a "court tennis" court, one of about 10-12 in America. Its beautiful brick building is still there. By the way, right around this time, Joshua Crane, neighbor and friend from Boston and the North Shore was the national champion in court tennis.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 16, 2010, 11:33:47 AM
If the Myopia membership, pays tribute to their course as a Leeds design, who are you to say otherwise?

I would wager a guess, that the membership at Myopia cares very much about the history of their club, and would want it as exacting as possible. With that said, they would surely include a mention of Campbell's work on the course. Even if he did lay out a full course, doesn't mean tee sites, green sites, and bunkering remained unchanged. If it were unchanged, the course would be credited to Campbell, not Leeds.

Newport CC, was built by Ross, and redesigned by AWT. Now, because AWT made no significant alterations, the course design is still credited to Ross

I'm with the Myopia membership, and I'm with TPaul
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 16, 2010, 12:03:00 PM
Travis,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but you are wrong about Newport CC. First of all, Tilly, in his 1925 advertisement defining many of the courses that he worked on and the type of work that was done, listed Newport as an "Original 18-hole Design." Even though he was working on a course that was already existing, the work that was done was so extensive that it went way beyond the scope of an extended and/or redesigned course.

The official club history is quite specific. It mentions how after “several attempts” at redesigning and modernizing the course were made, in 1921 the Board hired Tilly. They purchased 48.78 acres of new property from two different people for a total of $27,900. Tilly designed 7 brand new holes on this land at a cost of approximately $78,000. The project was being managed by the membership according to Tilly’s plans and so in 1924, after the 7 new holes were opened for play and sensitive to the criticism for being well over budget and more than a year late, Henry Havemeyer stepped down as construction manager and the Green Committee took control in finishing the rest of the project. This consisted of a complete redesign of every tee, fairway, bunker and green on the other existing 11 holes. A completely new golf course was the result. What is there today is Tillinghast and the club recognizes it as such.

If you would like I can send you a copy of the original Tillinghast drawing for this new course.

Now back to Myopia…
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 16, 2010, 12:34:54 PM
If the Myopia membership, pays tribute to their course as a Leeds design, who are you to say otherwise?

Myopia can pay tribute to whomever they want and for whatever reasons they want.  But the origins of Myopia's course are of historical interest, and what happened is a question of fact, and not dependent upon to whom Myopia might want to play tribute.  Yet you to suggest that we must accept their version of what happened as truth, and that we have no business looking into the history for ourselves?  Preposterous.

Quote
I would wager a guess, that the membership at Myopia cares very much about the history of their club, and would want it as exacting as possible. With that said, they would surely include a mention of Campbell's work on the course. Even if he did lay out a full course, doesn't mean tee sites, green sites, and bunkering remained unchanged. If it were unchanged, the course would be credited to Campbell, not Leeds.

If the membership of Myopia wants to get their history as exact as possible, then surely they are grateful we are looking into it and discussing it.

You insist that Myopia would have mentioned Campbell's work on the course?   Well Campbell was widely reported to have laid out their course, and was reportedly playing as their professional in 1896, so where are these mentions you think must exist?  

Are you really comfortable valuing your wishful thinking over multiple reports of Campbell having laid out the course?  

As for the changes to the course, it is ironic you would bring that up, because this whole conversation got going again because of the insistence by TEPaul and Mike that very little had changed at Myopia.   Can it really be that little has changed if Leeds is responsible, but everything has changed if it was Campbell?

Regardless, we are talking about the origins of the course, later changes are irrelevant to that discussion.

Quote
Newport CC, was built by Ross, and redesigned by AWT. Now, because AWT made no significant alterations, the course design is still credited to Ross

The original nine at Newport was designed and built by William Davis.  

Quote
I'm with the Myopia membership, and I'm with TPaul

Given that you seem much more interested in preserving popular legend than actually figuring out what happened, then you are surely "with TEPaul."   Fortunately, this isn't a popularity contest or fraternity, so who you are "with" makes no difference as to what really happened.  

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to place Myopia's membership in the same sinking ship as you and TEPaul.  Surely some at Myopia would like to know what really happened, even if that calls into question some of their club legends.  And surely those that wrote the history meant to get it right in the first place, but did not know that Campbell laid out the course.  Honest mistakes happen.  But they ought to be corrected when discovered.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 16, 2010, 01:13:28 PM
To the Hatfields and McCoys:

Looking back at page 2 of this thread I noticed an article I unearthed on Mrs. Campbell (from the July 2, 1902 edition of the St. Paul Globe) no longer shows since I used the now functionless posting service of this site.  I thought I would repost it to a more reliable server:

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p1.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p2.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p3.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 16, 2010, 01:16:02 PM

Myopia had grass tennis courts before it had golf in 1894. If you know how to establish and maintain grass tennis courts for "lawn tennis" you certainly have the know-how and wherewithal to sod and maintain putting greens. In 1903 Myopia (with Leeds's help) erected a "court tennis" court, one of about 10-12 in America. Its beautiful brick building is still there. By the way, right around this time, Joshua Crane, neighbor and friend from Boston and the North Shore was the national champion in court tennis.


TEP
Where did you read Myopia had lawn tennis prior to 1894? I find no mention of tennis at Myopia prior to 1900. I know Brookline and Essex County had lawn tennis prior to golf, and Campbell laid out those courses so I'm not sure what is your point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 16, 2010, 04:19:00 PM
Not sure if this is relevant to the issue of the number of reported courses (including estate courses) in MA during those years.

The following is from December 1897.

MASSACHUSETTS LINKS.
PROVIDING that nothing happens to prevent
pending negotiations there will be two eighteen hole
links in Massachusetts next season. The
clubs now preparing for such courses are the
Myopia Hunt Club and the Cambridge Golf
Club. This a healthy sign for the game in this
vicinity which has been christened the "hot-
bed of golf.   A daily paper of Boston recently
gave a list of two dozen links within twenty-five
miles of that city and this list did not include all.
There are private links enough to swell the
number to two score, all flourishing clubs. Then
to go through the state this number would be
increased to close to one hundred, and the
membership would run well into the thousands.

So much for golf in the State ot Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 16, 2010, 10:07:37 PM
On the subject of the golf professionals in the 116 years of the history of golf at Myopia, it is quite interesting that Edward Weeks (a long time Myopia member and 28 years editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine) in his centennial history book, "Myopia, 1750-1975," actually specifically lists all seven of them and their duration (other than Robert White and John Thoren) as the Myopia pro. And he offers descriptions of most all of them.

Weeks starts with golf at Myopia in 1894 and goes to 1975 when his book was published. He seem to think that Robert White was Myopia's first professional perhaps from 1894 until replaced by John Jones who stayed until 1912. At the other end of his history book he has John Thoren listed as (1948-) which would mean he was still Myopia's pro when the book was published in 1975.

Again, for some reason, the club's history book and the club does not seem to have anything at all in their records about Willie Campbell. Weeks does mention Campbell, however, in his book, but only as one of a few early immigrant professional teachers who were so helpful teaching the game to early Bostonians and presumably Myopians as well at the very beginning of golf in America.

But here is what's interesting to me, including personally. In the last sixty plus years I think Myopia has had just two golf pros----eg John Thoren and Billy Safrin who is still there today. That would mean in 116 years Myopia has only had eight golf pros. If you think about that it's pretty amazing and probably says a whole lot about how Myopia's pros have felt about Myopia and how Myopia has felt about their golf pros.

I don't know how long John Thoren was there but it appears it was around thirty years because Billy Safrin was a young assistant pro at Gulph Mills Golf Club in Philadelphia when I got there in the late 1970s. He went from GMGC to be the head pro at Myopia (I guess he replaced the retiring John Thoren). I spoke to him about it and I think Billy Safrin has been there about thirty years now. He is just a great guy and a wonderful professional who I would have to say is one of the best head pro mentors there is in dedicating himself to seeing that the assistants that come through his club and program get head pro jobs (I know this personally from my club's last pro-search committee when we had two Myopia assistants applying for the job and ironically the committee assigned both of them to me). In this way, he may be somewhat like Oakmont/Seminole's Bob Ford who probably is the best in America as a head pro mentor of assistants (the head pro GMGC has now, Tom Gilbert, came to us through Bob Ford's Seminole program).

I think this is interesting and probably significant, as in a 150 page centennial book that dealt with fox hunting and polo and tennis and court tennis and golf in various sections and chapters of the club's 100 year history (135 year history now), Weeks carved out a section in the book to both list the durations of the golf pros Myopia had and to describe them all to one degree or another. I think both he and the golf club was actually honoring them in that way; at least that's the way Weeks seemed to phrase it.

But yet, there was no mention of Willie Campbell in the club's history book or in its records. I suspect there is a good historical and factual reason for that, and I very much doubt it is the reason given on this thread a number of times by Tom MacWood.  

By the way, as a club for 135 years, Myopia very well may be the oldest on-going sporting club in America, or very close to it.





Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 16, 2010, 11:05:45 PM
TEP
Did any of those pros play tennis?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 16, 2010, 11:47:32 PM
I'm not sure. However, these threads do tend to run on and on into endless trivialities and irrelevences but I seem to recall you implied, at some point, that Willie Campbell was a world class lawn tennis and court tennis player, an expert fox hunter, steeplechaser and polo player, as well as the best golfer in the world or at least in America. Or was that HH Barker? And I'm pretty sure you've claimed through your "independent" research that you've found (at least to your interesting qualifier----eg "to my knowledge") that Chubby Checker couldn't hold a candle with the Twist compared to Charles Blair Macdonald. And aren't you the one who broke the earth-shattering news on here that H.J. Tweedie invented and popularized the hula hoop after his family's experiences somewhere in the Far East, India or Indonesia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 12:29:29 AM
TEPaul,

Why the sudden reliance on Weeks?  What happened to those mysterious Board Minutes written by Club Secretary Bush?    

Let me help get you back on track.  Here is what you said about Robert White a couple of years ago:

Mr. MacWood:

Robert White came to Myopia between the years 1895 and 1897 as the club's pro/greenskeeper. This is accroding to the club's own records. If you chose to believe they are lies or hyperbole (even though they are contemporaneous to that time), I guess that's just your good right as an "independent" researcher.

According to the club's records White was followed at Myopia as its pro/greenskeeper by John Jones who remained at Myopia in that capacity for many years.

I do not know where White went following his brief time at Myopia. He may've gone to the midwest.

As to what his qualifications were in 1895, apparently Myopia felt they were as a club professional and greenskeeper, otherwise it's hard to imagine why they hired him to be that for them.

You didn't need Weeks then.  Rather, you claimed this was "according to the club's own records;" records created "contemporaneous to that time."

So what is up?  

Did you really get this information from contemporaneously created club records?  

Or did you just make that up?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 12:50:05 AM
"Did you really get this information from contemporaneously created club records?"

I did.   

"Or did you just make that up?"

Not at all.


But I should ask what's up with you on this thread? You've never been to Myopia, you know nothing about it; you do not have nor  have you ever read Weeks's history book and all it seems you know about Myopia and its history is what's said in a couple of newspaper articles in 1894 which could mean and probably does mean that Campbell did some manual labor on Myopia just after he got off the ship after the golf course was routed with tees and fairways and greens sited and sodded by those three members Weeks specifically mentioned from the records of the club at the time----a time before Campbell even got to America. Why would anyone want to discuss any of this with you? You don't know anything about any of it.

You still don't know much of anything first-hand about Merion either, so what's up with YOU?
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 01:44:33 AM
"Did you really get this information from contemporaneously created club records?"

I did.   

"Or did you just make that up?"

Not at all.


But I should ask what's up with you on this thread? You've never been to Myopia, you know nothing about it; you do not have nor  have you ever read Weeks's history book and all it seems you know about Myopia and its history is what's said in a couple of newspaper articles in 1894 which could mean and probably does mean that Campbell did some manual labor on Myopia just after he got off the ship after the golf course was routed with tees and fairways and greens sited and sodded by those three members Weeks specifically mentioned from the records of the club at the time----a time before Campbell even got to America. Why would anyone want to discuss any of this with you? You don't know anything about any of it.

You still don't know much of anything first-hand about Merion either, so what's up with YOU?

I do know enough about Myopia to tell you that Willie Campbell would not have been credited with laying out the course if all he had done was some manual labor after the course was already laid out.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 17, 2010, 08:36:01 AM
Not sure if this is relevant to the issue of the number of reported courses (including estate courses) in MA during those years.

The following is from December 1897.

MASSACHUSETTS LINKS.
PROVIDING that nothing happens to prevent
pending negotiations there will be two eighteen hole
links in Massachusetts next season. The
clubs now preparing for such courses are the
Myopia Hunt Club and the Cambridge Golf
Club. This a healthy sign for the game in this
vicinity which has been christened the "hot-
bed of golf.   A daily paper of Boston recently
gave a list of two dozen links within twenty-five
miles of that city and this list did not include all.
There are private links enough to swell the
number to two score, all flourishing clubs. Then
to go through the state this number would be
increased to close to one hundred, and the
membership would run well into the thousands.

So much for golf in the State ot Massachusetts.

Campbell was responsible for the new course at Cambridge. There is no doubt Leeds is responsible for expanding Myopia to 18, but did he receive any help?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 09:08:01 AM
"I do know enough about Myopia to tell you that Willie Campbell would not have been credited with laying out the course if all he had done was some manual labor after the course was already laid out."



You do, and what is that you know? Isn't it that you believe "laid out" means to build something? Isn't that manual?

And credited by what; a single line in a couple of newspapers? Why not the club too?
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 09:24:16 AM
deleted; post on wrong thread, unless Shinnecock's Willie Davis, Willie Dunn and Charlie Thom also designed Myopia.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: D_Malley on December 17, 2010, 09:27:12 AM
TEP
I believe that Phila. Cricket claims to be the oldest sporting club in the country, dating back to it's inception in 1854.  It was formed initially as a cricket Team which did not have a home pitch for several years.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 09:41:30 AM
D. Malley:

Good point there. Frankly, I didn't know that or if I did I forgot it. Actually there is a club around here, albeit it not a sporting club, that for some reason claims to be the oldest continuous club in the same place in the English speaking world. It's technically called the "State and Schuykill" and is informally called the "Fish House." I think they say they go back to the 17th century which would make them something like 350+ years old.

That's what they claim although I suppose some have questioned it or challenged it.

Some say around the end of the 19th century they had the best 1 1/2 hole golf course in America and I've heard there's an old  article extant from the Trenton Town Crier and Weeper newspaper that says Willie Campbell actually laid it out.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 10:16:04 AM
You do, and what is that you know? Isn't it that you believe "laid out" means to build something? Isn't that manual?

And credited by what; a single line in a couple of newspapers? Why not the club too?

TEPaul, that you have to resort to misrepresenting my position speaks volumes about yours.

Quote
Some say around the end of the 19th century they had the best 1 1/2 hole golf course in America and I've heard there's an old  article extant from the Trenton Town Crier and Weeper newspaper that says Willie Campbell actually laid it out.

If so, then Campbell probably laid it out when he was in town laying out Merion's original course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 10:19:00 AM
I do know enough about Myopia to tell you that Willie Campbell would not have been credited with laying out the course if all he had done was some manual labor after the course was already laid out.

David,

That may well be true, but I don't think it's necessarily true.  

Depending on what may have been involved physically in "laying out" the course for Myopia, such as the creation/building of greens, etc., it may very well have been a noteworthy endeavor that was mentioned in the press, especially as Campbell was a new, celebrated arrival on these shores, and the club may have been appreciative, as well.

Truth be told, I see it something like this....

Cut to a Myopia Hunt Club membership meeting, as a buzz of discussion grows louder and more fervent and argumentative...

"You mean we can't ride on the land across the hill anymore?"

"Those fellows are slightly addled...what kind of British game are they tinkering with now?"

"We won't injure the hounds...the balls only fly a limited distance"..

"How much money did you say the sod will cost?"


Cut..to the wretched sound of fingernails scratching a blackboard....the arguments slow...and then stop, and all eyes turn to the back of the room.

In a brown topcoat, looking unshaven and perhaps having taken a pop or two prior, sits big Willie Campbell, speaking in a heavy Scotch brogue, which contrasts like sandpaper against the refined aristocratic somewhat practiced linguistics practiced predominantly in the room...

"Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'   They call me a "clubmaker", but I can do a lot more.

I'll build this course for ya, but it ain't gonna be easy... Big course. It's not like going down to some mamby-pamby estate course with 3 or 6 holes bad holes on it.   You fellas are lookin' for a championship course...something for y'all to be proud of...to show off to your rich friends.

This course project - it'll swallow ya hole if you don't know what you're doin'.   L'il shakin', l'il tenderizin', down ya go.   It'll cut up and divide your membership into little pieces quicker than a shark.

Now we gotta do it quick, that'll bring back....the members, that'll put all your club busineesses on a payin' basis.

But it's not gonna be pleasant!   We'll need some good horseshit, and some foreign laborers working around these parts for the next few months.   Some of the work on the hills might even get dangerous...a fella can slip and have a bad fall....get laid out...not able to make any clubs for awhile if you catch my drift..

I value my neck a lot more than 3000 bucks chief! I'll look over the property for three, but I'll build it.. get it ready for play... for ten!

Now you gotta make up your minds. Gonna play golf and ante up? Or ya wanna play it cheap, be playing on bare turf the whole summer. I don't want no volunteers; I don't want no mates. There's too many captains on this North Shore. Ten thousand dollars
for me by myself. For that you get the greens, the tees, the whole damn thing."


(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5268989212_859acae1d5_o.jpg)

Myopia: "Thank you very much Mr. Campbell. We'll, uh, we'll take it under advisement."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 10:45:34 AM
"If so, then Campbell probably laid it out when he was in town laying out Merion's original course."


Yes, indeed, and I really like that word "probably." Tomorrow "probably" will probably be gone and you and MacWood will claim you have established "verifiable proof" of it, and that anyone who disagrees is dreaming or speculating or they must offer you some supporting documentation to establish that it is not impossible or some such bizarre logic and argumentation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 11:17:37 AM
Campbell was responsible for the new course at Cambridge. There is no doubt Leeds is responsible for expanding Myopia to 18, but did he receive any help?

Tom MacWood,

Other contemporaneous articles mention that Boston will now have three 18 holes courses, and mention that Campbell laid out the eighteens at Cambridge and TCC.   The articles also mention that Myopia is making preparations for an 18 hole course, but don't mention Campbell in that regard.   If he was involved in creating the 18 hole course at Myopia, don't you find that strange?

BTW...do you still hold to the belief that the news article you mentioned that listed the courses in and around Boston and didn't mention Appleton's estate course as proof that he didn't have/build one before 1894?    The article I posted seems to say that the news article you referenced was woefully incomplete.

"A daily paper of Boston recently
gave a list of two dozen links within twenty-five
miles of that city and this list did not include all.
There are private links enough to swell the
number to two score, all flourishing clubs."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 17, 2010, 11:52:50 AM
Mike,

Very funny in post 882!

Two questions, if I may:

The reports mentioning Squire, et al laying out the course...if they don't come from Weeks, where exactly did they come from? I just don't recall.

From your earlier post on Bush and the Green Committee minutes, I would presume that there was no golf committee in 1894 because golf just started and then they felt they needed one for 1895 because it became popular.  As such, I think its likely that they were appointed late 1894 or early 1895 and this "club record" was their first annual report of activity covering the previous year, which included building the course, etc.?  If so, he could certainly remember what happened the year before and was specifically recording it for history, so would make an effort to get it right, no?

And yet, for some, this cannot be considered an accurate report of events that we can rely on?

I can't see it, frankly, but if others really think this, then it must be like libs and conservatives debating and certain belief sets are strongly tied together in the thought processes of both that the other just can't understand.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 17, 2010, 12:00:05 PM
Campbell was responsible for the new course at Cambridge. There is no doubt Leeds is responsible for expanding Myopia to 18, but did he receive any help?

Tom MacWood,

Other contemporaneous articles mention that Boston will now have three 18 holes courses, and mention that Campbell laid out the eighteens at Cambridge and TCC.   The articles also mention that Myopia is making preparations for an 18 hole course, but don't mention Campbell in that regard.   If he was involved in creating the 18 hole course at Myopia, don't you find that strange?

BTW...do you still hold to the belief that the news article you mentioned that listed the courses in and around Boston and didn't mention Appleton's
estate course as proof that he didn't have/build one before 1894?    The article I posted seems to say that the news article you referenced was woefully incomplete.


Mike
Does the article mention Leeds? I've found numerous articles and sources that list the courses in the area (club and private), and I have yet to find any mention of Appleton's.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
Tom,

Not the one that mentions Campbell laying out 18 hole courses at Cambridge and TCC, (it says simply after mentioning Campbell specific to the other courses that "preparations are underway" at Myopia) but one I'm hoping to post after I get it scanned which describes the 1898 US Open course in detail mentions Leeds in the very first paragraph, although somewhat obliquely;

"Not content with its fame acquired on the polo field and in hunting annals, the Myopia Hunt Club seeks new laurels this year, in golf.  It is not surprising that so many of our hunt clubs, like Meadowbrook and Myopia, have taken up golf.   They have ample grounds for golf courses, and in their membership may be found golfers of the first class in America.   Foxhall Keene and Herbert C. Leeds are as well known as hunt club men as they are to the golfers of the country."

Again, nothing to do with specific authorship, but his prominence in a two page US Open preview article detailing each hole on the course seems noteworthy.

Jeff,

I don't know those specifics of the records but would agree with your take on this in terms of what would seem to make the most sense.

I'm sure Tom and David do not, but I think your Liberal/Conservative analogy is pretty spot on, as well.

Glad you enjoyed the attempt at humor!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 17, 2010, 12:14:30 PM
TMac,

When you say you see no mention of the Appleton course, then I presum you dicount Weeks mention of it?  That is fine, but Weeks did mention it on page 30, albeit I agree we don't know his source for putting it in the book and he estimates the date of 1892.  But he clearly means those courses preceded the first four country clubs, I think.

Mike C,

The funny thing is I think all on the club record side have acknowledged that the newspaper articles strongly suggest that Willie C did have something to do with it, and you and I have opined that they called him in as an expert in something after getting started.  David has admitted that the Bush recollections are surely generally correct and yet a sometimes bitter debate continues. 

I have to believe it is personality and animosity based, but then, what do I know?  As I said very early on in this reguritation of the thread,  its more of the same old same old, one side believing we trust club records, the other side believing we should trust the old gossip columns/newspapers.  Again, like the current political climate, it seems like the middle road guys have no chance to make headway in this argument.

I am off for a while, but fully expect a lecture on how I shouldn't be lecturing anyone, even though I just made a bipartisan observation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 02:07:22 PM
The reports mentioning Squire, et al laying out the course...if they don't come from Weeks, where exactly did they come from? I just don't recall.
Who said this information didn't come from Weeks?   Weeks speculated that they "probably" used pegs to mark of the greens.  It seems TEPaul just . . . ummm . . . let's say extrapolated from there, claiming that according to S. Dacre Bush, they definitely staked out the course around March 1, 1894.   As to why he so "extrapolated" well you will have to ask him that.  

So far as I know there are NO CONTEMPORANEOUS ACCOUNTS OF MEMBERS STAKING OUT THE COURSE AROUND MARCH 1, 1894.   But if there are any I'd love to hear about them.

Quote
From your earlier post on Bush and the Green Committee minutes, . . .

Green Committee minutes?  On what basis do you claim there were "Green Committee minutes."  Weeks said the quote was an entry by Club Secretary Bush into the club record.  He was obviously mistaken about whether Bush was Secretary, yet TEPaul claimed he had read the Club Secretary Bush's contemporaneous entries into the CLUB MINUTES.   So far as I know, not even TEPaul ever claimed to have seen "Green Committee minutes" (although I wouldn't be surprised if he had a sudden recollection of it) and so far as I know, neither did Weeks.   While TEPaul apparently doesn't understand this, we cannot just make things up or misrepresent the source material to suit our needs.

Quote
I would presume that there was no golf committee in 1894 because golf just started and then they felt they needed one for 1895 because it became popular.  As such, I think its likely that they were appointed late 1894 or early 1895 and this "club record" was their first annual report of activity covering the previous year, which included building the course, etc.?
There was a report of a sub committee being formed to bring golf to Myopia, but Bush was not listed as on that sub committee.    As I have said above a few times, the Bush quote may well have come from a later report, but a later report is obviously not a recording of events as they occur, and therefore should not necessarily be shrouded in the same assumption of reliability.  That said, if the Bush quote was a later report, I have no reason to doubt that it would have been generally accurate.

The 1894 Executive Committee Meeting reportedly took place in Boston in March, so if that was about when those meetings occurred, then the Bush "report" (if that is what it was) may have been from a meeting in March of 1895 (if for example, the sub committee on bringing golf to Myopia reported to him (he was a "Steward") and then he to the board.) Or it could have been his report from the 1895 Golf Committee which would likely have been at the meeting around March of 1896.

Or it may not have been a "report" but something like the piece written by Bush that MacWood mentioned earlier.

Quote
If so, he could certainly remember what happened the year before and was specifically recording it for history, so would make an effort to get it right, no?
I think I made the point above that he probably had some knowledge of what is in the quote, but we certainly cannot conclude it was firsthand knowledge.  Aside from the tournament info, it seems only a general and terse summary of what happened.  

Quote
And yet, for some, this cannot be considered an accurate report of events that we can rely on?
You can rely on it all you like.   But to what end?  The Bush quote did not address who laid out the course!  

Quote
I can't see it, frankly, but if others really think this, then it must be like libs and conservatives debating and certain belief sets are strongly tied together in the thought processes of both that the other just can't understand.

The funny thing is I think all on the club record side have acknowledged that the newspaper articles strongly suggest that Willie C did have something to do with it, and you and I have opined that they called him in as an expert in something after getting started.  David has admitted that the Bush recollections are surely generally correct and yet a sometimes bitter debate continues.

The "bitter debate" does not at all hinge upon whether the Weeks' Bush quote is reliable.  Reliable or not, the Bush quote is entirely consistent with the reports in the paper that Campbell laid out the course at Myopia.  

It doesn't really matter if everything in the Bush quote is accurate or not, because IT DOES NOT ADDRESS WHO CREATED THE GOLF COURSE.   Even if everything in the the quote was 100% accurate - and it way well be - IT STILL DOES NOT TELL US WHO CREATED THE GOLF COURSE.  

There was some debate about whether there was an entry into the "minutes" indicating that AMG staked out the course in early March, but it seems that TEPaul was  . . . how shall I put it? . . . confused about that.

So I am not sure what the debate is about now. I am still waiting for someone to explain how Mike Cirba's two articles and this Bush quote amount to anything indicating that AMG designed the course.  

Quote
I have to believe it is personality and animosity based, but then, what do I know?  As I said very early on in this reguritation of the thread,  its more of the same old same old, one side believing we trust club records, the other side believing we should trust the old gossip columns/newspapers.  Again, like the current political climate, it seems like the middle road guys have no chance to make headway in this argument.

You again misrepresent the issues involved.   What club records?  All we have is the Bush quote, which does not address who laid out the course, regardless of whether it was a "record" or not.  

So let's not pretend it is about trusting club records.

And as for the middle guys having "no chance," it is more like the middle guys have "no facts."  You just cannot split the difference because you think that might be a desirable or convenient outcome, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that AMG staked out the course in early March.   Except for TEPaul's and Weeks speculation, of course.    

________________________________________

Mike Cirba, Jeff Brauer,  whoever,

Again . . .

WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, IS THE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT AM&G LAID OUT THE COURSE AROUND THE FIRST OF MARCH, 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 17, 2010, 02:21:48 PM
David,

I have read Weeks, at least pages 28-35 covering golf and see no mention of squire and the three supposedly different men who laid it out vs the three that maintained it. (Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker)  I wonder if it came from the earlier history, club minutes as seen by TePaul or...(sigh) as you imagine, it was made up.

I did notice that in discussing the long nine Weeks quotes Club Secretary Bush.  That suggests that maybe he did do an architectural summary in 1896 and that is where Weeks draws his words.  It also mentions that the recollection was in a section called "Hope over Experience" suggesting it was a full reminiscense after the long 9 was built, but also suggesting that they did it in house, according to Bush, because if they had used Campbell, it would have been using an experienced person, no?

You are likely right that it was not the 1895 golf report, at least that is what I think for now.

All that said, your tone still implies that we must accept what you say as gospel, and tell us that over and over again, such as in you know just how Myopia Club members thought in 1896 and that allows you and you alone to figure out what happened.  You really don't have any facts either, and spend most of your posts discrediting others questions and any source not consistent with your gossip columns (whose writers probably never ventured out on the property either but took a wire report or mailed press release as gospel) as unreliable.

As to the animosity, I think your tone sets most of the negative experience here.  Basically, if we ask a simple question, who the hell likes your courtroom cross examination of every little point?  No one, that is who! That said, TePaul and the rest of us also contribute mightily.  It does take two to tango, and I realize that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 17, 2010, 03:03:19 PM
Jeff,

"It does take two to tango, and I realize that..."

Dunt, Dunt, Dunt, Dunt... Da, Da, Da, Da, Da... (add in your own music!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 03:11:32 PM
David,

I don't have the Weeks book nor do I have the Myopia club records.

Since Weeks wrote in his book that Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton staked out the course after the snows melted in April 1894, I would ask you why you think he wrote that?

I know you said something like "he used the only sources he had", but to make something up out of thin air seems to me to either be an outright lie or else he had a document that was erroneous.

What do you think he did?

The evidence I presented does bolster, if not prove Weeks' account.

It shows that 2 of the 3 men (Appleton & Merrill) were assigned to a subcommittee that spring to bring golf to Myopia.

We know the third man (Gardner) was in town at the same time.

We know that the local papers called them "experts" in the new game before the course at Myopia even opened.

We also know that Weeks told us Appleton had a course on his own property, which would/could account for their early proficiency in the game.

We know that the area for the golf holes was already located by mid May (even if the course had not yet been "laid out" yet, which to me is greater evidence that the term was meaning "construction to plans") as sheep were purchased to graze that area, and we know accounts stated you could watch play across the whole course from the high hill.   How could someone make that statement if the location of the golf holes had not yet been determined?!?

None of this is conclusive proof, but it certainly helps support the idea that the assigned members staked out the course prior and then built it with Campbell's help.  

I think the extreme, unsupportable position here is to simply ignore all that evidence, state that Willie Campbell did it all on his own, and then also believe that Weeks either made it up (lied) or had bad sources...  

I mean, what bad sources could possibly exist that said Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner staked out a course after the snow melted, that they thought it would take three months to ready a course, and that the course opened in June of that year as the Weeks book recounts?

I think the much more viable answer, by a factor of reason-ability of one-hundred-fold, is that both accounts are true, and again we just don't know how much each contributed to the final product.


Tom MacWood,

I went back and re-read some of this thread and wanted to ask you if you're now prepared to recant two of your previous claims;

1) You claimed that Merrill and Gardner did not even play in the opening day tournament.   Are you sure of that?

2) You claimed that the course could not be staked out prior to April 9th because at that point there was still 18 inches of snow on the ground.   Are you sure of that?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 17, 2010, 04:06:44 PM

But I should ask what's up with you on this thread? You've never been to Myopia, you know nothing about it; you do not have nor  have you ever read Weeks's history book and all it seems you know about Myopia and its history is what's said in a couple of newspaper articles in 1894 which could mean and probably does mean that Campbell did some manual labor on Myopia just after he got off the ship after the golf course was routed with tees and fairways and greens sited and sodded by those three members Weeks specifically mentioned from the records of the club at the time----a time before Campbell even got to America. Why would anyone want to discuss any of this with you? You don't know anything about any of it.


Where did you come up with March 1 or early March as the time the course was routed? Buch was somewhat vague about the timing of the annual meeting when it was decided to build a golf course...sometime in March is what he said. The Annual meeting was on March 13 in Boston, as reported by the Boston Globe. Campbell was on his way to Boston in late March as arranged by WB Thomas, Myopia member. Presumably they would have known at that meeting Willie was on his way. It makes little sense that the Squire & Co would head out to Hamilton to route a course (much less sod greens) when they knew an expert was on his way.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 04:12:55 PM
Tom MacWood,

Can you answer my questions above?

I'd also ask, simply because I don't know, but why or how would the men in Boston know that Campbell was an "expert" in laying out courses at that time?   What courses of note had he designed before March 1894 that they would be familiar with?

Certainly they would have known him as a champion competitor, a professional with teaching skills, and as a club maker, but what courses of his were held in high repute by March 1894?

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 17, 2010, 04:25:43 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=oSjrZv0rOMQC&pg=PA139&dq=%22myopia+hunt+club%22+Willie+Campbell&hl=en&ei=CNELTd-NJYS8lQeOn_j6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22myopia%20hunt%20club%22%20Willie%20Campbell&f=false

OT - about The Country Club, but it says Curtis and 2 others, added 3 holes late 1893 - taking the course from 6 to 9. Then it says Campbell was hired in 1894, to strengthen the course, add yardage, and bunkers.

Here is the wikipedia blurb on the design credit
The golf course itself grew in several stages, and so is not the result of any one architect. The first six holes were laid out by three club members in March 1893, and the following year the Scot Willie Campbell was brought in as club professional. He oversaw the expansion to nine holes that summer, and to a full 18 holes by 1899 following some land acquisition


I am starting to get some where....


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 17, 2010, 04:31:40 PM
"Since Weeks wrote in his book that Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton staked out the course after the snows melted in April 1894, I would ask you why you think he wrote that?

I know you said something like "he used the only sources he had", but to make something up out of thin air seems to me to either be an outright lie or else he had a document that was erroneous.

What do you think he did?"




Michael:

Regarding Myopia's account, those are the two true salient questions here on this thread, aren't they?  ;)

Nota Bene:
Weeks did not write in "April, 1894 when the snow melted," he wrote 'When the snows melted in the spring of 1894,"

Week's also wrote, 'Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three month,'..

Did Weeks just dream all that up; the three names, that they reported to the executive committee, the timing of the project they reported and all out of thin air or was he actually looking at something from the club when he wrote that?

That is the salient question on this thread, isn't it, or at least for what is described above as "the middle guys?" ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 17, 2010, 04:40:00 PM
Tom MacWood,

I went back and re-read some of this thread and wanted to ask you if you're now prepared to recant two of your previous claims;

1) You claimed that Merrill and Gardner did not even play in the opening day tournament.   Are you sure of that?

2) You claimed that the course could not be staked out prior to April 9th because at that point there was still 18 inches of snow on the ground.   Are you sure of that?

Thanks.

Isn't that what Bush reported? According to the Boston Advertiser Leeds, Hopkins, Bacon, Curtis, Appleton, Norman and Motley played in that first event.

I don't recall saying the course could not steaked out prior to April 9th. You asked a question about the weather or snow, and I said there was 18 inches of snow on the ground April 9.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 17, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=2uvSAAAAMAAJ&q=%22myopia+hunt+club%22+Leeds&dq=%22myopia+hunt+club%22+Leeds&hl=en&ei=ttkLTbHzIIX6lwec7sT_Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgU
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 17, 2010, 05:12:26 PM
Tom MacWood,

What do you mean "isn't that what Bush reported?"?

There were about 25 players in the opening day tournament...would you like to see the results?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 17, 2010, 08:22:48 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 10:09:24 PM
Jeffrey "Miss Manners" Brauer,

Another unsolicited, condescending, and hypocritical lecture about all the things you don't like about me and my posts?  Who do you think I am, your ex-wife?  

Your blanket disregard of the reports about Campbell having laid out the course is, in my opinion, unjustified.  There were multiple reports, and they included details about the tournament and course, thus strongly suggesting that the information in the articles came from someone who knew what was going on.  Besides, THOSE CAMPBELL ARTICLES ARE THE BEST CONTEMPORANEOUS INDICATION WE HAVE OF WHO CREATED THE COURSE.  ACTUALLY THEY ARE THE ONLY CONTEMPORANEOUS INDICATION WE HAVE.

Is there a reason you will not take these reports seriously, other than that you don't like the contents?

____________________________________

Mike Cirba asked:
Quote
Since Weeks wrote in his book that Merrill, Gardner, and Appleton staked out the course after the snows melted in April 1894, I would ask you why you think he wrote that?

1. He didn't write that they "staked out the course."    He wrote that they "probably" marked the greens with pegs.   He didn't know if they did or not.  He was SPECULATING.  
2. He didn't write that this occurred in April.  He didn't say exactly happened.  But he seems to think it must have happened in early March, even BEFORE the March meeting.   This is inconsistent with your account, but again he seems to be speculating.

As for why he wrote what he wrote, how should I know? I have a theory about what might have happened, but the last thing we need is more speculation.  All I know is that it seems he was speculating on key points, and that most of his narrative could have logically followed from that single Bush quote, and his speculation conflicts with numerous contemporaneous reports.   As between speculation eighty years after the fact, on the one hand, or contemporaneous reports, on the other, I'll go with contemporaneous reports every time.  

And Mike, your newspaper reports don't even bolster, much less prove, Weeks' account.  If anything, the reports raise more doubt that they resolve.  You seem to think that you can cherry pick a few articles, and if they only partially contradict Weeks' account, then this is somehow proof that everything Weeks wrote is true.  But what of all the other articles that contradict Weeks' account?  And what of the contradictions and inconsistencies even within the articles on which you rely?  

Even if we set aside the KEY point that your articles TELL US NOTHING ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY CREATED THE COURSE, the articles - yours and others - are inconsistent with the Weeks account.

Quote
I mean, what bad sources could possibly exist that said Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner staked out a course after the snow melted, that they thought it would take three months to ready a course, and that the course opened in June of that year as the Weeks book recounts?

See how you just misrepresented what Weeks wrote again?  Weeks was speculating about them having staked out the course.    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Travis Dewire on December 17, 2010, 10:59:58 PM


If so, then Campbell probably laid it out when he was in town laying out Merion's original course.



http://www.walkercup.org/news/wilson.html


yeah buddy, keep trying. TEPaul is the BO$$
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 17, 2010, 11:15:22 PM


If so, then Campbell probably laid it out when he was in town laying out Merion's original course.



http://www.walkercup.org/news/wilson.html


yeah buddy, keep trying. TEPaul is the BO$$

Original course, Travis.  In Haverford, not Ardmore.

Maybe you should put down your pom poms and look it up.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 17, 2010, 11:33:23 PM
David,

As condescending and hypocritical as you are, you are not nearly as bad as my ex!  Actually, when I think of how you treat us here, I don't think of my ex, but I do think of my two year old grandaugher (you) and her diapers (us)......

Listen, here is the difference I see between us.....

I don't dimiss those three newspaper articles at all and never have.  I just have not concluded that they are the definitive sources to rely on for a number of reasons.  Further, I believe all the articles, club records, club histories, etc. are probably mostly correct and am looking for a scenario that fits them all.

I believe there is a good reason why Myopia doesn't mention WC. I also believe that Bush, sitting down to write his remembrances of early golf at MH was writing with the intention of telling it like it was a year before he wrote it, and was not so addled as to mix it up.  I believe the newspapers got some sort of press release from MH and since it mentioned WC, that he had something to do with it.

Yes, you say you are looking for the "truth" etc., but I remind you that you rely on your "logic" to reach many conclusions, while demanding others supply verifiable facts.  Two recent examples among many are:

From TMac:

"Presumably they would have known at that meeting Willie was on his way. It makes little sense that the Squire & Co would head out to Hamilton to route a course (much less sod greens) when they knew an expert was on his way."

and from you:

I do know enough about Myopia to tell you that Willie Campbell would not have been credited with laying out the course if all he had done was some manual labor after the course was already laid out.

Where is TMac's verifiable proof that they were waiting for WC, or yours since Myopia didn't credit Willie with laying it out?  Why do we need to accept any of your arguments more than ours?  They all rely on speculation and that is all I have been saying.

Why is questioning the newspaper articles more ridiculous than questioning the club records (I know your contemporaneous theory, but see above) and why do you accept that it was possible for WC to be out there all summer when other recent reports have him teaching at Brookline every afternoon and also working on their course?

Of course, he could have done both, but he was definitely part time at Myopia if he was doing that other stuff.  Exactly what, we don't know, but I also believe there is no reason to have it both ways, because in those days, some folks did work with a gca, some did it themselves, and if they had the opportunity, like MH, to call in WC for a few handy answers, they did so.  There are some documents that suggest the members did it themselves, and you two seem hell bent to find ways to discredit them, by discrediting us, the early MH members, etc.

I have always said that the simple answer is usually the right one.  When I read your long explanations of why this or that can't mean what it appears to mean, but avoid the big picture (such as MH had 100 years and thousands of opportunities to mention Willie but didn't, I simply tend to believe the simple answer - that the members had some involvement because the members at the time said so.  

It did turn out that way at Merion, didn't it, despite years of you saying otherwise?  And it came down to you wanting more credit for them showing CBM their routings and having him "pick" which you want to say means he routed it.  And it was semantics, as I think it is here.  

As always, just my opinion, but if I read "three contemporaneous sources...." again, I may just puke all over my computer!  Good night.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 01:18:11 AM
Miss Manners,

That is all you could come up as an example of my horrid logic?  My statement that Campbell wouldn't have been widely reported to have laid out the course if all he had done was some manual work after it was already laid out?  I can live with that logical leap.

You seem to have this idea that all facts are created equal and all analysis is created equal.  That is not the case.

As for the rest of your post, it is as if you are just making this stuff up as you go along.  Unidentified club records?   Bush wrote his recollections in 1895?  Press releases?  Campbell at Myopia all summer?  Campbell at the Country Club all summer?  Campbell part time at Myopia?  Unidentified documents indicate that members did it?  I tried to discredit early members?  

What are you talking about?  Every sentence moves further and further away what happened.   Same goes for the bit about Merion.  Your theories are not based in reality.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 18, 2010, 09:46:53 AM
David,

Good morning.

About all I can say is "liberals and conservatives." We really don't see eye to eye.  BTW, I agree that perhaps not all evidence and reasoning is equal, I am simply disagreeing that yours is superior!

IMHO, whenever Bush wrote about what happened in the early evolution of the course in 1895-8(?) he wrote specifically to capture the history of the design of the golf course.  He didn't mention Campbell, which if WC was as famous as you say he was, would be like being at Ford Theatre and forgetting to mention that Lincoln was shot!

Yet a few posts back you wrote that them not mentioning Campbell was "consistent with" him designing the golf course. While it may not technically preclude it (another one of your faulty logic arguments) it doesn't sound consistent with it in any big picture way.  It always strikes me that the more anyone argues endless little details, the less likely it is that they can really see the big picture, and that is my opinion of you (as pertains only to this, since I don't know you)  Just my opinion, but one that has been borne out in lots of other situations.

I still suggest that IF there is no apparent mention of him in club records, either WC wasn't involved in a meaningful way, or he had some falling out causing him to be persona non grata at the club that would make them want to strike him from their records.  What other reason could there be?  I sincerely doubt they forgot the most famous pro in the world worked for them, but that seems to be what you want us to believe.

And we all know for a fact that you haven't seen the club records, which have to be a part of the story of what really happened.  So, the best you can say about your arguments about what happened there is that you are concocting the best story you can based on the documents you choose to use.  By definition, your version is incomplete and also suspect, no matter how many times you repeat it.

We are once again in the position of "if there are no new documents to review, then let's drop this until we have them" not much different than that other club you seemed to take an interest in changing their history.  Even then, I suspect we would disagree like politicians, but that is the way the cookie crumbles, I guess.    As always, I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 10:07:21 AM
Tom MacWood,

Per your request, please see the results of the Opening Day tournament at Myopia.   I find it interesting that all of the men, including Merrill, Appleton, and Gardner had established reasonably proficient handicaps at that point, 10, 6, and 18 respectively.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5167/5271335742_6d5b3822eb_o.jpg)


David,

I'm not sure why you say Weeks was speculating.   He made very declarative statements in many respects, and there are only three possible explanations;

1) He was correct and had source material we don't.

2) He was lying

3) He had erroneous source material.


About Appleton, he writes;

"He was also a pioneer of golf, having laid out a number of holes on his home acres and being chiefly responsible for introducing the game at Myopia and at the Palmetto Club in Aiken, South Carolina."

"In Massachusetts the game was played informally on private estates as early as 1892.   At Appleton Farm in Ipswich, six holes were laid out for the entertainment of the family and guests, and Colonel Francis Appleton recalled that sheep cropped the fairwasys and were kept off the putting greens by low wire netting such as enclosed a croquet lawn.   At Moraine farm on the shore of Wenham Lake, the Phillips family maintained a number of holes, as did the Hunnewells in Wellesley on their picturesque acres bordering the Charles River."

About the origins of the course he writes;

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R. M. Appleton.   Bud Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular that he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties.   When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.  The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true.   The natural advantages were the turf, which had been fertilized by generations of cattle, the rolling contour and the hills, so often requiring a blind shot, a pond, and the almost total absence of trees."

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months (presumably they made this report at the Executive Committee meeting in March 1894 after layinig out a proposed course - Comment Mine)  and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

"At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894.   Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game and the first tournament was held June 18th, 1894.   About twenty-five entries.   Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch.   Score, first round 58, second round 54.   Total 112.   Laurence Curtis made 63-59,- 122, W. B. Thomas 63-62 - 125, The second tournament was held on July 4th, 1894.   About twenty entries.   Won by Herbert C. Leeds, scratch 52-61 - 113."

"We know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club and those of our fellow member, Dr. S.A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse.   Once the nine greens were sodded and cut, all that was needed for the tees were a level space, a box of sand, and a pail of water to moisten the pinch of sand on which the ball was placed.   Nature provided the hazards, and the Myopia rough was horrendous;  the fairways were cropped by sheep penned in a fold behind the stables.   But even from the beginning there was a treacherous slope to some greens which let the putt run, and a narrow domino width in others, difficult to approach..."

"A golf committee consisting of Appleton, Merrill, Bush, and Parker was responsible for the maintenance of the course that first summer and while the Club voted to bear the modest expense, a subscription was started for seeding and developing the holes on the ridge."


Much thanks to a kind soul who shall remain nameless, who was so gracious as to put a copy of the Weeks book in my possession yesterday.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 10:26:39 AM
I found this article from the October 7, 1999 Boston Globe written by Jim McCabe:

"They were gathered outside the entrance to The Country Club Sept. 24, not waiting to get into the Ryder Cup Matches, but preparing to pay tribute to one of the biggest winners of the event.

Willie Campbell.

Willie Campbell?

Yes, Willie Campbell, the first golf professional at The Country Club, that venerable piece of landscape in American golf. Campbell is given credit for the original design of this classic layout back in 1894 and while that alone is worth a significant spot in golf history, there is so much more to Campbell.

'An incredible man. A visionary, so ahead of his time,' said Brian DeLacey, who helped organize the tribute to Campbell. The timing was planned to coincide with the opening day of the Ryder Cup Matches and while DeLacey and Co. numbered a handful of spirited people, their purpose was no less passionate than the festivities going on inside the gates.

Perhaps because he was introduced to the game the old-fashioned way -- by carrying clubs -- DeLacey has the priceless gift of a caddie's eyes. He sees detail, understands the nuances of the game, and appreciates how the sport took its shape. All of which explains why, one day a few years ago, DeLacey found himself walking the golf course at Franklin Park (technically it is William J. Devine Golf Course) in Dorchester.

'Sitting right in the heart of a major city is this beautiful park space, a great golf course, and I wondered about how it got there, who put it there.'

The answer, discovered DeLacey, was Campbell. It tickled his interest and added fire to his wonderment. So the Jamaica Plain resident headed to libraries, pulled out reference books, and corresponded with golf historians.

Next thing he knew, he was off to Musselburgh, Scotland.

\ To golf historians, there are three important places when it comes to the birth of the game: St. Andrews, which needs no introduction; Prestwick, site of the first British Open; and Musselburgh.

There is documentation that golf was first played at Musselburgh in 1672, though historians speculate that Mary, Queen of Scots played there as far back as 1567. Musselburgh Golf Club dates back to 1774 and it is generally accepted that it is the oldest remaining golf course in the world.

It is also where Willie Campbell came from.

Born in 1862, Campbell broke into the game caddying for Bob Ferguson, British Open champ of 1880-82. Though he never won the world's oldest tournament, Campbell was a legendary golfer of his era, a fierce match play competitor, said DeLacey.

His research on Campbell and subsequent trip to Musselburgh fascinated DeLacey, so much so that he published a book, 'Battlefield of the Best: The Historic Golfing Glories of Musselburgh.' It was a labor of love. 'Certainly not done for financial reward,' said DeLacey, laughing.

Tracing Campbell back to Musselburgh brought DeLacey in touch with golf purists who treasured their special little town and its place in golf history. DeLacey was told that five British Open champions came from Musselburgh, including the legendary Willie Park Sr., who won the first event in 1860. There was also Willie Park Jr., Dave Brown, Mungo Park (Willie Sr.'s brother), and Ferguson.

Quite proud of this special note, those at the Royal Musselburgh Golf Club came up with an idea that would pay tribute to these giants of the game. And DeLacey, they agreed, would play a role.

DeLacey was invited to take part in A Celebration of Musselburgh Golfing Greats this past June and he was accompanied by Bob Lamprey of Center Harbor, N.H. Lamprey is Campbell's grandson, and proved invaluable to DeLacey's research.

The trip, said DeLacey, afforded Lamprey the opportunity to meet relatives, and provided incentive for DeLacey to do something locally to pay honor to the memory of Campbell. 'I think he's very important, a very special person to remember,' said DeLacey, who, in his book, helps trace Campbell's trip to America.

'He had studied under Old Tom Morris at Prestwick, but was offered the job at The Country Club.' Having decided to accept the job, said DeLacey, Campbell was offered a piece of advice in a letter from Thomas P. Ronaldson, who had helped secure his services.

'I have just received another letter from Boston impressing on me to see that you make no mention on your way across or on arrival that you have any engagement with anyone in America,' Ronaldson wrote to Campbell. 'I cannot too strongly impress this upon you and I feel sure you will take care.'

The concern, as DeLacey discovered in his research, was that another club would 'steal' Campbell from The Country Club during a time when golf clubs were becoming more prominent in America.

Members at The Country Club, among them Laurence Curtis, were impressed when, in 1894 upon his arrival in Brookline, Campbell accomplished two key goals: He extended the existing six holes to nine and he defeated the heralded professional at Newport CC, Will Davis.

Campbell's victory over Davis, Curtis would later write, 'was the first real golf any of us had ever seen.'

As golf professional and course designer, Campbell's spot in TCC history is reserved forever, though it was a brief tenure. DeLacey discovered that Campbell also served at Essex CC and had a hand in designing Myopia, too. But of the greatest intrigue to DeLacey was Campbell's move to what is now Franklin Park.

'Campbell was ahead of his time,' said DeLacey. "He believed that if golf were to become popular, city officials had to help encourage the game."

Holes had been in existence at Franklin Park for a few years before his arrival (there is documented history to the effect that golf was played Dec. 12, 1890) but until Campbell, in about 1896, the club had never had a golf professional. The sport was not being taught, not being handled with care, and on both fronts, said DeLacey, Campbell succeeded.

'He died, in 1900, at the age of 38, but deserves recognition,' said DeLacey, who noted that Campbell's wife, Georgina Stewart Campbell, succeeded her husband.

'She was the first lady golf professional in the United States.'

To honor Campbell, DeLacey and friends proceeded from the gates of The Country Club to Franklin Park. From there, they went to Forest Hills Cemetery, where Campbell is buried. Bagpipes were played, a few words were spoken, and the soul of the game, for one evening anyway, was alive."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 10:37:50 AM
Tom,

Thanks for sharing that excellent article.   It's interesting that DeLacey claims he found evidence that Campbell "had a hand in designing" Myopia, which is what I believe the evidence shows, as well.

The fact that Campbell was a big "muni" guy makes him all the more appealing to me, personally.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 10:43:01 AM
Here is a link to Palmetto's website:

http://palmettogolfclub.net/history.htm
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
Tom,

So Leeds had already solely designed Kebo Valley and done design work at Palmetto before becoming a member of Myopia?   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 11:17:57 AM

I'm not sure why you say Weeks was speculating.   He made very declarative statements in many respects, and there are only three possible explanations;

1) He was correct and had source material we don't.

2) He was lying

3) He had erroneous source material.


About Appleton, he writes;

"He was also a pioneer of golf, having laid out a number of holes on his home acres and being chiefly responsible for introducing the game at Myopia and at the Palmetto Club in Aiken, South Carolina."

"In Massachusetts the game was played informally on private estates as early as 1892.   At Appleton Farm in Ipswich, six holes were laid out for the entertainment of the family and guests, and Colonel Francis Appleton recalled that sheep cropped the fairwasys and were kept off the putting greens by low wire netting such as enclosed a croquet lawn.   At Moraine farm on the shore of Wenham Lake, the Phillips family maintained a number of holes, as did the Hunnewells in Wellesley on their picturesque acres bordering the Charles River."

About the origins of the course he writes;

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R. M. Appleton.   Bud Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular that he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties.   When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.  The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true.   The natural advantages were the turf, which had been fertilized by generations of cattle, the rolling contour and the hills, so often requiring a blind shot, a pond, and the almost total absence of trees."

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months (presumably they made this report at the Executive Committee meeting in March 1894 after layinig out a proposed course - Comment Mine)  and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

"At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894.   Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game and the first tournament was held June 18th, 1894.   About twenty-five entries.   Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch.   Score, first round 58, second round 54.   Total 112.   Laurence Curtis made 63-59,- 122, W. B. Thomas 63-62 - 125, The second tournament was held on July 4th, 1894.   About twenty entries.   Won by Herbert C. Leeds, scratch 52-61 - 113."

"We know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club and those of our fellow member, Dr. S.A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse.   Once the nine greens were sodded and cut, all that was needed for the tees were a level space, a box of sand, and a pail of water to moisten the pinch of sand on which the ball was placed.   Nature provided the hazards, and the Myopia rough was horrendous;  the fairways were cropped by sheep penned in a fold behind the stables.   But even from the beginning there was a treacherous slope to some greens which let the putt run, and a narrow domino width in others, difficult to approach..."

"A golf committee consisting of Appleton, Merrill, Bush, and Parker was responsible for the maintenance of the course that first summer and while the Club voted to bear the modest expense, a subscription was started for seeding and developing the holes on the ridge."


Much thanks to a kind soul who shall remain nameless, who was so gracious as to put a copy of the Weeks book in my possession yesterday.


It reads like fiction. It is difficult to say where Weeks got his information. The fact that he did not quote from anything regarding the Squire & Co story leads me to believe it came from a previous club history...he was just repeating a previous story, similar to the case at Merion where it was almost copied verbatim. When discussing the laying out of the original nine there is no mention of minutes, no mention of newspaper articles, no mention of any contemporaneous materials. He has no knowledge of Campbell, he has no idea when White worked at the club, and very little information on John Jones's background. He has no general sense of how golf developed in Boston around 1894, and the strong roll Campbell played in that development. He can only speculate on the make up of the original course. His information on the altering of the original nine is contradictory and confusing. He does not know the precise date of the Annual meeting in 1894. He doesn't know when Leeds joined the club. I don't put a lot of stock in Weeks' account.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 11:38:41 AM
Tom,

So Leeds had already solely designed Kebo Valley and done design work at Palmetto before becoming a member of Myopia?   

Leeds designed Kebo Valley in June of 1894; that course was replaced in 1898. I'm not sure when he was involved in the design of Palmetto.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
Tom,

I don't know...it seems to me that all of the evidence that has surfaced since this thread was resuscitated supports Weeks, at least circumstantially.

Prior, you seemed to want to paint the three members as incompetent nincompoops but the picture of them that has since surfaced indicates they were all well-established golfers at that time, even called "experts" prior to the opening of the course.  We also now know that 2 of the three were appointed to a subcommitte to bring golf to Myopia that spring and the third was physically in Hamilton at that time.  We've also learned the Dacre Bush was indeed "Secretary", of the golf committee.

So, it seems we've learned a lot since this thread was pushed back up by David, and although we don't know all of the details, what is being flushed out seems to support Weeks telling as well as Campbell's involvement on some level,

Btw, your mention of the first Merion history book should at least acknowledge the fact that the author noted repeated visits he made to read the Merion Cricket Club minutes, which formed the basis of his very factual account, and which to me should be the fundamental, requisite starting point of any serious investigation into a course or club's architectural history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 11:59:28 AM
Tom,

I don't know...it seems to me that all of the evidence that has surfaced since this thread was recusitated supports Weeks, at least circumstantially.

Prior, you seemed to want to paint the three members as incompetent nincompoops but the picture of them that has since surfaced indicates they were all well-established golfers at that time, even called "experts" prior to the opening of the course.  We also now know that 2 of then were appointed to a subcommitte to bring golf to Myopia that spring and the third was physically in Hamilton at that time.  We've also leared the Dacre Bush was indeed "Secretary", of the golf committee.

So, it seems we've learned a lot since this thread was pushed back up by David, and although we don't know all of the details, what is being flushed out seems to support Weeks telling as well as Campbell's involvement on some level,

Btw, your mention of the first Merion history book should at least acknowledge the fact that the author noted repeated visits he made to read the Merion Cricket Club minutes, which firmed the basis of his very factual account.

What new evidence?

If you recall this thread was pushed up because the Tweedie thread was being thrown off the tracks. When I asked the question who wasn't using geometric features in the 1890s TEP gave us Leeds, which was later proven to be wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 12:14:25 PM
Tom,

Ignore it all you want, but the news articles I unearthed and posted here in recent "Weeks" do circumstantially support his account.

As regards Leeds' work at Palmetto, this is from the course history you posted the link for;

After the first four holes were constructed in 1892, Herbert Leeds, who also built Myopia Hunt Club in Boston, laid out the remainder of the initial nine holes.  Palmetto was expanded in 1895 to 18 holes with the completion of the second nine holes that had been designed by Leeds and James Mackrell, Palmetto’s first golf professional.

If that work was done before 1896, we know it was before Leeds was a member at Myopia.   Add in his design of Kebo Valley and it indicates he had well established architectural experience prior to joining Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 12:18:47 PM

Ignore it all you want, but the news articles I unearthed and posted here in recent "Weeks" do circumstantially support his account.


Specifically which articles are you referring to?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 12:49:57 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Again with the club records?    When are you and TEPaul going to quit pretending that you are relying on club records?   

We don't know when Bush wrote what he wrote, and we don't know whether or not he mentioned Campbell. 

It is not liberal vs. conservative, unless you mean that one of those is trying to ground their opinions in reality, and the other just making up facts to fit with their desired outcome.

So far as I can tell we have multiple contemporaneous reports of Campbell laying out the course, and other reports of when it was laid out that contradict Weeks story.    Against that we have a club history written eighty years later.
___________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

The fourth option is the most obvious one.  Weeks may have had what he thought was a factual skeleton of what happened and he tried to come up with an interesting narrative, and filled in the details as he went along.   Think of the various accounts that have been written about early golf in America that have done the same.   They are interesting and generally may capture the time, but many of the details must be taken with a grain of salt.   They are legends, as much historical fiction as history.

As for your articles, Mike, give us a break. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 01:31:29 PM
David,

I have given you both a break but I do have to wonder why it took me to come here and unearth the other side of the story?

Wouldn't a searxh for truth already have found the articles on the members I posted?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 01:40:57 PM
Again with the innuendo about our motives, Mike?  What happened to the "trusting nature" you are always touting?   I had never focused much on Myopia until this thread, and frankly I still haven't.   Three contemporaneous articles indicating Campbell laid out the course and a few after the fact is plenty for me, unless of course you can come up with something contradicting these.    So far you haven't even come close.   As for those particular articles you are so fond of . . .

Frankly I would never have even considered that the "expert golfers" article had anything to do with who might have laid out the course, because it doesn't have anything to do do with who laid out the course.   All it establishes was that those members were golfers, but we already knew that.   At least some of us did.

As for the committee article, I thought it had already been established that those guys were on a committee, but maybe I misremembered.  

And I was the one who first noted Gardner was in Hamilton in mid-April, not you.  

So stop with this latest witch hunt Mike.   I am not going to waste my time searching out irrelevant tangents.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 02:13:37 PM
Well David...I guess we're back to stalemate until such time as someone goes (back?) To look at the club records perhaps some day and let's us know what they say (again).

Til then, I'm glad you brought this thread back up because I've learned a lot and think we all know much more about the origins of Myopia.   I know I do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 18, 2010, 02:59:44 PM
Tom MacWood:

In response to your Reply #912 and what you said in it about Weeks's book, about Weeks, and what he did not know about Myopia's history and by extension what Myopia did not know, I must say it is that very type of analysis of these subjects on your part that so completely marginalizes you with any club or anyone else with a modicum of commonsense, intelligence or logic regarding the things you've said on this website. And that Moriarty seems to be the only one on here who supports what you say, I suppose the same goes for him as well.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and analytical ability knows that just because someone like Weeks wrote a 151 page history book of a club's history over a century that included up to four different categories----eg fox hunting, polo, golf and tennis did not include in that book all the details of the history of the club or particularly all the details that someone like you may want to know certainly DOES NOT MEAN that was all Weeks or the club or anyone who knows about the details of the club knows about the details of their history. Weeks could have included all the details of the club and recorded by the club but that probably would've required a history book of 1,000 or 1,500 pages!

That anyone would actually draw that conclusion and then claim it on this website, as you have, without question goes to the very fundamental fact of why you are just not a good historical analyst at all and also why you seem to have no supporters of your position on this website, and no supporters or believers anywhere else, with the possible exception of David Moriarty. That is not saying much about your position and opinion of Myopia, Weeks or his history book, and frankly the very same thing goes for what you've said constantly about Merion, its history, its history book and its writer, Desmond Tolhurst.

In what you have said a number of times on this website about both clubs, their history books and their writers, you attempt to make it look like if something is not and has not been actually seen by you therefore it basically cannot exist or be true!! Any third grader with a decent mind and education can tell that is both remarkably faulty and fallacious reasoning and thinking or a singular lack of analytical ability or intelligence or both.

You constantly ignore this fact and this reality on here when it is pointed out to you, and from long term experience with you on here I would not expect that to change now. It seems you think if you constantly ignore it and keep saying the opposite that eventually someone might believe you or be persuaded. That is not likely to happen and to the extent these kinds of opinions and claims of yours are aired on this website will be about the same extent this website becomes marginalized too with a number of these important golf clubs who might happen to notice GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its DG.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
TEP
You might want to look in the mirror. The reason for all the speculation about Weeks is due to the fact it has become increasingly clear you just made up the story about the 'board minutes'. Its more an indictment of you than Weeks.  And sadly its not the first time you've gone down this road. You've done it before and you will probably do it again. Whatever it takes to preserve these legends you've became so attached to.

By the way I did find mention of the golf course at Appleton Farms in a news report from October, 1894. So we know its at least that old.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 04:50:18 PM
Well David...I guess we're back to stalemate until such time as someone goes (back?) To look at the club records perhaps some day and let's us know what they say (again).

Til then, I'm glad you brought this thread back up because I've learned a lot and think we all know much more about the origins of Myopia.   I know I do.

If anyone ever does get a look at Myopia's records and if they report on what they say, I sure hope that he or she is more reliable than the person who claimed to have done so before.  

Meanwhile, if we strip away all the posturing, insults, and indignation, I think we are left with what follows:

1. The only contemporaneous accounts which have thus far been brought forward and which directly address the issue are those multiple newspaper articles indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course, and other articles indicating that this must have occurred after mid-May 1894.  

2. We also have one report by a club member, published three years after the fact, which indicated that Bush and Parker laid out the course.

3. While Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham were reportedly on a sub-committee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and while these men and Gardner were all golfers, no one has brought forward any contemporaneous reports indicating that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner laid out the original course.

4. Over eighty (80) years after the fact, Weeks wrote that, in what Weeks seems to think was early March 1894, that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner paced off the course and "probably" marked it off with pegs. Unfortunately, Weeks did not explain from where he got this information.  While Weeks was obviously speculating about how these three "probably" marked the greens with pegs, it is unclear whether Weeks had a source for the rest of the information or whether it is simply his best effort at explaining what he thinks "probably" happened.  Weeks did include one quote from S. Dacre Bush, mistakenly identified as the Club Secretary, but the Bush quote does not address who laid out the course.  

So far as I can tell, that is about where we stand.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 18, 2010, 04:53:59 PM
Tom MacWood:

You can certainly say that about me or about those club records; you've said things like that on here in the past. The fact is, however, you are never going to know unless and until you actually begin to go to that club and others like it and read them and see them for yourself, as I have. But on the flipside I have come to realize that you may not want to do that for whatever your reasons and I also realize given much of what you have said on here about various people your option of ever doing that is probably one that is rapidly not going to be available to you even if you did want to do it. The fact is, what you, and perhaps Moriarty, say is the best METHOD of going about what you call "truth seeking" is just not shared by anyone else, at least not those who hold the keys to places where the truth about these clubs and their collective histories is actually found.

Eventually, that will leave you two this website and its soapbox, and probably the only ones on this soapbox, to be howling against everyone elses' opinions and howling against the wind that everyone else is wrong; that these clubs' histories and their books are all fiction and fantasy and myth borne of some collective conspiracy to protect some club icon at the expense of someone else who really deserves the credit.

Furthermore, as I've said before, for you to assume, conclude and claim on here or anywhere else that those club records just don't exist simply because you have never seen them is pretty much the height of a lack of analytical understanding and ability and frankly a fundamental lack of intelligence. Again, even a third grader with a decent mind would not possibly contend such an idiotic notion, as you constantly do on here.

Even though it may not serve as any encouragement to you, I did speak with them yesterday, and at some point next year we should be getting together again to go over everything extant that they have on their 135 year old history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 05:03:17 PM
TEPaul,  

I don't need to see the club records to know that you provided us with a phony version of the S. Dacre Bush quote in order to try and convince us that it was less vague than it really was.

And I don't need the club records to know that you falsely claimed that the S. Dacre Bush quote was a 1894 entry into the club minutes, and that S. Dacre Bush was the Club Secretary at the time.  

I can figure out why you misrepresented your knowledge of the minutes and of the S. Dacre Bush quote, but since you are posting here again, why don't you explain why you posted a phony version of the S. Dacre Bush quote?  

The fact is, what you, and perhaps Moriarty, say is the best METHOD of going about what you call "truth seeking" is just not shared by anyone else, at least not those who hold the keys to places where the truth about these clubs and their collective histories is actually found.

TEPaul, I disagree.   So far as I understand it, the USGA agrees with us, which is why they are supposedly creating a USGA Archives which will allow anyone interested to readily access all of the source material from these clubs without receiving special favor from the clubs.   The real question is how can someone like you be involved in that project when you are so adamantly opposed to anyone other than those with connections having access to such documents.  It seems the USGA has unfortunately left the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 18, 2010, 05:18:59 PM
"So far as I can tell, that is about where we stand."



David:

I'm not sure who you consider to be "we" in that statement, but if it is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, I believe that statement of yours is an accurate summation of your #924, and will probably continue to be given certain circumstances in the future. I'm afraid a certain inherent problem has developed and will continue to develop with GOLFCLUBATLAS.com amongst and with certain clubs that would include Merion and Myopia.



"I can figure out why you misrepresented your knowledge of the minutes and of the S. Dacre Bush quote, but since you are posting here again, why don't you explain why you posted a phony version of the S. Dacre Bush quote?"


DM:

That's OK; at this point, I am quite content to just watch you continue to speculate about it----and anything else about Myopia's records and history that you have never seen.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 05:37:28 PM
I don't blame you for not addressing it TEPaul.  After all there is no excuse for that kind of blatant dishonesty and manipulation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 18, 2010, 06:03:55 PM
"I don't blame you for not addressing it TEPaul.  After all there is no excuse for that kind of blatant dishonesty and manipulation."



David:

I accept that remark of yours and I accept the type of remark it is; I'm used to it now since it has happened with you so often and for so long on this website. But the reason I don't address it (some of the questions you ask) has nothing at all to do with what you think it is or as you portray it. It's almost the polar opposite actually, and it is also massively important, in my opinion. I just don't think you are willing to address that on here, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 06:36:49 PM
There is nothing for me to address.

You are the one who posted the phony quote and falsely claimed that various "facts" came from Myopia's minutes.  Not me.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 06:37:03 PM
David,

I really don't think there is anyone else standing where you say "we stand" except perhaps Tom MacWood and even he concedes that Leeds is responsible for the 18 hole course and bunkering so perhaps you should just say this is where you stand and we can agree to disagree until any new evidence surfaces.

Happy holidays and thanks for the discussion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 18, 2010, 06:39:18 PM
Mike Cirba,

I never denied that Leeds designed the eighteen.

Whether you "stand" there or not, what I wrote above is TRUE is it not?

Here it is again for your easy review:

Meanwhile, if we strip away all the posturing, insults, and indignation, I think we are left with what follows:

1. The only contemporaneous accounts which have thus far been brought forward and which directly address the issue are those multiple newspaper articles indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course, and other articles indicating that this must have occurred after mid-May 1894.  

2. We also have one report by a club member, published three years after the fact, which indicated that Bush and Parker laid out the course.

3. While Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham were reportedly on a sub-committee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and while these men and Gardner were all golfers, no one has brought forward any contemporaneous reports indicating that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner laid out the original course.

4. Over eighty (80) years after the fact, Weeks wrote that, in what Weeks seems to think was early March 1894, that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner paced off the course and "probably" marked it off with pegs. Unfortunately, Weeks did not explain from where he got this information.  While Weeks was obviously speculating about how these three "probably" marked the greens with pegs, it is unclear whether Weeks had a source for the rest of the information or whether it is simply his best effort at explaining what he thinks "probably" happened.  Weeks did include one quote from S. Dacre Bush, mistakenly identified as the Club Secretary, but the Bush quote does not address who laid out the course.  

So far as I can tell, that is about where we stand.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 18, 2010, 11:31:00 PM
David,

Good evening. At the risk of keeping this going vs. putting it to bed, the answer is no one is sure if the above is true or not.  Someone like Phil Young would know better than I, but I suspect that if ANY of us put our theories up for vetting the reviewers would ask what sources we used, and upon hearing that club records are known to exist, but we only have used second hand versions of them, or not used them at all because we don't have access to them, they would send us back to the drawing boards until those became available to us.

At a club like Myopia, that won't necessarily happen, and I suspect that any club like that would tend to avoid it after seeing these dogfights.  We may not like that idea, but I fear we contribute to it by the way WE (and I include me) act.

So far as I can tell, that is about where we REALLY stand.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 11:36:44 PM

Furthermore, as I've said before, for you to assume, conclude and claim on here or anywhere else that those club records just don't exist simply because you have never seen them is pretty much the height of a lack of analytical understanding and ability and frankly a fundamental lack of intelligence. Again, even a third grader with a decent mind would not possibly contend such an idiotic notion, as you constantly do on here.


TEP
I have no idea how intelligent you are, but I do know you have done and said a lot of stupid things over the years, and often they were in connection to me. I try to avoid commenting on things I know nothing about or have not researched thoroughly, you make a habit of it. That combined with your penchant to mislead, fabricate, or whatever you want to call it. I think your greatest strength and greatest weakness is the same, a short memory.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 18, 2010, 11:49:13 PM
Jeff,

Truer words were never spoken here.

Tis a pity.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 18, 2010, 11:54:50 PM
David,

Good evening. At the risk of keeping this going vs. putting it to bed, the answer is no one is sure if the above is true or not.  Someone like Phil Young would know better than I, but I suspect that if ANY of us put our theories up for vetting the reviewers would ask what sources we used, and upon hearing that club records are known to exist, but we only have used second hand versions of them, or not used them at all because we don't have access to them, they would send us back to the drawing boards until those became available to us.

At a club like Myopia, that won't necessarily happen, and I suspect that any club like that would tend to avoid it after seeing these dogfights.  We may not like that idea, but I fear we contribute to it by the way WE (and I include me) act.

So far as I can tell, that is about where we REALLY stand.



Phil Young? With all due respect to Phil I don't think this topic is something he would have run across or researched very thoroughly in his focus on Tilly.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:02:38 AM
"I try to avoid commenting on things I know nothing about or have not researched thoroughly,"



Tom MacWood:

I wish that were true but unfortunately it's not. No one, not even you, can thoroughly research any golf course if they have never been to it, seen it, or what historical material is in its club, and this is the case with you and Merion or Myopia and a number of others you pretend to know something about.

It shows, and it will continue to show unless and until you overcome that limitation and barrier! I realize this may be difficult for you to accept or understand but most everyone else does (with the odd exception like Moriarty) and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to as well unless there really is something wrong with you which has certainly occured to some of us, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:06:08 AM
Let's get back on topic, and see who knows what.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:17:40 AM
"Let's get back on topic, and see who knows what."


Wow, twenty seven pages into this agenda driven thread begun by MacWood almost a year and a half ago and reprised and perpetuated by MacWood and Moriarty a couple of times and he says that at this point!? This has definitely gotten sad.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:21:32 AM
What can you tell us about John Jones and his involvement in the course's design?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:30:09 AM
That's what I thought, and I don't think it is surprising to many - good connections do not necessarily translate to historical knowledge.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 19, 2010, 12:37:59 AM
TMac,

Another example of someone, in this case you, really missing the point of a post.  I didn't mention Phil because he has researched Myopia...I mentioned him because he has really put his research out there professionally, in a book, and in an environment where stuff has to be pretty well vetted to be published.  I also mentioned him because when I asked the same question on the other threads, he did venture a fair opinion that David's Merion piece was far enough along to be submitted for peer review.

As you can tell, I am suggesting that none of us are that far along in this case.

I think if this thread got submitted to "real historians" we would have a scene like the movie "Unstoppable" (which is also a good name for these kind of threads):

"Don't want to work in a day care center......"

I can also imagine this whole thing would really get solved faster if just put that Wiki Leaks guy on the case to go find those documents.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 19, 2010, 01:04:48 AM
David,

Good evening. At the risk of keeping this going vs. putting it to bed, the answer is no one is sure if the above is true or not.  Someone like Phil Young would know better than I, but I suspect that if ANY of us put our theories up for vetting the reviewers would ask what sources we used, and upon hearing that club records are known to exist, but we only have used second hand versions of them, or not used them at all because we don't have access to them, they would send us back to the drawing boards until those became available to us.

Jeff Brauer,  

1. You don't seem to have any idea what "real historians" do, so you probably should stop speculating about it.  It seems to be another situation where you simply just assume whatever facts you think might support whatever point you want to make.  

2.  You state that we don't know if what I wrote above is true?  Did you even read the post?   It contains no conclusion about who did what, but rather simply addresses what contemporaneous source material has been brought forward here.  Maybe you aren't familiar with what contemporaneous information has been brought forward here, but some of us are.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 08:10:49 AM
"I can also imagine this whole thing would really get solved faster if just put that Wiki Leaks guy on the case to go find those documents."


Jeffrey:

This is why you're the best; I'm still laughing at that one. Do you think MacWood and Moriarty could hire some computer geeks sort of like modern day Watergate plumbers to break into Myopia in the middle of the night and photograph, scan and digitize all Myopia's records and put them on the Internet?? If that happened do you think Myopia would have MacWood and Moriarty arrested in Massachussets for rape like England did with that Wikileak guy Assange??  ;)
 
Can't you just hear Moriarty? "But your Honor, "as far as I know" Myopia said this "probably" constitutes private information rape, therefore this is merely "speculation" and can not actually rise to the level of "verifiable evidence" of informational rape of a private club!!"
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 19, 2010, 08:33:25 AM
Tom,

So Leeds had already solely designed Kebo Valley and done design work at Palmetto before becoming a member of Myopia?   

Leeds designed Kebo Valley in June of 1894; that course was replaced in 1898. I'm not sure when he was involved in the design of Palmetto.

Per the Palmetto Club History, Leeds was involved in laying out the course (15 holes of the 18, 3 were already there) between the years of 1892 and 1895.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 09:03:03 AM
JC:

There's a ton of interesting information on that Palmetto club history that goes directly to the conversation we had last night-----eg what a small world it was back then amongst those people who created some of those really old clubs and golf courses. The names are a virtual "Who's Who" of that east coast crowd back then.

With Palmetto and Aiken the interweaving and intertwinning of the recreational world of the horse, particularly polo and fox hunting with golf is every bit as strong as it is with Myopia and other clubs like it such as Meadowbrook very early on and Piping Rock somewhat later, etc, and it appears to be even slightly older with its golf than Myopia.

Still today Aiken, S.C. is one of the really prominent winter stations of the eastern horse world. Another and more recent one is Ocala, Florida.

And we also have another name of perhaps an early golf pro/designer who obviously helped them out over a very extented time---eg James Mackrell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 09:08:08 AM
JC Jones,

Thanks for the additional information on Palmetto.

That's a club I've been hoping to get to for a long time, as is Kebo Valley.   

Leeds to me seems like the first guy in this country who really started using interesting architecture like optional diagonal carries, and I know he did a lot of study of the great courses abroad.   

I also am absolutely in love with his low profile greens....Myopia is very similar to Garden City in that regard, only on more interesting, varied landforms.   

I'm still not sure why we see so little of that very cool, low-impact feature in modern design? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 09:22:05 AM
A 1900 New York Times articles says Palmetto's golf professional James Mackrell was a Boston professional who went to Palmetto and then to the St Louis CC. I suspect that indicates he was at St Louis in the summer months and Palmetto in the winter months.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 09:26:00 AM
Not sure the source of this information, but my 1974 (pre Weeks book) copy of "Great Golf Courses of the World", by William Davis and the editors of Golf Digest states;

"It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Watson Merrill, and A. P. Gardner."'

"In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned).   It was 2930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 09:36:14 AM
Mike:

If we get enough into Leeds and his history and his history with golf architecture there probably will be some blanks to fill in first. As I think I told you yesterday, Leeds was a pretty unusual guy in a number of ways, among them he had a fairly famous aversion to publicity. One source says the only golf reporter he liked or trusted was Boston's A. Linde Fowler (who really was good, by the way----eg in the early 1920s he wrote a good and pretty seminal article about Flynn and Wilson and Kittanset).

But one of the blanks in Leeds's life for us is the question of how much he was abroad and when. For that ship manifests, particularly in the 1890s, may help. I would note as well that an interest in golf was not his only one with sports. I believe he was also a world class competitive sailor and may've been involved in some of the America Cup yacht races both here and abroad in the 1890s (we should certainly be cognizant of just how much sailing and yachting and at a very high competitive level (including the America Cup) was a part of that same summer community world of Boston back in the 1890s and on).

Leeds was also a very proficent fox hunter, tennis and court tennis player, he played polo and in college (Harvard) he was very good in baseball and football. I believe he played on the 1883 Harvard football team that was captained by Myopia's Master of the Hounds and originator of golf at Myopia, R.M. Appleton. Two years later, Robert Bacon was the captain of the Harvard football team and he was one of the three members who originally laid out the first holes at Brookline. Robert Bacon, was an interesting guy too, a great athlete, a war hero, and one of J.P. Morgan's few "fair haired" guys in that massive business of the financial world back then.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 09:56:05 AM
Mike:

Regarding your Davis book mentioning Appleton, Merrill and Gardner laying out Myopia in 1894-------because you have not actually produced it on here, it was obviously written too many years after the fact and it conflicts with those newspaper articles about Willie Campbell it is therefore inadmissable on HERE as "verifiable evidence" of anything. It is a completely unacceptable source or confirmation!!!!! And you call yourself a golf architecture HISTORIAN???  

However, and all joshing aside, it is definitely not the case that all the holes of Myopia's original 1894 nine hole course were later abandoned. At least six remain in one form or another to this very day. Essentially on today's course they would be a significantly longer version of #2 with its green in another place, a longer version of #8, a somewhat different version of #9, #11 green, a significantly longer version of #12 with its green in another place, and a different angle version of #13 with its green moved about 30-50 yards to the left.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
Tom,

I found it very interesting that Davis published a total yardage for the first nine holes (something Weeks did not do), yet also credited Gardner, Merrill, and Appleton prior to Weeks' book being published.

So...there has to be another source with that information, most likely in the club records.

Unless Davis is lying as well.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 19, 2010, 10:12:00 AM
David,

Yes, I did read it, and after I posted, I did consider editing it to say that your comments were a pretty fair representation as to "where we are" in this discussion. I am sure some would emphasize slightly different points, but all in all you represented our discussion to date.

That said, I would still say that this discussion is nowhere near where it needs to be for us or anyone to draw solid conclusions.  And I am pretty sure no real historian would publish a study on this knowingly having not researched all relevant records known to exist for fear of being wrong. Is that such an unreasonable statement?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 19, 2010, 10:44:03 AM
BTW, I do understand what contemporaneous source material is, but believe you are very selective about what you deem useful and what you don't.

For example, you say the newspapers are based on sources within the club, but don't seem troubled to figure out if that is true and who it might have been.

At the same time, when Weeks obviously quotes old club material in many places, you are unsure of what he was looking at, despite a 99% chance that he was looking at club records and perhaps the Leeds scrapbook.

All in all, it strikes me as equally plausible that the gossip columnists might have gotten their info wrong as it does that Bush in his quotes, or Weeks in quoting his quotes got it wrong.  As always, I could be wrong.

I also find it somewhat ironic that you dismiss Weeks as perhaps not being accurate from a distance of 70 years after the fact so easily while attempting to decipher history from another 40 years past his history, with fewer relevant documents at our disposal! 

By your own standards, other than the fact it is you doing the speculating/interpreting, you would have to dismiss your authenticity out of hand, no?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:10:38 AM
Not sure the source of this information, but my 1974 (pre Weeks book) copy of "Great Golf Courses of the World", by William Davis and the editors of Golf Digest states;

"It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Watson Merrill, and A. P. Gardner."'

"In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned).   It was 2930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again."

Mike
That was written by John P. May, not Davis, and I suspect his source was the same as Weeks', an earlier club history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 11:21:24 AM
Tom,

Do we know or have clues that a previous club history existed prior to Weeks or are we speculating?

Might both sources of information have come from what is referred to as the "Leeds Scrapbook"?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:24:29 AM
I'd like to think of it as an educated guess. I'm speculating that May did not have access to the 'board minutes' a la TEP, so an earlier club history would seem be the most likely source.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:29:25 AM

Per the Palmetto Club History, Leeds was involved in laying out the course (15 holes of the 18, 3 were already there) between the years of 1892 and 1895.


From what I've been able to gather golf was played informally at Aiken beginning 1892 on three sand greens. Palmetto GC was organized in 1895, but I don't believe the course was ready until early 1896. That nine hole course was laid out by Leeds. It was expanded to eighteen in 1898. I'm not sure who was added the second nine. Prior to the first annual Winter tournament at Palmetto, in 1896, an article in a NY paper credited Leeds for designing the course, and it also claimed he designed Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Tom MacWood:

If a club such as Myopia (or Merion) allowed you to come to the club to read all their collected historical and administrative material that was not part of the public domain, would you do it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:34:42 AM

Might both sources of information have come from what is referred to as the "Leeds Scrapbook"?


Leeds was not a member of Myopia in 1894, its unlikely he would have been snipping out articles of Myopia. Which brings up an interesting question, how come Weeks was not aware of Willie Campbell if he had access to Leeds scrapbook? Just about every article regarding Leeds in 1896, his first season at the club, also mention Campbell as the pro.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:41:36 AM
Tom MacWood:

If a club such as Myopia (or Merion) allowed you to come to the club to read all their collected historical and administrative material that was not part of the public domain, would you do it?

If I was in the area, yes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:46:19 AM
JC Jones,

Thanks for the additional information on Palmetto.

That's a club I've been hoping to get to for a long time, as is Kebo Valley.   

Leeds to me seems like the first guy in this country who really started using interesting architecture like optional diagonal carries, and I know he did a lot of study of the great courses abroad.   

I also am absolutely in love with his low profile greens....Myopia is very similar to Garden City in that regard, only on more interesting, varied landforms.   

I'm still not sure why we see so little of that very cool, low-impact feature in modern design? 

You've said this before, but when questioned about it never responded. Was it Leeds who introduced diagonals at Myopia or Campbell? Have you seen evidence diagonals were used on those early courses at Kebo and Palmetto?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 11:52:24 AM
Tom MacWood,

The best example of diagonal strategies exists at today's 4th hole.   Whoever designed it should get the credit.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 11:54:24 AM
"Prior to the first annual Winter tournament at Palmetto, in 1896, an article in a NY paper credited Leeds for designing the course, and it also claimed he designed Myopia."


Tom MacWood:

How could that be? The NY paper must have been wrong, don't you think? I suppose the NY paper did not do the proper "independent" research to determine that in fact Willie Campbell designed Myopia and that the original 1894 course was no different than Myopia's 1896 course. Furthermore if the NY paper was reporting on a winter tournament at Palmetto in 1896 how could they even know that Herbert Leeds was a member of Myopia in the winter of 1896 and to have designed the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:01:57 PM
"If I was in the area, yes."


Tom MacWood:

Very good; at least that's a start. If they told you they did not want you to make copies of original material for the purposes of putting it on the Internet would you still read this material at the club for your own edification? 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:02:16 PM
TEP
You're not using your thinking cap. There is evidence the original nine was redesigned prior to 1896 (an 1895 report said the course was new that season; Weeks claimed they were looking toward the ridge as early as 1894; the course yardage did not change between 1896 and 1898), creating your so called Long Nine. If this report is correct Leeds involvement with the course came prior to him becoming a member. I know this conflicts with Weeks, err, the 'board minutes,' but those records don't appear to be as complete or as reliable as one would hope.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:05:01 PM
Mike:

I'm not that familiar with Palmetto (it's been about forty years since I was there) but from some I know who know Myopia and Palmetto well I'm told Leeds very rarely "turned" his golf holes. Myopia's #4 is a very rare exception!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:19:44 PM
Tom MacWood:

Whenever the original 1894 nine was changed into the Long Nine, there were some significant differences between them. I realize you would like to deny this or minimize it to try to maintain some perception that Willie Campbell routed the original 1894 nine (which he didn't) and to therefore try to make it look more like Campbell had more to do with the way the course is now but it is impossible to deny there were some significant changes between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine that was used for the 1898 US Open, and then even more changes to the app six holes remaining from the original 1894 nine when the 18 hole course was completed.

Not long after that (the 1898 US Open) Leeds continued to create the 18 hole course which other than some bunkering schemes is essentially the way the golf course still is today. At that point (1896) Robert White was there to be shortly followed (1897) by John Jones who remained at Myopia until 1912. Jones was followed by Paddy Doyle who was there until 1920. He was followed by John Kennan who was there until 1927. At that point Herbert Leeds did not have much of anything to do with the course anymore and a series of others, took over for him, most notably George Batchelder (Edward Weeks's original partner in the history book) took over, and then Tuckerman, the McKeans and eventually culminating with Bobby Knowles, a really good player (some Walker Cups) who actually was responsible for obsoleting a number of Leeds's bunkers in an attempt to make the course not quite so hard for the membership. After Knowles, Mr. Frederick Winthrop began a tree planting program at Myopia. They remained until about a dozen years ago when most all of them were removed under the aegis of Mike Greene at which point the course underwent a restoration that is culminating under the aegis of golf architect Gil Hanse. As of about four days ago the three remaining trees behind #12 green were removed which appears to have stirred up a bit of a buzz!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:33:03 PM
TEP
Get off your high horse. Everything you know about the early course at Myopia comes from Weeks' history, and he admitted he could only speculate. He claimed three holes were changed from the original nine.

Regarding the succession of pros, we can all read Weeks book, you don't have to repeat what he wrote in order to make yourself sound knowledgeable. Weeks did not know Campbell was the pro in 1896, and did not know what years White was employed at the club. He was also not aware of Jones' background and how he ended up at Myopia. So based on that I'm not sure how much stock we should put in Weeks' info, but it is good know about Paddy Doyle and Bobby Knowles.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 12:37:31 PM

Whenever the original 1894 nine was changed into the Long Nine, there were some significant differences between them. I realize you would like to deny this or minimize it to try to maintain some perception that Willie Campbell routed the original 1894 nine (which he didn't) and to therefore try to make it look more like Campbell had more to do with the way the course is now but it is impossible to deny there were some significant changes between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine that was used for the 1898 US Open.


TEP
I thought you said you read in the 'board minutes' the course was changed sometime after Leeds became a member in 1896? Now you don't appear to be as confident in what you read. Why is that?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 12:53:04 PM
Tom MacWood:

I am glad you can all now read Weeks's book because it is an excellent book of the entire history of Myopia including its golf. You called the whole thing a work of fiction (as you did Merion's Desmond Tolhurst's book) which is ridiculous because you know nothing about Myopia other than a couple of inconsequential newspaper articles from 1894. I have gone over Weeks's book for some years and compared it to everything else I know of Myopia from the people there over the years and what I have read at Myopia from their records. The only error Weeks made in his book, in my opinion, is when he appears to suggest that the second hole on the original 1894 nine was today's 8th. As I pointed out some time ago that could not have been the case because it is provable from club records that three holes of the original 1894 nine were on or partially on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's property! This is why only six holes of the original 1894 nine are identified in Weeks's book (those other three that were on Hopkins's property have never been well described or identified obviously leading Weeks to use the term "a matter of speculation" about them).

With your above remark such as 'get off your high horse' it seems like now that you are beginning to understand the truth about Myopia's architectural history and about the quality of Weeks's book (I realize it may've taken me close to a year and a half to educate you but thankfully it seems to be finally working) you are becoming even more defensive, bitter, petty and insulting.

I know how insecure you can be, Tom MacWood, but please try not to let it be so obvious on here.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 01:05:18 PM
Tom MacWood:

Regarding Weeks's book, I am very glad to see it has now been digitally placed in the hands of some who are contributing on this thread. You've never chosen to admit it or deny it on here but I assume your access to it is via Mike Hurzdan's excellent personal library. Why don't you ask him if he will have it scanned for you so you can put it on your computer as a few others on here now have. If you do that perhaps you could send a digital copy to Moriarty via the Internet. When he gets his hands on it I fully expect him to take the next ten years to explain to us why what Weeks said in the book really doesn't mean what the rest of us read it to say, somewhat like both you and he did with what we provided you on the Wilson report to the Board meeting of MCC on April 19, 1911.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 19, 2010, 01:12:00 PM
"Weeks did not know Campbell was the pro in 1896, and did not know what years White was employed at the club. He was also not aware of Jones' background and how he ended up at Myopia. So based on that I'm not sure how much stock we should put in Weeks' info,"


Tom MacWood:

Once again, it seems you are confused. It appears you still automatically think what Weeks wrote in his history book is the sum total of what he knew and Myopia knew about its history. One more time, Tom, if Weeks put every detail of Myopia's 135 year history in his history book it would've been about 1147 pages instead of 147 pages!  ;)

But that does not seem to be a concept you are capable of grasping no matter how many times I've explained it to you (is this an example of your tunnel vision or something?) even if a third grader with a decent mind could certainly grasp it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 19, 2010, 01:55:16 PM
David,

Yes, I did read it, and after I posted, I did consider editing it to say that your comments were a pretty fair representation as to "where we are" in this discussion.

So first you read my post; but then went ahead and blatantly misrepresented it anyway to try make some unrelated point; then later you considered setting the record straight but left your blatant misrepresentation anyway. Classy.

Quote
BTW, I do understand what contemporaneous source material is, but believe you are very selective about what you deem useful and what you don't.

If you "do understand what contemporaneous source material is," then why do you go on and immediately misrepresent it yet again?   I guess you must have another point to make, facts be damned.

1.  I don't just "say" the newspaper accounts were based on sources within the club, I explained, repeatedly, the details that made me think that this may have been the case.  

2.  Weeks didn't "obviously" quote old club material.   He quoted some recollection by Bush and we have no idea when or why that was produced.   A 99% chance?  You know as little about statistics as you do history.

3.  For the umpteenth time, Bush DOES NOT ADDRESS WHO LAID OUT THE COURSE.   You should stop misrepresenting this.

4.  You have no idea what Weeks had at his disposal when he wrote what he wrote, or whether that information was reliable or whether he was simple shadowing someone else's account. Had Weeks the articles stating that Campbell laid out the course, we'd not be having this conversation.

5.  My authenticity? You are obviously in way over your head here, and just making things up to support whatever point you are trying to make.  Unfortunately those points are increasingly unrelated to the topic at hand.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 05:54:11 PM
Here are Campbell's American designs in approximate chronological order. There are three other courses - Warren Farm, Pride's Crossing & Appleton Farm - I suspect he was involved in laying out but have not found the confirming documentation as yet. 

The Country Club, MA 1894
Essex County, MA 1894
Myopia Hunt, MA 1894
Nahant, MA 1894
Wakefield, MA 1894
Merion Cricket, PA 1896
Belmont Cricket, PA 1896
Philadelphia, PA 1896
Franklin Park, MA 1896
Huntingdon Valley, PA 1897
Winchester, MA 1897
Salem, MA 1897
Topsfield, MA 1897
Hawthorn, MA 1897
Cambridge, MA 1897
Wakefield Park, MA 1897
Bridgewater, MA 1897
Beaver Meadow, NH 1897
Wannamoisett, RI 1898
Tatnuck, MA 1898
Moorestown Field, NJ 1898
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 19, 2010, 06:38:19 PM
TomM,

I have the impression that at the Country Club, Essex, and Myopia members were golfing on his layouts almost immediately after they were laid out.  Do you have any confirmation of this?   For example, do you know when Campbell expanded the course at Essex?  He may have laid out Myopia at around the same time.   If I recall correctly they were playing on the Essex course by around June 10th, 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 07:32:18 PM
Tom,

If you want to continue perpetuating the fantsy that Campbell was responsible for Belmont or offered anything other suggestions on Philly CC then be my guest, but I'm really not sure why you aren't comfortable enough with hos actual accomplishments and feel this need to be hos fluffer.

Oh well..whatever.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 08:01:54 PM
David
Yes, both courses were laid out in the spring. Brookline most likely before Essex County. Here is a chronology of the events gathered from contemporaneous reports. I don't have the info about the Myopia golf committee. Does anyone have it? I'll add that info later.

March 13 - Myopia HC annual meeting Boston. This is apparently when it was decided to lay out a links
March 31 - Campbell arrives in Boston.
April 9 - Campbell first day on the job at Brookline, but lessons are cancelled due to snow.
April 15 - Campbell gives instructions daily at Brookline.
April 26 - It is announce Campbell will spend the season at Essex County.
May 13 - Sheep are on their way to Myopia; they will pastured on the tract where the course will be laid out.
May 18 - Campbell defeats Willie Davis on the nine hole course at Brookline. Appleton and Burnham on hand. Herbert Leeds one of the best golfers at Brookline. He just learned the game this spring. Others who play the game at Brookline are Thomas, Merrill and Burnham.
May 20 - Brookline has 110 sheep from Capt. Perkins place in New Hampshire.
May 27 - Campbell breaks the course record at Brookline.
Early June - Leeds lays out the course at Kebo Valley.
June 3 - Campbell will be at Essex County during the summer. Golf Committee includes WB Thomas. Campbell intends on making his home in America, pushing the game into the prominence it enjoys in other parts of the world.
June 10 - The first tournament at Myopia will be June 18. Thomas, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill will play.
June 18 - The first tournament at Myopia on the new links laid out by Campbell. Leeds has the low score.
July 4 - The second tournament at Myopia. Leeds has the low score.
July 13 - Campbell is at Essex County. He laid the course out in the spring.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 08:07:23 PM
Tom,

If you want to continue perpetuating the fantsy that Campbell was responsible for Belmont or offered anything other suggestions on Philly CC then be my guest, but I'm really not sure why you aren't comfortable enough with hos actual accomplishments and feel this need to be hos fluffer.

Oh well..whatever.

Joe Bausch posted contemporaneous reports claiming Campbell designed both courses earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 08:26:44 PM
Tom.

Those courses were never built. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 19, 2010, 08:29:24 PM
For whatever it is worth, Willie Dunn claimed to have designed Philadelphia Country Club.  I have seen a few newspaper reports linking him to the course, including one from the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 1896, which indicated that extensive alterations to the existing course were underway, with Dunn's supervision.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 09:59:51 PM
After Campbell defeated Willie Davis at Brookline in mid-May Laurence Curtis would later write, it 'was the first real golf any of us had ever seen.'

March 13 - Myopia HC annual meeting Boston. This is apparently when it was decided to lay out a links
March 31 - Campbell arrives in Boston. His importation into the States was arranged by WB Thomas.
April 9 - Campbell first day on the job at Brookline, but lessons are cancelled due to snow.
April 15 - A subcommittee of Appleton, Merrill and Burnham was appointed to introduce golf to Myopia. Campbell gives instructions daily at Brookline, and will go to Essex County on June 10.
May 13 - Sheep are on their way to Myopia; they will be pastured on the tract where the course will be laid out.
May 18 - Campbell defeats Willie Davis on the nine hole course at Brookline. Appleton, Thomas and Burnham on hand. Herbert Leeds one of the best golfers at Brookline; he just learned the game this spring. Others who play the game at Brookline are Thomas, Merrill and Burnham.
May 20 - Brookline has 110 sheep from Capt. Perkins place in New Hampshire.
May 27 - Campbell breaks the course record at Brookline.
Early June - Leeds lays out the course at Kebo Valley.
June 3 - Campbell will be at Essex County during the summer. Golf Committee includes WB Thomas. Campbell intends on making his home in America, pushing the game into the prominence it enjoys in other parts of the world.
June 10 - The first tournament at Myopia will be June 18. Thomas, Appleton, Gardner and Merrill will play.
June 18 - The first tournament at Myopia on the new links laid out by Campbell. Leeds has the low score.
July 4 - The second tournament at Myopia. Leeds has the low score.
July 13 - Campbell is at Essex County. He laid the course out in the spring.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 19, 2010, 10:50:57 PM
David,

Willie Dunn, huh?

Thanks for the late weekend laugh.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2010, 11:00:18 PM
Mike
Where in that timeline would you place Merrill, Appleton & Gardner laying out Myopia?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 19, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
David,

Willie Dunn, huh?

Thanks for the late weekend laugh.

Mike Cirba

Gee, what a surprise that you would scoff at yet another of these Scottish professionals.

Laugh it up all you like, but that is what was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  I almost forgot that your distain for (and ignorance about) these early pros automatically trumps any and all contemporaneous accounts. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 12:06:55 AM
David,

Good evening.  I have a question from your post #974, in response to my question earlier about whether you have verifiable backup to know what that the papers got info from club souces.  Your response:

 "1.  I don't just "say" the newspaper accounts were based on sources within the club, I explained, repeatedly, the details that made me think that this may have been the case."

So, if I have this right, you are offering up yourself - and your own detailed explanations of your opinions - as corroborating evidence for your own theories?  You may say I don't know much about the historic research process, but c'mon, even I know you can't do that! ::)

Hey, based on your opinion that I don't know much about great historians, would you say your style derives more from the little known native american historian Lotta Bull, who wrote about the Roswall, NM incident from the point of view of the aliens, or from Pilson "Al" Odecrap", who gained fame by writing 37,452 pages declaring each opinion, fact and source in the Warren Report on the JFK assination "unreliable?"  I have trouble deciding! ;)

But, thanks for reinforcing my basic point that much of your analysis relies on your own self inflated view of your historic analytical abilities, which while probably right some times (and I have admitted that) probably wouldn't pass muster beyond this website.  And, I have admitted the same for the rest of us, even if picking on you more of the time.

Have a good holiday, and please consider blessing us all with the gift of silence.

Cheers and to all a good night!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 12:26:02 AM
TMac,

First, I appreciate you putting that chronolgy together.  While all dates have been posted, it helps to see it in order.

To answer your question directed at Mike, Weeks says "after the snow melts in spring" which we have pegged at about April 11, and the committee was apparently appointed on April 15.  It could be any time after that day.

The sheep are coming on May 13, but that doesn't necessarily mean they had the fairways laid out. It just means they were certain they would be somewhere.  We know it was before the opening tournament, of course.

Just out of curiosity, where would you put Willie Campbell in that timeline, given his specifically known whereabouts on some days?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 03:09:24 AM
Jeff Brauer

Hmmmm. Because I explained why those articles made sense to me you have concluded that I have inappropriately  offered up myself - and my detailed explanations of my opinions - as corroborating evidence of my own theories?  And you think this means that my analysis relies on my own self inflated view of my historic analytical abilities?  

You are proving yourself an amazing intellectual force in this thread, Mr. Brauer, with logic far beyond anything I could ever begin to comprehend.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 06:16:18 AM
TMac,

First, I appreciate you putting that chronolgy together.  While all dates have been posted, it helps to see it in order.

To answer your question directed at Mike, Weeks says "after the snow melts in spring" which we have pegged at about April 11, and the committee was apparently appointed on April 15.  It could be any time after that day.

The sheep are coming on May 13, but that doesn't necessarily mean they had the fairways laid out. It just means they were certain they would be somewhere.  We know it was before the opening tournament, of course.

Just out of curiosity, where would you put Willie Campbell in that timeline, given his specifically known whereabouts on some days?

Jeff
Campbell's whereabouts are reported all along within the timeline. I don't understand your question. Are you looking for a day by day report?

Do you think it is likely Campbell introduced sheep at Myopia since he introduced sheep at Brookline and Essex County, and later at Franklin Park?

Since you specialize in speculating lets get your take after looking at the timeline. Brookline, Essex County and Myopia had more or less the same membership, the same names pop up at all those clubs, especially when it comes to golf. Why would the leadership at Brookline and Essex County have Campbell lay out their golf courses, but Myopia chose to have the master of the hounds lay out their course? And how do you explain the three separate reports that Campbell laid out Myopia but no reports of the Squire & Co doing anything?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 06:41:52 AM
Tom MacWood,

When something is reported, particularly in a gossip column as opposed to hard news, is NOT the day it happened.

The Myopia subcommittee was appointed sometime before April 15th.   April 15th was the date it was reported in a gossip column.  We don't know the exact date they were appointed for certain, but it was very likely at the Myopia meeting earlier in March.

We also know that at that March meeting that Appleton suggested the club pursue a golf course.   The Weeks account reads as though Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner routed the golf course before that meeting in March.     Why do I say that?  Because after relating the account of the three men "footing it over the club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens", he writes;

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months..."

How would they know that Tom if they hadn't already been making preparations? 

Sorry, but this was all well before Willie Campbell arrived on these shores Tom.

Also...you say WC designed Essex, but weren't they already playing there before WC arrived in June 1894?


David,

Most of these guys were self promoters to the press in an effort to generate a name (and business) for themselves.   Willie Dunn also claimed responsibility for the first Merion.

What do you think he was doing...following Willie Campbell around correcting his mistakes?

And about the press...are you trying to help us point out their obvious fallibility by pointing out such gross errors?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 06:59:28 AM
Mike
So you are saying the course was paced off a week or so before Campbell arrived? And to make this work you are claiming the mid-April report that a committee had been formed to introduce golf to Myopia was a delayed report by a month or more?

The information you are quoting from Weeks, where do you think he got that information and have you been able independently confirm any of it?

Weeks does not give any dates, no date for the annual meeting and no approximate date for when the Squire & Co laid out the course, just it was in the spring and after the snow melted. The first day of spring is March 21, when do you think the snow melted?

Do you think the fact that Weeks says they 'probably' marked out the tees and greens with pegs brings question to the veracity of his account?

Since you have presented a much different scenario than Jeff I'll ask you the same questions I asked him. Brookline, Essex County and Myopia had more or less the same membership, the same names pop up at all those clubs, especially when it comes to golf. Why would the leadership at Brookline and Essex County have Campbell lay out their golf courses, but Myopia chose to have the master of the hounds lay out their course? And how do you explain the three separate reports that Campbell laid out Myopia but no reports of the Squire & Co doing anything?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 07:52:43 AM
Tom,

I'll answer later as time permits but was there golf at Essex before Campbell arrived in June 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 20, 2010, 08:22:25 AM
Just as an aside, I'd prefer it if you all referred to me as the "Master of the Hounds" from here on out.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 08:29:55 AM
Michael:

According to some information from Essex on their history there were golf holes before (1893) Campbell arrived in America (March 31, 1894). The same was the case with TCC (1892-93).

By the way, your #990 is an excellent and logical presentation of your opinion of the events and chronology of the beginnings of golf and a golf course at Myopia and it squares with what I have seen from club records of that time. I do realize at this time mentioning this may not be appropriate to some. Certainly Moriarty, and perhaps MacWood too, have tried to limit the very discussion on here of events of that time to only what has been or can be actually and physically posted on here in the form of a copy or digital scan of original source material (in their case newspaper accounts). And they only seem to accept contemporaneous accounts, and not really the account of the club's history writer who published his book in 1975.

I do not have a problem with that if this website (I suppose including Ran Morrissett) wants to turn this Discussion Group (DG) on this website into the same structure and procedures as a court of law and probably one that requires a jury. In that structure and procedure, my understanding is evidence or any opinions on evidence or potential evidence must first be submitted to the judge as an exhibit and also agreed upon regarding its submission by the opposing side (to the side that submits it). And then there is the procedure of Disclosure or Discovery in which my understanding is the opposing side has the right to review the evidence before it is submitted as an evidence exhibit and discussed and argued.

If this is the way this website wants its DG to operate then I'm fine with that; I just would not continue to participate in the same way I have in the past about what I know and have seen and read at varioius golf clubs and about various golf clubs to do with their architectural histories which does not fall into the category of "public domain" material.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 08:30:32 AM
JC...err...I mean Master of the Hounds. 

Done.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 08:46:34 AM
"Just as an aside, I'd prefer it if you all referred to me as the "Master of the Hounds" from here on out."


JC:

You can ask for that but it is definitely not the simple request you may suspect it is. THE "Master of the Fox Hounds" is actually and traditionally quite the august position in a hunt club. In some ways it is the leader of the club. To actually be appointed the Master of the Fox Hounds of a hunt club one usually must be an expert fox hunter, rider, and all-around expert in the age old sport of fox Hunting including its fairly unique and traditional etiquette. To be that one must prove himself to his peers and fellow fox hunters. a test of riding expertise is a prerequisite and then there is the matter of the fox hounds themselves. They are quite unique and odd animals and they are referred to as "bitches" if they are female and "dogs" if they are male (to them that is the ultimate form or address respect). To be an effective Master of the Fox Hounds one must also pass a rather grueling and complex series of tests with the hounds themselves that entails and includes a formal written and oral examination (something like admission to law school or the passing of the bar) with the Hounds as well as generally at least a day long session where the Master of the Fox Hound candidate spends a day in the kennels alone with the fox hounds essentially looking them all in the eye. I have actually seen this last thing in person and unless and until the Master of the Fox Hounds can develop a situation and relationship with those fox hounds something like Crocidile Dundee did with oxen and kangaroos and the like out in the Australian Outback, the Master of the Fox Hounds is very likely to fail his test to be appointed to such an august position in a fox hunting club such as Myopia Hunt Club.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 08:47:55 AM
Tom MacWood,

Was there a golf course at Essex CC before Willie Campbell's arrival?   How many holes was it?

Also,

Why do you think Wade wrote in 1974 that the original course at Myopia (that he claims was laid out by Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner) was precisely 2050 yards?  

Did he just make up that number, or do you think he got that information from a previously written version of the club history and that unknown author presumably just made up that number, as well as the rest of the story?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 09:12:09 AM
TMac,

Not sure what you don't understand about the question, but I don't need a day by day timeline.  Just a hunch as to what days he might have been at MH laying out a golf course, same as you asked of Mike.  He did a better job of explaining the nuances of the records that make it sound like MH started the process before Campbell got here, and I agree. 

And, I think once he was here, it was likely they probably called him in at some point.  Like you, I would think, why not?  But if they had the layout done in some preliminary fashion, then I have no trouble thinking they laid it out, and maybe got some tweaks and/or greenskeeping advice from Willie.  I really see no reason, if we are seeking the truth, to debate endlessly as to whether its an either or proposition.  It would be nice to know the details.

I hadn't thought about it, but it sounds logical that WC suggested the sheep. If they had been ordered by May 13, that suggests he did get up there just before that, and not long after he got on these shores.  Of course, with that common membership, it is also possible that once ordered for Brookline, one of the members simply used the idea to MH without bringing Willie up there.

As to your question about the total veracity of the Weeks report because of one use of the word probably, I have opined on that before.  He seems to write from the record when he says they lay it out, and adds probably specifically to signify that he doesn't know if they use wood pegs in the process.  He seems to have no doubt that process occurred.

So, no, I think its a real stretch to call his veracity out on that one word alone.  A real stretch.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 09:15:54 AM
I note that on the issue of just Willie Campbell himself and his emigration from Scotland and immigration into America and Boston (for the first time) in March of 1894, it probably would be helpful to know more about how exactly that transpired.

It has been said that it was W. B. Thomas (Washington B. Thomas of TCC) that encouraged Campbell to come to America (emigrate) or perhaps sponsor him to America and the world of the early Boston clubs in some way.

For this I suggest we tap our fellow GOLFCLUBALTAS.com contributors abroad such as Niall Carlton, Melvyn Hunter Morrow, Tony Muldoon et al to see what they can come up with over there in the form of research, newspaper accounts or whatever, to find some more details on that, on Campbell and his emigration.

How did Thomas meet Campbell? Where did he meet him and when? What about W.B. Thomas himself? I understand from other "independent" ;) research of my own that Thomas was a big man in the sugar business and perhaps even the so-called "China Trade" as some others of those bigwigs around those early Boston clubs were as well.

I would assume that Thomas must have put this idea of emigrating to America and Boston into Campbell's mind at some point when Thomas was in Scotland, perhaps in 1892 or 1893. I just can't see Thomas sending Willie an email in 1894 and having Willie just pull up stakes in Scotland, leave his wife and such in a week or a month or two and catch the next speed boat to Boston in March 1894.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 09:18:34 AM
Tom MacWood,

Was there a golf course at Essex CC before Willie Campbell's arrival?   How many holes was it?

Also,

Why do you think Wade wrote in 1974 that the original course at Myopia (that he claims was laid out by Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner) was precisely 2050 yards?  

Did he just make up that number, or do you think he got that information from a previously written version of the club history and that unknown author presumably just made up that number, as well as the rest of the story?

Mike
There was a golf course at Essex County in 1893. A golf course, football field, basebal diamond and polo grounds were laid out by CE Cotting, TJ Coolidge, Samuel Knight, FE Simpson and CJ Morse. It was five holes made in a star shaped pattern where the holes crossed. They reportedly used flower pots for holes. Campbell laid out a nine hole course in the spring of 1894, which was later expanded to 11 holes.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 09:36:16 AM
It seems to me in more cases than not in this early era of golf in America in the late 19th century, members of these early clubs laid out golf holes themselves before any immigrant golf professional got involved in them. Consequently, this should not be considered odd or unusual with Myopia either and particularly since the club's history writer mentioned it in some detail and contemporaneous club records confirm what he wrote in his history book.

As Jeff and Mike and me and some others have mentioned this is probably not some either/or thing with those three members who laid out that original Myopia nine before Campbell arrived in America and Campbell himself and what he did later. When Campbell got there he very likely helped them somehow after the members laid out a nine hole course which lead to those newspaper articles mentioning Campbell. Therefore, the facts seem to show that there is truth in both accounts and both sources----eg the club history and club records and those newspaper accounts.

The problem with MacWood and Moriarty's approach is they seem to be continuously trying to discount the club's account to promote those newspaper articles, and that is not good historical analysis and investigation in my opinion.

Why didn't the club records and the club history book mention Campbell and why didn't those newspaper articles mention the club members? There're very likely some very logical reasons for that which I doubt the participants on this thread will find much of a way to agree on but no matter, history is history and it generally is never as black of white as some try to make it, particularly some on this website.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 09:54:32 AM
TEP
The club's account (Weeks' account) has serious flaws. First that account has no knowledge of Campbell being in Boston, the great impact he had on that cities golf development and specifically on Myopia. Second it has no knowledge or record of Campbell working for the club despite the fact their are numerous reports confirming that employment. And third the account makes no sense from a practical or logical point of view. Forth no one has been able to independently confirm any part of the club's story. Based on that why should would buy any part of that account?

Perhaps you can help us understand...tell us what you learned from the board minutes? Can you describe them, in what form were they when you saw them?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 10:11:00 AM
I note that on the issue of just Willie Campbell himself and his emigration from Scotland and immigration into America and Boston (for the first time) in March of 1894, it probably would be helpful to know more about how exactly that transpired.

It has been said that it was W. B. Thomas (Washington B. Thomas of TCC) that encouraged Campbell to come to America (emigrate) or perhaps sponsor him to America and the world of the early Boston clubs in some way.

For this I suggest we tap our fellow GOLFCLUBALTAS.com contributors abroad such as Niall Carlton, Melvyn Hunter Morrow, Tony Muldoon et al to see what they can come up with over there in the form of research, newspaper accounts or whatever, to find some more details on that, on Campbell and his emigration.

How did Thomas meet Campbell? Where did he meet him and when? What about W.B. Thomas himself? I understand from other "independent" ;) research of my own that Thomas was a big man in the sugar business and perhaps even the so-called "China Trade" as some others of those bigwigs around those early Boston clubs were as well.

I would assume that Thomas must have put this idea of emigrating to America and Boston into Campbell's mind at some point when Thomas was in Scotland, perhaps in 1892 or 1893. I just can't see Thomas sending Willie an email in 1894 and having Willie just pull up stakes in Scotland, leave his wife and such in a week or a month or two and catch the next speed boat to Boston in March 1894.  ;)

TEP
That is a very good question, and I think it is wise that you enlist the help of others to carry out that research.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 10:21:54 AM
Tom MacWood,

Since you think Weeks' account came from a previous history, do you have any knowledge that such a history existed?

It seems very unlikely that Wade for Golf Digest would have come up with the very same information prior to Weeks book, naming the exact same three men, as well as listing the course yardage at 2050 yards, something that Weeks did not know.

If such an account existed that you believe both Weeks and Wade cribbed from, then why does Weeks tell us that he didn't know the exact routing and description of all the holes, much less the total distance?

Could it be that this is simply the contemporaneous account in the club's records, after all?

I agree with Tom Paul that there would be no reason for the members NOT to have tried to lay out a course...Appleton supposedly had already done this type of thing on his own property, and we see other clubs like Essex and TCC did essentially the same thing, even though they had other pros like Alex (not Willie) Campbell at their disposal during the time period they laid out their original courses.

Also, as Niall has pointed out, these early courses were very, very changeable and evolving.   Even if they knew Willie was coming to town, why not lay it out as they thought they needed (and they did have very specific needs to only use land far from the polo fields and hunting grounds, which is probably why they needed to also use Dr. Hopkins land at that period, because they didn't purchase his land until 1897), and then refine and add to it if the game caught on with members.  

The either/or approach you suggest is very strange.

Much the same thing happened at Belmont, it seems.   An original nine-hole course was laid out in 1896 by members who included Dr. Toulmin of later Merion fame.   It is documented clearly in the 1898 Prosper Senat book, as well as other accounts in Golf Magazine.

At some time that year it seems the club had more ambitious plans, to have Willie Campbell build them an 18 hole course, a 9 hole course, and a women's course, as seen in that article that Joe Bausch found.   In fact, that article refers to the original course designed by Toulmin and friends as the "temporary course".    

As mentioned, those planned courses were never built.   That may have been because of a fallout between the Belmont Golf Association and the Belmont Cricket Club, it may have been because membership didn't increase as fast as they hoped, or any number of reasons.  

It's why news accounts need to be supplemented with more information.   I love to look and research via old newspapers as well, and they can be really useful in trying to understand what happened, but they can also yield much misinformation  and they are also very subject to the writer's understanding (or not) of the game and what constitutes golf course design and construction.

In the case of Cobb's Creek, I can show you articles that say that William Flynn designed it...I can show you articles that make it appear that Park Engineer Jesse T. Vogdes designed it....many that include Hugh Wilson and some that don't.

They are imperfect, and without going to the source material there is a higher likelihood of attribution error.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 10:27:19 AM
TMac,

Not sure what you don't understand about the question, but I don't need a day by day timeline.  Just a hunch as to what days he might have been at MH laying out a golf course, same as you asked of Mike.  He did a better job of explaining the nuances of the records that make it sound like MH started the process before Campbell got here, and I agree. 

And, I think once he was here, it was likely they probably called him in at some point.  Like you, I would think, why not?  But if they had the layout done in some preliminary fashion, then I have no trouble thinking they laid it out, and maybe got some tweaks and/or greenskeeping advice from Willie.  I really see no reason, if we are seeking the truth, to debate endlessly as to whether its an either or proposition.  It would be nice to know the details.

I hadn't thought about it, but it sounds logical that WC suggested the sheep. If they had been ordered by May 13, that suggests he did get up there just before that, and not long after he got on these shores.  Of course, with that common membership, it is also possible that once ordered for Brookline, one of the members simply used the idea to MH without bringing Willie up there.

As to your question about the total veracity of the Weeks report because of one use of the word probably, I have opined on that before.  He seems to write from the record when he says they lay it out, and adds probably specifically to signify that he doesn't know if they use wood pegs in the process.  He seems to have no doubt that process occurred.

So, no, I think its a real stretch to call his veracity out on that one word alone.  A real stretch.



Jeff
You said you thought the course was laid out sometime in May, now you are agreeing with Mike that the course was laid out prior to the annual meeting? That would be in the winter. Weeks said the Squire & Co laid out the course in the spring, not the winter. Weeks says the decision to peruse golf at Myopia was made at the annual meeting. You are saying a golf course was already laid out at the time of that meeting. It sounds like you both are now rejecting Weeks account, or at least parts of his account, in order to make your stories work.  And neither one of you have presented any facts to support your theories.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 10:39:19 AM
Mike
You did not address any of my questions.

I believe you have confused Robert P. May for Wade. There was a book published in 1942 called 'Early Myopia' written by Allan Forbes. I've never seen it. I don't understand your logic about the total yardage. How would knowing the total yardage give you any insight into the routing?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 10:48:13 AM
Tom,

I think;

1) Appleton and friends wanted to bring golf to Myopia for some time prior to spring of 1894.

2) Appleton and friends staked out nine holes to see if it was practical either prior to the March meeting or just after.   If I had to guess, I'd say prior, because I am betting they went to that meeting prepared to answer the skeptics and those opposed to the new game.   I'm betting they pre-supposed all the questions and concerns which is why they located their holes far from the clubhouse, the polo fields, and the traditional hunt grounds.  

3) I think they did this prior, and when they got approval for golf they started working on it.   A first step would be to form a working committee of men who were charged with making it happen.   As you know, that group, which was formed sometime before April 15th, 1894, included two of the three men that Weeks and Wade tell us staked out the course, along with another member.

4) I think they did what preliminary work they could during this period, but even your account talks of a big storm around April 9th, so the probably got delayed a bit.  

5) There is no question that Willie Campbell was brought in sometime in April or May, but that one account of yours troubles me...it says he only worked on the course for a few days before it opened.   That makes me think he possibly did very little, and could be the source of the missing attribution in the club records and/or the Weeks and May accounts.    Or, he might have worked on refining and cutting the greens and tees...I'm not sure, and the record is far from clear, but from my perspective, there is way more evidence out there to suggest that both stories are true and accurate than there is to think they are mutually exclusive.  


***EDIT*** Thanks for the correction Tom.   That book would certainly be something interesting to see at this point.   I wonder if the USGA library has a copy?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 10:52:50 AM
TMac,

Mike C and TePaul both summarized what I believe pretty well.  If you want to continue to discount Weeks completely for your own reasons, feel free. Posting your chronology was a nice step in all of us speculating, oops, sorry, when you do it, its interpreting, what happend in those few months.  But to use it to subtly misrepresent others is going to lead to nothing but more disagreement. 

I said anytime after April, and that they may have called Willie in by May, if he was the sheep provider/suggester.  Please don't twist my story around and then try to use it to make me look bad.

As far as I can tell, there are no facts to present (absent the club records we don't have) for this detailed a guess as to what happened in this time frame to have some credit the club and some credit Campbell. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 10:55:51 AM
Mike
You did not address any of my questions.

Your theorized account conflicts with Weeks' account. Are you now rejecting parts of his account? Do you have any evidence to support your new theory or is it just pure conjecture?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 20, 2010, 11:05:25 AM
I note that on the issue of just Willie Campbell himself and his emigration from Scotland and immigration into America and Boston (for the first time) in March of 1894, it probably would be helpful to know more about how exactly that transpired.

It has been said that it was W. B. Thomas (Washington B. Thomas of TCC) that encouraged Campbell to come to America (emigrate) or perhaps sponsor him to America and the world of the early Boston clubs in some way.

For this I suggest we tap our fellow GOLFCLUBALTAS.com contributors abroad such as Niall Carlton, Melvyn Hunter Morrow, Tony Muldoon et al to see what they can come up with over there in the form of research, newspaper accounts or whatever, to find some more details on that, on Campbell and his emigration.

How did Thomas meet Campbell? Where did he meet him and when? What about W.B. Thomas himself? I understand from other "independent" ;) research of my own that Thomas was a big man in the sugar business and perhaps even the so-called "China Trade" as some others of those bigwigs around those early Boston clubs were as well.

I would assume that Thomas must have put this idea of emigrating to America and Boston into Campbell's mind at some point when Thomas was in Scotland, perhaps in 1892 or 1893. I just can't see Thomas sending Willie an email in 1894 and having Willie just pull up stakes in Scotland, leave his wife and such in a week or a month or two and catch the next speed boat to Boston in March 1894.  ;)

Tom

I think you give me too much credit in my ability to find this kind of information !!

Off the top of my head the newspaper cuttings I've got on Campbell don't refer to how or who approached him to go to America. I seem to recall that there was some speculation that he would go there before he actually went. In the Tom Morris book which I referenced in an earlier post, the suggestion is that Old Tom would often get requests from abroad or at home for advice on who might be suitable for a particular job and then "place" some acolyte or pro of his acquaintance in that job. That seems to me to be a logical possibility of how Campbell ended up in America but whether Thomas was the man who made the approach I think would be near impossible to know. One thing to bear in mind though is that America was seen as the land of opportunity and not just for budding golf professionals so I don't think that Willie would have needed that much encouragement.

As an aside, Dr MacKenzies tours of Australia and South America came about be referrals from the R&A and USGA respectively following initial queries from Royal Sydney (?) and the Jockey Clubs respectively. It doesn't seem outlandish to think that Campbell ended up in the US following a similar approach to Old Tom.

Sheep - presumably if the Myopia club already had a polo section, the polo field would likely have been "kept" by sheep and therefore they wouldn't have needed that bit of advice from Campbell ?

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 11:06:32 AM
Mike
You did not address any of my questions.

Your theorized account conflicts with Weeks' account. Are you now rejecting parts of his account? Do you have any evidence to support your new theory or is it just pure conjecture?

Tom,

I'm not sure which question I didn't address in my explanation of what I think went down?   Please let me know.

I also would ask where you think my account conflicts with Weeks?   Is it simply that he said "spring" and I said sometime in March, which may have either been before or after March 20?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 11:27:36 AM
Niall:

Regarding your #1010, much of what you said makes a lot of sense and it's logical. However, what I would encourage you and everyone else on here to do is to really appreciate just how different things were in America in the early to mid 1890s concerning golf over here than they were just a mere ten or fifteen years later. To quantify it, in the early 1890s in Boston there probably weren't more than a score or so people in and around Boston who had the vaguest idea about golf, what it was, how to play it, but ten and fifteen years later there were literally thousands!!

THAT is an historical reality we can just never forget or fail to appreciate in the history and evolution of golf and golf architecture in Boston, iin America and particularly the United States of America, particularly in the early to mid 1890s.

For someone like Tom MacWood to maintain, as he has on here, that a man like Campbell in the early to mid 1890s when he first arrived here was some big celebrated world famous golfer or celebrity over here is frankly just bullshit or a total lack of thought and historical perspective on MacWood's part.

At first Campbell may've been something of a curiosity to those hundred or so Bostonians who first saw him play golf or in those early exhibitions with Davis and Park Jr (which were brilliant promotionally, by the way), but to label him some celebrated hero or celebrated golfer that everyone was waiting for over here back then by more than about a handful or a score at most at first is just ridiculous and completely inaccurate historically.

But that's MacWood----he's a good researcher of names and dates and newspaper articles (that are "independent" of the actually internally administrations of those early clubs) and such but a very poor analyst of the correct context of history itself; he falls into that trap on here all the time apparently in some on-going attempt to over promote the reality and reputation of some of those early immigrant golf professional back then such as Willie Campbell into Boston in 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 11:45:44 AM
Tom,

I think;

1) Appleton and friends wanted to bring golf to Myopia for some time prior to spring of 1894. Do you have any facts to support this idea?

2) Appleton and friends staked out nine holes to see if it was practical either prior to the March meeting or just after.   If I had to guess, I'd say prior, because I am betting they went to that meeting prepared to answer the skeptics and those opposed to the new game.   I'm betting they pre-supposed all the questions and concerns which is why they located their holes far from the clubhouse, the polo fields, and the traditional hunt grounds.  Your theory that the course was staked out in the winter conflcts with Weeks account that the course was laid out in the spring. Do you have any facts to support your theory?

3) I think they did this prior, and when they got approval for golf they started working on it.   A first step would be to form a working committee of men who were charged with making it happen.   As you know, that group, which was formed sometime before April 15th, 1894, included two of the three men that Weeks and Wade tell us staked out the course, along with another member. Your account reverses the normal chain of events for a new golf course. Normally the first step would be to come to sone consensus or decision about developing a golf course, then next to form a committee, and then finally to lay out the course. Do you have any facts to back up this scenario?  

4) I think they did what preliminary work they could during this period, but even your account talks of a big storm around April 9th, so the probably got delayed a bit.  Doesn't this account conflct with Weeks? He said they waited for the snow to melt before starting laying out the course. How long were they delayed in your opinion?

5) There is no question that Willie Campbell was brought in sometime in April or May, but that one account of yours troubles me...it says he only worked on the course for a few days before it opened.   That makes me think he possibly did very little, and could be the source of the missing attribution in the club records and/or the Weeks and May accounts.    Or, he might have worked on refining and cutting the greens and tees...I'm not sure, and the record is far from clear, but from my perspective, there is way more evidence out there to suggest that both stories are true and accurate than there is to think they are mutually exclusive.  Why does it trouble you that he laid out these courses in short order? Were you under the impression it took longer? That is what troubles me about Weeks account that the course would take three months to build. That is not consistent with typical golf course developments in Boston in 1894.  

***EDIT*** Thanks for the correction Tom.   That book would certainly be something interesting to see at this point.   I wonder if the USGA library has a copy?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 11:52:34 AM
TEP
Can you share with us what specifically you learned from the board minutes (beyond what we read in Weeks' book)? Can you describe those minutes, in what form were they when you saw them?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 12:36:28 PM
TMac,

I am again having trouble understanding your points.

Mike says they decided in March to build a golf course.  I agree the formal decision would have been at the Exec Committee meeting, where it was approved, but it would not be a stretch to have done some homework before making a presentation at a formal board meeting, would it?  At least I have never heard of going before a board without some preparation and facts.

They formed a committee, reported on April 15, but most likely right there in their Exec meeting, choosing mostly the same guys who started the process, and proceeded to lay it out thereafter, most likely as soon as the snow melted, as reported.  Sounds pretty logical and in order to me. 

I would agree that the March work probably wasn't actual routing, as Mike said. But I think there would have been some pre-planning period before a formal meeting presentation.  You turn that into "they laid it out in "winter" although yes, the first day of spring is usually about March 21 or so, "officially."

I think they could have walked the property, decided where the land would best be used, etc., to be prepared for the meeting on the 13th.  Just because there was a big snow in April, the ground could have been lightly covered, etc.  Or, they could have just chosen to walk in snow.  Its certainly not impossible.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 12:56:34 PM
"TEP
Can you share with us what specifically you learned from the board minutes (beyond what we read in Weeks' book)? Can you describe those minutes, in what form were they when you saw them?"



Tom MacWood:

Of course I CAN do that. However, as I see it now, I have approximately 2-5 problems to resolve before I would consider doing that on this website. On that note, I'm very definitely considering making a proposal on here in some form, and hopefully with Ran Morrissett's help or input, that can and really will resolve those approximately 2-5 problems, and not just in the short term but in the long term. If and when they are all resolved I would be glad to share anything on this website I know and have seen or read at Myopia or any other club with which I have those kinds of relationships.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 01:13:01 PM
TMac,

I am again having trouble understanding your points.

Mike says they decided in March to build a golf course.  I agree the formal decision would have been at the Exec Committee meeting, where it was approved, but it would not be a stretch to have done some homework before making a presentation at a formal board meeting, would it?  At least I have never heard of going before a board without some preparation and facts.

They formed a committee, reported on April 15, but most likely right there in their Exec meeting, choosing mostly the same guys who started the process, and proceeded to lay it out thereafter, most likely as soon as the snow melted, as reported.  Sounds pretty logical and in order to me. 

I would agree that the March work probably wasn't actual routing, as Mike said. But I think there would have been some pre-planning period before a formal meeting presentation.  You turn that into "they laid it out in "winter" although yes, the first day of spring is usually about March 21 or so, "officially."

I think they could have walked the property, decided where the land would best be used, etc., to be prepared for the meeting on the 13th.  Just because there was a big snow in April, the ground could have been lightly covered, etc.  Or, they could have just chosen to walk in snow.  Its certainly not impossible.

Jeff
What kind of homework? Specifically what would they have hoped to learn from this homework? Presumably these men had seen or played over the early golf courses at Brookline and Essex County since they were also members at one or both of those clubs. They also knew Campbell was on his way. It seems to me this is just another exrecise in blatant speculation without a single fact to support your theories? When are you two going to introduce some facts to support your ever evolving speculation?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 01:20:37 PM
Tom,

Why didn't you mention that they had played all of their golf to date (March 1894) on amateur-member-designed courses?

The courses they learned on at TCC and Essex were designed by members, and they also played the amateur designed courses at estates like Appleton Farms, and Hunnewell's place.

These guys thought nothing of laying out a course, because that's all that had been done to date in Boston, and that's all they knew.

I'm sure they were bringing over a champion golfer who was also a clubmaker and teacher and presumably a green keeper in Campbell, but it's doubtful that they would have heard of or seen or even heard of the small handful of very obscure courses he'd designed abroad before then.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 01:28:29 PM
Things like how long it would take to put a golf course in play.....do you think they just made that up at the meeting, or came prepared?  What land to use, given the strife between the hunting and new golfing interests?  It wouldn't be hard for most of us to envision that some discussions like that were in play before going to a formal meeting.

And remind me again why it is that I speculate and when you say "the Weeks account reads like fiction" or "It makes no sense that they wouldn't use Campbell" without providing facts is okey dokey?  Do you, like David, just presume that your "logic" is beyond question? 

Its fun and perhaps educational if we keep snooping around to find a scenario that might fit the information we know.  You speculate as much as anyone on this site, but just won't admit it, and don't always agree with mine or others.  There are gaps that need to be filled and in lieu of new documents, we are trying to patch something together here.  Again, it can be fun but when we all get to arguing others points down, that is definitely NOT the same as trying to find new fact.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Niall's comment that they already had sheep at Myopia and knew how to clip grass without asking Willie Campbell about it?  Truthfully, I hadn't really thought of that either.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 01:37:50 PM
If they had lawn tennis prior they would have needed to keep those courts closely shorn, as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 02:11:38 PM
"TEP
Can you share with us what specifically you learned from the board minutes (beyond what we read in Weeks' book)? Can you describe those minutes, in what form were they when you saw them?"



Tom MacWood:

Of course I CAN do that. However, as I see it now, I have approximately 2-5 problems to resolve before I would consider doing that on this website. On that note, I'm very definitely considering making a proposal on here in some form, and hopefully with Ran Morrissett's help or input, that can and really will resolve those approximately 2-5 problems, and not just in the short term but in the long term. If and when they are all resolved I would be glad to share anything on this website I know and have seen or read at Myopia or any other club with which I have those kinds of relationships.


Good luck with that, I hope rediscovering your credibility and integrity are not two of those five things needing to be resolved, because if that is the case we could be waiting a while.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 02:42:44 PM
Tom,

Why didn't you mention that they had played all of their golf to date (March 1894) on amateur-member-designed courses?

The courses they learned on at TCC and Essex were designed by members, and they also played the amateur designed courses at estates like Appleton Farms, and Hunnewell's place.

These guys thought nothing of laying out a course, because that's all that had been done to date in Boston, and that's all they knew.

I'm sure they were bringing over a champion golfer who was also a clubmaker and teacher and presumably a green keeper in Campbell, but it's doubtful that they would have heard of or seen or even heard of the small handful of very obscure courses he'd designed abroad before then.

Mike
You did not know TCC had a 6-hole course in 1893? I have mentioned it on this thread, and more than once. Its also alluded to in my profile of Campbell from my essay on this site. Weeks also mentioned it. Didn't you just transcribe that part of his book the other day? I've also mentioned they were members of TCC on numerous occasions. Are you having some kind of mental block?

I love and appreciate fiction as much as the next guy, but when it comes to documenting history it helps if you can include some facts. You two are giving TEP a run for his money when it comes to fabricating these wild tales, because that is all they are. Last I checked we have three independent reports of Campbell designing Myopia. We have zero reports that the Squire & Co were involved in any design activities at Myopia. But don't let me stop you there is definitely some entertainment value in these very creative stories.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 02:47:46 PM
TePaul,

I think you lost ALL credibility when you didn't provide factual back up for that contention of what it took to be master of the hounds....I think we should have the hounds on here to back it up!

Sort of OT, but what exactly are credibility and integrity on gca.com?  Are they different than in real life?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 02:54:47 PM
Tom MacWood:

No, that was not one of the 2-5 problems to be resolved. But if you want to use a baseball analogy I guess you have two more guesses. Good luck, and if you're gonna strike out at least be sure to do it swinging away!  ;)

I was just speaking with the eminent Jeffrey Brauer, Sir etc, and we were talking about the efficacy of a sort of Christmas holiday hiatus here. Unfortunately, the two of us got to talking about Santa Claus and we realized just how much he gets around all over the world every year and has for like forever, so we were wondering if perhaps Santa Claus had some significant design input into the likes of Merion and Myopia and has not as yet been given the credit he deserves for it by those two clubs?!!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 03:03:06 PM
Things like how long it would take to put a golf course in play.....do you think they just made that up at the meeting, or came prepared?  What land to use, given the strife between the hunting and new golfing interests?  It wouldn't be hard for most of us to envision that some discussions like that were in play before going to a formal meeting.

And remind me again why it is that I speculate and when you say "the Weeks account reads like fiction" or "It makes no sense that they wouldn't use Campbell" without providing facts is okey dokey?  Do you, like David, just presume that your "logic" is beyond question?  

Its fun and perhaps educational if we keep snooping around to find a scenario that might fit the information we know.  You speculate as much as anyone on this site, but just won't admit it, and don't always agree with mine or others.  There are gaps that need to be filled and in lieu of new documents, we are trying to patch something together here.  Again, it can be fun but when we all get to arguing others points down, that is definitely NOT the same as trying to find new fact.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Niall's comment that they already had sheep at Myopia and knew how to clip grass without asking Willie Campbell about it?  Truthfully, I hadn't really thought of that either.

They would have known they could have a golf course up and running in days. TCC and Essex County had laid courses the previous year. Tramping around on the site wasn't going to teach them anything they didn't already know. I think you are projecting 21st C realities on a 19th C project.

"When the snows melted in the spring of 1894...." That reads like fiction. "...probably marking them with pegs." Fiction. The idea that it would take 3 months in 1894 to have a course ready. Fiction. Sodding and cutting the greens. Fiction.

The sheep at Myopia were reported to be on there way in May of 1894 expressly for the golf course, no mention of polo. And the sheep at TCC were imported from New Hampshire, and 'there entire duty of these sheep is to keep the grass short on the links.' Again there is no mention of polo in connection with the sheep.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 03:04:24 PM
"Mike
You did not know TCC had a 6-hole course in 1893? I have mentioned it on this thread, and more than once. Its also alluded to in my profile of Campbell from my essay on this site. Weeks also mentioned it. Didn't you just transcribe that part of his book the other day? I've also mentioned they were members of TCC on numerous occasions."


I mentioned it the other day but for those interested in a really good and pretty comprehensive account of golf in the beginning and very early days in Boston and amongst these Boston clubs we've been discussing and the people from them and what they did with their golf and courses in the beginning and in the early days (1890s), I don't think you could do much better than perusing this new book entitled "The Story of Golf at The Country Club" (2009) by John de St. Jorre!

This author is so good and so comprehensive on the subject he even has Wayne and I in his "Acknowledgments" section!   :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 03:06:56 PM
TMacWood,  

TEPaul has already shared plenty about what he knows about these supposed "minutes," so much in fact that the real source of the questionable information has become abundantly clear.    
_______________________________________________

TEPaul,

As much as you would like to have your unsupported proclamations go unchallenged around here, I doubt very much Ran will sign off on any plan to permanently "take care" of your 2 to 5 problems.

But while you are visiting with Ran, perhaps you will explain to him why you tried to dupe us with a phony quote from the Weeks' book and why you have been misrepresenting Myopia's minutes?

And you might as well come clean to him about the supposed Drexel documents, since you will not come clean on the website.
_______________________________

Mike Cirba,

While they reportedly had a "plank lawn tennis court" at the original Winchester location, I have seen no indication that they had lawn tennis at Hamilton in or before 1894.  What is your basis, aside from TEPaul's speculation, for stating they had tennis at Hamilton in 1894.  Did TEPaul claim he saw lawn tennis course in his amorphous Bush minutes?

Also, you repeatedly have speculated about the members having routed the golf course so as to avoid the polo grounds and "traditional hunting grounds."   Was that in the amorphous Bush minutes as well?  

The polo grounds were reportedly north of the club, adjacent to the railroad tracks.  They were connected to but relatively isolated from the main property by the swampy Miles River.  They'd have had to have gone well out of their way for the golf course to interfere with the polo grounds.  

You also apparently suffer from the mistaken impression that they hunted next to the clubhouse on what would have been an extremely limited tract of land.
- First, as neither you nor self-appointed Myopia expert TEPaul seem to realize, they had long given up the actual hunting of live foxes at Hamilton by 1894.   Instead, they had "drags," where a scent trail was laid out and the dogs and horses would follow the "drag" as if it were a hunt.  
- Second, these "hunts" were not limited to the area around the clubhouse (what you christen, laughably, as the "traditional hunting grounds.")  They went on for hours and covered great distances.  Reportedly, while the the early runs went on for three or four miles, by the mid-1890's they oftentimes covered ten miles.  Obviously the runs were not contained to your  "traditional hunting grounds" but ranged over dozens of farms, estates, and even through neighboring towns.  

So this notion that the course was designed to skirt the polo grounds or "historical hunting grounds" is another inaccurate assumption on your part.

[An Aside: The Myopians actively cultivated a good relationship with the neighboring farmers by reportedly hosting them for celebratory days (such as Bunker Hill Day) devoted to games and horse races at the Club, by sponsoring an annual horse show beginning in 1896, and by holding an annual dinner for the farmers at the end of the season, starting in 1890.  There were also reportedly economic incentives.  As one member put it, their altruism was filtered through their own selfishness, or visa versa.]

____________________________________________

Before TEPaul started claiming that the "three months" came for the minutes, he seemed to think the three months was simple math.   Weeks thought they started in March and finished in June, subtract the difference and you get three months. Note that Weeks seems quite impressed that they could get it done even this fast, which may explain why he assumes they must have started around or even before the March meeting.  

Of course, Weeks speculation is contradicted by the multiple contemporaneous reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out in mid-May, and one report indicated that the course was laid out a matter of days before they began play.   Even Bush noted that it was in such rough condition at the opening that some of the membership objected to even playing on it.

And in 1894 Myopia was a summer and fall club, generally active from around the first of June through the fall.   The March meeting was in Boston.   While Gardner reportedly went to Hamilton in mid-April, he was not even reported to have been on the sub-committee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.  I remember TEPaul mocking something about these guys staying "at the kennels."   Wasn't it reported that a few of the others were expected "at the Kennels" around June 1st?

Yet you guys think that they began working on the course in early March and the work continued until the opening, with Campbell brought in at the very late stages?  And once again Jeff Brauer posits what he thinks happened based on his knowledge of how things are done now?  

Far be it from me to disagree with Jeff Brauer's expertise based on on his experience a century later (and little knowledge of the time period in question,) but from what I have read about this period, these courses were oftentimes put in play almost immediately after they were laid out.

Did it take three months at the Country Club? Nope.  Did it take three months at Essex? Nope. For that matter did it take three months at the Appleton Estate or at others of the Estate courses?  Nope. I was under the impression that they were golfing within days of when these courses were laid out.  Just as was reported at Myopia.    

Yet you guys think that for some unexplained reason, at Myopia they needed three months before they even started playing on their course?  If so it may have been the first of its kind in this regard at least!

As for me, I don't think Weeks understood how short the time usually was between layout and play.   Otherwise why would he have been impressed that it only took three months?   If the minutes really said it would take three months to build the course, that itself would have been revelatory.

_________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

For you to even jokingly defend TEPaul's credibility and integrity at this point speaks volumes about yours.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 03:25:24 PM
TMac,

Once again, how is your speculation any different than anyone elses?

David,

You might have a point there. I know it was shorter, if only from our experience in discussing Merion.  They started in spring and seeded in fall of 1911.  If I recall, they played that fall on it, about six months after seeding.  I am not quite sure how we can decide that 18 years earlier it would have taken less time.

I do understand it would be possible to open quicker with no construction (they were said to level some greens and tees, although not too much because the greens were reported to have steep slopes and some be too narrow to hit) and no seeding.  If they weren't too much putting green quality, then the limiting factor would be how long it took the sheep to mow the areas that were too rough down to something akin to fairway height.

I suppose now we will have do discuss how much grass a sheep consumes in a day, how many sheep they had in the flock, and how many acres of turf they had, etc. and work back wards from opening day to start of construction.  I guess we know it wouldn't be much more than a month, at least for the trimming operations.

David,

I think you are wrong in your last sentence.  And by the way, how is the sentence above that: "I don't think Weeks understood......" backed up by anything other than "your understanding" of the time period?

I really hate to argue about the irrelevant to Myopia, and am simply pointing out that none of us are working with a full deck here.  No problem when you or TMac disagree, and I understand that.  We could disagree and have fun with this, which is what I intend to do with whatever participation I have in the future on this.  MH is a really speical place, a real museum of 1900 era gca and that is what is worth discussing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 03:33:23 PM
"You might have a point there. I know it was shorter, if only from our experience in discussing Merion.  They started in spring and seeded in fall of 1911.  If I recall, they played that fall on it, about six months after seeding.  I am not quite sure how we can decide that 18 years earlier it would have taken less time."


Mr. Jeffrey:

With Merion East, they started on it in the spring of 1911; they seeded it beginning in Sept. 1911 and the club began playing on it in Sept. 1912.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 03:57:55 PM
TePaul,


Thanks for that.  Back on topic, do you happen to think it could be that much shorter a time frame 18 years earlier, as TMac suggests?  I know there doesn't appear to be any seeding of grass to "catch" at MH, and once speculated that since it still takes sod 6 weeks to knit in now, it would have taken that then.

Could lesser standards of green construction really allow you to walk on newly laid sod (and transplanted rather than field grown at that) in a few days time?  If so, why after millions in USGA research have we gone so far backwards?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
Jeff
I don't follow you. There are three separate reports that Campbell laid out the golf course; there are no reports that the Squire & Co laid out the course. Willie Campbell laid out the course. That is not speculation. That the Squire & Co had anything to do with laying out the course is entirely speculation. Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 04:21:53 PM
"Back on topic, do you happen to think it could be that much shorter a time frame 18 years earlier, as TMac suggests?  I know there doesn't appear to be any seeding of grass to "catch" at MH, and once speculated that since it still takes sod 6 weeks to knit in now, it would have taken that then.

Could lesser standards of green construction really allow you to walk on newly laid sod (and transplanted rather than field grown at that) in a few days time?  If so, why after millions in USGA research have we gone so far backwards?"


Mr. Jeffrey:

Very good and very logical points and questions there!

It does not appear that Myopia did any seeding on that 1894 golf course that first spring. They did sod the greens though. But I very much doubt the greens and green sites they used then had to actually be constructed. I feel they just used natural grades for their green sites, probably just tilled them a bit and sodded right on natural grade. If and when I get you to Myopia I'll show you the 8th and 11th greens which are very likely the only ones left from that 1894 nine and I think you will be able to see what I mean by the above. Matter of fact, many of the greens and green sites Leeds used later seem to be right on natural grade! That's one of the reasons many of them and the golf course is so cool, in my opinion.

Yeah, that is a very good point you made----eg if it took them only a few days to sod greens and play on them, including a couple of tournaments at Myopia in 1894, one really does wonder why modern agronomy and including USGA Green Section research and instruction says it takes or should take so much longer today to sod and then bring into play. I've never heard of any modern course doing that. We just built and sodded a new practice chipping and pitching green at GMGC about three weeks ago and it cannot be used until the spring!   :'(

Do you think this is some kind of 20th century American agronomic business cabal conspiracy to charge golf way more money by stretching everything out? Maybe this is another and far more important century old conspiracy those two super-sleuths and "expert researchers," MacWood and Moriarty have uncovered here on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

I will get my two primary "Grass Whisperers," Scott Anderson and Kyle Harris to go out there and do some whispering with their grass and ask it if it thinks it could be sodded and played on in a couple of days like Myopia may've done in 1894!! And if it says yes then we will know the true and "verifiably provable" story on that.

Do you think MacWood and Moriarty will take on faith the word of my two primary "Grass-Whisperers," Anderson and Harris or do you think MacWood and Moriarty will require some "factual supporting documentation" from the grass-----to be scanned and posted onto this DG by the grass of course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 04:30:17 PM
TMac,

Why do you remind me of Kansas....you keep repeating things like "Theres no place like home, theres no place like home." as if saying it again will make it happen.

We just disagree. I happen to think that you can't dismiss the Weeks report, since TePaul has compared it to the minutes he has seen at Myopia and said that it was clearly and mostly based on those old, contemporaneous records.  I think the full story is somewhere in between the club laid it out and Willie laid it out.  I understand you think I am repeating myself as well and don't care to bore you.

I suggest we all take an Xmas break on this one, and know I will, since so little is to be accomplished.  I also need to take some time away from my "real life" on golfclubatlas.com because I have signed up for some charity work over the last and next few days for Ronald McDonald house.  It strikes me that I shouldn't come back here and argue such minute points when others have so much bigger problems, and am sorry for lessening the holiday tone around here.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
"TMac,
Why do you remind me of Kansas....you keep repeating things like "Theres no place like home, theres no place like home." as if saying it again will make it happen."



Jeffrey:

That's what Dorothy said to ToTo over and over. He was a dog, for Goll-danged sake and not quick on the uptake, plus ToTo may not have understood Kansan that well. It's possible that's the way Mrs MacWood had to talk to Little Tommy to get through to him and he just got used to it.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 04:39:55 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Again with this notion that all analysis, no matter how baseless, must be considered equal?

Tom MacWood's "speculation" is different because it is squarely based upon 1) actual relevant and contemporaneous source material about Campbell and Myopia, and 2) a much greater understanding of the time period in general.  

You compare the process in 1910 - 1912 at Merion East to the process at Myopia in 1894?   Amazing.  Not only do you have your facts wrong about Merion, the two are so far removed from each in the evolution of golf course design that the comparison is beyond inapt.

The process took less time early, because it was common practice to basically just put holes in the ground, roll or cut areas for greens and tees ( in Myopia's case, perhaps sod)  and then play golf! No construction, no seeding, no grow in, no nothing!

And there you go again playing fast and loose with the facts to make your point.  They were said to have leveled some greens in 1894?  By whom?   What is your basis for claiming this?    And you seem to think you know when sheep were introduced?   Based on what?  Reportedly they hadn't yet been introduced as of mid-May, yet you have a date certain?  It took more than a month to lay out the course? Based on what, again?  And what of the multiple reports that they hadn't even started in mid-May?

When I write 'I don't think . . ." then obviously I am speculating.  If I wasn't then I wouldn't qualify my statement with "I don't think . . . "  As I have said before, because Weeks did not provide sources for most of what he wrote, I have no idea why he wrote what he wrote.  But my speculations are based on the source material, in this case that Weeks' was impressed that they could get this done even in three months.   I don't just twist the facts to suit my latest speculation.  See any of your posts, including your latest, for an example of that.  

My idea of "having fun with this" is apparently very different than yours, in that doesn't involve "big tent historical analysis" where we must accept everyone's speculation as equal no matter its basis or reasonableness.   Nor does it involve posting phony quotes or misrepresenting the source material.  Nor does it involve implicitly accepting, condoning, and even encouraging such behavior,  or laughing it off, no matter how many times it happens.  

Surely Myopia is a great and important place, and it deserves better than fanciful theories based on a twisted and inaccurate understanding of the source material, and it certainly deserves better than the dishonest, agenda driven treatment it has received by its self appointed defender here.    As I said before, surely some at Myopia would like to know what really happened, and we won't figure that out by treating the Weeks narrative as Gospel, and pretending that there is more there than there really is.

__________________________

As I have already explained, I don't think modern standards for sodding are applicable to what happened at Myopia for a number of reasons, not the least of those is that, according to Bush, some of the members objected to playing on the course in the condition it was in.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 05:41:03 PM
David,

Please don't bother to type out all that (again) on my account.  Believe me, I understand your point of view and agree with some of it.  Explaining it one more time won't change anyone's mind on this, and neither will me replying.

Its not a question of whether your analysis is better or worse, its a question of whether ANY analysis that dismisses club records known to exist, can be much good or even considered "serious research?"   I say no.

Myopia is a special place with its preserved its 1901 era course.  I know its frustrating for researchers to not have access, but part of the same culture that preserves the course also preserves privacy and access, even if "just" to see their records.  I think they view outside access about like Woody Hayes viewed the forward pass - three things can happen and two of them are bad! 

Do you expect the clubs you and TMac put in your gunsights to reserve the White Horse for you to ride in on when and if you ever actually go visit them?  These exhanges may further reduce the chances some really qualified historians from ever seeing their records and getting the story right while your preserve your "right" to be rude and condescending on the internet.  Merry Xmas.   

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 06:21:23 PM
I got the dates on the Appleton Farm while in Massachussetts. It comes from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends (a number of the same names from Myopia Hunt Club and other Boston clubs and summer communities). Those families had been into a number of sports including foxhunting, polo, tennis, golf, sailing, yachting etc for generations. It's remarkably to me how many of those families are still there in the same places and clubs. Boston and some of its surrounding summer communities such as the North Shore seems to be far more generationally enduring than the same basic societies around New York or Philadelphia from back in those days and before. I'm not sure why that is.  

TEP
I've been in contact with Appleton Farms and they have no idea when the golf course was built or what became of it. They said there are no signs of it on the ground nor is there any reference to it in their archives. The only reason they knew about it was because of someone in Philadelphia who told them about it. Evidently this person is doing research for a book on the first golf courses in America. He told them Appleton Farm and Myopia were the two oldest courses in America. I suspect this person actually told her they were among the first golf courses in America, but who knows.

Where did you see the information on Appleton Farms being built in 1892 or 1893? Why aren't you able to pinpoint the year?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 06:35:24 PM
Tom:

That's true, Appleton Farms today, as it is run now which is a trust or foundation does not seem to know anything about the private estate golf course that was there in the early 1890s or even where those six or so holes once were. Today the place operates as something of a research and conservation preserve of grasses and some crops and such. It is also of course open to the public to walk around and so forth. I believe the last of the Appleton family donated it to this effort in the last 12 to 15 or so years and to some degree funded it. The staff there is basically a few youngish people primarily interested in land conservation. I met them all a few years ago when I went there with my Myopia partner Dan Bacon. Ipswich is very close to South Hamilton and Myopia. A young man by the name of Wolcott (last name) which is one of those same generational families of that Boston world works there too and we primarily went to see him. When we got there he was mowing a field.

That is not where I confirmed the existence of the Appleton course of 1892 or 1893. I explained that to you some pages ago when you asked me the same question. Apparently you just don't bother to read what I write when I respond to you (not to even mention that both you and Moriarty have admitted on here several times you generally don't bother to read what I write) so this time as far as I'm concerned you can just look back on this thread or whichever Myopia thread it was on and find it for yourself.

And I have no idea who they were referring to from Philadelphia who was doing a book on early American courses. Maybe they got confused with the fact I asked them if they knew where the old six hole Appleton Farm course was when I went there 3-4 years ago. Or maybe someone from Philadelphia is writing a book about the oldest Boston or American courses. The old course at Appleton Farms is certainly no secret to most good golf and architecture historians, and it's certainly no secret to most of those old generational families of those clubs up there. By the way, my Myopia partner's great grandfather was Robert Bacon, one of the three TCC members who laid out the first holes of the TCC before Willie Campbell first arrived in America.

Good luck. You're the one who calls himself the "expert independent researcher" aren't you?  ;)  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 07:20:06 PM
Didn't TMac find an 1897 article that referred to the existence of the golf course at Appleton Farm?

I anyone is going to dig anything up here besides the club minutes, I would think locating a copy of the 1940s book would be the place to start.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 07:43:19 PM
"If anyone is going to dig anything up here besides the club minutes, I would think locating a copy of the 1940s book would be the place to start."


Mike:

I sure know where to find that one but I have a hunch that it may not be much help with what we're concentrating on. The reason I sense that is there are still a number of people at Myopia who knew and remember Ted Weeks well and it seems most of them feel that he began to get interested in his book off of the on-going research work of George Batchelder that began around the war. Batchelder was Weeks's partner with the book until he died in 1971. Apparently Batchelder began his research work on Myopia back then for the very reason that it seemed to him that the club had never really looked into the history of their golf course, and apparently that included Forbes's book that may've been done in the early 1940s. In my opinion, there is only one way that anything new or of interest from some new reanalysis perspective is going to come up now on Myopia's golf architecture history and that is for someone to just start in 1893 or 1894 and with Myopia's help and assistance and just go right on through everything in their archives, particularly on golf and architecture. And who from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or from any interest in its perspective is going to do that?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 08:07:33 PM
Tom,

I hope someone can do that as it is clearly the first excellent architecture in this country.

Know any volunteers? ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 08:13:30 PM
Jeff Brauer, so long as you keep making things up to I'll probably continue to set the record straight.  

Here again you foolishly claim that I have dismissed "club records known to exist."

First, I've dismissed no such thing.  If there are contemporaneous club records that address who laid out the original course, I'd be glad to consider them.  I have even accepted the Bush quote at face value, despite the fact that we don't know from what it was from.

Second, You DO NOT know whether or not club records addressing who created the initial course exist.  You guys pretend you do, but you don't.  You guys would like to believe that Weeks must have relied on them, but his own account suggests otherwise.  Weeks had whatever Bush wrote, but other than that, look at what he wrote:
- If Weeks had detailed Club records such as a minutes book from the meetings of the Executive Board, then wouldn't he have known the date of the 1894 meeting?  
- And if there were more records, actual contemporaneous records, then why didn't he rely on those instead of the after-the-fact account provided by Bush which does not even address who laid out the course.  
- Wouldn't he AT LEAST have known the correct identity of the Club Secretary at the time?
- If such records existed and addressed the creation of the course, wouldn't Weeks have been able to give us a date certain for when this occurred, because it seems like he is speculating about when he thinks this might have occurred.  They started "after the snow melted?"   You think the minutes referred to them starting "when the snow melted?"   What sort of administrative records identify events by references to natural events?  Did the records also say they laid sod when the first salmon ran upstream?
- Can you even imagine an administrative record stating that AM&G "probably" pegged out the greens?  I cannot.
- Wouldn't Weeks have known about Campbell's involvement?  
- Wouldn't he have known that it took a lot less than three months, at least according to multiple reports?
- Wouldn't he have known precisely when the course melted.

Even TEPaul must have sensed that Weeks and Bush, didn't have all the facts, otherwise he would not have had to post the phony quote to try and trick us into believing there was more detail than there really was.  

As for your attempted swipes about "serious research" and "qualified historians" they are worth nothing but a chuckle when one considers the source.  But how you can you continue to try and cut me down to size, while in the same posts you scold me for supposedly doing the same the same thing.  I understand why your feelings are hurt. No one likes to be told they have gotten it wrong again and again, if when they have gotten it wrong again and again. But are your insults any less offensive just because they almost always miss the mark?  

_______________________________

In my opinion, there is only one way that anything new or of interest from some new reanalysis perspective is going to come up now on Myopia's golf architecture history and that is for someone to just start in 1893 or 1894 and with Myopia's help and assistance and just go right on through everything in their archives, particularly on golf and architecture. And who from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or from any interest in its perspective is going to do that?

Well, according to you, you already have reviewed these records.  You have been making various claims about these records for years now!  So why would anyone have to do it again?

Regardless, As I said before, if anyone accesses and reviews their records then I hope that person is more honest and trustworthy that the person who falsely claimed to have already done so.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 08:22:59 PM
David,

Whenever I feel badly about missing the mark, I just remind myself that TMac dismissed club records and speculated his opinion based on train schedules that HH Barker designed Merion, and as far as I know, believes that to this day.  And yet, he claims the moral authority to lecture me on speculating!

For that matter, your repeated detailed analysis of Merion didn't really work out all that well, albeit you were a lot closer than TMac was.

For that matter, part two, I recall Mr. Mac telling us that when he presented a theory, he didn't need facts to back it up, since it was a theory.  For those reasons, I can't understand why you two continually bash others for the same thing.  Why is it okay for TMac to make things up, but not me?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
Jeffrey Brauer,

I don't understand where posts like the above post come from.   They are not only motivated by mean-spiritedness, they are also far removed from the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 08:35:01 PM
I think at this point the audacity, arrogance, and continued insults being spewed here should be cause for shutting down this thread.

Talk of ex-wives and drinking have no place here and this is a goddamn shame, yet again.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 08:43:19 PM
"Tom,
I hope someone can do that as it is clearly the first excellent architecture in this country."



Michael:

I am delighted to hear you say that. As you may or may not know, I have always had the utmost respect for your basic opinions and sensibilities on golf course architecture as well as your ability to express your opinions about that very honestly.

When I heard some time last fall that you would be seeing and perhaps playing Myopia for your first time it delighted me because I felt fairly confident that you both could and would see and realize what I find so special about it and that is despite its age and somewhat "old fashionedness" and occasional quirkiness that it very, very likely  IS the FIRST really good golf course architecture in America!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 08:45:28 PM
Jeff
You are obviously having trouble getting your mind around this whole idea of basing ones theory on some facts. With some fear this will throw this thread completely off the track (something I'm sure you and TEP would love to see) let me give you the Barker example of how one uses facts to form a theory. Here are the facts:

1. Barker was engaged by the people at Merion to go over the property and give his opinion
2. Barker's plan for the course is the only known plan
3. On November 24 in the Phila Press it was reported Barker had been secured by Merion to design the course
4. On December 1 it was reported Barker was off on a 3 week road trip where several new courses would be staked out
5. On December 8-10 Barker is in Atlanta
6. In November 1914 Verdant Greene claimed Barker laid out or redesigned at least 3 courses around Philadelphia

Those are six different reports from six different sources. What facts are you basing your Myopia theory upon? Can you present similar point by point using known facts from contemporaneous sources?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 08:49:30 PM
Tom:

That's true, Appleton Farms today, as it is run now which is a trust or foundation does not seem to know anything about the private estate golf course that was there in the early 1890s or even where those six or so holes once were. Today the place operates as something of a research and conservation preserve of grasses and some crops and such. It is also of course open to the public to walk around and so forth. I believe the last of the Appleton family donated it to this effort in the last 12 to 15 or so years and to some degree funded it. The staff there is basically a few youngish people primarily interested in land conservation. I met them all a few years ago when I went there with my Myopia partner Dan Bacon. Ipswich is very close to South Hamilton and Myopia. A young man by the name of Wolcott (last name) which is one of those same generational families of that Boston world works there too and we primarily went to see him. When we got there he was mowing a field.

That is not where I confirmed the existence of the Appleton course of 1892 or 1893. I explained that to you some pages ago when you asked me the same question. Apparently you just don't bother to read what I write when I respond to you (not to even mention that both you and Moriarty have admitted on here several times you generally don't bother to read what I write) so this time as far as I'm concerned you can just look back on this thread or whichever Myopia thread it was on and find it for yourself.

And I have no idea who they were referring to from Philadelphia who was doing a book on early American courses. Maybe they got confused with the fact I asked them if they knew where the old six hole Appleton Farm course was when I went there 3-4 years ago. Or maybe someone from Philadelphia is writing a book about the oldest Boston or American courses. The old course at Appleton Farms is certainly no secret to most good golf and architecture historians, and it's certainly no secret to most of those old generational families of those clubs up there. By the way, my Myopia partner's great grandfather was Robert Bacon, one of the three TCC members who laid out the first holes of the TCC before Willie Campbell first arrived in America.

Good luck. You're the one who calls himself the "expert independent researcher" aren't you?  ;)  

TEP
You said you got the information from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends. Where did you find those chronicles, letters and diaries, and why aren't you able to pinpoint the date?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 08:50:35 PM
Tom,

I had intended to start a thread taling about the actual architecture of the course, and why I thought it was so special, but figured it would devolve into another waste of typing as too many of these historical threads tend to do.

Perhaps a thread comparing what we know of the original course versus the "Long Nine" versus the 18 hole course might be worthwhile to explore but even there I sense people who have never been there would try to offer authoritative opinions, which might be funny if it wasn't so non-productive.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 08:55:19 PM
David,

The funny thing is that in my last three posts, I actually made no mentions of any facts, theories, or sources on Myopia, and yet, as if on autopilot, you to tell the world that I continued to get the facts wrong....and then imply to the world that I am a drunk.

For the record, I never have more than one glass of wine a week, at that.  I get a headache far quicker than I get a buzz, so the practical thing for me to do was just post on these threads, because they give me a headache just as fast, and for a lot less money!

Mike Cirba,

I would give Dave a pass on the ex wife comment. To be fair, I have occaisionally used her as a humor element and I took it as him recalling that.  I really don't like being called the town drunk, but I blame myself for even being in this thread.  Just don't call me "Otis."

I applaud your comment on providing some drawings of the evolution of Myopia on a separate thread.  TePaul and I went over it on the phone, David did a nice drawing, and then he and TMac debated the hole names, accuracies, etc.  I think it would be great to focus on the course and do a stick drawing to show the start, long nine, and final 18.  I would even volunteer to do the stick drawings that either TePaul or David came up with, if necessary.

TMac,

As I said to David, don't go retyping anything on my account.  Trust me, I remember those bullet points of your argument.  Where is the specific connection to Merion being designed by Barker?  You have six inferences (some very weak and flat out wrong) and then infer it from his schedule, and three unnamed courses in Philly, etc.  Give me one contemporaneous source saying "Barker designed Merion" to counteract about 300 documents saying they did it, with help from CBM.

And I am having trouble with the concept of basing stuff on facts? This is another great example of the double standard you two set for yourselves on these types of threads.

I don't want to rehash Merion any more than you do, nor do I want to get this off tracks.

A while back you suggested that when I have nothing to add, I should stop participating.  I feel I am that point now.  Like you, I do hope some more real info comes forward on this fascinating place (to me).  Whoever brings it, kudos to them.  If its you, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

Again, have a great Christmas!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 08:56:24 PM
Didn't TMac find an 1897 article that referred to the existence of the golf course at Appleton Farm?

I anyone is going to dig anything up here besides the club minutes, I would think locating a copy of the 1940s book would be the place to start.

The earliest mention of the course at Appleton Farm I have found is 1894. I agree the book may be of interest. Hopefully that author was a little more knowledgeable about the development of golf in Boston than Ted Weeks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 08:58:41 PM
Jeff,

If that the case then I'll immediately modify the post.  It was an honest question believe it or not.  


Mike Cirba,

As usual your insult meter is dysfunctional.  It only registers in one direction.

________________________________________________

There needs to be emoticon of the little yellow guy spontaneously spitting out their drink, Jon Stewart style, for when someone says something so blatantly dishonest that it shocks the senses.  If I had such an emoticon I'd break from my usual habit of avoiding them and post one right here.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 09:03:05 PM
I think Tom MacWood's six distinct points reflected in his #1047 are all the proof anyone would need to endorse my oft-stated belief that this man is an absolutely atrocious GCA historical analyst and perhaps an equally atrocious analyst of anything to do with history itself---or for that matter someone with a virtually total inablility to reason logically.

I would suggest that some of the other participants on this thread allow their young children or grandchildren who may not have the slightest interest in GCA or even history to view his six point post there and explain why. I guarantee it would not be hard at all for a semi-intelligent six grader to do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 09:06:39 PM

TMac,

As I said to David, don't go retyping anything on my account.  Trust me, I remember those bullet points of your argument.  Where is the specific connection to Merion being designed by Barker?  You have six inferences (some very weak and flat out wrong) and then infer it from his schedule, and three unnamed courses in Philly, etc.  Give me one contemporaneous source saying "Barker designed Merion" to counteract about 300 documents saying they did it, with help from CBM.

And I am having trouble with the concept of basing stuff on facts? This is another great example of the double standard you two set for yourselves on these types of threads.

I don't want to rehash Merion any more than you do, nor do I want to get this off tracks.

A while back you suggested that when I have nothing to add, I should stop participating.  I feel I am that point now.  Like you, I do hope some more real info comes forward on this fascinating place (to me).  Whoever brings it, kudos to them.  If its you, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

Again, have a great Christmas!

Jeff
I'm starting to wonder if you are hitting the egg nog. If there was a contemporaneous report that Barker designed the course there would have been no reason for the debate. Likewise if there were contemporaneous reports that either Wilson or CBM designed the course no reason for the debate. There weren't any reports of that kind.

I hope to see your point by point for Myopia in the next day or two.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 09:08:47 PM
David,

The funny thing is that in my last three posts, I actually made no mentions of any facts, theories, or sources on Myopia, and yet, as if on autopilot, you to tell the world that I continued to get the facts wrong. . .

I said you failed to set the record straight.  And you did fail to set the record straight by falsely claiming that I had dismissed known Myopia records, and by falsely suggesting that we know that records exist at Myopia which address who laid out the course when we don't know this at all.

And you did mention sources on Myopia.  Specifically, you claimed I dismissed "club records known to exist."    Incredibly, you got the facts wrong even when your point concerned what you had written written in your own post.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 09:23:49 PM
Tom:

That's true, Appleton Farms today, as it is run now which is a trust or foundation does not seem to know anything about the private estate golf course that was there in the early 1890s or even where those six or so holes once were. Today the place operates as something of a research and conservation preserve of grasses and some crops and such. It is also of course open to the public to walk around and so forth. I believe the last of the Appleton family donated it to this effort in the last 12 to 15 or so years and to some degree funded it. The staff there is basically a few youngish people primarily interested in land conservation. I met them all a few years ago when I went there with my Myopia partner Dan Bacon. Ipswich is very close to South Hamilton and Myopia. A young man by the name of Wolcott (last name) which is one of those same generational families of that Boston world works there too and we primarily went to see him. When we got there he was mowing a field.

That is not where I confirmed the existence of the Appleton course of 1892 or 1893. I explained that to you some pages ago when you asked me the same question. Apparently you just don't bother to read what I write when I respond to you (not to even mention that both you and Moriarty have admitted on here several times you generally don't bother to read what I write) so this time as far as I'm concerned you can just look back on this thread or whichever Myopia thread it was on and find it for yourself.

And I have no idea who they were referring to from Philadelphia who was doing a book on early American courses. Maybe they got confused with the fact I asked them if they knew where the old six hole Appleton Farm course was when I went there 3-4 years ago. Or maybe someone from Philadelphia is writing a book about the oldest Boston or American courses. The old course at Appleton Farms is certainly no secret to most good golf and architecture historians, and it's certainly no secret to most of those old generational families of those clubs up there. By the way, my Myopia partner's great grandfather was Robert Bacon, one of the three TCC members who laid out the first holes of the TCC before Willie Campbell first arrived in America.

Good luck. You're the one who calls himself the "expert independent researcher" aren't you?  ;)  

TEP
You said you got the information from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends. Where did you find those chronicles, letters and diaries, and why aren't you able to pinpoint the date?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 09:25:05 PM
"Perhaps a thread comparing what we know of the original course versus the "Long Nine" versus the 18 hole course might be worthwhile to explore but even there I sense people who have never been there would try to offer authoritative opinions, which might be funny if it wasn't so non-productive."


Michael:

I think that would be an excellent idea, and frankly it just might help Myopia itself to some extent. As far as what you call "people" who have never been there trying to offer authoritative opinions that are non-productive, just forget about them and ignore them----just DON'T respond to them if you feel they are being non-productive. There is certainly nothing on or about this website that implies any of us have to respond to everyone or anyone's posts or opinions or even questions at any particular point in time or at all for that matter!  ;)

You go first----start with hole #2 which was originally the first hole on the 1894 nine. What do you know about it first-hand or from research and what can you offer? Did you notice that old obsoleted 1894 tee way down the hill near where the old road and driveway used to be? Do you have a feel or any evidence of where that original 1894 green used to be?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 09:33:00 PM
David,

Thanks, but I don't think its necessary. I think people can figure out I am not a drunk, but I appreciate your offer.  We have both said some things that are a bit over the line for the circumstances, but I propose we just hit the re-set button for the new year.

Again, happy holidays.

TMac,

See my post above re: my drinking habits.

Let me get this straight, you think its okay to start a debate on who designed a golf course because there are no documents saying they did?  Okay, then I say Robert Trent Jones designed Myopia because there are no documents saying he did........

Are you really serious after hundreds of pages of threads, and scanned images of club minutes, etc., that there was nothing to document the contributions of Wilson, the committee and CBM at Merion?  Is that what you said?

More Alice in Wonderland as far as I can tell....its like through the looking glass!  I guess at least one of us must be hitting that nog!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 09:52:19 PM
Tom Paul,

I will try to start a new thread on the topic tomorrow.   

I'd much rather discuss what is there today, about 90 pct. Of which is Leeds work, than try to continually debate who did what was most probably 2050 very rudimentary yards of golf that was the first Myopia course.

I'm soooooooo tempted to post the drawing of the incredibe architecture of Campbell at Merion to show how insane this thread has become in terms of attmpted historical revisionism.

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 09:55:59 PM
MichaelC:

Actually, I may not have read your suggestion to start a thread about the architectural evolution of Myopia hole by hole from the 1894 nine to the Long Nine to the eighteen hole course carefully enough.

You said you were considering starting a new thread on that. Do it! Don't let's add it on to this one as it is over thirty pages now and out of control anyway with Moriarty and MacWood on it.

Start a new thread on this and if MacWood and Moriarty try to come on it with anything remotely resembling their attitude and approach on this one just completely ignore them.

This could be good and frankly very helpful. You go first----you're on #1 in 1894 which is #2 today. Where is the tee and where is the green? And what does it look like out there between them. Believe it or not I found an old photograph a few weeks ago of the old green on my computer. I was sort of blown away by it because it is not hard to recognize where it once was.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 09:56:36 PM
Mike,

TeP says he has some old photos of MH that he doesn't know how to upload.  I don't know exactly what they show, but I bet they would shed light on what the course looked like in the old days.  Even without design changes, I bet it looks different with changes in maintenance.  Help him out, will ya?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 20, 2010, 10:01:42 PM
I'm soooooooo tempted to post the drawing of the incredibe architecture of Campbell at Merion to show how insane this thread has become in terms of attmpted historical revisionism.

Please do.  But just realize that you are on both sides of the Campbell argument, given that you are the one who pronounced early Myopia as "revolutionary" and the first great US course.    That is high praise for Campbell, among others, yet usually you disparage him.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 10:05:46 PM
"I'd much rather discuss what is there today, about 90 pct. Of which is Leeds work, than try to continually debate who did what was most probably 2050 very rudimentary yards of golf that was the first Myopia course."



Michael:

Then go ahead and do that first if you want to. I can tell you some of the things that happened with the course in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and this decade that is not in Weeks's book in detail. You just cannot believe how far some of the records and personal remembrances of that course go back that are still extant and alive today. We need to have this discussion and I may cut and paste it out to them to get their feedback too. This can be really, really good for us and for Myopia. But DO NOT let either MacWood or Moriarty into that thread by responding to them or I, for one, will be gone.

Take those two "characters" and their attitude, insults, negativity and bullshit revisionism out of this next thread and I would say with extreme confidence it will "FLY" for this website and maybe even for Myopia itself!!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 10:14:29 PM
"TeP says he has some old photos of MH that he doesn't know how to upload.  I don't know exactly what they show, but I bet they would shed light on what the course looked like in the old days.  Even without design changes, I bet it looks different with changes in maintenance.  Help him out, will ya?"


Jeff:

I do indeed. You just can't believe some of the stuff I have on my computer on Myopia and a number of other courses. And it's all public domain stuff. I didn't find any of it----some of my favorite and best "research moles" did and we share it. They don't have any idea what some of it even means because most of them have never even seen Myopia or some of these courses.

But the private and "non public domain" stuff is an entirely different matter to me. That stuff requires working with the club about it and that seems to be what apparently almost no one on this website seems to understand, not even now! Why is that? What do I have to explain to you on that which I haven't already tried to do on here? What is it? You tell me and I will honestly respond.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 20, 2010, 10:16:15 PM
Jeff,

Given the holidays, it may be a few days before I'm able to get/post Tom's pics but I'll help however I can.

David,

Since page one, I've never questioned that WC was involved but only questioned hiw nuch, whether the members story was also true, and just how good Campbell's architecture actually was.

As we will see shortly, even if WC was the original archie of the first nine at Myopia, there is almost nothing left of that course save the hole corridors in some places.   

I have nothing against Campbell but will insist his architecture be based on its actual merit and not some romanticized version...his 18 hoie course at TCC was heavuly criticized, for example, and almost completely revamped by Windeler in the next decade or so.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 10:38:05 PM
Mike,

To be honest, even if its not very good, I agree with Melvyn and TMac that he is still an important transistional figure. Given the times, transplanting golf courses to new conditions from what they had traditionally been built in wasn't easy.

On the other hand, I did comment once here that it would almost be a slap to WC to credit him with Myopia, since it lasted only a year or so before being rebuilt, and there is some evidence that the club was thinking that way from the very get go.  Weeks called them the improvised links, and history shows they were changed quickly.  If it were one of my early courses, under the circumstances, I might let the members have the credit!

I didn't know that much about him until reading back through some of TMac's stuff.  It really was some good stuff, including him and his wife committing to public golf and spreading the game.  But I am pretty sure if he was going to delve in his career a bit, he would find better examples of his work to tout his overall ability as a gca.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 11:01:49 PM
Jeff:

I think that last post of yours is level-headed and realistic about Campbell and his architecture, historically and otherwise!

Look, the man was an important person for sure in really early American golf albeit probably not in its architecture. The poor guy died in 1900 at 38 after being over here for about six years. Imagine that! I mean to me it's tragic but life is filled with all kinds of little tragedies and luck and breaks and fate or whatever. He ran his ass off all over the damn place to do all kinds of things, and important things for Americans just beginning to get interested in golf back then in his short time over here; important things like teach them and show them what good golf looked like for Christ's Sake! Let's give the man a whole lot of credit for that! The best golf historians do; Weeks did if anyone even bothers to read that part of his book.

But his architecture? Maybe he could've been great if he was given the time and the money and the opportunity and the life-span to do what some of the others he was here with for such a short time began to do and had the time to do through the first and second decade of the 20th century, particularly those early "amateur/sportsmen" like Leeds who had the time and the money to last it out and produce.

None of this is any knock on Willie Campbell, that's for sure, even if a couple of adverserial jack-wagons like MacWood and Moriarty are trying to make it look like some of us are saying that. We aren't and we never have. The worst we ever did is have to listen to those two jackass jokers tell us that's what we said about him without being able to properly deny their distorted dialetic about what we said or meant about him. Whatever he did with his architecture over here, amongst so many other things he tried to do in a short time, just simply did not last; it's essentially about all gone now; changed, improved, whatever, to something else.

I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough. What made Myopia famous was not Willie Campbell, it was Herbert Leeds, and everyone who knew anything about golf and architecture back then, including the likes of Macdonald, knew that and said that, and wrote that. And on the subject of Leeds, and if or whether he ever tried to actually promote himself at any time, I would challenge anyone on here to find me a direct quotation from Herbert Leeds himself about anything he ever did in golf architecture!  ;) The only one I have ever seen was from Week's from Leed's personal papers or perhaps diary known as the "Leeds Scrapbook" that was never published or made public!

There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!

Edward Weeks, long time Myopia member and long time career print media executive and editor (28 years as editor of the American staple magazine "Atlantic Monthly") did a great job with his 147 page Myopia centennial history book that covered, fox hunting, polo, tennis and golf at Myopia Hunt club over 100 years.
Title: TEP & the Flat Earth Society
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 11:17:46 PM
TEP
The reason this thread was rehashed was due to your idiotic comment about Leeds not utilizing geometric features in the 1890s. I don't think you have a very good or accurate perspective of golf architecture development. In looking at how golf architecture developed in America Boston was arguably the epicenter of that early development, and Campbell was a key figure. With all due respect to Leeds and what he did at Myopia and elsewhere its hard to ignore Campbell's influence on him as a golfer and as a golf architect.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 20, 2010, 11:24:38 PM

Tom and Tom,

I actually would love someone to post an aerial in this or another thread titled: "Leeds Myopia - Geometric or not?"

I looked at the aerial and obliques, and my own rushed photos and quite frankly, thought it looked like sort of a transitional mix.  I saw some things at right angles, but by no means are all or even most of them that way, with some open to interpretation, of course.

We might not agree much on that either, from the sounds of the post above, but had that been the way the thread went, it would have been fascinating stuff.  If we had Leeds scrapbook, we might know exactly how Willie affected him as a golfer and gca.  We know he won the opening tournaments at MH so Willie couldn't have worked his magic that quickly could he?  Even so, we would have the talent vs teaching debate.

To see some examples of Willie's work unchanged, much like Leeds Myopia would also show if there was an influence.  Are there any museum piece Cambell courses left, or photos before they were changed?

BTW, I would post the aerial myself, but like TMac, on my browser, that just doesn't happen any more on gca. com.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 11:31:31 PM
Jeff
Are you familiar with how Myopia developed and Leeds travels overseas?

Here is a link to the Tweedie thread where the 1890s and early 1900 Myopia was shown to have typical geometric features.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46602.70.html
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2010, 11:38:08 PM
Jeff:

I think that last post of yours is level-headed and realistic about Campbell and his architecture, historically and otherwise!

Look, the man was an important person for sure in really early American golf albeit probably not in its architecture. The poor guy died in 1900 at 38 after being over here for about six years. Imagine that! I mean to me it's tragic but life is filled with all kinds of little tragedies and luck and breaks and fate or whatever. He ran his ass off all over the damn place to do all kinds of things, and important things for Americans just beginning to get interested in golf back then in his short time over here; important things like teach them and show them what good golf looked like for Christ's Sake! Let's give the man a whole lot of credit for that! The best golf historians do; Weeks did if anyone even bothers to read that part of his book.

But his architecture? Maybe he could've been great if he was given the time and the money and the opportunity and the life-span to do what some of the others he was here with for such a short time began to do and had the time to do through the first and second decade of the 20th century, particularly those early "amateur/sportsmen" like Leeds who had the time and the money to last it out and produce.

None of this is any knock on Willie Campbell, that's for sure, even if a couple of adverserial jack-wagons like MacWood and Moriarty are trying to make it look like some of us are saying that. We aren't and we never have. The worst we ever did is have to listen to those two jackass jokers tell us that's what we said about him without being able to properly deny their distorted dialetic about what we said or meant about him. Whatever he did with his architecture over here, amongst so many other things he tried to do in a short time, just simply did not last; it's essentially about all gone now; changed, improved, whatever, to something else.

I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough. What made Myopia famous was not Willie Campbell, it was Herbert Leeds, and everyone who knew anything about golf and architecture back then, including the likes of Macdonald, knew that and said that, and wrote that. And on the subject of Leeds, and if or whether he ever tried to actually promote himself at any time, I would challenge anyone on here to find me a direct quotation from Herbert Leeds himself about anything he ever did in golf architecture!  ;) The only one I have ever seen was from Week's from Leed's personal papers or perhaps diary known as the "Leeds Scrapbook" that was never published or made public!

There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!

Edward Weeks, long time Myopia member and long time career print media executive and editor (28 years as editor of the American staple magazine "Atlantic Monthly") did a great job with his 147 page Myopia centennial history book that covered, fox hunting, polo, tennis and golf at Myopia Hunt club over 100 years.

TEP
Herbert Carey Leeds. You would have thought Weeks would've at least got his name right.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 20, 2010, 11:42:54 PM
MichaelC:

I'll tell you what; I would love to see YOU start a thread on the design evolution of the three iterations of Myopia and we can discuss it hole by hole.

It seems Tom MacWood who started this thread close to a year and a half ago and reprised it again as did Moriarty-------but note, no one else on this website ever kept bringing it back as they did! MacWood just changed the name of this thread, and apparently he's the only one who can because he began it in August 2009. Catch it and appreciate it on #1068. I am outta this one with that crap by MacWood.

You start a new thread on Myopia and we can discuss its evolution hole by hole but now I have a condition and contingency on here. If either one of those two jokers makes a post on your new thread, I'm gone, and in that case, as far as I'm concerned, all the rest of you can just have a couple of newspaper articles from 1894 to discuss (as the only "supportable evidence" of Myopia's history which is Moriarty's egotistical and selfish limitation and proposal) until Kingdom Comes or until Heidi Klum gets too old for me to want to go to bed with her anymore.

I can help you guys a lot with Myopia's internal history and archives or I sure can speak with them to try to do that but not if MacWood and Moriarty remain on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

If they remain on here this is all over for me on these subjects on here on the likes of Myopia and Merion. They've both run their course with their insults and attitudes; I have better things to do like actually working with clubs on their histories, working with the USGA Archive and writing some papers-----but my primary job is going to be protecting the century long conspiracy story that a run-of-the-mill insurance man and know-nothing novice golf architect, Hugh Wilson, was the primary architect of Merion East instead of C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam!! That I must protect at all costs-----or at least until the 2013 US Open is over.

After that I will produce and publish my memoirs, if I'm still around and kickin' and fightin' and fussin'.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 02:01:05 AM
Skimming through TEPaul's rants above, I was struck by two of his comments that I think really go to the heart of his position and that of Jeffrey and Mike.

"I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough."

On the one hand we have three contemporaneous reports that Campbell laid out the course, and multiple contemporaneous reports indicating that this happened after mid-May 1894. On the other hand we have a history written 80+ years after the fact that claims that AM&G laid out the course beginning in early March of 1894.  The one contemporaneous quote offered as support Weeks' version neither mentions who laid out the course or when it was laid out.   The history makes no mention of Campbell at all.  

TEPaul's explanation as to why Campbell wasn't mentioned?   Well he did something (likely manual labor) but whatever he did, it wasn't significant enough to deserve mention.  Never mind there were multiple reports that Campbell laid out the course.  If Weeks did not mention it, then it is not worth mentioning.

This fits in perfectly with the second comment which pretty much speaks for itself:

"There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!"


I don't suppose that either Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have a problem with these quotes, given they have both said pretty much the same thing on multiple occasions.  

I can see that I have been the real fool here, for I should have realized from the beginning that you just cannot argue with logic like that.
__________________________________________

TEPaul,

If we post on Mike's thread, you are gone?   With what has come out in this thread, I don't blame you.  But isn't this post of mine close enough?  

I am sure Merion is thrilled that you are determined to continue to make a mockery of their history through 2013.  
__________________________

Mike Cirba,

I see your sense of righteous indignation and fair play has left you again when it comes to TEPaul.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 06:22:56 AM
David
TEP believes golf architecture history began and ended with Cornish & Whitten, if its not in there it never happened. He also believes the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 21, 2010, 08:33:26 AM
Niall:

Regarding your #1010, much of what you said makes a lot of sense and it's logical. However, what I would encourage you and everyone else on here to do is to really appreciate just how different things were in America in the early to mid 1890s concerning golf over here than they were just a mere ten or fifteen years later. To quantify it, in the early 1890s in Boston there probably weren't more than a score or so people in and around Boston who had the vaguest idea about golf, what it was, how to play it, but ten and fifteen years later there were literally thousands!!

THAT is an historical reality we can just never forget or fail to appreciate in the history and evolution of golf and golf architecture in Boston, iin America and particularly the United States of America, particularly in the early to mid 1890s.

For someone like Tom MacWood to maintain, as he has on here, that a man like Campbell in the early to mid 1890s when he first arrived here was some big celebrated world famous golfer or celebrity over here is frankly just bullshit or a total lack of thought and historical perspective on MacWood's part.

At first Campbell may've been something of a curiosity to those hundred or so Bostonians who first saw him play golf or in those early exhibitions with Davis and Park Jr (which were brilliant promotionally, by the way), but to label him some celebrated hero or celebrated golfer that everyone was waiting for over here back then by more than about a handful or a score at most at first is just ridiculous and completely inaccurate historically.

But that's MacWood----he's a good researcher of names and dates and newspaper articles (that are "independent" of the actually internally administrations of those early clubs) and such but a very poor analyst of the correct context of history itself; he falls into that trap on here all the time apparently in some on-going attempt to over promote the reality and reputation of some of those early immigrant golf professional back then such as Willie Campbell into Boston in 1894.

Tom

I can very well believe the boom in golf in the US in the 1890's that you describe for the very reason that it was happening in Scotland and the rest of the UK as well. Maybe from not as low a base but there was an exponential boom in the numbers of golfers, new courses and clubs created from about 1890 onwards and Willie Campbell was right there at the ground floor, laying out courses and playing big money matches. If you think that prior to his departure for the US, that the number of courses world wide (ie. mainly in the UK) multiplied by several times and that Campbell had a hand in laying out a fair proportion, you've got to think that along with Old Tom, Willie Park Jnr, Willie Fernie etc that he was as experienced as anyone else in golf course design/construction.

Undoubtedly what he did was probably very crude by todays standards and maybe even by the standards of five to ten years later but then golf course design standards would have been on an exponential curve as well. Maybe the handful of golf enthuisiasts in Boston didn't know Campbell but I suspect that within their number a fair few were ex-pats or had picked up the golfing bug on a visit to Scotland. The chances are that they would have been vaguely aware of his record before taking him on I would have thought.

Niall 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 08:45:57 AM
I think it is pretty clear Campbell was a key figure in the early development of golf architecture in America, just based on the important designs he was resposible for, what may be less obvious however is the impact he had on other architects.

Herbert Leeds learned the game while under Campbell's tutelage, in fact the first three years of his golfing life were with Campbell (at TCC and Myopia). Undoubtedly the first golf courses he observed being built were Campbell courses. Remarkably Leeds first design came only few months after he first picked up the club (Kebo Valley 1894), and the other two (Palmetto 1895 & Myopia 1895-98?) came in the next couple of years. It was only after traveling overseas that Leeds began to develop a more sophisticated approach. In fact you can probably seperate Leeds' architectural career into two periods, pre-UK largely influeced by Campbell and post-UK largely influenced by the progressive architects of the UK.

Arthur Lockwood was mentored by Campbell on the Boston GC at Franklin Park. Campbell caddied for Lockwood at the 1900 US Am at GCGC when he lost a close match to Travis in the semi-finals. Like Leeds I believe Lockwood renmained an amateur his whole life. And although I would not say he was a prolific golf architect he was more active than most realize.

Campbell's influence on Alex Findlay is a little less obvious. Findlay came to Boston in 1897, and also played his golf at Campbell's Franklin Park course. He first played golf as a boy at Montrose but reportedly had not played the game in ten years at thtime he came to Boston. He eventually hooked on with sporting goods company that sold golf equipment. His golf architecture career began in the late 1890s at a time when Campbell was dominating that field. He and Donald Ross probably benifited the most from Campbell's death.

Ross in another one where the influence is less obvious. He came over in the late 1890s at the time Campbell was dominating course design. He was the pro at a course Campbell designed, beyond that its hard to say specifically how he was influenced although again he did help fill void when Campbell died. Herbert Windiler is another person who may have been influenced. He came to TCC in 1894 around the time Campbell came to that club. He was responsible for redesigning TCC in the late 1890s through the early 1910s. He was an Englishman who retained his residence in London throughout his life so one would assume his architectural influences may have been largely British. Robert White may be another one who was influenced.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
It is of course a very good question and perhaps an important one of whether Campbell taught Leeds to play golf or had some influence on Leeds's golf architecture but some believe Leeds was a self taught golfer and I have never seen any evidence that Leeds's architecture was influenced by Campbell.

I think we with these kinds of historical interests must be careful to just not assume that simply because these people were in the same place at the same time that one taught the other golf or had some influence on another. I mean one can certainly speculate about those things but I wouldn't want to begin to conclude it with someone such as Herbert Leeds without some evidence of it from that time and place.

As far as when, and for what and how often Leeds may've been abroad, as far as I'm concerned that is still an open question. He was a top competitive sailor after all, and the America Cup very well may've been something he was involved in. I can't remember where or when I heard it but I seem to recall that at one point Leeds actually sailed around the world.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 09:41:24 AM


Herbert Leeds learned the game while under Campbell's tutelage, in fact the first three years of his golfing life were with Campbell (at TCC and Myopia). Undoubtedly the first golf courses he observed being built were Campbell courses. Remarkably Leeds first design came only few months after he first picked up the club (Kebo Valley 1894), and the other two (Palmetto 1895 & Myopia 1895-98?) came in the next couple of years. It was only after traveling overseas that Leeds began to develop a more sophisticated approach. In fact you can probably seperate Leeds' architectural career into two periods, pre-UK largely influeced by Campbell and post-UK largely influenced by the progressive architects of the UK.


Tom

This is the kind of revisionist nonsense that takes a basic idea and then tries to morph it into something that it's not and never was, and why some of us think you are such an agenda-driven poor analyst.

Leeds won the opening tournament at Myopia two months after Campbell's arrival here and he was already playing at scratch.   He had already designed Kebo Valley and likely Palmetto prior to Campbell's arrival.

I know Campbell could design and open a course in two days, supposedly, but I doubt he made Leeds a scratch player in two months.

Guys like Appleton and Leeds were playing the game of golf on private estates and TCC   before Campbell even arrived, and although I agree he was an important figure, the way you present things is that if not for Campbell, golf would not exist in Boston.

I'd say that the architecture Leeds was most familiar with early on when he began his practice was the architecture of the original amateur architects in this country like Curtis, Hunnewell, et.al.      Unless he learned how to incorporate steeple-chase features from Campbell, which is also possible.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 10:09:23 AM
Mike:

The fact is there just might not be all that much known (at least by us or even Myopia, at this point) of some of the activities and goings-on in Herbert Leeds's life, particularly early on. But one thing surely is known about him and that is he was an intensely private man in many ways---eg he basically hated publicity and very much valued privacy, both for himself and for his club, Myopia. There is a stash of Leeds family archives in a Boston University and they may help reveal something about him and his family. The next best source I'm aware of are the recollections of one T. Dennie Boardman who was Leeds's nephew or perhaps even great nephew. Boardman and Knowles were the best sources of info on golf at Myopia in the middle years, and obviously Boardman had a close family connection to Leeds. I actually remember T. Dennie Boardman (everyone actually called him "T. Dennie")----my father referred to him as his "Calabash Cousin" because in the end of his life, Boardman, who was older than my father married I think a Biddle or Drexel cousin of ours who was actualy younger than me. And then there was Knowles, another great friend of my father who was one helluva golfer (I think even some Walker Cups) and also a unique character particularly in the fact that he was the only self-professed cheat I have ever heard of. One great story about him is he once said he gained about 120 yards one year just marking his golf ball.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 10:12:37 AM
Mike
Leeds did win the first tournament at Myopia, beyond that everything else you have written is wrong. You should probably get your facts straight before thowing out the righteous indignation card.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 11:40:47 AM
Mike

Do you really think Leeds was a scratch golfer by June of 1894?   I am starting to understand why you are so impressed with those other four being called "expert golfers."  You apparently haven't yet caught on to the fact that all these guys were all beginners.  

You have claimed that the nine-hole course at Myopia was just over 2030 yards.   On opening day Leeds reportedly made eighteen holes in 113 strokes, and his score was about the same in the next tournament.

"Scratch" simply meant he was the best among those in the handicapped tournament, and was therefore giving strokes to everyone in the field.   But to say the field was weak is an understatement.  They were all varying degrees of beginners, including Leeds.  Hopkins, who took second in the handicapped tournament, had never touched a club before and was receiving 36 strokes from Leeds.

Had Campbell been in the field,  a comparison of Campbell and Leeds would have been equally as laughable, with Campbell "scratch" by around 30 strokes.

So it is absolutely ridiculous for you to portray Leeds as "scratch" in the sense we think of it.  Either you know very little about what was happening at the time, or you are being extremely disingenuous.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 12:00:51 PM
"Had Campbell been in the field,  a comparison of Campbell and Leeds would have been equally as laughable, with Campbell "scratch" by around 30 strokes."



Well, THAT, sure as shootin' is SPECULATION in about its most blatant form!! Speculation----the very thing this duo of Moriarty and MacWood constantly hammer others on here for engaging in but for some strange reason never seem to recognize it or admit it when they engage in it themselves!

Oh sure, we have all grown used to and completely bored with Moriarty's automatic retort to being accused of that----eg "YOU'VE MISREPRESENTED WHAT I SAID."

Bullshit! We can all read and that ridiculous retort has become synonymous with hypocrisy, frankly.

The fact is Campbell did not play in either of those June 1894 tournaments at Myopia against Leeds or anyone else so there is no way in Heaven or Hell anyone could predict how he would've done. The course was obviously pretty rough and unpredictable at that early time just after opening which might go a long way to the unusually high scores including the winning score.

But did Leeds and Campbell ever actually tee it up and compete against one another in a serious tournament?

They sure did---in the 1898 US Open at a course both of them obviously knew well-----MYOPIA!!!

So what happened?

Leeds completely hammered Campbell, which must either mean Leeds had a very fast and sharp learning and performance curve or Campbell just may not have been quite as good as some on here have been trying to make him out to be. I'll check later but I think Leeds may've finished as the low amateur in that 1898 US Open.  ??? ;)

Why do I feel one or both of these GOLFCLUBALTAS.com historical revisionists are going to claim Campbell must have been dying of cancer in 1898 or some such to get hammered by Leeds like that since there seems to be virtually no end to the rationalizations they come up with to attempt to defend some of the ridiculous things they say and claim on here?  ;)


NB:
A historically supportable and documentable FACT regarding that US Open and Campbell because it was reported in a CONTEMPORANEOUS NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ("Oh My God, history just doesn't get better "verifiable evidence" than a contemporaneous newspaper article, does it!!??-------the contemporaneous newspaper article speculated that Campbell may not have been on his game because he had been TEACHING too much golf. I wonder why they didn't mention he had been doing too much golf course architecture too?? Would that mean since they didn't report THAT or mention it, that with MacWood's reasoning and logic that Campbell never practiced golf course architecture at ALL??  ;)


All this is of course vaguely humorous but it is also a very good dose of their own medicine!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 21, 2010, 12:31:56 PM
TePaul,

The numbers don't actually lie.  Leeds shot a 114 or so in 1894.  Campbell probably was better at that time.

However, in addition to Myopia not keeping Campbell's design around more than a year, and with TMac's assumption that Willie taught Leeds everything he knew about golf, it seems they are throwing WC as a teacher under the bus, too.  Funny, but there are a lot ways to interpret all that happened, and none of it ever really seems consistent.

I will say this, TMac did unearth some stuff showing that Campbell appeared to do better in big money matches against the same guys who beat him in tournaments.  If so, then it should be no surprise Leeds beat him, but history doesn't record if Willie then beat Leeds later in the year in a private match.

I have read the previous posts, and I tend to agree with Mike Cirba about the impact of Willie Campbell on architecture and golf in general.  No doubt it was substantial and deserves to be highlighted by TMac, but at the same time, it was so short that I wonder if its as extensive as he portrays.

In short, with him gone, and so many other similar Scot professionals coming over in droves, I don't think we can assume many went back to the well to learn from Willie because there were so many others who could potentially influence the  work.  We do know not all had the chance because of his tragic death. 

At the same time, TMac listed about 20 courses he designed, with some of distinction, but we know there about 900 courses in America, most rudimentary.  So, Willie could have only designed about 2-3% of America's early courses, with some of them signifigant, but overall I would think low numbers and short duration limited his impact and also helped to releate him to the second tier in history.

I am glad to know more about him from TMac's research and these threads, though.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 21, 2010, 12:35:33 PM
Here is a story of a match including Leeds and Campbell held at Brookline on May 17, 1894:

(http://i56.tinypic.com/34q9qgn.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 01:08:25 PM
Thanks, Joe..

So even in May 1894, supposed "beginner" HC Leeds had shot within 8 shots of the professional record for the course, and was good enough to be paired in matches with/against Campbell in better-ball play?

Wow...that Campbell sure must have taught Leeds quickly!!   A month after getting off the boat yet?  

Amazing...perhaps there is something to this attempted posthumous deification of Willie Campbell!!  ::) :P ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 01:15:17 PM

Tom

This is the kind of revisionist nonsense that takes a basic idea and then tries to morph it into something that it's not and never was, and why some of us think you are such an agenda-driven poor analyst.

Leeds won the opening tournament at Myopia two months after Campbell's arrival here and he was already playing at scratch.   He had already designed Kebo Valley and likely Palmetto prior to Campbell's arrival.

I know Campbell could design and open a course in two days, supposedly, but I doubt he made Leeds a scratch player in two months.

Guys like Appleton and Leeds were playing the game of golf on private estates and TCC   before Campbell even arrived, and although I agree he was an important figure, the way you present things is that if not for Campbell, golf would not exist in Boston.

I'd say that the architecture Leeds was most familiar with early on when he began his practice was the architecture of the original amateur architects in this country like Curtis, Hunnewell, et.al.      Unless he learned how to incorporate steeple-chase features from Campbell, which is also possible.

Mike
Beyond the part about Leeds winning the first tournament at Myopia everything you wrote is wrong and/or unsupportable. You are either a fool or an idiot. Which is it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 01:21:10 PM
"After the first four holes were constructed in 1892, Herbert Leeds, who also built Myopia Hunt Club in Boston, laid out the remainder of the initial nine holes.  Palmetto was expanded in 1895 to 18 holes with the completion of the second nine holes that had been designed by Leeds and James Mackrell, Palmetto’s first golf professional." - Palmetto Club history
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 01:33:44 PM
Tom MacWood,

Leeds designed Kebo within 2 months after Campbell's arrival, and it seems Palmetto may have been before then, at least the addition of a number of holes.

Are you suggesting that Campbell, while trying to move to a new country, giving daily lessons, etc., etc., also taught Leeds everything he knew about architecture in that time as well as made him the best player in Boston....all in a few weeks??

That is simply ludicrous, Tom, as is this idea that Leeds barely played golf before Campbell got to him.   Thankfully, Joe's article paints a more realistic picture.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 01:36:15 PM
Mike
So what year did Leeds expand Palmetto? Your blurb from the club website doesn't say.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 01:40:57 PM
Tom MacWood,

Leeds designed Kebo within 2 months after Campbell's arrival, and it seems Palmetto may have been before then, at least the addition of a number of holes.

Are you suggesting that Campbell, while trying to move to a new country, giving daily lessons, etc., etc., also taught Leeds everything he knew about architecture in that time as well as made him the best player in Boston....all in a few weeks??

That is simply ludicrous, Tom, as is this idea that Leeds barely played golf before Campbell got to him.   Thankfully, Joe's article paints a more realistic picture.



You are either a fool or an idiot because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 02:08:07 PM
Mike
The Palmetto GC was not founded until 1895 (1899, 1900, 1901 Golf Guides). The first tournament of what became an annual event at Palmetto was held in March 1896 as reported in the NY times and the NY Sun. The golf course was nine holes (NY Times) and was laid out by Leeds (NY Sun). The first mention of Leeds coming to Aiken is 1/25/1895 in the Boston Daily Advertiser: "In a few days Aiken will offer golf players some very fine links. Such players as Thomas Hitchcock, Jr., Bud Appleton and HC Leeds are to be on hand."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 02:19:45 PM
Tom MacWood,

Leeds designed Kebo within 2 months after Campbell's arrival, and it seems Palmetto may have been before then, at least the addition of a number of holes.

Are you suggesting that Campbell, while trying to move to a new country, giving daily lessons, etc., etc., also taught Leeds everything he knew about architecture in that time as well as made him the best player in Boston....all in a few weeks??

That is simply ludicrous, Tom, as is this idea that Leeds barely played golf before Campbell got to him.   Thankfully, Joe's article paints a more realistic picture.



Mike
What are you talking about? This mourning you said, "He had already designed Kebo Valley and likely Palmetto prior to Campbell's arrival." Now you are saying Kebo Valley was designed two months after Campbell arrived. Are you confused?

Leeds did not take up the game until the spring of 1894. The first mention of Appleton playing the game is also 1894. There is no record of Appleton and Leeds playing the game on private estates or TCC prior to 1894. Leeds laid out a 9-hole golf course at Kebo in 1894 and a 9-hole golf course at Palmetto in 1895.

The next time before you get on your soap box please have your facts straight. You are a disaster when it comes to history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 02:35:46 PM
Tom MacWood,

So, Leeds never picked up a club until spring of 1894 (because you've found no newspaper articles, I presume?) yet was asked to design Kebo Valley by June of that year, and was playing in matches against Willie Campbell, and had the amateur record at TCC in May of that same year?!!??

Who is a disaster as a historian again?  

Sheesh Tom...I respect your work...I really, really do...and try not to get personal about this but do you hear yourself?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 02:48:17 PM
Boston Daily Advertiser 5/18/1894

"DO YOU PLAY GOLF? * Country Club Men Are Learning It * Willie Campbell, a Braw Highlander, and His 'Tee' Caddies---Herbert Leeds the club champion---How the Links are Laid Out---The Ladies Much interested"

"Herbert Leeds, the old Harvard man, who was famous on the diamond and with the sculls, is the crack golfer. He never tried the game till this spring, and he has rounded the nine holes with 48 strokes. This is the club record and was the visitors' as well till Tuesday, when a fair haired young Englishman, GH Windeler of London, who is over here visiting, took out his clubs in the morning and did it with 46 strokes, thereby winning the admiration of all. That Mr. Leeds' work is first class will be better understood when it is known that the professional record is 40 strokes. Arrayed in his knickerbockers, with heavy hobnailed shoes, Leeds is a constant figure on the links.

HH Fay ranks second and the list of golfers includes Lawrence Curtis, Francis Higgington, Bernard Thayer, Dr. Appleton, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Burnham, Messrs. Thomas and Merrill and scores of others, but the gentlemen names are the elite as scoring is concerned."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 02:56:35 PM
Boston Globe 6/17/1894"

"Mr. Herbert Leeds, who went to Bar Harbor last week with his mother, has returned to town, but will go back later. While there he looked over the ground at Kebo Valley, and arranged for the new game, golf, which promises to be the favorite game of the season there. The facilities for playing it at Kebo are very good. Mr. Leeds is quite an ethuiast over the sport, as , too, is his nephew, Mr. ES Goddard."

Boston Globe 7/29/1894:

"While the women are devoting themselves to bicycles the men spend their time playing golf at Kebo. Every one is taking great interest in this new game. A club has been formed by Herbert Leeds and AC Barney and they set out every morning at the park, where there is an exceptionally fine course."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 03:02:16 PM

Sheesh Tom...I respect your work...I really, really do...and try not to get personal about this but do you hear yourself?


Personal? This morning you wrote: "This is the kind of revisionist nonsense that takes a basic idea and then tries to morph it into something that it's not and never was, and why some of us think you are such an agenda-driven poor analyst."

Does that sound like respect?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 03:03:58 PM
Tom,

That's the real inherent and fundamental problem with reliance on newspaper articles.

They simply aren't always accurate!

Boston Sunday Globe, December 17, 1893;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5281195692_bfe3c4f339_o.jpg)


***EDIT*** I apologize for the personal comment.   Sincerely, I do respect your work and your passion, Tom.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 03:07:33 PM
Sure you do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
November 12th, 1893 - Boston Sunday Globe

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5280649061_d797beef10_o.jpg)


Tom,

Let's avoid calling each other fools or idiots in the future.   We're all interested in finding the facts and let's keep it at that level.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 03:36:21 PM
TEPaul,

Thanks for the insults.   Nice try with the 1898 tournament but results from 1898 have nothing to do with their relative skill levels in what was reportedly Leed's first or second year golfing.  Leeds was obviously much improved by 1898 and given his health Campbell's game may have been on the on the decline.  

In 1894 Campbell was among the handful of golfers considered the best in the World.  And whether he started in 1893 or 1894, Leeds was a beginner by comparison.  One of the better beginners around, but a beginner nonetheless.  He shot something like a 113 the first tournament and Myopia and then three weeks later he shot about the same.  To get some idea of what true scratch might have been, Campbell's early record for 18 (playing the nine twice) was reportedly a 77.    There are 36 strokes between 77 and 113, which is two strokes a hole.   While it is of course an estimate,  calling it 30 strokes gives Leeds a 6 stroke benefit of the the doubt.  But call it 20 if you like, or even go by Leeds best nine hole score at the Country Club and call it 16 strokes.  

Whether Leeds was 30 strokes better or 16 strokes better, the point is that Leeds was nowhere near what we call scratch, despite Mike's claim that he was.  

As for the report of him shooting a 48 at the Country Club, those types of matches, where the best amateurs team up with two professionals and play each other, were common in Scotland, and common over here even though initially the amateurs paled in comparison to the professionals.   Leeds participation in such a match again suggests that he was among the best amateurs, but then then we already knew this, didn't we?

His 48 sounds like a terrific score for a beginner and well below the norm, but while I am not sure how much weight we should give one nine-hole score, I am absolutely certain that even by this number, we get eight strokes per nine holes or 16 strokes for 18 holes, and that would be assuming two nines of 48 in the same 18 hole round!

Anecdotally, I had a friend (a good tennis player like Leeds) who shot about a 47 on the back nine at Rustic Canyon from the blue tees after having played golf less than a dozen times.  He had never come close to breaking fifty on a side before, and as I recall he did not break 100 that day.  Much to his frustration, his scores in subsequent rounds immediately returned to their regular 110-125 range  No doubt though if he had stuck with it he could have been good, or at least much better than me.  

Obviously Leeds was quite talented, but whether he started in 1893 or 1894, we was a beginner.  He was no scratch.  At least not in the way we understand the term.  Not even close.  

As I have said many times before, Mike, if you have to pull things like calling Leeds "scratch" or calling Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham experts, or being impressed that he was eight strokes behind a record on a nine-hole course, then perhaps you should reconsider your argument.  


Just what is your point Mike?   Do you really think Leeds was a scratch golfer? As we understand the term?  Would you really have wagered on him versus Willie Campbell with no strokes?    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 21, 2010, 03:45:20 PM
Is it possible that Leeds could have been to Aiken or anywhere else in the world without the knowledge of a newspaper reporter?  Is it possible that a newspaper article reflects the reporter's knowledge of that particular visit of Leeds and doesn't reflect each visit of Leeds?  I don't think it is logical to assume that the first time Leeds was in Aiken was the first time it was mentioned in the newspaper.  Plenty of things happen without reporters gaining knowledge of them.

I care not what the Golf Guide says, the Palmetto Club History says they were founded in 1892.  That is probably based off of actual records, not whatever the Golf Guide believes (and it has been pointed out the Golf Guide was wrong many times).  I will submit that it is possible for club histories to be either inaccurate or incomplete, with respect to the founding of the club, however, that is one fact that they would have the highest potential for accuracy on and it would take a board of directors meeting minutes or something to that extent to show the club history was wrong, not the Golf Guide.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 04:14:55 PM
"Is it possible that a newspaper article reflects the reporter's knowledge of that particular visit of Leeds and doesn't reflect each visit of Leeds?  I don't think it is logical to assume that the first time Leeds was in Aiken was the first time it was mentioned in the newspaper.  Plenty of things happen without reporters gaining knowledge of them."


JC:

Of course it possible. More than that it's probably likely. Leeds was basically famously known to hate the press, and the stories are plentiful that if he found one hanging around Myopia he would have him thrown out. Boston's sports reporter A. Linde Fowler was apparently the only one he remotely trusted.

In Tom MacWood's mind essentially nothing could or can actually happen unless and until it was reported in the newspapers. Myopia's Appleton, Merrill and Gardner routed the original nine holes before Campbell arrived in America only to read in the newspapers a few month later that Campbell did it and therefore what they'd done about two months previous could not have possibly happened because it was not reported in the newspapers!

At least that's the way Tom MacWood's mind works! And he has the gall to call Mike Cirba either and idiot or fool with history??

This really is ludicrous and I sit here reading some of this stuff from MacWood just laughing my ass off.



And then Moriarty weighs in claiming Leeds was not a scratch as we know a scratch today!! Well, ahh, DUUUHHH! Leeds was playing golf on bascially a cow pasture in South Hamilton in 1894 a 116 years BEFORE us today!!  ;)

Just amazing what these two are saying on here; it gets funnier as time goes on and they get more and more stringent and insulting with everyone else as time goes by. This is what I wanted to see happen with these two and I want to see more of it; they need to be put in some dark corner on stools facing the wall with Dunce Caps on and made to stay there for all time to come. And we need to be over here laughing at them.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 04:29:43 PM
A bit about Palmetto...

New York Times, March 8th, 1896

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5243/5280790243_c28dcec55b_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5281392612_47a1c43960_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5280790287_16b41fbee5_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 04:32:05 PM
TEPaul,

The conditions are irrelevant.   Leeds was not anywhere near what we thing of as "scratch" because he was no where near as good as the best golfers.

___________________________________

According to the Boston Globe:

Around May 18th at the Country Club, Willie Campbell shot an 84 (40, 44) in a match against Willie Davis.  Campbell won at four up.  
In a tournament the next day at the Country Club, Leeds shot a 109 (54, 55) in a tournament.   Curtis shot a 110 (52,58) in the same tournament.  
On June 18, 1894, Leeds shot a 112 at Myopia's opening tournament.  
Leeds shot a 113 at Myopia on July 4th.   Appleton and Thomas were next with scores of 124 and 127.

As would be expected of a beginner, Leeds (and many of the other golfers) by the end of the season.  In a tournament around October 27, he shot an even 100.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 04:32:14 PM
MichaelC:

I noticed on a reread that in your last few posts you told Tom MacWood you respected his work?

Why in the world would you say such a thing, much less think it?

Maybe MacWood is right that you must be either an idiot or a fool.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2010, 04:38:05 PM
"Beginner" Leeds was evidently a fast study as seen in this April 1896 account;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5280818939_01bcfa67c2_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 04:54:02 PM
Mike Cirba, last I checked 1896 is two years after 1894, so I fail to see your point.    But yes, the "beginner" Leeds was obviously talented and a quick study, which is why he could give a good showing in the Open by 1898 on his home course.   

In actual 18 hole tournaments, one each in May, June, and July of 1894, he shot a 109, 112, and 113, respectively. 

You must have missed my questions above.

What is your point?   Are you seriously claiming that Leeds a "scratch" golfer by Spring of 1894?  Would anyone have been on him against Campbell without Leeds getting between a stroke and two strokes a hole?  

You have a lot of nerve getting on Tom MacWood for "personal" posts given some of your recent posts, and given the garbage your mentor has been spewing of late. 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 21, 2010, 05:03:44 PM
An interesting note in one of the articles posted by Mike Cirba, the Highland Park Hotel that is mentioned later had its own golf course, rumored to be laid out by the Assistant Pro of Shinnecock Hills somewhere around 1912.  It is now the beloved Aiken Golf Club.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 05:10:14 PM
"TEPaul,
The conditions are irrelevant."



Oh right, silly me, of course, the conditions of a golf course in 1894 that was nothing more than a cow pasture a few days before (according to the chronology of you two jokers) has nothing to do with scoring! Jeeesus! Can this get any worse or any more comical??   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 06:47:17 PM
That you have to drop and ignore the explanatory sentence makes it both worse and more comical.

In May of 1894 at the Country Club, Campbell shot an 84 against Davis of Newport.   The next day in a tournament on the same course, Leeds had the low score with  a 109.   Did something happen to the course overnight which made it 25 strokes harder for Leeds?


 It speaks volumes about your credibility that you two would even try to place Leeds on par with Campbell as a player in the spring of 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 08:46:11 PM
Placing Leeds on a par with Campbell as a golfer in 1894 is certainly a subject but not very relevent to this subject. Part of the point of this subject is whether or not Campbell taught Leeds golf and influenced him in his ideas on architecture.

It may seem like a neat and natural logical assumption to Tom MacWood to conclude and claim that but there is no evidence of it I've ever seen. It is pretty much all speculation as far as I can see.

But the larger point in this thread entitled "Willie Campbell & Myopia" is what is it about Myopia the famous golf course and architecture that Willie Campbell actually had to do with considering it is actually the eighteen hole golf course that became famous and still is and by the time that was first opened for play around 1900 and then significantly improved through the next 18-25 years Willie Campbell was dead and long gone. It probably is necessary and beneficial to do a hole by hole architectural evolution report and then it would become really obvious, perhaps never to you two, but certainly to the rest.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 21, 2010, 08:58:01 PM
Strange how it became unimportant only after even you must have realized the absurdity of the position.    Mind explaining this to your protege?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 21, 2010, 09:11:19 PM
What is really, really strange, David Moriarty, is what is important to you on this subject or any other on this website, at least with a couple of contributors. You occasionally throw a ridiculous veneer over your participation on here on subjects like Myopia and Merion by calling it a search for the truth. Apparently to you the Truth is completely synonymous with endless irrelevance and constant arguing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 21, 2010, 10:56:03 PM


Herbert Leeds learned the game while under Campbell's tutelage, in fact the first three years of his golfing life were with Campbell (at TCC and Myopia). Undoubtedly the first golf courses he observed being built were Campbell courses. Remarkably Leeds first design came only few months after he first picked up the club (Kebo Valley 1894), and the other two (Palmetto 1895 & Myopia 1895-98?) came in the next couple of years. It was only after traveling overseas that Leeds began to develop a more sophisticated approach. In fact you can probably seperate Leeds' architectural career into two periods, pre-UK largely influeced by Campbell and post-UK largely influenced by the progressive architects of the UK.


Tom

This is the kind of revisionist nonsense that takes a basic idea and then tries to morph it into something that it's not and never was, and why some of us think you are such an agenda-driven poor analyst.

Leeds won the opening tournament at Myopia two months after Campbell's arrival here and he was already playing at scratch.   He had already designed Kebo Valley and likely Palmetto prior to Campbell's arrival.

I know Campbell could design and open a course in two days, supposedly, but I doubt he made Leeds a scratch player in two months.

Guys like Appleton and Leeds were playing the game of golf on private estates and TCC   before Campbell even arrived, and although I agree he was an important figure, the way you present things is that if not for Campbell, golf would not exist in Boston.

I'd say that the architecture Leeds was most familiar with early on when he began his practice was the architecture of the original amateur architects in this country like Curtis, Hunnewell, et.al.      Unless he learned how to incorporate steeple-chase features from Campbell, which is also possible.

Mike
Based on what you've learned in the last 24-hours how would you change these posts?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 12:11:37 AM
Tom MacWood:

Based on what you've learned in the last ten years on this website how would you change any of your posts?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 09:15:31 AM
Is it possible that Leeds could have been to Aiken or anywhere else in the world without the knowledge of a newspaper reporter?  Is it possible that a newspaper article reflects the reporter's knowledge of that particular visit of Leeds and doesn't reflect each visit of Leeds?  I don't think it is logical to assume that the first time Leeds was in Aiken was the first time it was mentioned in the newspaper.  Plenty of things happen without reporters gaining knowledge of them.

I care not what the Golf Guide says, the Palmetto Club History says they were founded in 1892.  That is probably based off of actual records, not whatever the Golf Guide believes (and it has been pointed out the Golf Guide was wrong many times).  I will submit that it is possible for club histories to be either inaccurate or incomplete, with respect to the founding of the club, however, that is one fact that they would have the highest potential for accuracy on and it would take a board of directors meeting minutes or something to that extent to show the club history was wrong, not the Golf Guide.

JC
Over the years I found that information found in Cornish & Whitten, club histories, and on club websites is not always accurate, sometimes it is, but often it is not. That is why I try to confirm everything, and newspapers, magazines and golf guides are very good sources, and the more sources the better. In the case of Palmetto what is written on the website (which I understand is taken from the club history) is especially confusing. This is what it says about Leeds involvement:

"After the first four holes were constructed in 1892, Herbert Leeds, who also built Myopia Hunt Club in Boston, laid out the remainder of the initial nine holes.  Palmetto was expanded in 1895 to 18 holes with the completion of the second nine holes that had been designed by Leeds and James Mackrell, Palmetto’s first golf professional."

Could you translate that for me? Based on this can you tell me what Leeds did and when he did it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 09:19:21 AM
Tom MacWood:

Based on what you've learned in the last ten years on this website how would you change any of your posts?

I think I once made a post about your interest in getting at the truth.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 22, 2010, 10:58:01 AM
Tom,

My point was to refute the Golf Guide as a source that would trump the club's listed date of founding.  The club says it was founded in 1892 with 4 holes being laid out (this comes from a club history document that I offered to send to you yesterday but you did not respond).  The course was later expanded to 9 and then 18 holes (the 4th of the original 4 holes is now the practice range) sometime between 1892 and 1895 with the involvement of Leeds and Mackrell.  I don't know what Leeds did or when exactly he did it.

I think it is likely that the club was founded prior to the Golf Guide finding out about it.  I don't disagree with you that newspaper articles and other such things are valuable sources for learning the history.  I don't, however, buy into the notion that nothing happened unless it was reported in the newspaper.  Perhaps the reporters in Aiken didn't care much at all about the formation of the Palmetto Club until it hosted a tournament, then there was a newsworthy event to report.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 22, 2010, 11:07:08 AM
TMac,

Good morning. 

I realize Ron is wrong sometimes....Ron has stated that since the book was published he has found errors.  Back in those days, before the internet, if he found a source, he used it, because it was hard to find multiple sources.

That said, what percentage of that book do you believe is wrong?  0.5%? 5%? 50%?  I realize its just a guess.  And trust me, I won't quibble with your guess, even though I suspect yours would be higher than mine.  And I say that only because I know that one of the real "problems" in these debates is that you simply want to know in more detail than either the club histories or even CW cared to cover, which is not really a problem. 

No doubt if people like you keep digging, there will be discoveries of inaccuracies, and as time goes on, its possible that we can correct them.  On the other hand, I suspect that 80% of club histories are probably accurate, and even those 20% that have inacurracies probably mostly have minor ones.

Just curious as to what your research indicates is the accurate to innaccurate ratio is?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 11:54:41 AM
More on Belmont from 1898 to prove attribution was not Willie Campbell, but a troika of members that included Dr. H. Toulmin of Merion Committee fame;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5282776187_2b93d4709a_o.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5283377024_5155edf0ce_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 12:08:23 PM
"In the case of Palmetto what is written on the website (which I understand is taken from the club history) is especially confusing. This is what it says about Leeds involvement:

"After the first four holes were constructed in 1892, Herbert Leeds, who also built Myopia Hunt Club in Boston, laid out the remainder of the initial nine holes.  Palmetto was expanded in 1895 to 18 holes with the completion of the second nine holes that had been designed by Leeds and James Mackrell, Palmetto’s first golf professional."

Could you translate that for me? Based on this can you tell me what Leeds did and when he did it? "




Sure Tom, I'd be glad to translate that for you.


1. At a point between 1892 and probably about 1894 or even 1895 five holes were adding to four existing holes by Leeds and Mackrell to make a nine hole course.

2. At a point in time during the year 1895 Leeds and Mackrell designed nine more holes that were added to the the existing nine holes to make an 18 hole golf course.


Do you have some problem understanding that? It basically lays out a "timespan" (timespan; the time between one point in time and another point in time) when five holes were designed by Leeds and Mackrell and added to four existing holes, and it gives a date (Date; a point in time such as a day, week, month, year etc) in this case 1895 during which Leeds and Mackrell designed nine more holes and added them to the existing nine to make up an 18 hole golf course at Palmetto.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
On a related note,

In 1910-11 TCC at Brookline was working on their golf course, and the primary architect was H.G. Windeler, another of the amateur members who was part of the whole amateur architectural craze around that time that included Leeds, Wilson, Crump, Macdonald et.al.

Windeler was assisted partly by professional Alex (not Willie) Campbell in his work, which transformed the course that was originally designed to incorporate polo walls, hedgerows, etc., into the golf course it became by the 1913 US Open, which is much like today's Squirrel & Clyde nines.

The following pages indicate some of the thinking of the time.

In particular, note the reference on the second page that talks about the reputations of the golf courses built by the earliest Scottish pros, and the reason most prominent clubs at that time were opting to take matters into their own hands;


(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5283385050_99b7368fa3_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5283385544_55691b5172_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 12:38:01 PM
Tom,

My point was to refute the Golf Guide as a source that would trump the club's listed date of founding.  The club says it was founded in 1892 with 4 holes being laid out (this comes from a club history document that I offered to send to you yesterday but you did not respond).  The course was later expanded to 9 and then 18 holes (the 4th of the original 4 holes is now the practice range) sometime between 1892 and 1895 with the involvement of Leeds and Mackrell.  I don't know what Leeds did or when exactly he did it.

I think it is likely that the club was founded prior to the Golf Guide finding out about it.  I don't disagree with you that newspaper articles and other such things are valuable sources for learning the history.  I don't, however, buy into the notion that nothing happened unless it was reported in the newspaper.  Perhaps the reporters in Aiken didn't care much at all about the formation of the Palmetto Club until it hosted a tournament, then there was a newsworthy event to report.

JC
This is from The Golfer magazine April 1896:

"The Palmetto Golf Club is an allied member of the USGA. It was established in January 1895, and the members are mostly Northern people, who spend the winter in Aiken. The links have been laid out with great care and are kept in fine condition. The Green Committee is composed of Thomas H. Hitchcock, Jr of the Meadow Brook Club, Herbert C. Leeds of the Brookline Country Club and S. Parkman Shaw of the Lenox GC. The links is composed of nine holes...."

It then goes on to describe the course. If you combine this with the fact there is no mention of the Palmetto Club in any publication prior to 1895, plus the 1899, 1900, 1901 golf guides, and the 1895 article in the Boston Advertiser, and the 1896 article in the NY Times, and the 1896 article in the NY Sun, and you are left with a strong impression the website is wrong, not only about the date the club was founded, but also when it went from nine holes to eighteen. Would you agree?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 12:44:40 PM
"It then goes on to describe the course. If you combine this with the fact there is no mention of the Palmetto Club in any publication prior to 1895, plus the 1899, 1900, 1901 golf guides, and the 1895 article in the Boston Advertiser, and the 1896 article in the NY Times, and the 1896 article in the NY Sun, and you are left with a strong impression the website is wrong, not only about the date the club was founded, but also when it went from nine holes to eighteen. Would you agree?"



Absolutely not.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 22, 2010, 01:26:13 PM
Tom MacWood,

I am not quoting the Palmetto Club website.  I am quoting a document produced by the club that I have offered to share with you and you have not accepted it.

I think your newspaper articles and periodicals are informative and could be instructive on many matters.  With respect to the date of formation of the club, I will believe what the club itself has to say unless I see something in the club's records that indicate something different.

Also, note how your sources only refer to the 9 hole course.  There was originally a 4 hole course. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 01:46:00 PM
JC
What document are you referring to and by all means please share it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 01:58:39 PM
More on Belmont from 1898 to prove attribution was not Willie Campbell, but a troika of members that included Dr. H. Toulmin of Merion Committee fame;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5282776187_2b93d4709a_o.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5283377024_5155edf0ce_o.jpg)

In that same magazine in May 1897 the holes were as follows:

Highway 200
Bunker 308
Ravine 166
Hoodoo Hollow 232
The Cedars 173
Hump Back 208
Long Ridge 253
Round Top 155
Pans Asunerum 351

Was the course redesigned between 1897 and 1898?

In the 5/4/1896 Philadelphia Inquirer it said work has begun on the new and permanent golf links of the Belmont Cricket Club. Three courses are being laid out by Willie Campbell, 18, 9 and short 9 for women. It said work would be pushed in order to make the opening as early as possible. I believe only the nine hole course was actually built.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 02:14:30 PM
Tom,

My point was to refute the Golf Guide as a source that would trump the club's listed date of founding.  The club says it was founded in 1892 with 4 holes being laid out (this comes from a club history document that I offered to send to you yesterday but you did not respond).  The course was later expanded to 9 and then 18 holes (the 4th of the original 4 holes is now the practice range) sometime between 1892 and 1895 with the involvement of Leeds and Mackrell.  I don't know what Leeds did or when exactly he did it.


JC
Evidently this from your document, and it is exactly what the website claims, and exactly what the club history claims. I'm sure they all come from the same source, that being the club history. You believe the club history is 100% accurate, and disregard or reject the 3 golf guides and the 4 contemporaneous articles which contradict the club history? Have you been able to confirm any part of your club history document?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 02:30:02 PM
"You believe the club history is 100% accurate, and disregard or reject the 3 golf guides and the 4 contemporaneous articles which contradict the club history? Have you been able to confirm any part of your club history document?"


Tom MacWood:

I am not sure I understand how three golf guides and 4 contemporaneous articles contradict the club history. What did those three golf guides and 4 contemporaneous articles say about Palmetto that contradicts the club's history?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: JC Jones on December 22, 2010, 03:00:50 PM
Tom,

With respect to the date of formation, your articles and golf guides do not speak to the original four hole course on the property.  I read your articles as describing when the 18 hole course was complete.  With that reading, your articles confirm the club history that states the 18 hole course was complete in 1895/96.

Therefore, there is nothing contradictory about your articles. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 22, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
Here is a detailed article called "Myopia's New Course" from the April 29, 1899 edition of the Boston Evening Transcript.

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/Apr29_1899_BostonEveningTranscript_p1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/Apr29_1899_BostonEveningTranscript_p2.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
Tom MacWood,

As I mentioned before, I don't believe the ambitious plans for Willie Campbell designed courses at Belmont cited in that article Joe Bausch found were ever realized.   That may have been due to their relationship with the Cricket Club, or perhaps due to money issues.

At the time of that 1896 article, they were already playing on the course (referred to as the "Temporary Course") that survived and seemingly lengthened as per your yardage descriptions.    By 1903, with the formation of Aronimink, the club was still playing that original course laid out by members.

As regards Palmetto, don't you think it's simply a case of Hitchcock having a private estate course of 4 holes played by a couple of northern friends that got expanded by Leeds before 1895, at which time the club became formalized, and then expanded by Leeds and Mackrell to 18 holes at that time?

As regards what i learned in the past 24 hours...

I learned that Campbell had no documented influence on Herbert Leeds either architecturally or as a golfer.

I learned that contrary to your contention and that erroneous news article, Leeds did not just start playing in the spring of 1894, but in fact was playing at The Country Club since its inception the year before, and almost certainly began playing on the estate courses of Hunnewell and Appleton and others sometime prior to that.   He did not just become by far the best amateur golfer in Boston due to some Campbell inspired two month miracle, but instead was there from the very beginning of the game in the city.

I also learned knew, but overstated, the exact timing of Leeds laying out Kebo Valley and Palmetto, but your larger contention that he was influenced at that time by Campbell's architecture is really not accurate in any way that I can see.    Almost all of his golf at that time had been played on courses designed by amateur members.

I would also make my response much less personal to you, as I mentioned yesterday.   However, when you make erroneous, sweeping suppositional statements disguised as historical fact such as Leeds learned the game from Campbell after only starting to play himself in spring of 1894 and was directly influenced by Campbell architecturally rest assured that they will be challenged with facts.


Joe Bausch,

Awesome article!!

Interesting how it proves that Leeds designed the diagonal 4th hole and also mentions that he eschewed the old horizontal "Cop" bunkers for something more scientific and sound, and proves in fact that it was the first really good architecture in this country as we've contended all along.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 03:36:19 PM
Tom,

With respect to the date of formation, your articles and golf guides do not speak to the original four hole course on the property.  I read your articles as describing when the 18 hole course was complete.  With that reading, your articles confirm the club history that states the 18 hole course was complete in 1895/96.

Therefore, there is nothing contradictory about your articles. 

JC
This from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1/6/1898:

"The grounds of the Palmetto Golf club at Aiken are among the best in the country, thousands of dollars having been expended each season for the last three years in improving their condition. This year nine new holes have been added making the total of eighteen, about three miles around."


From Golf magazine February 1898:

"Down at Aiken the golfers are having it all their own way, and the coming tournaments of the Palmetto GC will be closely watched from a distance by those who are unfortunate enough to have to spend the winter months in the north. The additional nine holes have been opened for play, and measure 2546 years, which is 219 yards less than the first nine holes. James Mackerel is back from Frances and again in charge of the links."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 03:40:34 PM
"You believe the club history is 100% accurate, and disregard or reject the 3 golf guides and the 4 contemporaneous articles which contradict the club history? Have you been able to confirm any part of your club history document?"


Tom MacWood:

I am not sure I understand how three golf guides and 4 contemporaneous articles contradict the club history. What did those three golf guides and 4 contemporaneous articles say about Palmetto that contradicts the club's history?

The club was founded in 1895, not 1892. The course was nine holes in 1895, not eighteen. The course was expanded to eighteen holes in 1898, not 1895. Leeds was not involved in any design work at Palmetto prior to 1895.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 03:42:03 PM
Tom MacWood,

The creation of a golf course, especially one on an estate of 4, and then 9 holes, and the incorporation of a club are two separate things, no?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 03:44:07 PM
Tom MacWood,

The creation of a golf course, especially one on an estate of 4, and then 9 holes, and the incorporation of a club are two separate things, no?

The club was founded in 1895 and incorporated in 1902.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 03:53:53 PM
Tom MacWood,

The creation of a golf course, especially one on an estate of 4, and then 9 holes, and the incorporation of a club are two separate things, no?

The club was founded in 1895 and incorporated in 1902.

Tom,

That doesn't tell us when the first 4 holes were built or when they were expanded to nine.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Mike
The club history claims Thomas Hitchcock Jr. built three or four holes/greens at Aiken in 1892. I have not been able to confirm if that is true or confirm if those holes were incorporated into the 9 hole course that Leeds designed in 1895. Whatever the case it doesn't change the date Palmetto GC was founded, 1895.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on December 22, 2010, 04:07:42 PM
I found an 1896 article showing a diagram of Palmetto's nine hole layout. The 5th and 9th holes shared a green.

It also says the club was founded on Jan 10th, 1895.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 04:09:48 PM
Tom MacWood,

As I mentioned before, I don't believe the ambitious plans for Willie Campbell designed courses at Belmont cited in that article Joe Bausch found were ever realized.   That may have been due to their relationship with the Cricket Club, or perhaps due to money issues.

The complete plans were never realized that is true, but it sounds like you're not sure if some of the plan was realized or not? The article claimed construction was underway. Was the course altered between 1897 and 1898?

At the time of that 1896 article, they were already playing on the course (referred to as the "Temporary Course") that survived and seemingly lengthened as per your yardage descriptions.    By 1903, with the formation of Aronimink, the club was still playing that original course laid out by members.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 04:10:41 PM
"The club was founded in 1895, not 1892. The course was nine holes in 1895, not eighteen. The course was expanded to eighteen holes in 1898, not 1895. Leeds was not involved in any design work at Palmetto prior to 1895."


Well, so you say, but it seems the club's history disagrees with you. I would definitely tend to take the word of the club and its history rather than yours or some Brooklyn newspaper or any other periodical. Clubs generally know a whole lot more about what they are doing, when and why, than newspapers and periodicals which are inherently indirect sources of information. The club is the direct source.

But I can certainly understand your proclivity for promoting only your source material which is almost always indirect newspaper and periodical accounts and not a club's source material or history because the fact is you have been to so few of the clubs whose histories you question and looked at their archives and source material for their histories.
Title: TEP & the Flat Earth Society
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 04:12:45 PM
"The club was founded in 1895, not 1892. The course was nine holes in 1895, not eighteen. The course was expanded to eighteen holes in 1898, not 1895. Leeds was not involved in any design work at Palmetto prior to 1895."


Well, so you say, but it seems the club's history disagrees with you. I would definitely tend to take the word of the club and its history rather than yours or some Brooklyn newspaper or any other periodical. Clubs generally know a whole lot more about what they are doing, when and why, than newspapers and periodicals which are inherently indirect sources of information. The club is the direct source.

But I can certainly understand your proclivity for promoting only your source material which is almost always indirect newspaper and periodical accounts and not a club's source material or history because the fact is you have been to so few of the clubs whose histories you question and looked at their archives and source material for their histories.

You would tend to take the word of the club and its history over a boat load of contradictory evidence? That is shocking!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 04:16:00 PM
Tom MacWood,

I would agree with you that the club at Palmetto was founded in 1895, but I would also bet the golf holes that Hitchcock and subsequently Leeds built were all done prior to then, thus the attribution confusion.

I'm not sure how you can possibly be so sure of your newspaper sources after yesterday's debacle, where you told us that Herbert C. Leeds only started playing the game in the spring of 1894, and then was playing matches against Willie Campbell and playing at scratch at Myopia and designing Kebo Valley two months later?   ::)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 22, 2010, 04:19:21 PM
"Whatever the case it doesn't change the date Palmetto GC was founded, 1895."



Tom MacWood:

Perhaps not but that certainly does not change the fact there could've been four holes on that property from 1892. The fact is the eastern hunting and polo interests had been going to Aiken for years and those men in that hunting and polo world owned a lot of land down there before any of the golf. If you are ever going to really understand some of these early "eastern establishment" golf courses you need to understand a lot more about the entire world of those people and the fact is you just don't.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 22, 2010, 04:23:05 PM
Tom,

Take a very close look at the article you quoted from as I believe it actually contradicts what you state about Palmetto and 1895:

“JC, This from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1/6/1898:"The grounds of the Palmetto Golf club at Aiken are among the best in the country, thousands of dollars having been expended each season for the last three years in improving their condition. This year nine new holes have been added making the total of eighteen, about three miles around."

I highlighted the date of the article and the relevant phrase. According to what it states, in 1895 the course was "expanded" and not built!

I come to this conclusion because it states that in EACH of the LAST THREE YEARS... Certainly since the article was published on January 6, 1898, one of those three years could NOT be 1898. So that means the course was expanded in each of the three preceding years of 1897, 1896 and 1895!

So it appears that the club history and J.C.'s information are correct. That there was an original course before 1895, in this case the obvious 4-holer that the club history references, and that in 1895 Leeds and the pro expanded it to 9 holes.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 22, 2010, 04:35:03 PM
1895, 1896 and 1897? The club was founded in January 1895. Your logic eludes me.

Dollars expended on conditioning, not expanded.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 22, 2010, 04:49:07 PM
Tom,

I misread it and saw expanded where you wrote expended. My mistake...

Still,I maintain that the article was definitely refering to 1895, 1896 & 1897 as it says it occurred during the "last three years." Unless they spent a whole lot of money and did a whole lot of work from January 1-5 of 1898, it could NOT be refering to that year as the article was published on January 6th.

How that logic can elude you is beyond my understanding...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 22, 2010, 04:59:25 PM
Well, this thread has been very useful.

In the past two days we've learned that Herbert Leeds was well experienced in golf long before Willie Campbell arrived, and we've also learned the Leeds was responsible for the 4th hole, diagonal hazards, and the creation of thoughtful bunkering on the Myopia course.

If anything, it seems Leeds work was more a move away from the kind of architecture practiced by Campbell than towards it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 22, 2010, 07:59:45 PM
I'm not sure how you can possibly be so sure of your newspaper sources after yesterday's debacle, where you told us that Herbert C. Leeds only started playing the game in the spring of 1894, and then was playing matches against Willie Campbell and playing at scratch at Myopia and designing Kebo Valley two months later?   ::)

Mike I know that you don't like when I say this, but I really want to try and get through to you.  You really should be embarrassed by this sort of thing.  
-- You know Leeds was not anywhere near a "scratch golfer" in the spring of 1894.   In three tournaments he shot 109, 112, and 113. The day before Leeds shot his 109, Campbell had shot 84 on the same course (with a 9 on the last hole.)
-- You know that Leeds himself wasn't playing matches against Campbell.  As was quite common at the time, Leeds was paired with another professional, W.D. Davis, against Campbell and another skilled beginner of similar ability as Leeds.  It was essentially a pro-am; a side event to the main event of Campbell v. Davis.  It was NOT Leeds vs. Campbell, but rather a quality professional and a skilled beginner vs. a quality professional and a skilled beginner.  

Likewise, you grossly exaggerate when you claim that Leeds was "well experienced" in golf "long before" Campbell arrived.  You posted a few articles indicating he was playing very late in the year in 1893, but that hardly make him "well experience long before he arrived."

It is the same problem it has always been.    You are unable or unwilling to honestly consider and present the facts.    Every single fact has to be exaggerated and overstated and stretched well past the point of breaking.  Every single fact is treated as if it is the smoking gun that makes your whole case.  
- They were on a committee?  Well then they definitely designed the course!  
- A paper indicated they played golf?  Well then they must have designed!  
- He and another advanced beginner got to partner with two professionals in a match?  Well then they were equals of the professionals.
- He was the best among beginners and men who had never played golf?   Well then he was a scratch golfer!


This sort of thing doesn't advance your argument, it undermines your credibilty.   And in creates major tension in that it is incredibly frustrating to have to deal with such ridiculousness and hyperbolic logic again and again.   It is definitely the reason I have so little respect for you and what you write, and it is very difficult to keep that disrespect from coming out in  what I write.  I have tried and will try harder to curb and/or mask that disrespect, but come on, help me out here just a little.

Just be reasonable.  Quit being a zealot.  There is no place for zealots in this sort of conversation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 06:06:19 AM
David,

You are very funny.

The 1893 article says Leeds and friends have been playing since the beginning of golf at TCC.

Since they were the same group of friends and amateur sportsmen like Hunnewell and Appleton who had estate courses prior to TCC, it is highly likely that Leeds was playing before TCC even had a course.

Sorry to puncture yet another attempt at zealous, agenda-driven historical revisionism, this time the erroneous claim that Leeds learned everything he knew at the foot of Campbell.

Oh well..

And what else had been debunked..

Let's see...that Campbell designed Philly CC and Belmont Cricket Club.

That Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner had no prior golf experience, and were merely "Master of Hounds".  They were in fact referred to as local "experts" at the time, given their experience before Myopia even opened.

That Campbell had something to do with the diagonal 4th hole at Myopia, or was involved in the design of the eighteen hole course.

All in all, a worthwhile resurrection of this thread, I'd say.  Thanks for pulling it from the depths and Happy Holidays  to you.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 06:46:40 AM
And for the final coup de grace for those who insist on the unerring accuracy of research through newspaper articles alone, and not through source materials at the clubs themselves, I am please to finally tell everyone who REALLY designed Merion;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5284857985_328bc56fbc_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on December 23, 2010, 08:58:54 AM
Mike,
90% of the information you post on this site comes from newspaper articles.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 09:01:58 AM
"That Campbell had something to do with the diagonal 4th hole at Myopia,"


Mike:

That point sort of indirectly bears on why I began to get interested in the entire architectural evolution of Myopia in the first place about 5-6 years ago. By that I mean as far as I can tell at this time if Edward Weeks made any mistake in fact or interpretation in his history book it indirectly relates to that. When he described the original 1894 nine hole iteration of Myopia (even though he did preface his description with 'the actual layout is a matter of speculation') he identified the first hole as today's second which is a fact and he did identify six more holes which in fact were part of the original 1894 nine. However, he alluded to the fact that today's 8th was the second hole. Given other known facts about that 1894 nine that include the fact that some of the holes (logically three holes) were on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's land (documented by club records) and given the fact of where the 1894 nine hole course ended (today's 13th) it would've been virtually impossible for today's 8th hole to have been the 2nd hole of that original 1894 nine. It pretty much had to be the 5th hole of that original 1894 nine.

That is the single item that first got my attention about five years ago. Other than that there are no mistakes of fact I'm aware of in Weeks's book. The fact that he did not mention Willie Campbell is not a mistake of fact. Had he happened to mention that Willie Campbell had nothing whatsoever to do with Myopia's 1894 nine then THAT logically would have been a mistake of fact!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 09:09:42 AM
"Mike,
90% of the information you post on this site comes from newspaper articles.   ;)"



Perhaps, but that is why the remaining 10% of the information he gets from sources within and connected to source material within and of these clubs is so Gol-danged important to the factually accurate descriptions on here of these golf courses' architectural histories!!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 09:39:16 AM
"Herbert Leeds learned the game while under Campbell's tutelage, in fact the first three years of his golfing life were with Campbell (at TCC and Myopia). Undoubtedly the first golf courses he observed being built were Campbell courses. Remarkably Leeds first design came only few months after he first picked up the club (Kebo Valley 1894), and the other two (Palmetto 1895 & Myopia 1895-98?) came in the next couple of years. It was only after traveling overseas that Leeds began to develop a more sophisticated approach. In fact you can probably seperate Leeds' architectural career into two periods, pre-UK largely influeced by Campbell and post-UK largely influenced by the progressive architects of the UK."

Tom

This is the kind of revisionist nonsense that takes a basic idea and then tries to morph it into something that it's not and never was, and why some of us think you are such an agenda-driven poor analyst.

Leeds won the opening tournament at Myopia two months after Campbell's arrival here and he was already playing at scratch.   He had already designed Kebo Valley and likely Palmetto prior to Campbell's arrival.

I know Campbell could design and open a course in two days, supposedly, but I doubt he made Leeds a scratch player in two months.

Guys like Appleton and Leeds were playing the game of golf on private estates and TCC   before Campbell even arrived, and although I agree he was an important figure, the way you present things is that if not for Campbell, golf would not exist in Boston.

I'd say that the architecture Leeds was most familiar with early on when he began his practice was the architecture of the original amateur architects in this country like Curtis, Hunnewell, et.al.      Unless he learned how to incorporate steeple-chase features from Campbell, which is also possible.


As regards what i learned in the past 24 hours...

I learned that Campbell had no documented influence on Herbert Leeds either architecturally or as a golfer.

I learned that contrary to your contention and that erroneous news article, Leeds did not just start playing in the spring of 1894, but in fact was playing at The Country Club since its inception the year before, and almost certainly began playing on the estate courses of Hunnewell and Appleton and others sometime prior to that.   He did not just become by far the best amateur golfer in Boston due to some Campbell inspired two month miracle, but instead was there from the very beginning of the game in the city.

I also learned knew, but overstated, the exact timing of Leeds laying out Kebo Valley and Palmetto, but your larger contention that he was influenced at that time by Campbell's architecture is really not accurate in any way that I can see.    Almost all of his golf at that time had been played on courses designed by amateur members.

I would also make my response much less personal to you, as I mentioned yesterday.   However, when you make erroneous, sweeping suppositional statements disguised as historical fact such as Leeds learned the game from Campbell after only starting to play himself in spring of 1894 and was directly influenced by Campbell architecturally rest assured that they will be challenged with facts.


Mike
I disagree, it is documented you are just having a hard time accepting it. I was wrong about Leeds first picking up the game in the spring of 1894, but only as a technicality. He did bat the ball around at least two times in 1893, November and December, but obviously its a little hard to play in the winter in Boston, and one wonders about the crudeness of the game they were playing. As Laurence Curtis (who was also out there in the winter) would later remark, the first real golf they had ever seen was the match between Campbell and Davis in the spring of 1894. I believe the author of the article who claimed Leeds only picked up the game that spring was accurate. Willie Campbell introduced real golf to Leeds and the rest in 1894.

In 1895 when Campbell met Willie Park at St. Andrews (NY) he arranged for a match between Brookline and that club. St.Andrews being the oldest golf club in America had an air of superiority, they believed they had been playing the game the longest and they produced the best golfers, and most people agreed. Campbell told them 'he had four men in training he would match against Stoddard [captain of the St.A team] on even terms.' Being the best golfer at TCC I think one can reasonably conclude Leeds was one of those four 'men in training.'

I don't think there is any doubt Campbell was enormous influence on Leeds as a golfer, on golf in general in Boston during those formative years. And I do believe there is evidence Campbell was the primary influence on Leeds as architecture in those early years. His courses would have been the first and quite possibly only course he had seen laid out. Campbell the golf architect dominated the Boston region. Also in the article Joe B. posted it said Campbell was returning to the old Scotch ideal of laying out courses. Where do you think he got that idea? Leeds had never played golf in Scotland.

I don't understand your comment about almost all the golf at that time had to be played over courses designed by amateur members. Weren't the great majority of golf courses in and around Boston designed by professionals?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 09:46:21 AM
Tom MacWood:

I have yet to see anything at all that even suggests Willie Campbell taught Leeds to play golf or influenced Leeds in his architectural ideas and architectural creations other than from you and to date it is totally undocumented and I expect it will continue to be!  ;)
Title: TEP & the Flat Earth Society
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 09:51:34 AM
TEP
I'm not surprised. Based on your comment yesterday about the contradictions at Palmetto, you are obviously very confused or not paying very close attention, or both.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 09:55:28 AM
Tom MacWood:

You're not surprised at WHAT?

What is it that actually documents that Campbell taught Leeds golf or ever influenced Leeds's architecture other than your opinion or suggestion that that was the case?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 10:04:01 AM
It is documented Campbell taught the game every day at Brookline to all the golfers, and it is documented Leeds was there almost every day. I suppose in your mind you see Leeds ignoring the lessons of the poorly educated vagabond, he could learn the game on his own, but I don't that is a reasonable conclusion. In 1895 Campbell said he had four golfers in training he would put up against St. Andrews straight up. Do you believe Leeds would have been considered among the four best golfers at TCC?

If Campbell was not the primary influence on Leeds' early golf architecture, than who or what was?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 10:20:07 AM
"It is documented Campbell taught the game every day at Brookline to all the golfers, and it is documented Leeds was there almost every day."



Tom MacWood:

Then let's see that documenation. Let's see if it looks like it even suggests that ALL golfers at TCC in 1894 took lessons or had to take lessons from Willie Campbell.

The way you bob and weave around these questions and subjects and try to rationalize them really is completely comical. I've rarely seen anyone try to stretch historical fact and its interpretation quite to the extent you do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 10:23:05 AM
TEP
The information has already been posted on the thread, but since you seem to be having difficulty following and digesting these things I'll see if I can dig it up or point you to it when I get a chance.

By the way I'm not the only one who sees Campbell being an major influence on Leeds. This is from Bob Labbance's excellent profile on Leeds:

"HC Leeds joined the club and, under the watchful eye of newly installed pro Willie Campbell, went from beginner to scratch player in one summer."

If Campbell was not the primary influence on Leeds' early golf architecture, than who or what was?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 10:44:00 AM
Tom,

Please go back and read the 1893 articles.

They don't say that they played once or twice that winter; they say these men have been playing diligently since golf came to Brookline and that by Nov/Dec of 1893, four months before Campbell's arrival, some of them were already becoming "expert".

Wasn't the course at Brookline laid out in March 1893, over a year before Campbell's arrival??

That is their account Tom...not my interpretation of events.

Also, given that this was the same group of friends who had previously started playing the game on their own estates, it is very likely Leeds was playing with them prior to 1893.

THAT is why by spring of 1894 and Campbell's subsequent arrival tha Leeds was playing as one of two best amateurs in an exhibition match with Campbell, why he already had the amateur record at TCC, and why he was already being asked to design golf courses.

Unlike your "two-month miracle", I don't see a shred of evidence that Campbell influenced Leeds, unless you're referring to ALEX Campbell?

Also, are you absolutely sure that those articles stating that Campbell laid out Myopia didn't confuse it with Essex?  The newspapers certainly confused the two courses in other articles.

Jim Kennedy,

Yes, very true, which is why I'm all too aware of their frailties and inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 10:44:45 AM
"TEP
The information has already been posted on the thread, but since you seem to be having difficulty following and digesting these things I'll see if I can dig it up or point you to it when I get a chance."



Tom MacWood:

Well, wouldn't that be nice and pretty much a first for you as well?

I very much look forward to "your" documentation that Willie Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf and how he influenced Leeds's architecture. I suspect what you will produce as documentation is nothing more than your own suggestion that that was the case that is somewhere back in this thread or another like it.  ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 23, 2010, 11:01:18 AM
David and Mike,

I think that both of you are misunderstanding the use of the term "scratch" as it is used to describe the early golfers in America. I believe that both of you are imparting a great deal of what the term means today, especially in relevance to par. In the early years, the best player at a club was considered the "scratch" player, the one to be measured up against. Just as we view "par" as near sacred today, back then "bogey" was similarly used as a measurement of talent. Quite often the "scratch" player at a club was at or just above "bogey" as a score on average.

Will that change either of your stances on Leeds? No, and it shouldn't, but it might make the understanding of how the players were described become easier to accept.

Tom Macwood, would you say that any of the swing coaches that Tiger Woods has employed taught him to play? Of course, that is an extreme. How about this. Would you say that Tom Strafaci taught me how to play? I took a few lessons from him at Bethpage in the 1970s and he is the only professional I ever took one from. Or would you say that I learned the game from my father who first put a club in my hands when I was 5 and my oldest brother who took me to driving ranges when I was 11-16 or even the professionals I watched on TV and whose swings I tried to emulate?

My point is that I was actually pretty much self-taught, yet by the definitions that you are applying to Campbell and Leeks it must have been Strafaci who taught me when all he actually did was make a vain attempt to refine my swing.

Since Leeks obviously was playing the game at least a year before he met Campbell, he certainly didn’t learn how to play golf from him. So your conclusion stated to Tom Paul, “I suppose in your mind you see Leeds ignoring the lessons of the poorly educated vagabond, he could learn the game on his own, but I don't that is a reasonable conclusion…” is in incorrect on its face. The facts show that he had already both learned how to play golf and was doing so at a fairly decent LOCAL level.

Now, do I think that Leeds benefited from suggestions or actual lessons from Campbell? Yes I do. Just as today when even a talented amateurs seek out advice from the very best of players, it is THAT which can be “reasonably concluded” from the reports of Campbell’s giving lessons where Leeds was playing. Teaching him the game though is simply not correct.

Did Campbell influence Leeds architecturally? In my opinion the jury is still out on that one and his aiding him to become a better player (if he did) has no bearing on that discussion.

Finally, you have taken others to task and refused to accept as either facts or corroboration articles or writings that are not “contemporaneous.” To quote from Bob Labbance as a corroboration of your opinions flies in the face of your prior comments and I believe that Bob would have gotten quite a chuckle out of it….
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 11:03:01 AM
"By the way I'm not the only one who sees Campbell being an major influence on Leeds. This is from Bob Labbance's excellent profile on Leeds:

"HC Leeds joined the club and, under the watchful eye of newly installed pro Willie Campbell, went from beginner to scratch player in one summer.""




Tom MacWood:

Is THAT your documentation that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf or taught him at all?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 11:14:49 AM
Phil,

Yes, I'm aware how the term "scratch" was used.   Hugh Wilson was a "scratch" player at Belmont in 1898 where he held the club record and the next best player in the club was an 8.   Even with that, Wilson's course record for 18 holes was a 91.

I also think Leeds' amateur record at TCC in 1894 of 48 was quite an achievement considering the PROFESSIONAL record (likely Willie Campbell) at that time was 40.  

At most, Leeds was probably only playing golf for two years by that time yet the next best handicap player in the opening day tournament at Myopia I believe was a 6, shared by Hunnewell, Thomas, and Curtis.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 12:27:54 PM
Tom,

Please go back and read the 1893 articles.

They don't say that they played once or twice that winter; they say these men have been playing diligently since golf came to Brookline and that by Nov/Dec of 1893, four months before Campbell's arrival, some of them were already becoming "expert".

Wasn't the course at Brookline laid out in March 1893, over a year before Campbell's arrival??

That is their account Tom...not my interpretation of events.

Also, given that this was the same group of friends who had previously started playing the game on their own estates, it is very likely Leeds was playing with them prior to 1893.

THAT is why by spring of 1894 and Campbell's subsequent arrival tha Leeds was playing as one of two best amateurs in an exhibition match with Campbell, why he already had the amateur record at TCC, and why he was already being asked to design golf courses.

Unlike your "two-month miracle", I don't see a shred of evidence that Campbell influenced Leeds, unless you're referring to ALEX Campbell?

Also, are you absolutely sure that those articles stating that Campbell laid out Myopia didn't confuse it with Essex?  The newspapers certainly confused the two courses in other articles.


Mike
Golf had only been played in a 'desultory' manor prior to Campbell coming to Brookline. One of those few early devotees Laurence Curtis said the first true golf they had ever seen was when Campbell faced Davis in the spring of '94. Are you under the impression that Leeds and the rest were not greatly influenced by Campbell?

Regarding your last two paragraphs I won't even comment. Is this your new strategy...throw as much crap against the wall to see if any will stick? You are a disaster.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 12:38:15 PM
Here is a good article on Willie Campbell from 1902 posted a few days ago by Joe B.

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p1.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p2.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p3.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 12:49:20 PM
Tom,

Curtis was referring to Campbell's golfing proficiency;  that's what he meant by "real golf"! 

Do you think the term "real golf" referred to the crude nine holes Campbell laid out according to you at Myopia in all of two weeks time??

These guys had been playing golf for over two years before Campbell arrived.   Most weren't very good at it, but a few like Leeds became proficient despite the lack of professional training.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 01:06:05 PM
Mike
Are you just trying to be difficult or are you that ignorant regarding the state of golf in 1894? I think you know golf courses were built in short order at that time. How long did it take Leeds to have Kebo Valley up and running in 1894?

He is a little blurb from the Boston Globe 4/15/1894. I'll see if I can post more later...I've got get some Xmas shopping done!

"Golf has 'caught on' and the fashionable representatives of society are making great preparations for future tourneys. At the Country club much earnestness and enthusiasm are displayed among the most prominent members. Instruction in the game is given daily by Prof Campbell. It is surprising that the golf germ, which has flourished in England so long, should only lately reached our shores."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 23, 2010, 01:09:31 PM
Tom,

Let's discuss this more after the holiday as I have some other points to make and I'm sure you do, as well.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 01:21:58 PM
"By the way I'm not the only one who sees Campbell being an major influence on Leeds. This is from Bob Labbance's excellent profile on Leeds:

"HC Leeds joined the club and, under the watchful eye of newly installed pro Willie Campbell, went from beginner to scratch player in one summer.""




Tom MacWood:

One more time!

Is THAT your documentation that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf or taught him at all?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2010, 03:03:11 PM
TEP
No, I just ran across that today. I reckon Bob looked at the same information I did and came to the same conclusion. Be patient I'll get to it when I have time. In the mean time answer this question I asked several posts back.

If Campbell was not the primary influence on Leeds' early golf architecture, than who or what was?

Also do you think it is fair to say Campbell was best golfer in America when he came over in 1894? Best golf architect? Top teacher?

If not who would have been the best golfer....best golf architect....the top teacher?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 04:08:02 PM
"TEP
No, I just ran across that today. I reckon Bob looked at the same information I did and came to the same conclusion."


Tom MacWood:

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I reckon Bob Labbance did look at the same information you did and came to the same conclusion. And that is very interesting to me and more than a little ironic since the last conversation I had with Bob was about that very specific subject and issue. He and Keven Mendik were speaking right down the road at Waynesborough GC at a GAP event.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 23, 2010, 04:18:33 PM
Mike,

There was nothing funny about my post.  It was serious and probably obviously blunt but believe it or not, I was trying to do you and the rest of us a favor.  I am disappointed yet not surprised that instead of taking my post to heart, you continue on in the next post with more of the same.

It is really too bad, because you obviously care very much about the history golf course architecture and apparently have infinite time to pursue it, yet your inability and/or unwillingness to reasonably deal with the source material bogs us all down.  In short, you waste your time and ours with this endless ridiculous rhetoric.

I know you and your cronies will take this as the highest arrogance and condescension on my part, and perhaps rightfully so.  Be that as it may, there is a lot of truth to what I am saying, and years of past discussions verifying it.  Maybe if you get a moment over the holidays you will get a chance to take a step back and consider your track record with this sort of thing, and reconsider your approach.  That would be a welcome Christmas miracle for all of us.    

Happy Holidays.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 23, 2010, 04:25:11 PM
"In the mean time answer this question I asked several posts back.

If Campbell was not the primary influence on Leeds' early golf architecture, than who or what was?

Also do you think it is fair to say Campbell was best golfer in America when he came over in 1894? Best golf architect? Top teacher?"



Tom MacWood:

I would say in 1894 Willie Campbell was definitely one of the very best players in America and certainly of the ones who actually emigrated to America at that time. Obviously Park Jr came over here then and beat him but Park went home, only to return briefly until he came over here permanently in the teens. I would also say that Campbell probably was one of the very best teachers and certainly around Boston in 1894. Another good teacher over here then was obviously Willie Davis.  But that does not automatically or necessarily mean he taught Leeds how to play golf, particularly considering the way Leeds famously felt about professionals and the fact that the historic word on Leeds as a golfer was that he was self-taught.

As to who was the primary influence on Leeds with architecture, well that is the question isn't it? In the same vein, you seem to automatically assume just because Campbell was a good golfer he was also a great architect and that he must have influenced Leeds. I just wouldn't make that automatic assumption. Leeds very well may've been self taught at that too, as he most certainly was a very intelligent and highly educated man. And we sure don't really know if Leeds had been abroad before or during that time, particularly given what seems to be known about him as an international competitive sailor probably including the America Cup races. They were very big at that time and some New Yorkers and Bostonians he knew well were some of its biggest sponsors.

As I keep telling you, Tom, your little newspaper articles don't really cut it with a subject this complex. They are just little blurbs and to understand people like Leeds you really do have to understand the larger culture and world he lived in and the people who populated it and the fact is you just don't understand that or certainly not very well.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 12:20:49 AM
TEP
That is the problem with you, you assume way too often. This has been a long thread and I've never claimed Campbell was a great architect, and I've never claimed Leeds was a great architect either. By modern standards I don't think either man was a great architect. They were both historically important architects, and good architects relative to their time. And of the two I'd say Campbell's accomplishments are more impressive. It is rare when a man has that kind of impact on the development of golf in a country.

Architects are not self taught. They are all influenced by what they've seen and experienced, and by what they like. Leeds had been abroad numerous times prior to 1892, but not once from the time he learned of the game of golf until Campbell died in 1900. So you can forget that theory. What do you think were his primary influences?

Where do you get your information that Leeds was self taught as a golfer? I think he was a very gifted athlete, and was extraordinarily focused and dedicated about every athletic endeavor he became interested in, but I've never seen anything indicating he refused to be taught.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 24, 2010, 09:01:56 AM
Just to rely on facts and not conjecture, I think an accurate, fair and balanced picture of how this played out and what Campbell's influence (at least in terms of teaching if not architecture) on the earliest Boston golfers like HC Leeds can be seen in the following snippet from "The Golfer", in 1995, as well as punctuated with the 1893 articles that mention the men who had been at it since the very beginning of golf in the city;

"Below we present a photograph of Mr.
Morton J. Henry, winner of the amateur
championship of the Country Club, Brookline,
Mass., on November 9th, and the Myopia championship
on November 11th .  Mr. Henry was
among the very first, in New England, certainly,
and possibly in the entire country, to be attracted
by the possibilities of the ancient and
royal game for recreative enjoyment, athletic
exercise and manual skill.  He commenced
playing on the course laid out by Mr. H. H
Hunnewell, Jr., at his extensive and beautiful
country seat in Wellesley, — one of the first, if
not the very first golf links in this section.
The novices in golf at the Hunnewell course
formed a self-tutored set of players, no professional
being in the country at the time, and it
was two years later, when Campbell was engaged
by the Country Club
as instructor at
Brookline.
 Mr. Henry is frank in acknowledgement
ol his indebtednes to Campbell,
and also to Mackerel! for the proficiency he
acquired under their instruction."


November 1893

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5280649061_d797beef10_o.jpg)


December 1893

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5281195692_bfe3c4f339_o.jpg)



I would also ask before going away for a few days whether or not there is any account of Campbell laying out Myopia either prior to the creation of the course, or not associated with the Opening Day tournament?  

I ask for a very specific reason which I'll discuss further when I return.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 09:38:12 AM
Mike
Are you trying to make a case that Leeds was self tutored or that Campbell was the one who taught them really how to play golf, its unclear?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 24, 2010, 09:40:35 AM
And now for some pure conjecture...

Some of you likely remember when I posted this article previously from April 15th, 1894, which lists the creation of a subcommittee at Myopia, the location of the third member A.P. Gardner in Hamilton at the time, and then talks about Willie Campbell's assignment that year to Essex County in June.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5287523029_68de5805e3_o.jpg)


And then later, on June 10th, I copied the following story that very strangely talked about "two new links"

June 10th, 1894,


•Bunker Hill day will be observed
at the Myopia hunt by the initial games
in two newly laid out golf links. The
expert players who will take part are
Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton,
Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Wattson
Merrill.


And then later still I posted the Opening Day tournament results;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5287523077_0eecd2ab3a_o.jpg)


So far, so good...except for the strange reference to "two links", seemed straight forward enough..

Then, the other day, Joe Bausch was doing some research in another newspaper and sent me this snippet from June 15th;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5288124488_c8cc977a96_o.jpg)


What?!   Another reference to "two new links"?   Could there be two courses built at Myopia opening at the same time??


No, not really...

Besides the fact that it seems these newspapers shared information, the following article from June 19, 1894 Joe sent to me sheds some light on the confusion of the writer(s).

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5288124530_8d8623563b_o.jpg)


So, this is why I asked the question whether there is any other source of evidence, anywhere, that indicates that Willie Campbell had either planned (pre tournament) to lay out the Myopia course, or anything not associated with the tournament that indicated he did, and what was the source of that information?

We do know he went to Essex County that year, and that he laid out a new course for that club in around the same time.

If the novice Boston golf writers of the time were just trying to figure out what this new-fangled game was all about, and were cobbling information, good and bad, from each other, are we absolutely certain that references to Campbell at Myopia weren't in fact confusing it with his new course at Essex??

This is why I think total reliance on news articles paints a very incomplete picture, and they are indeed fallible as we've seen here.

Willie Campbell may very well have been involved in laying out Myopia, but I have a heck of lot less certainty about that than I did a few weeks ago before starting to dig into this thing...

Happy Holidays, everyone.




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 09:50:19 AM
Mike
I'm not sure I understand your questions. Why do selective chose the reports dealing with development of Myopia? Wouldn't it be more useful to include all the articles in order to get a better more complete picture? What newspaper were the articles from June 15th and Junes 19th from?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 24, 2010, 10:04:48 AM
Tom,

I'm not sure I understand your first question...I re-posted everything I had up until the course opening (except for the one about the sheep) from the Boston Daily Globe.

Joe's are from the Boston Evening Telegraph.

Do you know of any articles not associated with the opening day tournament that cite Campbell laying out Myopia?   I ask because I can't recall any, and other accounts of early Boston golf such as George H. Sargent's make clear Campbell laid out TCC's 18 hole course and Franklin Park but don't similarly mention that he did Myopia.

And you are also aware that "The Golfer" in 1898 mentions Campbell's work at other courses yet very strangely doesn't mention any responsibility for the existing course at Myopia..

"The new links [Cambridge GC] will complete a trio of eighteen-hole courses for this neighborhood. The famous County Club of Brookline has had a full course laid out by Campbell, who also planned the course of the Cambridge Club, and the Myopia Hunt club has taken steps to bring its links up to the standard number of holes."

I'm not saying he wasn't involved, Tom...but a simple newspaper article mistake copied among the local sources could indeed explain why there is apparently no hint of Campbell in the cub records as far as architectural attribution, nor in the club history book.

Certainly the confusion of Essex for Myopia indicates a certain unfamiliarity with the territory, and a lack of first-hand knowledge of the subject matter among the local press...


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 10:23:55 AM
Mike
You are selectively picking and choosing which articles you include. You are not presenting the total picture. I was just wondering why you would do that. Personally I think it is a little dishonest, but you tend to go that direction with historical issues.

You are missing the article from the BG May 13 about the introduction of sheep, from the BG June 17 that initial games with be tomorrow on the new links, from the BDA June 19 about the new links recently laid out by Campbell, from the Boston Journal Junes 19 about the new links laid out by Campbell, from the Boston Evening Transcript about the new links recently laid out by Campbell.

What newspaper do the articles from June 15th and Junes 19th come from?

There weren't that many clubs in Boston in 1894, confusion between Myopia and Essex seems extremely unlikely, and the article about Mrs Willie Campbell from 1902, which also says WC laid out Myopia, should be an end to the line of doubt.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 24, 2010, 10:29:43 AM
Tom,

The only one in my possession I didn't repost is this;

On May 13th, 1894 the Boston Daily Globe had a similar report that made clear that the location for the course had been determined but the holes had yet to be "laid out".

-A flock of sheep will soon provide a
picturesque feature Irt the landscape at
the Myopia hunt grounds In HamUton
The sheep will serye a utilitarian end
at the same time. They will be pastured
over the tract on which the golf links
will be laid out, and win crop the sur
face close and smooth; This links will
be so situated as to^ allow spectators to
view.from an elevated point the work of
the players over the whole course. Golf
play will probably begin June 1.

The June 15th and 19th articles as I mentioned are from the Boston Evening Telegraph.

David had previously posted this one from June 23rd, which also seems to indicate a lot of overlap between the Myopia and Essex stories, and seems associated with the opening.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)


Are there any articles attributing Campbell with Myopia that aren't associated with the opening day tournament?    Either prior to the tournament, or months after??
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 24, 2010, 10:32:32 AM
The best source of information on the begiinnings of golf at Myopia can be found in Edward Weeks's history book, including the fact that three members routed the original nine. Information reflecting that was found in the club's records. It is also possible to track what remains of those holes that were used in the eighteen hole course that was done by H.C. Leeds that made the golf course famous. Obviously analyzing any architectural evolution of a golf course that old is not the easiest thing to do but since Myopia is so well preserved, in its case it really isn't all that complicated either. Neither the club records nor its history book mentioned Willie Campbell and it seems clear now there was no significant reason to do so. However, if people on an architectural website, some of whom have never even seen the course or the club's records, want to speculate on some irrelevances, I suppose there's no particular reason not to if they think that kind of irrelevant speculation is worth their time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 10:39:47 AM

Are there any articles attributing Campbell with Myopia that aren't associated with the opening day tournament?    Either prior to the tournament, or months after??


To my knowledge there is only the one, the article about Mrs. Campbell from 1902. You also have the later account from the historian who researched Campbell's life for his honoring at TCC in 1999, but that is later.

So in review that is a total of four contemporaneous articles saying Campbell laid out the course. How many do you have that claim the Squire & Co laid out the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 10:46:15 AM
The Boston Evening Telegraph or the Boston Evening Transcript? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 24, 2010, 11:06:42 AM
Tom.

My point is there is nothing about anyone prior to that tournament and anyone researching after may have used the same bit of misinformation.

I believe the latter paper...Joe can verify.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 24, 2010, 11:10:02 AM
The latter (Boston Evening Transcript).
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 11:25:30 AM
Mike
There are no prior reports of Campbell laying out Brookline and Essex either. But that really isn't surprising considering the laying out of golf courses, and what it all entailed, was a foreign idea at the time. We do know the sheep were on their way at Myopia prior to the opening, a tell tailed signed Campbell was involved. Frankly there were more reports of Campbell laying out Myopia than there were of him laying out Brookline or Essex. I believe I have one regarding each course. The difference is today Brookline and Essex acknowledge Campbell laid their courses, but Myopia, thanks to Weeks, has dropped the ball.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 24, 2010, 11:57:55 AM
"The difference is today Brookline and Essex acknowledge Campbell laid their courses, but Myopia, thanks to Weeks, has dropped the ball."


That seems to be the opinion of at least two people on an Internet site, neither of whom have ever seen Myopia or its records. However, from what I know of and from Myopia itself, at this time, Myopia does not believe that opinion is credible or convincing at least in the matter of who routed Myopia's original nine hole course in 1894.

And regarding TCC at Brookline, they actually credit three members, Messrs Arthur Hunnewell, Laurence Curtis and Robert Bacon with laying out the original holes of that course on November 29, 1892.
Title: TEP & the Flat Earth Society
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 24, 2010, 12:08:28 PM
"The difference is today Brookline and Essex acknowledge Campbell laid their courses, but Myopia, thanks to Weeks, has dropped the ball."


That seems to be the opinion of at least two people on an Internet site, neither of whom have ever seen Myopia or its records. However, from what I know of and from Myopia itself, at this time, Myopia does not believe that opinion is credible or convincing at least in the matter of who routed Myopia's original nine hole course in 1894.

And regarding TCC at Brookline, they actually credit three members, Messrs Arthur Hunnewell, Laurence Curtis and Robert Bacon with laying out the original holes of that course on November 29, 1892.

TEP
Your statement comes as no surprise, since you've been saying the same thing for months despite the wealth of documentation to the contrary. Campbell laid out a new nine at TCC in 1894, which is acknowledged by the club. It is interesting to compare that original six to the course laid out by Campbell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 24, 2010, 12:23:26 PM
"It is interesting to compare that original six to the course laid out by Campbell."


Yes it is and it's also interesting to track and compare the entire architectural evolution of TCC at Brookline. It is also interesting to track and compare the architectural evolution of the original 1894 nine at Myopia through the Leeds's Long Nine and through Leeds's eighteen hole course. At least that's what Myopia has done and is still interested in doing in more detail.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 25, 2010, 01:03:49 PM
Not sure if this course has been mentioned, this from the May 14, 1898 edition of the Boston Evening Transcript.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/ng34ht.jpg)

Of course boys and girls, nothing published in newspapers is correct.  So at least we've ruled out that Willie Campbell laid out this 9-holer.   ;) ;D

I see there is a 9 hole course currently near New Bedford called Hawthorne Country Club, but I don't know if that is the same course mentioned above.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 25, 2010, 04:35:07 PM
For what it's worth, I keep a database of architectural attributions for courses I've played, and in the case of Myopia, I've listed it as Appleton, Gardner, Merill, and Willie Campbell, 1894.

I still believe that both stories are very likely true, and after reading more of Weeks' account today it is very clear that he had access to not only the Dacre Bush account (who was Secretary of the Golf Committee in 1895 and probably the year prior), as well as the club minutes, aka the "Run Book", as well as the Leeds Scrapbook in compiling his account.

I'm also a bit less certain of Campbell's direct participation than I was a few weeks ago, due now not only to his omission in the Weeks book, and presumably the club records, but now also due to the seeming confusion in the news accounts between the new courses opening at both Essex and Myopia, the papers obvious cribbing of each other's accounts, as well as their seeming lack of first-hand knowledge of the newfangled game and seeming learning curve in terminologies.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 25, 2010, 06:17:09 PM
I've also learned that Leeds began designing/building the 18 hole course by 1897 if not earlier with the purchase that year of Dr. Hopkins' land.  At the time of the 1898 US Open, it was expected that the full eighteen would be ready the following year, 1899.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 05:33:01 AM
Michael:

In your #1195 and #1196 you mention what else you've learned of Myopia's early nine. You also mention you've learned more since you began to read Edward Weeks's Myopia history book, and that's good; I'm glad you are getting the chance to read it. I note that both MacWood and Moriarty have endeavored to largely discount the veracity of that Myopia history book on this thread (I believe one has read parts of that book and scanned some of it on here apparently after copying it from Mike Hurzdan's library. It seems the other has only read what the first scanned on here).

I have been referring to what that history book said about the first Myopia nine for close to a year and a half now but those two have continued to question its veracity. If you feel there is something in that book you can refer to that may change their minds please do it or if you feel you can somehow refer to what I already have referred to from it better than I did to persuade them of its veracity then please do that too.  ;)

And further, I went to Myopia after reading that history book (about five years ago) to try to determine what exactly Weeks was referring to when he wrote various parts of that book that was published in 1975 to confirm why he wrote what he did in various parts of that history book about the original nine.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 09:56:24 AM
Tom,

One thing I wish Weeks explained better is how he knew the original course included some of Dr. Hopkins land.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 10:54:08 AM
"Tom,
One thing I wish Weeks explained better is how he knew the original course included some of Dr. Hopkins land."



Michael:

Of course you do. Some on here apparently even expect that Weeks should have left us with a laundry list of quotations, foot notes, and some comprehensive bibliography that reflects everything he said in that book. If you want to know why he didn't do that I would be glad to tell you; so would Myopia.

But when a couple of overarching architectural investigators on here who are trying to make a name for themselves and who have never even been to Myopia but who are nevertheless trying to prove Weeks's book wrong and on every detail in it say things like Weeks's book is a work of fiction it does get my attention.

Obviously they will never admit that because it would completely shoot down their ridiculous agenda on here! But that's what they said on here and having had that book for about 4-5 years I went and looked at the club records to see if I could tell because it certainly occured to me that without having something from the club records to refer to in that vein it seems very unlikely that a writer of Weeks's career and reputation would just come up with three member names out of thin air and then write that they routed that course in the spring of 1894. And the same goes for his other remark---eg 'We know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the club and those of our fellow member, Dr. S.A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the club.' Therefore, I endeavored to go to the club and look at their records to see if I could determine what he might have been looking at to say something like that.

At this point, I even wonder if anyone on this thread other than me actually understands on that golf course today where that land of S.A. Hopkins was back then!  Probably not which makes one wonder what they think they are doing on this subject of Myopia's 1894 original nine.  ??? ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 11:09:55 AM
Tom,

The reason I say that, as I'm sure you know, is simply that there is little info on exactly what those original three holes were on Hopkins land, and how close in configuration they may have been to the present 3-6 that Leeds designed a year or two later.

One would think they may have borne some resemblance simply because I agree with you that the only way to make the routing work if it ended up around todays 13 green as the closing hole, back at the top of the hill.  In other words, I think Weeks was mistaken that a version of todays 8th hole was the second back then, unless the routing somehow crossed from the Valley hole across the 2nd, played three unknown holes on Hopkins land, perhaps in a circle or triangular fashion, and then came back to the tee of the Pond hole....

Nah...I think Weeks admitted speculation was incorrect on that count.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 11:26:39 AM
"Tom,
The reason I say that, as I'm sure you know, is simply that there is little info on exactly what those original three holes were on Hopkins land, and how close in configuration they may have been to the present 3-6 that Leeds designed a year or two later."


Michael:

That's all true and I certainly do know what you mean. That is precisely why about 4-5 years ago this got my attention and I brought it up to the club. Weeks did describe six holes that it appears he believed were part of the 1894 nine and it appears he drew some of his description from what Bush said about the nine hole course which was apparently Leeds's Long Nine.

There is no drawings of that 1894 nine I'm aware of and no photographs of any of its holes other than an 1895 photo of the first green. When one understands where that was it isn't hard to take the rest of the description of it at that time and figure out what it was. From there one pretty much can only extrapolate and I suppose assume that the 1894 nine may've ended next to where it began which is actually the 13th which was the last of six holes that Weeks tried to describe.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 11:32:23 AM
Tom,

Yes, and we also know that before Weeks book was published that Don Wade of Golf Digest said the original nine holes totalled 2050 yards, something not mentioned by Weeks.

Coincidentally, Wade also stated the original nine was designed by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, so go figure!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 01:10:48 PM
"Coincidentally, Wade also stated the original nine was designed by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, so go figure! ;)"


Michael:

Yes he did. I did not know that until you mentioned it on here in the last week or so. When some on here read something like that they may tend to wonder if it was Wade who told Weeks about that since he wrote it before Weeks published his book or whether Weeks told Wade that before Wade wrote his article.

I realize we all may have different styles and methods of doing research and analyzing things but when I read something like that in Weeks's book and the thought occurs to me where he may've been looking when he wrote that information, my first inclination is to start at the time he was writing about and look there and go forward from there if I have to rather than starting with Wade in 1974 or Weeks in 1975 and go backward looking for the first evidence of the mention of it. And I'm glad I did it that way as it saved me 80 to 81 years of looking through!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 26, 2010, 02:06:13 PM
"Coincidentally, Wade also stated the original nine was designed by Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, so go figure! ;)"


Michael:

Yes he did. I did not know that until you mentioned it on here in the last week or so. When some on here read something like that they may tend to wonder if it was Wade who told Weeks about that since he wrote it before Weeks published his book or whether Weeks told Wade that before Wade wrote his article.

I realize we all may have different styles and methods of doing research and analyzing things but when I read something like that in Weeks's book and the thought occurs to me where he may've been looking when he wrote that information, my first inclination is to start at the time he was writing about and look there and go forward from there if I have to rather than starting with Wade in 1974 or Weeks in 1975 and go backward looking for the first evidence of the mention of it. And I'm glad I did it that way as it saved me 80 to 81 years of looking through!  ;)

TEP
Wade? Do you mean John P. May? I thought you had gone over the 'board minutes' and other internal documents, the same stuff Weeks supposedly based his book upon. It appears now you are not as confident in what you saw or as confident in what were Weeks' sources. I beginning to suspect you've been misleading us.....again.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 26, 2010, 02:28:25 PM
I realize we all may have different styles and methods of doing research and analyzing things but when I read something like that in Weeks's book and the thought occurs to me where he may've been looking when he wrote that information, my first inclination is to start at the time he was writing about and look there and go forward from there if I have to rather than starting with Wade in 1974 or Weeks in 1975 and go backward looking for the first evidence of the mention of it. And I'm glad I did it that way as it saved me 80 to 81 years of looking through!  ;)

A very telling statement about your approach.  You just find someone who thinks they figured it out and then treat their speculation and conclusions as some sort of Gospel.  Also, you make up phony quotes and misrepresent information to make it seem like you have access to information you know nothing about.

I am not sure what I'd call this, but it sure isn't historical research and it sure isn't historical analysis. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 02:59:00 PM
Tom MacWood and David Moriarty:

You two can say anything you want to no matter how far-fetched and from your last posts and many others like them that's just what you do say on here. That's fine with me as neither of you have the slightest idea what you're talking about or what is at Myopia as neither of you have ever been there. Your collective tenor about this is getting more and more far-fetched, frustrated and hysterical, and that is about what I would expect from you two as others come to see what you two are really up to on here with some of the significant course histories, particularly Merion's and Myopia's and now apparently Shinnecock's too.   ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 26, 2010, 04:52:29 PM
To the contrary, with each course discussed the absurdity of your approach becomes more obvious.    You have no idea what happened at any of these places, and are unwilling and/or incapable of figuring it out.  You just blindly parrot the status quo, fudging the record as you go along, with no real interest in or understanding of what might really have happened.

While you set yourself up as protector of these clubs, you repeatedly embarrass them, and seem to be on a self-destructive  mission to portray yourself and them as nothing but foolish and snobbish old bats with no clue or concern about what might have actually happened.   Fortunately, I have too much respect for these clubs to believe that most of their members could ever be anything close to what you are.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 05:00:47 PM
David Moriarty:

You can go on saying things like that on here if you want to but I doubt it makes any difference to anyone; I doubt it ever did.  


"Fortunately, I have too much respect for these clubs to believe that most of their members could ever be anything close to what you are."


Well, something that is more fortunate still is that you are most certainly unlikely to ever know that about them either.  :'( And to think when you first came on this website you actually called me up to get me to give you the telephone # of my old friend the long time green chairman of Maidstone so you could try to gain access to play there. My how things have changed, wouldn't you say?   :o  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 26, 2010, 06:34:01 PM
Well, something that is more fortunate still is that you are most certainly unlikely to ever know that about them either.  :'( And to think when you first came on this website you actually called me up to get me to give you the telephone # of my old friend the long time green chairman of Maidstone so you could try to gain access to play there. My how things have changed, wouldn't you say?   :o  ;)

Naturally, you can't even be honest about this.   I was invited to play the course by the green chairman and lost his phone number, so I asked you if you had it.  Had I known then that you are such a scumbag that you would try and lord this over me almost a decade later and on a public website, I assure you I would have asked someone else.  

But thanks for the further demonstration of just what a class act you really are.

And TEPaul, I don't run in your circles but I know some people who do. Their assessment of you is spot on, and makes me confident in my assessment of them.    You should realize that if many if not most of the members of these clubs knew you pretended to speak for them, they would cringe. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 26, 2010, 06:46:41 PM
David Moriarty:

So, it's scumbag now, is it?  ;)

As a pretty good number of people on here and who have been on here know, I've known a whole lot of people for various reasons over the years at these particular clubs (the likes of Merion, Myopia and Shinnecock et al) you've made the object of whatever it is you think you're doing on this website, but I don't know all of them at those clubs, that's for sure. I suppose there may be a few you know that from the sound of what you say I would not really ever care to know but on the other hand I don't believe a thing you say in that vein. Sorry about that but your credibility is pretty much totally shot on here, as far as I'm concerned, and I expect everyone of any worth knows that, at this point.

Happy New Year to you; I hope you can find some way to do better on here next year if you're still on here. With the likes of you and MacWood on here perhaps I will make a New Year's resolution not to be. I've got plenty to do with architecture other than this place and that's exactly what I do hear from those friends of mine at those clubs.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 07:36:22 PM
Guys,

Can we drop the personal stuff and get back to discussing the early courses at Myopia as well as "methods of research"?

I think news articles are an interesting and valuable source of corroborating information but we also jave to consider that if we call guys like Leeds, who had probably been golfing for two years by spring 1894 "beginNers" in the brand new game here, we also have to understand that the newsmen, who we've seen here copping misinformation from one another's stories and making the most fundamental of errors were/are really an imperfect source, much less to re-write a club history from.

Personally, I'd be interested and curious to see a tally of just the factual errors in news articles on this thread alone, even omitting one's like Pickering designing Merion, which I posted simply to illustrate their unreliability.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 26, 2010, 08:46:44 PM
David Moriarty:

So, it's scumbag now, is it?

I'd say "scumbag" is a pretty tame description, considering how you have continued to misrepresent that particular event.  I mean what kind of a person lies about something like that, anyway?   And on a public webstie.  I can think of many words more accurate than "scumbag" but most are more offensive.  I guess I could have gone with low class jerk, if you would prefer that.

_________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

We aren't "discussing" Myopia.  You are just telling us over and over again how you have convinced yourself to ignore multiple contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course.

If can figure out a way to ignore multiple contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course,  then obviously you are unwilling or unable to honestly consider the source material.  

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 26, 2010, 08:51:06 PM
Mike
Two years prior? I'll give you the two rounds in November and December of 1893 (whatever you want to make of those), but two years prior I think is very unlikely considering the reports he was a beginner in the spring of 1894. Do you have anything concrete or is this wishful thinking?

I've done quite a bit of research on Leeds and in 1893 he seems to be completely focused on the America's Cup (ending in October). In 1892 he seems focused on other sport, including tennis, and travel overseas.

What does Leeds playing experience have to do with who laid out Myopia in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 11:17:16 PM
David/Tom,

What about the 1894 news articles do you find credible, knowledgeable, or somehow convincing?

There are laughable, obvious mistakes throughout;  and on this foundation of Charmin you believe the club should burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history??!

That would be hysterically funny if you weren't actually both somehow serious.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 26, 2010, 11:34:22 PM
David,

It won't be buried.

I really want to fully explore the value of and reliance on using vintage newspaper articles as primary source material for architectural historical research.

No Mike.  I want to fully explore the vast gaps between your bombastic claims and the actual factual record, as well as the inherent problems with your dismissal of this particular newspaper article.    You claimed that this article contained "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout."   You compared it to toilet paper, and claimed that accepting it as true would mean that the clubs would need to "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."

So, back up your claims.   

Here again is the article.  Read it carefully.    Then explain me again how you can so easily dismiss it, and point toward those portions of Myopia's record that contradicts it.   

It is time for you to quit playing games and start HONESTLY dealing with the source material.     

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

1. Where, specifically, are the "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout?"  Because I see none.

2. What specific portions of Myopia's club minutes does this contradict, and what records and recollections does it call into question?   Because I am unaware of any such minutes, records, or recollections.   



 

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 26, 2010, 11:46:39 PM
David,

I'm on a blackberry right now and can't see which of the articles you posted..I'll try to respond tomorrow once I read it..

In the meantime, who is the author of the article?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 27, 2010, 09:26:06 AM
"Because I am unaware of any such minutes, records, or recollections."


David:


It would be more explanatory to say you are only unaware of what such minutes, records, or recollections say because you've never been to Myopia to look at them. I think you and Tom MacWood may be the only self proclaimed researchers/historians who have some philosophical aversion to actually going to the subjects that you two decide to tell us all have gotten their histories all wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2010, 10:50:55 AM
Mike
Two years prior? I'll give you the two rounds in November and December of 1893 (whatever you want to make of those), but two years prior I think is very unlikely considering the reports he was a beginner in the spring of 1894. Do you have anything concrete or is this wishful thinking?

I've done quite a bit of research on Leeds and in 1893 he seems to be completely focused on the America's Cup (ending in October). In 1892 he seems focused on other sport, including tennis, and travel overseas.

What does Leeds playing experience have to do with who laid out Myopia in 1894?

Tom,

Have you actually read the articles I posted from Nov/Dec 1893 that state that Leeds and friends have been playing golf avidly at The Country Club since the beginning of golf there and that some of them like Leeds were well on their way at becoming expert at it?

Didn't that course get laid out in late 1892 and open in the spring of 1893?   So by the time of the November 1893 article he would have minimally been playing all year, and by June of 1894 he would have been playing minimally a year and a half.

Did you also read the article about Morton Henry that states he and his friends have been playing golf prior to then at estate courses like Hunnewell's going back to early 1892?   Don't you think Leeds was among them??

Is this the "he was too busy with other recreational pursuits to play golf" theory?  

I don't get you Tom...you'd rather believe that Leeds somehow became the best player in the club by six shots two months after picking up a club due to the magic of Willie Campbell than read the factual accounts that state these guys were playing golf for a number of years before Campbell arrived.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2010, 10:59:37 AM
David,

I see the article you posted is from the 1894 gossip column, "Summer Gayeties", which like most gossip columns doesn't identify the author.   I've used articles from a similar series in another Boston paper on this thread, as well. for better or worse.

I need to head out for a few hours, but will try to honestly and sincerely address your post, your questions, and your source material later today.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 27, 2010, 11:41:53 AM
Mike
Two years prior? I'll give you the two rounds in November and December of 1893 (whatever you want to make of those), but two years prior I think is very unlikely considering the reports he was a beginner in the spring of 1894. Do you have anything concrete or is this wishful thinking?

I've done quite a bit of research on Leeds and in 1893 he seems to be completely focused on the America's Cup (ending in October). In 1892 he seems focused on other sport, including tennis, and travel overseas.

What does Leeds playing experience have to do with who laid out Myopia in 1894?

Tom,

Have you actually read the articles I posted from Nov/Dec 1893 that state that Leeds and friends have been playing golf avidly at The Country Club since the beginning of golf there and that some of them like Leeds were well on their way at becoming expert at it?

Didn't that course get laid out in late 1892 and open in the spring of 1893?   So by the time of the November 1893 article he would have minimally been playing all year, and by June of 1894 he would have been playing minimally a year and a half.

Did you also read the article about Morton Henry that states he and his friends have been playing golf prior to then at estate courses like Hunnewell's going back to early 1892?   Don't you think Leeds was among them??

Is this the "he was too busy with other recreational pursuits to play golf" theory?  

I don't get you Tom...you'd rather believe that Leeds somehow became the best player in the club by six shots two months after picking up a club due to the magic of Willie Campbell than read the factual accounts that state these guys were playing golf for a number of years before Campbell arrived.  



Mike
Why does it matter when Leeds began playing golf when determining who designed Myopia in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 12:03:17 PM
David/Tom,

What about the 1894 nees articles do you find credible, knowledgable, or somehow convincing?

There are laughable, obvious mistakes throughout;  and on this foundation of Charmin you believe the club should burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history??!

That would be hysterically funny if you weren't actually both somehow serious.


Mike, re-read what you just posted. You exaggerate and misrepresent throughout by understating the value of the newspaper accounts and by drastically overstating the content of Myopia's "club minutes" and "records and recollections." It is hyperbolic nonsense. 

Below is one of the articles stating that Campbell laid out the course.   I'd appreciate it if you would break it down for me.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

1. Where, specifically, are the "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout?"  Because I see none.

2. What specific portions of Myopia's club minutes does this contradict, and what records and recollections does it call into question?   Because I am unaware of any such minutes, records, or recollections.   

Thanks.

[Note: Post accidently deleted later but recreated from copy.]
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 27, 2010, 03:54:55 PM
"From about 1893 on however, a veritable craze swept over the country, and Shinnecock Hills became the Mecca for golfing pilgrims from other sections of the country, seeking information before starting to construct their own links. Among these pilgrims, probably earlier than 1893, I distinctly remember a visit from Herbert Leeds, of Boston, always a foremost figure in the country in all matters connected to outdoor sport."*

*(from------Some Facts, Reminiscences, Personal Recollections Connected to the Introduction of the Game of Golf into the United States More Especially as Associated with the Formation of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club (Incorporated Sept, 22, 1891)----Samuel Parrish, May 1, 1923)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2010, 04:29:42 PM
Tom Paul,

That's very interesting and consistent with my findings that Leeds was playing golf well before 1894.

Tom MacWood,

To answer your question, it has nothing to do with who designed Myopia in 1894.

It has everything to do with your contention here that Leeds learned the game and about course architecture from Willie Campbell, neither of which is supported by any historical evidence.

He had been playing for at least 12-16 months prior to Campbell's arrival here and was already the top amateur in Boston by that time.

Tom Paul's post with Parrish's memories of Leeds takes it back even further.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
TEPaul,

Nice to see you are finally getting around to reading my posts on Shinnecock.   As I said, that Parrish work is worth the read.   

Mike Cirba,

Good luck relying on the details of that Parrish work I provided to you, TEPaul, and everyone else.   It has as much wrong as Willie Dunn's recollections of the formation of the course, and TEPaul has pronounced Dunn to be the biggest liar in the world.   

__________________

Mike Cirba, still waiting on an answer to those questions you have twice said you would answer.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: RSLivingston_III on December 27, 2010, 08:19:51 PM
Gentlemen, what are the chances the course that Willie laid out was a bare-bones affair just to get the club started and then in following years all the other attributions of course construction kicked in?
Would the club have had a mower for the maintenance of the lawns of the club?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2010, 08:35:42 PM
David Moriarty,

I would like to have answered your questions by now, but I've been much too busy today being a lying lapdog toady to Tom Paul and being repeatedly embarrassed by your superior intellect, so I'm not sure exactly why you care what I think or have to say on the matter.

By the time I carried Tom's barbells from his basement to his attic, shoveled the snow from his driveway, washed his laundry, fetched his pipe, and transcribed/typed his personal diatribes to 100 or so old-line, establishment clubs asking them to hide, burn, or otherwise destroy their historical records and archives lest their massive conspiracy to hide THE TRUTH of their architectural myths and legends from the unsuspecting public be revealed now that old newspapers are available and search-able online by anyone (including moi) in five seconds or less, which mixed with lots of coffee and a dash of the good stuff can make anyone an online 'expert' researcher (including moi) in no time at all, I was much too pooped and beat down to come up with anything resembling cogent thought or analysis.

Seriously, David...lighten up.   I can see the veins popping on your forehead from here and life is too short.

I'm going to attempt a post tomorrow in which I will sum up a lot of thoughts on this and other matters, and attempt to answer your questions here in a way that is civil, is thorough, and that attempts to set a different tone going forward.

I hope you take it in that light and proceed in the same manner.   Believe it or not, I really don't enjoy arguing with you here, and I'm quite sure no one else here enjoys it either.  

Have a good night and let's both try something much different in 2011.   I'm hoping Tom Paul and Tom MacWood see the light as well and we can have some good discussions and debates without it degenerating into strife and bloodshed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 09:20:20 PM
I never called you a "toady"  but if name fits . . .

I am not interested in you burying your answer in  one of your rambling summaries, but just rather in answers to those two questions.  It should be an easy matter given that both questions are born of your statement about the reports.

---------------------------------------

Ralph

That could be and probably is the case.  But that bare bones affair may have provided the basis for at least some of what followed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 27, 2010, 09:35:00 PM
David,

It won't be buried.

I really want to fully explore the value of and reliance on using vintage newspaper articles as primary source material for architectural historical research.

It is a topic whose time has come here, and I think we need an honest discussion on the topic, with the articles we've all posted on this thread serving as Exhibits A-Z.

Good night.
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 27, 2010, 10:13:19 PM
"It has as much wrong as Willie Dunn's recollections of the formation of the course, and TEPaul has pronounced Dunn to be the biggest liar in the world."


I would certainly not say that about Samuel Parrish's Reminiscences that were asked for by Shinnecock president de Kountze in 1923. It seem to me the only real mistake in that chronicle Parrish made was to mistake Davis's name for Dunn's.

What Dunn did with his article or recollection after obviously seeing how Parrish had used his name for what Davis did was really egregious unless Dunn had lost his memory or his mind at that point.

I'm not even that intrigued by Dunn taking credit from Davis for Shinnecock or Newport, I'm more intrigued in what Dunn said about when the year was he got to America or even Shinnecock which really seems to be a timeline fart on his part forty years after the fact, or whenever it was he produced that massive fabrication he wrote which was reproduced on here.

So other than that what else, in your opinion or "version" ;)  did Parrish get wrong in his 1923 Reminiscences, Moriarty?    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 10:23:55 PM
This thread is about Willie Campbell, not Willie Dunn.    Like Mr. Parrish you seem to have trouble with your Willie's.   Maybe it is an age thing. I'll be glad to tell you the other errors in Parrish.  Just as soon as you provide the evidentiary support for your various claims.  In the other thread of course.

And your welcome, by the way, for me finding that document and point you to it. 

Isn't it interesting certain of us readily share information, and others horde it and lord over it, as if access itself were knowledge and understanding.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 27, 2010, 10:31:41 PM
Mike
I've not seen any reports of Leeds going to Shinnecock that early, nor any report of him playing the game that early. He did go to Shinnecock in 1896 (or at least was scheduled to go) along with two other Myopia mates, Quincy Adams Shaw and Willie Campbell. QA Shaw is a very interesting person, being credited with the design the lost gem Cedar Banks near Easton on the Cape.

Is it wishful thinking that he played the game that early or do you have some solid evidence?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 10:37:52 PM
David,

It won't be buried.

I really want to fully explore the value of and reliance on using vintage newspaper articles as primary source material for architectural historical research.

No Mike.  My questions have nothing to do with the general value of or reliance upon old newspaper accounts, and I won't sit silently while you try to turn my questions into something that they are not.  Start a new thread if you want to discuss articles generally.

My questions are about one particular newspaper article. One I find particularly compelling for reasons explained before, and one about which you have made specific claims that are not only unsupportable, they are indicative of your entire approach to this subject matter.

I want to fully explore the vast gaps between your bombastic claims and the actual factual record, as well as the inherent problems with your dismissal of this particular newspaper article.    You claimed that this article contained "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout."   You compared it to toilet paper, and claimed that accepting it as true would mean that the clubs would need to "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."

So, back up your claims.  

Here again is the article.  Read it carefully.    Then explain me again how you can so easily dismiss it, and point toward those portions of Myopia's record that contradicts it.  

It is time for you to quit playing games and start HONESTLY dealing with the source material.    

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

1. Where, specifically, are the "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout?"  Because I see none.

2. What specific portions of Myopia's club minutes does this contradict, and what records and recollections does it call into question?   Because I am unaware of any such minutes, records, or recollections.    

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 27, 2010, 10:51:17 PM
"And your welcome, by the way, for me finding that document and point you to it. 
Isn't it interesting certain of us readily share information, and others horde it and lord over it, as if access itself were knowledge and understanding."


David Moriarty:

The thing that fascinates me about you and Tom MacWood is apparently information, any information at all, is like currency to you two on here. Obviously you two believe if you find something, anything at all, no matter how irrelevant from the past like some 100 year old newspaper blurb that it will make you two look like you are some kind of star "independent" ;) researchers or some such crock of shit.

The fact is I have had that Parrish Reminiscence on my computer for maybe ten years because we really have worked with Shinnecock and Goddard.

You are the one, not me, who decided to present "your version" of Shinnecock's early history about a week ago but Goddard did that before you and a whole lot better than you did about 10-15 years before you.

You could have saved yourself some research time and work had you only bothered to go to Shinnecock, establish a working relationship with them, and read what he wrote! But that isn't the way an insecure, hysterical, third rate researcher/analyst like you goes about it, is it?

So which significant golf course are you going to make your "new version" subject next. My money has been on Oakmont. That should suit you because you've never been there either!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 27, 2010, 11:13:46 PM
Give me a break TEPaul.   I don't give a damn what might or might not be in your "shared source" file.  You didn't bother to read that Parrish work until my thread.   Just like you ADMITTEDLY didn't bother to read the Goddard book.  

The only reason I brought it up is that I get a kick out of you suddenly pretending to be an expert on material I just brought to your attention, while at the same time you continue to lash out at my research.   There is more than a little irony there, as you past post shows.  

Plus, Tom, the information is no currency to me.  Which is why I readily share it.  You on the other hand horde it. Undertanding is currency to me, but I generously share that to, even with the likes of you.

Even more than information, your currency is access, but you prove daily that, by itself, all the access in the world cannot bring you even the most understanding of what happened at these places.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 27, 2010, 11:43:33 PM
David, I've just got to tell you, all things considered with what you've said on this website in the last day or so since you launched into your inexplicable state of hysteria-----you really do make me laugh! Truly! I mean that. Happy New Year to you!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 28, 2010, 08:14:57 AM
David,

Fair enough....

During the Merion discussions you and Tom MacWood questioned and discounted the validity of reports by such long term, knowledgeable, "insider" writers like William H. Evans and AW Tilllinghast who credited Hugh Wilson and his committee.   From your perspective, they were reporting "second hand", and unless we could prove they were there at the moment all this was happening you preferred, nay demanded that their accounts were to be viewed as suspect.

Yet suddenly, on this thread, we have an unknown gossip reporter at the very birth of golf in that town who has reported everything from "two new links" opening at Myopia to calling beginner Dr. SA Hopkins remarkably skilled at the game one week after he supposedly held a club for the first time.   We have other contemporaneous reports here that HC Leeds only started golfing in the spring of 1894, and reports where the opening tournament at Myopia is called the Opening tournament at Essex County in Manchester, and reports where even you objected, as the three men that Weeks and May told us laid out the course are referred to as "experts".   We have examples where reporters in one paper stole other reports from other papers openly.   We have reports that continually blend the openings of Myopia and Essex County, which we know was laid out by Campbell, as if they are one course.

Do we have any idea what the golfing knowledge was of this gossip columnist?   Do we have any idea what he thinks the term "laid out" even means?   Do we know if this writer even plays golf or is familiar with the game??   Do we have any idea who or what his sources are??

Yet, after discounting reputable, knowledgeable sources in the case of Merion, you are prepared to tell us that a gossip columnist who had made egregious mistakes such as "two new links" in his column should suddenly be empowered 100+ years later to rewrite the Myopia history, without any of us even looking to internal club documents at Myopia?    Do we think that Weeks and May just made this stuff up??   

Golf writing was brand new in this country back then.   What was their knowledge base??   Even 15 years later we have reports that HH Barker is going to lay out a course at Merion, which has no other support, and another report that the course was laid out by Fred Pickering.

I have reports of Cobbs Creek designed by Park Engineer Jesse Vogdes, and  others that say William Flynn did it.

Should I rewrite my book on Cobbs Creek?   Hardly....I just include those items to show a different picture, a different perspective, but trust that the volume of evidence citing others will be apparent to the reader.

Until we find a way here to include ALL source material, including contemporaneous club records, then these attribution debates are at a dead end and we can argue about it until the cows come home and guess what....not a thing will change and it won't matter one bit to anyone outside of the few of us who participate on these things here.   From a club's perspective, I can't imagine a one of them who look in on these debates and don't shudder.   I can't imagine them wanting to share their private records here to be parsed and dissected for our collective entertainment, even if it leads to greater understanding here, and personally, I can both understand as well as respect that.

For my part, I'm done with it.   It's a dead-end, and it's gone on too long, and for very little benefit.

I hope you have a Happy New Year.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 28, 2010, 08:40:32 AM
David,

Fair enough....

During the Merion discussions you and Tom MacWood questioned and discounted the validity of reports by such long term, knowledgeable, "insider" writers like William H. Evans and AW Tilllinghast who credited Hugh Wilson and his committee.   From your perspective, they were reporting "second hand", and unless we could prove they were there at the moment all this was happening you preferred, nay demanded that their accounts were to be viewed as suspect.

Yet suddenly, on this thread, we have an unknown gossip reporter at the very birth of golf in that town who has reported everything from "two new links" opening at Myopia to calling beginner Dr. SA Hopkins remarkably skilled at the game one week after he supposedly held a club for the first time.   We have other contemporaneous reports here that HC Leeds only started golfing in the spring of 1894, and reports where the opening tournament at Myopia is called the Opening tournament at Essex County in Manchester, and reports where even you objected, as the three men that Weeks and May told us laid out the course are referred to as "experts".   We have examples where reporters in one paper stole other reports from other papers openly.   We have reports that continually blend the openings of Myopia and Essex County, which we know was laid out by Campbell, as if they are one course.

Do we have any idea what the golfing knowledge was of this gossip columnist?   Do we have any idea what he thinks the term "laid out" even means?   Do we know if this writer even plays golf or is familiar with the game??   Do we have any idea who or what his sources are??

Yet, after discounting reputable, knowledgeable sources in the case of Merion, you are prepared to tell us that a gossip columnist who had made egregious mistakes such as "two new links" in his column should suddenly be empowered 100+ years later to rewrite the Myopia history, without any of us even looking to internal club documents at Myopia?    Do we think that Weeks and May just made this stuff up??  

Golf writing was brand new in this country back then.   What was their knowledge base??   Even 15 years later we have reports that HH Barker is going to lay out a course at Merion, which has no other support, and another report that the course was laid out by Fred Pickering.

I have reports of Cobbs Creek designed by Park Engineer Jesse Vogdes, and  others that say William Flynn did it.

Should I rewrite my book on Cobbs Creek?   Hardly....I just include those items to show a different picture, a different perspective, but trust that the volume of evidence citing others will be apparent to the reader.

Until we find a way here to include ALL source material, including contemporaneous club records, then these attribution debates are at a dead end and we can argue about it until the cows come home and guess what....not a thing will change and it won't matter one bit to anyone outside of the few of us who participate on these things here.   From a club's perspective, I can't imagine a one of them who look in on these debates and don't shudder.   I can't imagine them wanting to share their private records here to be parsed and dissected for our collective entertainment, even if it leads to greater understanding here, and personally, I can both understand as well as respect that.

For my part, I'm done with it.   It's a dead-end, and it's gone on too long, and for very little benefit.

I hope you have a Happy New Year.  

Mike
That has got be one of the weakest responses you have ever come up with. You did not address his questions. What little credibility you may have had as an objectively judging these historical issues is gone. You've made a mockery of it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 28, 2010, 09:04:31 AM
Tom MacWood,

That's just the point, isn't it?

Once you try to rewrite history without using any primary source materials and purposefully ignoring official club documents you've already made a mockery of it.

Happy New Year to you.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 28, 2010, 10:19:53 AM
Tom MacWood,

That's just the point, isn't it?

Once you try to rewrite history without using any primary source materials and purposefully ignoring official club documents you've already made a mockery of it.

Happy New Year to you.

This coming from guy who relies almost exclusively on newspaper and magazine articles....see your Pocono Manor history. To my knowledge, the only thing you've presented on GCA. Though thats not totally accurate, you have presented boat load of info on Hugh Wilson, again all from newspapers and magazines.

As far as purposely ignoring club documents, I know you and TEP consider club histories official club documents, but I don't know any credible historian who would share that view.

Have a Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 28, 2010, 10:42:17 AM
Tom MacWood,

Given your reticence to use club information or deal directly with clubs, I can certainly understand why you would try to defend the obvious mistakes and inaccuracies found in the early news accounts around Boston, and speaking as someone who has done newspaper searches in libraries for over 20 years (back to the microfiche days) I would say to you that I've seen enough errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, confusion, and agenda-driven reporting to only use them confidently as corroborating information.   Given your similar passion for the history of architecture, I know you've seen enough crap and misleading reporting in your time, as well.

I think the best way to do that is to say, "there were several reports at the time of the first tournament at Myopia that professional Willie Campbell "laid out" the course.   What do the club records say in that regard?   Is there a mention of what Campbell did for the club in the history or in any club documents?"   Personally, I think that sets an entirely different tone for actual discussion here.

The irony is that until I went to Myopia recently, and until David unearthed this thread, I had only read this thread periodically and was fairly confident that Campbell was indeed the architect.   It was only when I began doing my own searches for materials and came across what was really just an amazing flurry of inaccuracies and outright copying of obvious MISinformation from one paper to another that I became much less convinced.

Perhaps I should have known when the very first article I found referred to "Prof. Campbell", as if he was a professor and not a golf professional that I was dealing with "beginner" golf writers.   Actually, they weren't golf writers at all...they were society gossip columnists, and if you believe guys like HC Leeds were only beginners in the new game in this country you have to realistically ask yourself what they hell these writers knew about the game when they referred to Myopia opening "two new links", or reported the opening day tournament at Myopia as having taken place at Essex, or stated that HC Leeds had only started playing the game in the spring of 1894, or called Dr. Hopkins' skill just amazing a week after he first touched a club.

In the end, as I mentioned, I believe both stories are true.   I believe the three members staked out the course in the spring and I believe Willie Campbell helped them build  it and perhaps also changed their routing...we don't know, and until someone actually sees the club minutes and can confirm one way or another, this is the reality of our debate.

I do find it amazing and a little surprising that you guys could have summarily discounted and sought to discredit all the experienced, insider golf writers around Philadelphia who wrote that Hugh Wilson and company designed Merion, yet now find these reports in high society gossip columns from obviously inexperienced writers on the subject of the game of golf to be gospel and a better source of information than Weeks or May.   I'm sure you could probably both cite some inconsistencies on my part, so mea culpa in advance, and no need to waste time typing them because I won't be responding until a different tone becomes the norm here, which I see about a 5% chance of ever happening.

Have a Happy New Year, Tom...I'm sorry that things are so strained here, and hope for better things between us in the future.

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 28, 2010, 10:58:39 AM
Mike
You are hypocrite.

Have a Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 28, 2010, 11:29:56 AM

Mike
You are hypocrite.

Have a Happy New Year!


Tom,

We both (all) are hypocritical here, but I feel confident I'm on surer footing questioning the golf knowledge and reporting accuracy of a Boston high society gossip columnist at the nascent beginnings of the game in that city than trying to make A.W. Tillinghast and William H. Evans look like uninformed cub reporters, especially considering we KNOW that Tillinghast spoke directly to Macdonald about the work at Merion while it was ongoing and still reported that Hugh Wilson and crew designed the course.  

Actually, do you want to know what the real irony of all these architectural attribution arguments is?

The real irony is that proof of the most unknown, vital contribution of anyone besides Hugh Wilson and company at Merion was not found in any newspaper or periodical, but instead was found in the Merion Cricket Club minutes.

Until those minutes were found and posted on here, no one ever knew that CB Macdonald came back down to Merion to help them select the best of the routing plans that Wilson and Company had created.

THAT is precisely why we need to try to include and consider and deal with primary source information from the clubs themselves if we're actually going to try to understand that history accurately, much less try to re-write it.  

Otherwise we're simply shooting in the dark and any picture we try to paint is by definition, incomplete and subject to valid criticism and even academic derision.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 28, 2010, 01:29:45 PM
Mike
I have grave reservations about responding to your typically weak Merion alibi for fear that this thread will be turned into another Merion rehashing, which no doubt you would love to see.

No one questioned Tilly's contemporaneous reports, he consistently said Wilson headed the construction committee. I questioned Evans later accounts (one or two or more years later) because I don't believe he knew what the hell he was talking about, in fact I think he is probably most responsible for the confusion that remains today.

Apples and oranges, the Campbell reports came days after the course opened, Evans reports came a couple of years after two Merion courses opened, which by the way had very different design processes (the East & West that is).

No, you are the hypocrite in this case.  

Have a Happy New Year, all the best to you and yours!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 28, 2010, 01:36:13 PM
Tom MacWood,

Happy New Year to you and yours too!

I'm planning to come to Ohio some time in the coming year and would enjoy getting together and perhaps play a round of golf.

I'll let you know as plans firm up in a few months.

Mike
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 28, 2010, 07:53:03 PM
Mike
That sounds good, I look forward to it. We can visit a local golf library, and I'll let you tell me what is primary source material and what documents make a mockery of such material.

Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 28, 2010, 11:06:43 PM
Mike Cirba,

A lecture from you on how to use old newspaper articles doesn't move me much.   

Returning to the topic at hand, despite repeatedly representing that you would, you have yet to answer my questions. What gives?  It should be no trouble, given that I am only asking you to back up your claims, and about only a single article. Here it is again.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

Your Claims:

1.  The article contains "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout."
2.  The article is akin to toilet paper.  "Charmin," specifically. 
3.  The article contradicts the club records to the extent, that, if the article was taken seriously, the club might as well "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."

My Questions:
1. What, specifically, are the "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout this article?" Because I see none.

2. What specific portions of Myopia's club minutes does this article contradict, and what records and recollections does the article call into question?   Because I am unaware of any such minutes, records, or recollections.   

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 29, 2010, 05:49:04 AM
(sorry if this has been posted already; I've only read 24 of the 36 pages;   ;)  )

From the July 24, 1897 edition of the Boston Evening Transcript:

(http://i52.tinypic.com/2ccqb2t.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 29, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
Joe:

That article reflects the 1897 purchase of Dr. S.A. Hopkins's 51 acres by the club. The price was $3,500. This was the same land on which most of three holes of the 1894 nine were on. Logically, they would have been #2, #3 and #4.

The interesting thing and obviously the confusing thing is those holes were actually given up with the "Long Nine course" on which the 1898 US Open was played. Those holes were replaced by three new holes that are on the other side of the course that were on what is called the ridge or the uphill holes (today's #14, #15, #16 and #7, #8 and #9 on the Long Nine).

However, that land (Hopkins's) was used again when Leeds developed the eighteen hole course after 1898 that was ready for play in 1900 and on which the 1901 US Open was played. They are the present #4 (the second half of it), #5, #6 and #7.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 29, 2010, 10:56:31 AM
Tom,

I'm not doubting what you said, but 51 acres seems like a lot of land, especially in the 1890's, for only 3 & 1/2 holes. Why did they use so little of it for golf?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 29, 2010, 12:30:06 PM
Phil,

Don't know the answer but much of that area is low-lying and a bit swampy and I know Leeds had some issues with mowing those holes that required special footwear for the horses.

Signed,
Sitting in traffic behind accident driving to Hilton Head
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jim_Kennedy on December 29, 2010, 12:40:44 PM
Mike,
Give the electronic device to your wife for the week and have a nice vacation.  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 29, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Jim,

Great idea!  Thanks!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 29, 2010, 02:30:26 PM
Mike Cirba,  

While you are enjoying your vacation, perhaps you will honestly consider why it is that you are incapable of backing up your claims about the newspaper article.

As you may recall, your claims were prompted by my observation that, if you can figure out a way to ignore multiple contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course,  then obviously you are unwilling or unable to honestly consider the source material.

My observation apparently prompted your claims that these articles contained "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout."   You compared them to toilet paper, "Charmin," and claimed that accepting any of the articles as true  would mean that the clubs would need to "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."

Since you made these claims, I have repeatedly asked you to back them up as to just one of the articles.  While you have written repeatedly that you would provide a detailed answer, you have nonetheless avoided answering.  

Your seemingly endless avoidance of these straight-forward questions takes us full circle, and back to my original observation:

If you can figure out a way to ignore multiple contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course, then you are unwilling or unable to honestly consider the source material.

That is exactly what is going on here. Or, if I am wrong, then you should have no trouble answering my questions.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 29, 2010, 03:58:23 PM
This is how I would look at the architectural evolution and attribution of Myopia at this time and I believe the club supports and endorses this evolution and attribution.

1.   The original 1894 nine was routed by three members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) in the early spring of 1894. At some point later in the spring after his arrival (March 31, 1894) in Boston from Scotland, Willie Campbell helped the club with the development of the course before its opening in the beginning of June, 1894 and that the contributions of both parties are not mutually exclusive. The source for the three members involvement are contemporaneous club records and the source for Campbell are contemporaneous newspaper accounts. The club appears to have no mention of Campbell’s involvement in their contemporaneous club records.


2.   It is possible to some good degree to track the changes hole by hole between the original 1894 nine, the Long Nine that was used for the 1898 US Open, and the eighteen hole course that was developed and first put into play by 1900 and used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens. It is essentially the same course that is there today and it is remarkably well preserved.

3.   Edward Weeks’s centennial Myopia history book (Myopia 1875-1975) is an excellent history of Myopia that includes the histories of baseball, tennis, fox hunting, polo and golf over the years. It is 151 pages and definitely does not include every single fact and event that was recorded by the club over the years and that can be found in their archives. However, there are no mistakes in fact or interpretations of the facts of the golf course that I can find in Weeks's book other than one minor one where Weeks appears to refer to the second hole of the original 1894 nine as the present 8th hole (that would have been virtually impossible given the other facts on that original 1894 ninec that he mentioned that can also be found in the club’s archives.

Therefore, I cannot imagine why a thread on this subject should’ve run on for 36 pages. If this thread had simply stuck to the relevant issues that were mentioned by a few very occasional contributors such as Paul Turner (#21) or Niall Carlton (#271) it probably would have been over and done with and settled in a page or two. All the rest of the regular contributors, including me, simply engaged in the over-arguing of minor or largely irrelevant points and issues----something that is sometimes referred to on here as "Noise." There was no and is no good reason for any contributor on here to have assumed or concluded that an involvement in the 1894 nine by Appleton, Merrill and Gardner from the club and Willie Campbell from outside the club was mutually exclusive in 1894 and there is even less good reason for anyone to label on here Weeks’s book to be nothing more than a work of fiction, fantasy and myth, as one participant has done on this thread numerous times.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 29, 2010, 04:28:36 PM
Tom,

Maybe you missed this question that I asked, and as it goes to the heart of the priginal and later designs, I was wondering if you had an answer.

51 acres seems like a lot of land, especially in the 1890's, for only 3 & 1/2 holes. Why did they use so little of it for golf?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 29, 2010, 04:53:11 PM
TePaul,

Sounds reasonable to me.

Phil,

Having looked at the maps, I would say Hopkins sold off the back of his estate as unnecessary to him, regardless of acreage.  And, while we don't know where the three disbanded holes from the original nine were exactly, when I look at the comparitive routings, I have no trouble believing that they simply reinstated those holes, which happend to have been near Hopkins estate and which may have been in the most logical place, compliments of the committee and possibly Willie Campbell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on December 29, 2010, 05:01:47 PM
"51 acres seems like a lot of land, especially in the 1890's, for only 3 & 1/2 holes. Why did they use so little of it for golf?"

I would say because not all of it is usable. The holes don't come that near the road and there is a pretty good amount of wetlands, creeks and a pretty decent ridge between the holes.

This is all just another reason why I feel to really understand some of the ramifications of the evolution of some golf courses and their architecture you really do have to have a lot of experience with the course and its land. There are just some things no one can do or learn about golf course architecture over the Internet.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 29, 2010, 06:07:50 PM
David,

Did you miss where I said I believe both stories are true and that I believe Campbell was indeed involved?   I just wish more details and records  were available to us.

Have a Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 29, 2010, 07:22:13 PM
You have written a lot of different things, Mike.  What I am most concerned with right now are your claims that:

1.  The article I posted contains "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout."
2.  The article I posted is akin to toilet paper.  "Charmin," specifically.  
3.  The article I posted contradicts the club records to the extent, that, if the article was taken seriously, the club might as well "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."

Did you change your mind?  Do you now agree that there is nothing to your claims?  If so, when why did you claim these things in the first place?  And why did you stand by your claims for so long, even  repeatedly claiming that you would explain your basis for the claims.  Why did you dance around the issue and  make me pester you for days before finally coming clean?  Are you starting to understand why we oftentimes become frustrated with what seems to be a less than honest treatment of the source material?  

Or, if you haven't changed your mind, please provide your basis for claiming the above.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 30, 2010, 08:15:06 AM

This is how I would look at the architectural evolution and attribution of Myopia at this time and I believe the club supports and endorses this evolution and attribution.


This is a fitting exclamation point to this very informative thread, and I couldn't be more proud. To think that a thread would result in TEP traveling to Boston gathering up his membership and then having them come to this consensus is remarkable. Equally remarkable the free thinking Jeff Bauer agrees too, and he is certainly no one's lap dog. The one thing I'm not completely clear on, "Willie Campbell helped the club with the development of the course", that exactly does that mean?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 30, 2010, 09:48:28 AM
David,

Since we don't know all the facts of what happened back then, it's difficult to say which specific parts of that specific article may be in error.

What we do know is that of the small handful of articles produced here from the first half of 1894 in those gossip and sporting columns, there is a veritable feast of inaccuracies, such as "two new links" opening at Myopia, the reporting of the Opening Day tourney at Myopia reported as happening at Essex in Manchester, the claim that HC Leeds only started playing in spring of 1894 and so on.

We also know that reporters copied articles from each other, leading to repeating errors such as the "two new links" and the listing of the four "experts" in two different papers on subsequent days. 

We also know that most of the opening reports spoke of both Myopia and Essex clubs within the same articles, strangely blending them in ways that make reading confusing as to specifics.   We also know that Campbell redesigned the Essex course in the same timeframe, possibly adding to the confusion.

We also know that Campbell was brought over to serve in dual functions for the Brookline and Essex courses, but not originally under formal employ of Myopia, so what he did for them under what arrangement is not evidently recorded.

If I were to guess about factual errors in that specific article, I'd say that golf was likely played on the course by the members before the Opening day tourney..Bush cited June 1st, and I'd say that the compliments of the game of Hopkins read like the gossip column report it was, and I'm not sure why Essex needed mention.

Was the report of Campbell laying out Myopia simply more of the same cross club confusion evident in other articles of the period?  We don't know for sure, as the only mention of Campbell doing Myopia seems to be related to reporting of the Opening day event.

That being said, generally when there is smoke, there is usually some fire, so for my understanding right now I think the preponderance of evidence is that both stories are true and they certainly are not mutually exclusive.

I do wish it were clearer, but unless someone finds more definitive evidence I simply would conclude that it is very likely Campbell made a contribution to the creation of Myopia's first nine holes.   I just wish we knew better what that entailed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 30, 2010, 10:14:48 AM
TMac,

You are either tweaking me in your not so pithy way, misrepresenting me, or just plain dumb as a stump. I doubt its the latter, really, but just in case, I will type very slowly on this post to help you read it more clearly! ;) :)

I do not believe you need to take either the Weeks history or TePaul's take on it as gospel.  However, I do believe that contemporaneous club records exist, based on TePaul's telling us he has seen them briefly.  I do not think he is lying about that.  So, even though we don't know what they say, we do know with reasonable certainty that they exist.

So my question is, if you and DM are going to publicly proffer another theory of the design of MH, and do so knowing that you are NOT including information from all contemporaneous records know to exist, how can you say that is good historical research, and/or that your conclusion is sound?  In essence, I am agreeing with you that we need to have all the sources at our disposal, which we simply don't have.

Simply put, it may not be reckless research, but it is certainly incomplete research, and not worth 37 pages of vicious debate.

BTW, as to being confused as to what Willie did at Myopia, I think we all are.  There is no real record of what he did do there, to the level of specificity any of us would like.  However, I will say that the recently posted article from 1897 expansion of Myopia states that it will take from July to next spring to open the new links, which somewhat discounts your theory that courses in that era just took a few weeks to open for play.  Granted, the first links in 1894 were described as a improvised course, and the later version was supposed to be permanent, which may have taken more time.......

I don't recall, but did you post the actual articles that you say were your sources for that claim, or did we just have to take your word for it that you had read them somewhere?

Again, happy new year to you and yours.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on December 30, 2010, 11:39:40 AM

So my question is, if you and DM are going to publicly proffer another theory of the design of MH, and do so knowing that you are NOT including information from all contemporaneous records know to exist, how can you say that is good historical research, and/or that your conclusion is sound?  In essence, I am agreeing with you that we need to have all the sources at our disposal, which we simply don't have.

Simply put, it may not be reckless research, but it is certainly incomplete research, and not worth 37 pages of vicious debate.


Jeff,

I think this summarizes the whole basis for the contention here.  I don't think "incomplete" is a categorical barrier to research being deemed "good" or "sound" and certainly not an indicator of "recklessness."  But it does create an uphill battle.  Without all the current information, the researcher must realize there is a greater POTENTIAL that his conclusions may be contradicted, but it doesn't make his conclusions necessarily right or wrong.  If the researcher is acting in good faith based on the information he has and indicates that his conclusions are based on that data, that's all I can ask.  I think there should be a tacit understanding of "here are my conclusions based on what I know, but I'm open to consider additional information that you can show me."

I don't think there should be blanket judgment regarding any of the theories offered up.  Each has to be judged by the amount and quality of evidence actually used in formulating a theory.  In other words, we need to focus on what we have, not what may be missing (especially if it's not made available).  The more "external information" that is gathered and is corroborated, the less critical the "internal information" becomes.  The soundness of a theory shouldn't be judged on a "black/white" scale of "do you have everything or not?"  Rather, it should be judged on a continuum, with each piece of available & corroborated evidence progressing the soundness of the theory.   

Conversely, the researcher can't try to defend a theory like an absolute "black/white" proposition, either.  If a portion of evidence is challenged, it can't be treated like it fully "proves" or "negates" a theory - it simply advances you up or down the continuum (unless, it's your only piece of evidence). 


Unfortunately, it seems like most of the viciousness here isn't about the quality of the evidence here judged on a continuum.  Rather, it's usually about "black/white" presumptions of motive.  Very little can be viewed objectively if we are trying to look at it through a prism of presumed motivation - everything gets distorted.

I have seen many examples on these threads in my short time here:

We can't presume club information is unavailable because there "something to be hidden."  Perhaps the club wishes to remain private, perhaps there is little there, or maybe there is an error. 

We can't refer to Club Histories as romanticized fictions - I'm sure they range widely along the continuum from PR / entertainment to intense research.

We can't make a blanket presumption about "gossip" columns.  Sometimes they are dead wrong.  But sometimes, they convey helpful information (in this case there is usually some corroboration).  I found the discussion of "hypocrisy" a few pages ago to be pretty amusing and illustrative of the dangers of "absolute" thinking.

We can't judge the lack of Club Records as reckless research.  Perhaps the researcher felt he had enough external evidence.  Perhaps it was desired but accepted as unlikely to be received.  Perhaps it was flatly denied.

And most importantly, we can't presume that past regrettable behaviors or mistakes will keep perpetuating.  There has been far too much bad blood spilled, with very few people who are blameless.  The only chance of reasonable discussion is to try and look ahead and leave the past regrets / mistakes behind.

Usually, the posts that start the downward spiral include one of these phrases:

"There you go again (insert name).  You always (insert presumed motivation here)...... "

"Like I'm going to listen to a guy who  (insert past mistake / regrettable behavior here)..." 


Perhaps a New Year's resolution for these threads can be to hit "Preview" before "Post" and if anything in the post resembles the above two phrases, it be given a second consideration (and third, in cases of high tension).

Happy New Year to everyone!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 30, 2010, 01:34:21 PM
Mike Cirba,  Once again you failed to answer my questions.   My point here is that you play fast and loose with the source material, and distort it at your convenience to try and make whatever point you want to make.   Perhaps I should thank you for continuing to make my point for me.  

Why would you have to "guess" at the "errors" in that newspaper account.   You have already stated that it contains "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout," that it was akin to toilet paper, and that it contradicts the club records to the extent, that, if the article was taken seriously, the club might as well "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history."  So surely you must be able to point out some errors without guessing?   Or without further fudging the source material, specifically the Bush statement?  

Bush hadn't really "cited June 1st" had he?    Surely you understand the significance of leaving out the word "about" here, don't you?  (Of course you do, otherwise you would not have left it out the word.) You are getting more and more like your mentor every day.

Word of advice.  If you have to fudge the source material, leave out words here and there, overstate your case, etc., then it is your position that needs reworking, not the facts.   

Aside from your misleading presentation of the Bush quote, are there any other portions of the club record that this quote contradicts?    
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Brad Tufts on December 30, 2010, 01:49:24 PM
And most importantly, we can't presume that past regrettable behaviors or mistakes will keep perpetuating.  There has been far too much bad blood spilled, with very few people who are blameless.  The only chance of reasonable discussion is to try and look ahead and leave the past regrets / mistakes behind.

Usually, the posts that start the downward spiral include one of these phrases:

"There you go again (insert name).  You always (insert presumed motivation here)...... "

"Like I'm going to listen to a guy who  (insert past mistake / regrettable behavior here)..."  

Perhaps a New Year's resolution for these threads can be to hit "Preview" before "Post" and if anything in the post resembles the above two phrases, it be given a second consideration (and third, in cases of high tension).

Happy New Year to everyone!


I've been reading all along due to my Myopia connection (worked there for a year in 2004, played the course many times)...and I was imagining how cool this thread would be without all the blather and accusations like Kevin mentions.  Someone could literally go through and delete all of the insults, etc. and have one of the best GCA threads ever left over.  And it might only have been 20 pages instead of 37.

I was gifted a Weeks Myopia history book for xmas...so that is cool, regardless of what everyone thinks of it...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 30, 2010, 02:30:12 PM
David,

I'm sorry but I'm not going to limit this discussion to a single anonymous article in a gossip column when taken as a whole I've already proven that the early Boston newspaper reporting was rife with factual errors and basic misunderstandings.
  
I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss the big picture here but it is shortsighted...myopic, actually.

The golfers in Boston at that time were relative beginners.

The golf writers in Boston at that time were gossip writers who exhibited almost wholesale ignorance of the game and I am surprised you can so easily accept what they wrote as your only piece of evidence in this discussion.

I think in your shoes I'd happily settle out of court and be glad to if my whole case was based on such flimsy factual evidence by an anonymous source.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 30, 2010, 03:32:46 PM
Mike Cirba,

Nice try, but YOU are the one who claimed that this newspaper account contained "laughable, obvious mistakes throughout," that it was akin to toilet paper, and that it contradicts the club records to the extent, that, if the article was taken seriously, the club might as well "burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history." 

All I have done is request that you back up your claims, and you said you would.   If after all of this you want to distance yourself from your own ridiculous claims and recant, then please do us the courtesy of at least being honest about it. 

Thanks. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 30, 2010, 03:33:30 PM

I was gifted a Weeks Myopia history book for xmas...so that is cool, regardless of what everyone thinks of it...

Brad,  Sounds like a very cool Christmas gift.  

_________________________________________

One of the real disappointments of these threads to me is - as Brad's post implies - that these debates are usually framed as if some of us have little respect or appreciation for the work of others like Weeks who have tried to figure these things out in the past.  Framing it in such a manner greatly distorts what is really ongoing, and does a disservice to anyone who has ever bothered to  try and figure these thing out, including Weeks.  

I've said repeatedly on this thread and others that I have great respect for anyone who tries to sort out these confusing histories.  Unlike most who post here, I know firsthand how difficult and confusing these early sources can be to decipher.  Whatever the source, the available information is undoubtedly less than perfect, yet the expectation is for a coherent and cohesive narrative that makes complete sense in all aspects.   While I don't own it myself, I have little doubt that Weeks did the best he could with the information he had, which is all that can be expected of any researcher.  

From my perspective, though, what has happened is that some here have chosen to treat these club histories as something they were never intended to be.  They are not Bibles.  They are not Gospels. They are not infallible.  I have yet to see one that did not contain what I view as significant factual shortcomings, especially when it comes to these earliest of courses.  

Surely if Weeks were around he would readily acknowledge that his information was not perfect, complete, or infallible.   Surely he did not have internet databases, or access to multiple newspaper accounts.  Had he seen the repeated reports that WILLIE CAMPBELL "LAID OUT" THE ORIGINAL COURSE, or even the multiple mentions that Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1896, he would have mentioned it.  Had he known specifically what went on in March of 1893, would not have written about what these guys "probably" marked off the greens with pegs.  Had he been working off of complete minutes covering the details of what happened, he would have needed to speculate and he surely would have known the date of the Executive Meeting and the correct name of the Club Secretary.   It is inevitable that new information becomes available, and as the source material changes, so to must these histories, that is if one is concerned with accuracy.  

Yet some here pretend as if once it is down on paper in book form, and once a Club stamps their endorsement on a version, that the history is set in stone.  That it is unchallengeable SCRIPTURE, now and for ever.  It must be correct, otherwise Myopia wouldn't have endorsed it.  Here is how TEPaul put it in post 1067(!):

There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!

That is what we are dealing with here.  An unreasonable and undying loyalty to this single version of the history.  An assumption that this version is infallible and all other source material must be read as consistent with this account or discounted.  It must be both the starting point and conclusion of all future research.

For example, in the same post, TEPaul acknowledges that Campbell must have done something, but then immediately discounts and dismisses the importance of his involvement using nothing but his questionalbe interpretation the Weeks text.  Campbell "obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough."  The Weeks book as the Holy Scripture of Myopia, the starting point, and the end point.  If Weeks didn't mention Campbell, well then Campbell must not have been very important, and if Campbell wasn't very important, well the Weeks wouldn't have mentioned it, etc.  Weeks as the end-all and be-all.  As TEPaul put it in post in post 1203, with my emphasis:

I realize we all may have different styles and methods of doing research and analyzing things but when I read something like that in Weeks's book and the thought occurs to me where he may've been looking when he wrote that information, my first inclination is to start at the time he was writing about and look there and go forward from there if I have to rather than starting with Wade in 1974 or Weeks in 1975 and go backward looking for the first evidence of the mention of it. And I'm glad I did it that way as it saved me 80 to 81 years of looking through!

This forms the basis of the disagreement here.  Trust in Weeks.  If it happened and was important, Weeks covered it.  Therefore, if Weeks did not cover it, then it didn't happen, or was at least not important enough to mention.

Did Weeks think he was writing infallible and unquestionable Scripture?  Did he intend to right the Myopia Bible, Weeks Version?  Somehow I doubt it. Yet TEPaul, Brauer, and Cirba have all maintained this postion, and repeatedly so.

What all these threads come down to:  Do we view history as something to be proclaimed by the Club involved or its self-appointed spokespersons (who like true Prophets rarely come up with much proof) and then trusted and obeyed as Scripture?  Or do we view history as an evolving conversation, one that changes and becomes more refined as new information and better analysis becomes available?

In my view, the HISTORY AS SCRIPTURE is not history at all.  It is more akin to religion.  And the approach is not even fair to these Clubs.  Not in the least bit.  They may think they pretty much know what happened, but they couldn't possibly know exactly what happened.  Such is the nature of history, and this is why they commissioned their club histories in the first place; to preserve as much of the history as they can before it becomes too vague, amorphous, and flawed to ever piece together again.  

The Clubs and the authors undoubtedly tried to get it exactly right, but holding them out as able to Christen any version as exactly correct is an unreasonable expectation to impose on them.  To threat these Clubs and authors think they have it exactly right is to guarantee that they will be proven wrong.  That is not fair to them and especially unfair to the authors, because no historian worth his salt would ever claim to be infallible.  Were history easy to perfectly unravel, there would have been no need for them in the first place.      
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 30, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
David,

You are either mistaken or you're putting words in my mouth claiming my statement was directly at that article alone.

When I referred to Charmin Toilet Paper (TM), :) I was talking about ALL the news articles we've posted on this thread in general, and not that one specifically.

To quote, I wrote;


David/Tom,

What about the 1894 news articles do you find credible, knowledgeable, or somehow convincing?

There are laughable, obvious mistakes throughout;  and on this foundation of Charmin you believe the club should burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history??!



I was referring primarily to the type(s) of early golf writing found in these gossip columns about Myopia I listed on my Post #1180 on Christmas Day which I'll repeat below, or the one Tom MacWood posted that stated HC Leeds had only started golfing that spring;


Some of you likely remember when I posted this article previously from April 15th, 1894, which lists the creation of a subcommittee at Myopia, the location of the third member A.P. Gardner in Hamilton at the time, and then talks about Willie Campbell's assignment that year to Essex County in June.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5287523029_68de5805e3_o.jpg)


And then later, on June 10th, I copied the following story that very strangely talked about "two new links"

June 10th, 1894,


•Bunker Hill day will be observed
at the Myopia hunt by the initial games
in two newly laid out golf links. The
expert players who will take part are
Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton,
Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Wattson
Merrill.


And then later still I posted the Opening Day tournament results;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5287523077_0eecd2ab3a_o.jpg)


So far, so good...except for the strange reference to "two links", seemed straight forward enough..

Then, the other day, Joe Bausch was doing some research in another newspaper and sent me this snippet from June 15th;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5288124488_c8cc977a96_o.jpg)


What?!   Another reference to "two new links"?   Could there be two courses built at Myopia opening at the same time??


No, not really...

Besides the fact that it seems these newspapers shared information, the following article from June 19, 1894 Joe sent to me sheds some light on the confusion of the writer(s).

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5288124530_8d8623563b_o.jpg)


So, this is why I asked the question whether there is any other source of evidence, anywhere, that indicates that Willie Campbell had either planned (pre tournament) to lay out the Myopia course, or anything not associated with the tournament that indicated he did, and what was the source of that information?

We do know he went to Essex County that year, and that he laid out a new course for that club in around the same time.

If the novice Boston golf writers of the time were just trying to figure out what this new-fangled game was all about, and were cobbling information, good and bad, from each other, are we absolutely certain that references to Campbell at Myopia weren't in fact confusing it with his new course at Essex??

This is why I think total reliance on news articles paints a very incomplete picture, and they are indeed fallible as we've seen here.

Willie Campbell may very well have been involved in laying out Myopia, but I have a heck of lot less certainty about that than I did a few weeks ago before starting to dig into this thing...



To wit, I have no idea if the article you posted has additional errors than claiming golf was only started at Myopia during the Opening Day tourney, or bragging about the exploits of Dr. Hopkins a week after he first touched a club.

It's just that the error percentage is SOOOOO high in these articles as to make them laughable as sole sources of evidence to overturn a club's history.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 30, 2010, 09:52:54 PM
David,

Your post 1268 is thoughtful and well reasoned.  I don't think anyone thinks that club histories are infallible.....but they aren't necessarily wrong either, so some feel they should be given the benefit of the doubt when STARTING a more in depth study of architectural history.  After that, it goes where it goes using whatever tools are at our disposal.

In regards to Mikes point about newspaper articles another thought occurred to me today when discussing newspapers with a friend.  Basically, when there is headline news, like someone getting indicted, its on the front page.  IF the newspapers have made a mistake, or even if the indictment is dropped later, these articles/retractions are always buried a few days later on page 29!

My only suggestion to anyone using newspapers is to check the way back pages from a few weeks later to make sure there wasn't some kind of original mistake.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 30, 2010, 11:29:58 PM
David,

You are either mistaken or you're putting words in my mouth claiming my statement was directly at that article alone.

When I referred to Charmin Toilet Paper (TM), :) I was talking about ALL the news articles we've posted on this thread in general, and not that one specifically.

To quote, I wrote;


David/Tom,

What about the 1894 news articles do you find credible, knowledgeable, or somehow convincing?

There are laughable, obvious mistakes throughout;  and on this foundation of Charmin you believe the club should burn their club minutes and contemporaneous records and recollections and rewrite their history??!



I was referring primarily to the type(s) of early golf writing found in these gossip columns about Myopia I listed on my Post #1180 on Christmas Day which I'll repeat below, or the one Tom MacWood posted that stated HC Leeds had only started golfing that spring;


Some of you likely remember when I posted this article previously from April 15th, 1894, which lists the creation of a subcommittee at Myopia, the location of the third member A.P. Gardner in Hamilton at the time, and then talks about Willie Campbell's assignment that year to Essex County in June.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5287523029_68de5805e3_o.jpg)


And then later, on June 10th, I copied the following story that very strangely talked about "two new links"

June 10th, 1894,


•Bunker Hill day will be observed
at the Myopia hunt by the initial games
in two newly laid out golf links. The
expert players who will take part are
Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton,
Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Wattson
Merrill.


And then later still I posted the Opening Day tournament results;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5287523077_0eecd2ab3a_o.jpg)


So far, so good...except for the strange reference to "two links", seemed straight forward enough..

Then, the other day, Joe Bausch was doing some research in another newspaper and sent me this snippet from June 15th;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5283/5288124488_c8cc977a96_o.jpg)


What?!   Another reference to "two new links"?   Could there be two courses built at Myopia opening at the same time??


No, not really...

Besides the fact that it seems these newspapers shared information, the following article from June 19, 1894 Joe sent to me sheds some light on the confusion of the writer(s).

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5284/5288124530_8d8623563b_o.jpg)


So, this is why I asked the question whether there is any other source of evidence, anywhere, that indicates that Willie Campbell had either planned (pre tournament) to lay out the Myopia course, or anything not associated with the tournament that indicated he did, and what was the source of that information?

We do know he went to Essex County that year, and that he laid out a new course for that club in around the same time.

If the novice Boston golf writers of the time were just trying to figure out what this new-fangled game was all about, and were cobbling information, good and bad, from each other, are we absolutely certain that references to Campbell at Myopia weren't in fact confusing it with his new course at Essex??

This is why I think total reliance on news articles paints a very incomplete picture, and they are indeed fallible as we've seen here.

Willie Campbell may very well have been involved in laying out Myopia, but I have a heck of lot less certainty about that than I did a few weeks ago before starting to dig into this thing...



To wit, I have no idea if the article you posted has additional errors than claiming golf was only started at Myopia during the Opening Day tourney, or bragging about the exploits of Dr. Hopkins a week after he first touched a club.

It's just that the error percentage is SOOOOO high in these articles as to make them laughable as sole sources of evidence to overturn a club's history.


Never has one man gone to such extremes not to answer a question...what a farce.

Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 01:29:44 AM
Actually I have been wondering just how far Mike will go to avoid honestly considering the multiple contemporaneous accounts indicating that Campbell laid out the course.

Whether he knows it or not he has answered that question. 

Newspaper accounts are far from perfect, but they are much more reliable than some here suggest, at least so long as the person doing the interpreting understands the context, and carefully considers the source.  Sure, there are occasional mistakes, but oftentimes one can even figure out what is behind these mistakes.

Unfortunately Mike tries to use them like he uses everything else in these discussions, as fodder to serve his agenda.   So one day newspaper articles about "expert golfers" and the formation of the sub-committee can form the basis of his belief that AM&P designed the course, and the next day he can reason that because some newspapers accounts contain mistakes then they are all useless.  Otherwise how could he ignore the article I posted repeatedly above? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 31, 2010, 08:24:09 AM
David,

I did "consider the source".   That's the problem here.

What can you tell me about him?

And I did lend more credence in the beginning to the articles I found.   It was only when Joe Bausch later sent me a parroted copy of the "expert" article from another paper, as well as the reporting of the Opening Day Tournament at Myopia happening in Manchster at Essex CC, or that we found two "sheep" identical articles in two different papers that I knew pretty clearly...

Boston, we have a problem!  ;D

Happy New Year, as well. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 08:34:18 AM
Gents,

Good morning to all on the last day of 2010!

I will agree that Mike is getting a bit far afield in defending his non answer.  He has a point about the veracity of newspapers, but it doesn't really prove whether the quotes about Campbell designing the golf course are true or not.

I will say that the writer does give us non Myopia related clues as to how hard he digs for a story with this snippet:

"There will be an entertainment and dance Tuesday, in Milton, for the benefit of a charity."  Doesn't a good reporter answer the who, what, why, where and when question in an article?  He answers the when and where question here, but seems totally unconcerned with the who, what and why aspects. 

If the same emphasis was used on the opening day tournament story, we would have a potential problem with his veracity.  He certainly doesn't appear to be digging as hard as David, TMac, or any other participant on this thread for the truth.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 31, 2010, 09:21:43 AM
A couple of recent finds.  Both are from the same article in the May 19, 1894 edition of the Boston Evening Transcript (a paper available on Google):

(http://i55.tinypic.com/1z5p2fa.jpg)

(http://i51.tinypic.com/1zv731l.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 09:47:44 AM
That seems to confirm that Appleton laid out his links in 1893, prior to Myopia and that Appleton influenced Myopia quite a bit, since they emulated his use of sod for greens and tees only.. And that greens were 1000 ft squares and tees were 10 x 10 feet squares on these early rudimentary courses. 

Also, may we presume that even using sod, courses probably were not opened in a matter of a few weeks, since both this and the second building of Myopia a few years later took until the next spring to open?  I think starting in March makes more sense for a June opening given the realities of grass growing then and now.  Yes, I know it doesn't specifically say he laid the sod the year before or put the trees on the golf course, but if he did, would he transplant the trees before building a golf course?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on December 31, 2010, 09:55:46 AM
Joe

Very interesting article. Assuming the report on the trees is accurate, 30 foot high seems a hell of a mature tree to plant, no ? Had this happened anywhere else at the time ?

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 09:58:16 AM
Niall,

In college, I worked for a company that transplanted large trees in their landscaping.  It was risky even in 1976, so it had to be risky in 1893, and the article hints that the results were anything but assured.  That said I recall that they had done some historical research and concluded that large tree transplanting had a fairly long history and was attempted early.  It is just too enticing to estate landscapers to ignore, the idea of "instant effect" landscaping.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: john_stiles on December 31, 2010, 10:11:38 AM
It's  37  pages.  

Let's not be  short sighted  and forget to present a summary.

How about a summary from each side as to their idea of the history from the early 1890s to the last US Open at Myopia.
Maybe  500 words or less.  Who did what, and when,  and if it is questionable in your mind, indicate so, maybe with double ??.  Do not bother with presenting an argument why you think so at this time.  Don't comment about the other persons summary. Just give an approximate date, and who did what.  Use a symbol like ?? if you think it is questionable date or statement.  Just write it down, use dates and names and what happened.

I flipped a coin and Mike goes first.
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 31, 2010, 11:27:16 AM
On the 11th fairway ay Harbour Town and can't read Joes article about the Master of the Hounds.

John,  you may want to re-flip.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 31, 2010, 11:43:07 AM

That seems to confirm that Appleton laid out his links in 1893, prior to Myopia and that Appleton influenced Myopia quite a bit, since they emulated his use of sod for greens and tees only.. And that greens were 1000 ft squares and tees were 10 x 10 feet squares on these early rudimentary courses. 


It does? How do you figure?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 11:53:15 AM
TMac,

I figure both parts of the article are referring to his golf course, and it says that the tree planting took place last fall.  I did grant that they may be separate items, but I think they seem related by the word also.  It would also seem strange to me that he would lay out his own golf course after Myopia was having one laid out for him, but then, he may have wanted a private course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 31, 2010, 12:01:11 PM
Hi Jeff,

"I figure both parts of the article are referring to his golf course, and it says that the tree planting took place last fall.  I did grant that they may be separate items, but I think they seem related by the word also.  It would also seem strange to me that he would lay out his own golf course after Myopia was having one laid out for him, but then, he may have wanted a private course."

Yes, it certainly does help for if one actually reads what was posted!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 12:03:00 PM
Phil,

Thanks for chiming in.  It keeps me from thinking I am the one going crazy.

Happy New Year.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 31, 2010, 12:07:09 PM
TMac,

I figure both parts of the article are referring to his golf course, and it says that the tree planting took place last fall.  I did grant that they may be separate items, but I think they seem related by the word also.  It would also seem strange to me that he would lay out his own golf course after Myopia was having one laid out for him, but then, he may have wanted a private course.

I think it is possible they are related, and if they are related wouldn't it make more sense to move the trees before sodding the golf course, and sodding the golf course in the spring? And if that is the case I read the report as the golf course was just laid out. As I mentioned several pages back the first mention I had found of the golf course at Appleton Farm was October 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 31, 2010, 12:09:19 PM
On the 11th fairway ay Harbour Town and can't read Joes article about the Master of the Hounds.

John,  you may want to re-flip.  ;)

Its not the master of the hounds, it is his brother Francis R. Appleton. FR Appleton owned Appleton Farm, not R.M.

The other interesting point regarding Joe's find, the Myopia course does not appear to be laid out yet, and its mid May.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 12:21:52 PM
Jeff Brauer,

While I am not surprised you chose to read it that way, that is by no means is the only interpretation, nor even necessarily the most reasonable one.    Thirty foot trees transplanted onto a golf course in 1893?     I think once again you are inserting your own ideas on how these things were done.  

Also, you say that it would be odd that Appleton would lay out his own course, but then have one laid out for him at Myopia.   Did you read the blurb?  It doesn't say he laid out the course himself.  Rather he had one laid out for him at his farm as well.  

(And Jeff, did you notice how I used "also?"  It was to indicate I was moving on to a different point, not to continue the previous point.)

Regardless, this article seems to indicate that they were NOT playing golf at Appleton farm before the 1894 season.   This despite the insistence by some that they were.  

How odd?  I could have sworn that we were told that mysterious contemporaneous documentation from the Appleton family proved otherwise.

________________________________________

Mike Cirba, when I say consider the source, I mean consider from where the information in the article likely came.  

In the case of the article I repeatedly posted, it seems to have come from someone who actually knew what he was talking about. Thus the accurate and detailed description of features on the course, the hole names, the results.   Whatever you think you have gleaned from other articles has no bearing on that one.  

(By the way, one of your reasons (your only reason) for doubting this article was because you thought it sounded gossipy to portray Dr. Hopkins as one with no playing experience.    Dr. Hopkins reportedly shot a 150 that day, a perfectly reasonable score for someone who had never played.)

Face it Mike.  Your attempts to discount this article by associating it to various other articles you mistakenly relied upon for rhetorical purposes just doesn't cut it.    

We have multiple contemporaneous accounts that WILLIE CAMPBELL LAID OUT THE COURSE sometime shortly before they began playing on the course in June of 1894.  And there is nothing contradicting this except for one account from a few years later indicating that Parker and Bush laid it out.  

John Stiles, thirty seven pages later, that last paragraph pretty much summarizes the contemporaneous evidence of what happened with the initial course in 1894.  

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 31, 2010, 12:26:55 PM
Those articles must be something else to require all that explanation to tell us what we read!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 12:35:38 PM
Those articles must be something else to require all that explanation to tell us what we read!  ;)

As usual Mike, you are posting without thinking or even knowing what you are talking about.  It doesn't sound like you have read them, so I am not sure who "we" refers to.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on December 31, 2010, 12:36:25 PM
Those articles must be something else to require all that explanation to tell us what we read!  ;)

Mike
Why don't you give TEP a call, he has always been good at interpreting for you documents you've never seen (and may never see for numerous reasons).  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on December 31, 2010, 12:39:55 PM
Tom MacWood,

Nah, you and David are already making the contents very clear.  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 12:51:09 PM
First, I think we should thank Joe for some new source material. BTW, this article seems to be the same date as an earlier one posted, no? Is it new or just a new portion (or one I have forgotten?)  I presume its new and I am just discussing its possible implications to our debate here, and trying to do so in civil tones.  I have no trouble with others offering different scenarios.

TMac,

I know that today tree planting is left to last for a couple of reasons, but that doesn't mean they, being inexperienced might have done it differently.  And, I can see the interpretation that the golf course was laid out in the spring, and the tree planting last fall as an equally valid interpretation.

I remember your post about October 1894 and this appears to be a new and earlier reference to it having been laid out (it is past tense in May 1894).  Honestly, I posted my comment to support your idea that the course was laid out around then, whereas Weeks and TePaul suggest that it may have been as early as 1892, well prior to Myopia.  However, given the possible time lapse and nature of reporting back then, it makes sense to me that he made some start in 1893, even if not finished off until the spring of '94.  Either way, please explain to your friend David that he doesn't have to argue that I have disagreed with you when in reality, I have.  He either doesn't have the mental capacity or social skills to accept that or doesn't read very well. ;)

David,

And I am not surprised that you are not surprised that I would interpret the article that way. However, I also offered the possibility of different interpretations.  :)

Please tell us why transplanting trees on a golf course in 1893 is so unbelievable, given its in a newspaper account (which according to you are nearly always right and to be trusted!), that I know trees that size had been transplanted in that era?  Granted, it may have been on other parts of his estate, but it seems those might have been done long ago, and the golf course was the area of the estate where he was currently working on changing the landscaping?

BTW, while your word parsing is technically correct, I am really wondering why he would need any kind of personal course when his club was building one at the same time. Also, where did I say that the article indicates they were playing golf before 1894?

Lastly, since this May article talks about the Appleton golf course in past tense, are you arguing that the first thing Willie C did was go up to Appleton's estate to lay out his golf course, or do you think the newspaper accounts of him spending his afternoons giving lessons at the golf club are more accurate?  While he could have certainly spared a day to get up there, its a pretty short window, and is that not real speculation on your part, given no evidence anywhere that he did? 


Happy New Year.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 31, 2010, 01:40:46 PM
Below is that entire article from the May 19, 1894 edition of the Boston Evening Transcript.  I'm confident there might be some other material in there for some to latch onto to make their case.  ;D

Note that Google somehow cleverly makes it so that you can't easily capture an entire large article (and not even from digging thru the cache on your web browser; if someone has figured out how to do this, please PM me).  Hence, this article was cobbled together from three screen grabs:

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/May19_1894_BostonEveTranscript_p1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/May19_1894_BostonEveTranscript_p2.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/May19_1894_BostonEveTranscript_p3.jpg)

Also note that this article does not come up using the archive search feature.  And this is not unusual.  An area dying for big time improvement as this digitization of old articles ramps up is better OCR software.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 31, 2010, 01:57:01 PM
There has been much debate as to how the phrase "laid out" was used and understood in those days. There is an interesting usage of the term that may shed light on it.

In the second section, left hand column and last two lines, it states "A new tennis court has been laid out at the Phillips estate at North Beverly."

I sincerely doubt that anyone would read that as refering to the DESIGN of the court, but rather as the BUILDING of it. That certainly would seem to indicate that the use of the term "Laid out" in reference to Campbell was most likely meant as BUILDING and not DESIGNING. I say that because it is the terminology that was evidently common to those in that same area at the same time. Sort of like the use of the term "props" today. I still would never use it as a replacement for "earned respect" yet that it is understood that way by many can't be denied.

This certainly isn't proof that Campbell DIDN'T design the course, but rather is a strong indication that the articles that refer to him having "laid out" the course most likely were refering to a building of it...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 02:16:17 PM
I presume its new and I am just discussing its possible implications to our debate here, and trying to do so in civil tones.  I have no trouble with others offering different scenarios.
. . .
 Either way, please explain to your friend David that he doesn't have to argue that I have disagreed with you when in reality, I have.  He either doesn't have the mental capacity or social skills to accept that or doesn't read very well.

Jeff Brauer,

Please don't pretend you are trying to be civil if you are going to write this crap a few lines later.  You placed the trees on the course, which is an unsupported assumption as far as I am concerned.  Even if you did allow that they may have been seperate events, am I not allowed to question your preferred interpretation?   Talk about "thin skin."

And you are the one misreading here, which is ironic given your rude comments posted above.  I never doubted he transplanted trees somewhere on his  600+ acre farm.  But I don't think your assumption that this was part of the golf course is justified.  Who knows what the trees were for?   This was 1893 and there were only a few golf courses in the entire country, and they were very rudimentary.   The transplant of 30 foot trees for a golf course as it was first being laid out (or even before) seems rather out of scale and character with the state of golf course design at this time.   These were generally primitive affairs, and as you note transplanting trees of of that size was pretty sophisticated stuff even then.

Here is a recent photo of a portion of Appleton Farms.  While I am not suggesting that these were the trees, this sort of application of trees seems much more likely to me.

(http://www.thetrustees.org/assets/images/prop/northeast/Detail%20Photo/NE_AF_fallallee_RCheek.jpg)

- I never said you claimed they were golfing there before 1894.  But others certainly claimed this, and this article refutes the claim, despite representations that it was based on the type of unverified and mystical contemporaneous source material.  (Isn't this the very type of fantasy information that you have suggested should trump real information?)

- My "word parsing" was not only technically correct, it was substantively correct.  The May article said he had a course laid out, not that he laid it out.  That may well be an important substantive distinction. Your inability or unwillingness to even notice such distinctions is both technically and substantively sloppy.

- I don't know why Appleton wanted courses at the Country Club, his farm, and at Myopia, but I my guess is the same guy was responsible for the work done at all three in May of 1894.  And his name wasn't Appleton.

- Don't put your speculations about the timing of things into my mouth.  

__________________________________

Phillip,

The reason  we know that "to lay out a tennis court" did not connote design is because there is nothing to "design" on a tennis court.   What constituted a tennis court is specifically prescribed by the norms of the game.  This wasn't the case with golf courses.

But, as the tennis court example shows, "to lay out" generally meant to place on the ground.  The verb "to lay out" never meant only to design (for example on paper) but generally referred to the act of placing the course on the ground. And as you know,  many of these early courses were "designed" as they were laid out on the ground.  In fact with these very early professionals, it was commonplace for laying out a course and designing a course to be the same step.   In these cases, they were said to have "laid out" the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 02:26:13 PM
Joe,

I am not going to strain the eyes to read that whole thing, but I did note a mention that "Never so early has the season begun" at some resort or another, implying good weather in early spring, despite that early April snowstorm.  Not sure what that implies as per what happened at Myopia, if anything, but it certainly doesn't preclude them from starting early in that spring.

David,

Take a pill, bud.  I think my post was very civil to TMac, who seems to be in the spirit of the season and willing to interchange on new information.  My response to you was....well, not so much.  It was about in kind with your response to me.  Sad to say, I may not be capable of laughing off all your unpleasantness, try as I might. You do make it hard, my friend, especially since all I really am saying is that your speculations are no better than anyone else's no matter how much you believe them and you are certainly the rudest of the rude on these topics, and the thinnest skinned.  So much so, in fact, that you can't even admit to even one iota of unpleasantness on your part.  I know you never will, and me telling you won't change you, but occasionally I try!   However, I will try to do better in not lecturing and not chiding you in the New Year.  

That off my chest,  I do understand that those trees may have been planted anywhere on the estate and said so.  Either line of logic is equally plausible absent any real documentation to the contrary.  Mostly, I appreciate the pic of the Appleton Estate. It helps us all visualize it much better.

Happy New Year.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on December 31, 2010, 02:40:09 PM
Joe,

I am not going to strain the eyes to read that whole thing,

Then paste this URL into your browser and adjust the article to a size that won't strain your eyes.   :)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8wk0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=eCMIAAAAIBAJ&pg=4880%2C1805613
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 03:00:18 PM
Jeff Brauer,

There was nothing personal in my post to you, just an honest assessment of your interpretation.  But as always, you chose to treat my rebuttals of your positions as a personal attack, and so, as usual, you lashed out at me, then blamed me for your rude behavior.   Again.   Yet I need to lighten up?   I'll file that with your statement that I need thicker skin.

As for Joe's article, I am not surprised that you feel qualified to theorize based on nothing but part of the first sentence. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on December 31, 2010, 03:19:40 PM
David,

I disagree with your reasoning on the term "laid out" as it was used at that time and in that place by the same people. They certainly had the words "design" and "build" in their vocabularies yet chose a specific term that seems interchangeable when used in reference to tennis courst and golf courses. This is not surprising as both are sports/outdoor activities.

As I said in my initial post on this, I don't see the use of term to mean anything other than a report that Campbell "built" as it was the common term used for that expression. That having been said, I also stated that even as that was reported on it doesn't preclude his having designed the course by the use of that term, even by the simple act of staking it out.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 04:22:27 PM
David,

Well, it was your honest assessment of my opinons, and I can deal with that.

I didn't take it personally. I just took it as you being your typically unpleasant self.

BTW, I will ask again, just why are we supposed to believe without question (as you sometimes try to coerce us into accepting with your posting style) that your evalluation of, in this instance, where trees were planted is any more accurate than mine?   Its all speculation and both scenarios are plausible.  But don't worry, I won't badger you ten more times like you recently did to Mike Cirba on his question.  Unlike you, I know that would be rude.  I do understand that sometimes when I post in anger, its really a built up thing, and not particularly directly related to your last post.

I stand by my original theory that you really, really, need to take a pill, or maybe just let loose on the champagne tonight!  Enjoy the night and we can hit the reset button for 2011.  I will vent my sometimes misplaced anger at NHL refs tonight, I am sure, so you are off the hook from here on out!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 04:26:38 PM
ahh, I probably shouldn't keep this argument going, but I saw this post on the thread about qualified course raters from Scott Warren:

When my wife (then girlfriend) first landed a job at a big daily paper, one of her jobs was to visit some of the city's galleries each week and compile a column of the best exhibits with a bit of info about them, the work on show etc.

My mum was amazed when she found out.

"I didn't know you had a strong interest in art?" she said.

"I don't," my missus replied. "Well, I like it, but I have no particular knowledge about it."

"But I plan my gallery visits on the strength of what looks good in that column. I always thought it was written by an expert!"

"No, some of the other people who have done it said if they are really busy they just ring the gallery, they don't even go out to visit."

By this stage my mum's illusion was shattered! - some newcomer journo with no particular knowledge was advising a few hundred thousand readers every weekend which galleries they should see - pretty ridiculous, she thought.


I can't help but think the gossip columists of 1894 were delegated their positions in similar ways, but its just my opinion.  Feel free to disagree.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on December 31, 2010, 04:55:29 PM
Jeff Brauer,  I need neither a pill nor champagne. You are the one who rudely lashed out at me with no provocation, based upon what you describe as some sort of  vented up hostility that you cannot control.  Perhaps you should consider your own advice. 

And while you have you liquor cabinet and/or medicine cabinet opened, see if there is something in there that will stop you from putting words in my mouth.  I never asked you to believe anything "without question". Nor did I try to tell you were the trees were definitely planted.  Rather I explained why I thought your speculation about 30 ft. trees transplanted for a pending golf course in 1893 was, in my opinion, unsound.   You can take it or leave it, and of we both know which one you will choose.

And again, not all speciation is equal, especially when only one of us is speculating about what exactly happened with those trees.  I have no idea and dont care to guess.  Speculation depends upon one's support, or lack thereof.  I've no idea what those trees were for, but see little reason to connect them to the golf course.

Unless Scott Warren's wife is about 140 years old and used to work the golf beat in Boston, I don't get your point.  That is onless your point is that the information about Campbell laying out the course probably came directly ftom the club.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on December 31, 2010, 05:16:03 PM
David,

Well, at least you are civil this time in our last exchange of 2010, and I appreciate it.

Yes, not all speculation is equal, but again, I see no proof in your post that yours is better.  Like me, you admit it is based on seeing one article, and your own logic, based on whatever your experiences are.  No problem with that.  We really don't know where those trees went.

I think I explained my point about the newspapers.  If you choose to not make a leap of faith that newspapers don't often get things wrong because of their skill and motivation in reporting, then that is your perrogative.  I think most observers would see the connection, though.

My point was basically that this is outside documentation of Mike Cirba's claim that we cannot always expect that newspaper people are experts on what they are reporting on.  My other back up source is my own experiences in dealing with media and how accurate I think their stories about my projects are, and the young folks usually sent to cover things like that.  I also pointed out earlier that some of the other entries from the same columni Joe posted, where when he didn't really have the full facts, he (or she) went with what little was known and reported a charity event, leaving out a lot of details. 

Of course, we have no way of knowing if the articles proclaiming WC designed Myopia were presented with the same lack of care, or by a similarly unqualified person.  The only thing I can conclude from all of this is that I am not as certain of those contemporaneous accounts as you, and think most people would like to back those up with something more substantial, like the actual club records, which as Pat and I have been discussing, are not availalbe, which I understand is a frustration.

Actually, that has been my experience quite a bit.  As it happens, I read a news article today credting a golf course design that I really did to a tour pro, with absolutely no need to mention my contribution.  It sometimes seems as if the roles for how those courses (some of them) were designed are kind of reversed.  A few clubs, while they may have utilized services of CBM or Campbell in some limited way, just didn't see fit to credit them fully.  I gather that they did enough work on their own, and had big enough egos to view it that way.  When you find some real documentation that Campbell did something or another specifically, we would love to see it!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 01, 2011, 09:37:03 AM
There was no "golf beat" writer in Boston in 1894;  there was only an anonymous high society gossip columnist who seemed to write the same thing in multiple papers, or else multiple writers who copied others gossip columns for their own publications.

If Campbell was celebrated, or even known among that high-falootin' set, why not even a mention of the impending assignment?

Frankly, I don't think this writer would have known anything about the game nor known Willie Campbell from Willie Wonka!  ;)

That we are debating what we think this anonymous gossip columnist meant when they used the term "laid out" is really very funny if you stop to think that they likely hadn't the foggiest idea what that term meant in the slightest!  ;D

Happy 2011 to all! ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 01, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
(http://i55.tinypic.com/1z5p2fa.jpg)


I would say that this article makes pretty clear that the golf liinks have already been "located", or "routed" if the writer can confidently state that play on the "entire course" will be able to be viewed from a high vantage point once the course is "laid out".

Frankly, I don't know how it could mean anything else if we assume the writer is speaking literally, which seems to be the rule here.


(http://i51.tinypic.com/1zv731l.jpg)

Jeff,

How long would it take for that type and size of "sod" to "take", to be playable?   About how long would it have taken for them to do this work across a nine-hole course?  

In other words, about how long prior to "go-live" would one need to have planned the holes for them to be reasonably playable given a supposed spring planting?

Would you think it a fair assumption that this validates the report of S. Dacre Bush that they used sod for Myopia, as well?

Tom MacWood,

Would you now say that this is the earliest use of sod on American golf courses you've seen?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 01, 2011, 11:05:56 AM
Mike
Which is a more reliable source of information, an 1894 society page column reporting on the events of 1894 or someone today who claims to have had access to "board minutes", "chronicles", "some letters and diaries"? And the latter source is unable to document anything, has not shown any special knowledge beyond what we all read in the club history, and apparently there are no chronicles, letters and diaries mentioning the golf course according to the folks at Appleton Farms.

At what point do you begin to question your primary source's accuracy and credibility?

Is it possible he has misrepresented what he has seen?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 01, 2011, 11:18:05 AM

Tom MacWood,

Would you now say that this is the earliest use of sod on American golf courses you've seen?

One of the earliest, that is for sure. Wasn't there something about laying sod on the recent Shinnecock thread? I think that sod laying may predate Appleton by a year or two. The other interesting thing about the Appleton report, the course was apparently nine holes and not six holes as reported by Weeks, and supposedly confirmed by the diaries and letters TEP read.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 11:58:03 AM
Mike,

Good morning and happy new year!

I think it confirms that Myopia used sod for greens and tees like Appleton did.  Whether they did them simultaneously in the spring of 1894 or Appleton did it first in fall of 1893, we have no way of knowing.  If Shinny used it a few years earlier, I actually find that whole idea quite amazing, but these guys did appear to want to get on with their golfing and obviously could afford the extra expense of sod.  We have to remember that this is a dozen years before NGLA and those guys had early troubles with their grass seeding and grow in.  I am just trying to get my head around the troubles those early guys had on the agronomy side.

I will have to admit I don't really know how long sod "would have taken." I do know that now, with modern growing techniques, it still takes 6-8 weeks until you play sodded fw, maybe less in the prime growing season.  Sodded greens are about the same but require specially grown sod and really fine laying techniques.

If planted before the growing season, it just sits there until it warms up.  So, we saw snow in April and reports of an early spring.  My guess is that either way (planted in April, May, or June) it wouldn't be ready until June, and even then, it was reported as rough in the case of Myopia (although we don't know if that was greens or through the greens)

It would seemingly be shorter time back then only because of lesser maintenance standards.    As far as timing to sod 10,000 SF (if similar to Appleton) I doubt the overall time would be much less than today, but it would depend on the crew, and where the sod was coming from.  Labor would be no more than a week, probably less, and delivery schedules via horse and wagon (vs semi loads of sod pallets) might be the key factor.  It seems as if may be cut from the same property, though. 

Net, net, I don't think we know when the sod was planted at Myopia.  They did note the course was rough early, suggesting that they may have played on newly laid sod, but it still seems to me like it would take a few weeks for the roots to knit in where you could walk on it without it shifting around.  I have seen native grass sod cut in big chunks and transplanted and they apparently never knew they were moved.  But, the edges weren't very even.  The hard part is to guess how low a quality putting surface they were willing to play on in those days.

TMac,

Good morning and happy new year to you as well.

All TePaul has really represented to us as fact, rather than opinion, is that he was given about an hour's access to the Myopia records and did see some documents suggesting that Weeks had those records at his disposal when writing the club history.  He has never had possession of the records so he obviously can't produce them to us.

As such, the only real debate is whether Weeks used those records accurately or missed large chunks of club history for some reason, such as Campbell being employed in some capacity.  I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on, but I have no reason to believe he lied about seeing the records, or seeing similarities in the accounts of those and the Weeks history in any way.  As I have said, I think seeing those actual records would most likely go a long way to solving some riddles here.

As to the gossip columns veracity, both Mike and I have posted some thoughts on why we shouldn't necessarily take those as gospel either.  We have no way of knowing they are wrong in this specific case, but there are about as many instances of gossip and newspaper columns being wrong as their are club records and even club histories, maybe more.

I don't want to speak for Mike, but all I think we all agree with your statements earlier that we need to use a composite of all documents to make the best possible judgement about club histories, are that it seems somewhat arbitrary to give newspaper article the benefit of the doubt, but not to do so for a club history that seemingly has relied on contemporaneous club records.  IMHO, even with the possible gaps that come from interpretation many years later, the club history shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as easily as some do.  Nor should we dismiss the newspaper accounts either. 

I think Mike and others have tried to develop theories presuming both are substantially right, rather than insist that it is an either/or proposition.  I for one have little problem with that.  At this point, it seems as logical an interpretation path as pounding the desk that either newspapers or club histories are the only sources we can rely on, don't you?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on January 01, 2011, 01:36:14 PM
Niall,

In college, I worked for a company that transplanted large trees in their landscaping.  It was risky even in 1976, so it had to be risky in 1893, and the article hints that the results were anything but assured.  That said I recall that they had done some historical research and concluded that large tree transplanting had a fairly long history and was attempted early.  It is just too enticing to estate landscapers to ignore, the idea of "instant effect" landscaping.

Jeff

I had a similar experience working for the local council Parks Dept when I was a student about 20 odd years ago. They kept a nursery for replanting but simply cut down any trees over a certain height which I'm sure was significantly less than the 30 feet talked about in the article. Irrespective of the size of the trees it is interesting to me that trees MIGHT have been planted on a course as early as this date. I'm not aware of anything similar being done in the UK.

Mike

I think you're post #1305 clearly shows how these old articles can be interpretated different ways. You state that the course must have already been routed because the article states that the entire course will be seen from a high vantage point once it has been laid out. From my perspective it would equally be possible to identify an area of land on which a course is to be laid out on and be able to say also that as all that land would be seen from the advantage point that therefore all the holes when routed would be able to be seen.

With regards to the meaning of "laid out" I strongly doubt that it had a defintive meaning back then and I've probably read as many of these old articles as anyone else. Newspaper articles can be useful but in my opinion a good degree of common sense and context is required in analysing them.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 01:50:32 PM
Niall,

Part of my job that summer was to go to established neighborhoods, company checkbook or cash in hand, and offer the lady of the house about $400 for a nice looking tree in their lawn.  If accepted, our company would bring the tree spade, dig out the tree, fill the hole with soil and sod it back in an afternoon.  I always wondered about what the husband thought when arriving home from work to see a huge tree gone, of if some didn't even notice.

While our work was in the summer and clients paid big bucks, traditionally, tree transplanting takes place in late fall or winter when they are domant for best results.  Early spring is second best, and it takes a lot of work to transplant large trees in summer, with a less than perfect success rate.  That article, noting they only knew they were successful the next spring, rang true to me. 

As to the interpretations, I agree.  There have been many definitions of laid out bandied here.  There have been examples posted of it being used different ways back then.  It was not that definitive back then, despite the claims of David M.  Even using his definition of laid out as to put on the ground what is designed (whether on plan earlier or routed in the field) it is possible that they walked the ground in March and planned the course while walking, but the actual laying out (final staking out and start of construction) had yet to begin when the artcle was published in May (or written earlier in May). 

I guess we shall never know!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 02:21:37 PM
Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba,

You both are attempting to move from a general observation about some newspaper accounts, to a specific claim about a particular article.    Because some newspaper accounts are flawed, then the "Campbell laid out the course" article must be flawed.   Such logic is unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.

And it doesn't matter if the articles were written by "cub reporters," gossip columnists, or anonymous staffers compiling information telegraphed to the course.   Compiling such simple factual information does not require a pulitzer prize in journalism.  That is why new reporters get such tasks; it is good practice compiling factual information.  As the Scott Warren piece indicates, such information often comes straight from the source (in his post museums, in our case the clubs) and therefor ought to be even easier to compile.

The account I have posted stands out for a number of reasons.  It contained detailed information on not only the course and tournament, but also some of what had gone on with its creation.   And everything in it which is verifiable proves accurate.  In short there is no reasonable justification for your continued dismissals of this article or the similar articles.

The disingenuousness of your analysis becomes even more apparent when one considers the hypocritical dismissal of this article while both of you are attempting to stretch the meaning of ambiguous articles, Cirba with the future location of the Myopia course and Brauer with the thirty foot transplanted trees on Appleton's course.

You guys are obviously just cherry-picking the source material, stretching whatever can be stretched if you think it might help your argument, and disingenuously dismissing everything else as unreliable. It is an approach that is pretty much guaranteed to distort the truth.  

When you find some real documentation that Campbell did something or another specifically, we would love to see it!

You have seen it, and repeatedly.    As contemporaneous accounts go, it doesn't get much better than a detailed newspaper account from the opening of the course, especially when the article contains plenty of information which obviously came from someone who knew what was ongoing at Myopia.    Really it is about as good as one gets.  And to think that other accounts contained the exact same information?   As historical analysis goes, it is a slam dunk.

Here it is again.  

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

What specifically is it about this article that makes you doubt its accuracy?   Aside from the fact that you don't like what it says?

Imagine the article was the same, except that it said that AM&G had laid out the course . . . Would you guys dismiss it or embrace it?   Honestly?

__________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Your representation about what TEPaul told us he had seen in the minutes is ridiculous.  He told us that all sorts of specific things were included in the minutes.  He even provided us supposedly specific details about things that Weeks could only speculate about!  What he told us seems to have been pure fiction.  Defending his behavior by misrepresenting it is as dishonest as his original representations.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 03:12:11 PM
David,

Good morning and Happy New Year. 

David, you are correct that we are making a general observation only to demonstrate the possibility of inaccuracy.  That said, I don't see a difference in the logic of "some newspaper accounts are flawed, so all should be questioned" and "some club histories are flawed, so all should be questioned."  In fact, since it seems to most of us that one of your and TMacs basic premises is that club histories are flawed, and you are on a mission to see which ones truly are (which, BTW I think is very valid) that you have an inherent bias in believing that club histories are inferior that permeates your thinking before you even start, if that makes sense.  As such,

* Your logic has to be at least questioned as unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.
* Most of us see no difference in us cherry picking material and you doing it. 

Its a very simple premise really, we are all seeing the same material, but attributing different levels of importance to it.  You have no monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here.  (Or at least you have provided no contemporary documents proving you have a monopoly. ;)

We simply disagree on some key points.  And most of us have admitted that none of us really know and could be wrong.  If you could see fit to admit there was even a 1% chance that your interpretations could be wrong, I bet most of us would view you in a more favorable light.

I respectfully disagree about how easy it is for cub reporters to interpret the info gathered from the source to make it into a coherent piece.  I know this from personal experience, reading quotes of my own, and seeing articles based on press releases at grand openings that get a lot of facts wrong the VERY NEXT DAY. I cannot dismiss my own experience in formulating opinons on this. Nor should you!  Even 140 years apart, you cherry pick the parts that you find the same, and dismiss the ones that you find not fitting your scheme of things, same as me.

I  wasn't dishonest and I didn't defend TePaul's behavior in the last post, and frankly, my statement of what are the facts of his expericence and what his opinions presented here are spot on.  I quizzically ask how you can find wholesale disagreement with my actual words: I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on) I will say that I believe making this a battle about TePaul is a diversionary red herring on your part with no real impact on "the truth."  

And that said, I still think there has to be a reason Campbell wasn't apparently mentioned in club records as an employee, or for that matter, obviously not hired as back to design the revamped course a year later, even IF he had been hired originally for design work, and even though he was hired as club pro in 1896.  How can we debate a newspaper account ad infinitum, and barely take up some obvious facts that show his course design contributions (if any) weren't considered too highly by the contemporary club members not once, but 2-3 times?

Again, among a few other things,  the club record might explain some of it if available to us.

BTW, check your IM.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 03:56:11 PM
David, you are correct that we are making a general observation only to demonstrate the possibility of inaccuracy.  That said, I don't see a difference in the logic of "some newspaper accounts are flawed, so all should be questioned" and "some club histories are flawed, so all should be questioned."

You are again misrepresenting my position.  I don't spend my time scouring club histories for mistakes, nor do I bother with them much at all.   If I did use them as a source (I generally do not) then each club history would stand or fall on its own merits, just like any other second hand source.  I would conclude them neither accurate nor false without knowing the basis for their claims.    The proof offered would be the key, not whether it was approved by the club.  

As it is, everyone I have ever read had significant flaws, but honestly they are of no real concern of mine one way or another.  I have very little interest in official club histories because they are rarely properly sourced and oftentimes provide very little support for their various claims. So I rely on my own research of the contemporaneous source material[/u].  

Quote
In fact, since it seems to most of us that one of your and TMacs basic premises is that club histories are flawed, and you are on a mission to see which ones truly are (which, BTW I think is very valid) that you have an inherent bias in believing that club histories are inferior that permeates your thinking before you even start, if that makes sense.

Nonsense.  TomM and I are just out there researching what interests us.   It is you guys who shove these club histories into our faces and demand we accept them as gospel.  They are rather irrelevant to me.    


Quote
As such,

* Your logic has to be at least questioned as unsound for reasons that really ought to be readily apparent to all.
* Most of us see no difference in us cherry picking material and you doing it.  

Nonsense and more Nonsense.  This is obviously some rhetorical game for you, and the truth secondary.  You think I disingenuously cherry pick so you think you can too?   Well I don't, or try very hard not to, because that would make figuring out the truth very difficult if not impossible.   That you think you are playing tit-for-tat shows that the truth is not your concern.


Quote
Its a very simple premise really, we are all seeing the same material, but attributing different levels of importance to it.  You have no monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here.  (Or at least you have provided no contemporary documents proving you have a monopoly. ;)

Unfortunately I do seem to have a monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here, at least as between me and you two.   Not all logic is equal.   There is no "big tent theory" of historical analysis.   Your dismissal of that article is unfounded.  The article speaks directly to the issue at hand.    

Quote
We simply disagree on some key points.  And most of us have admitted that none of us really know and could be wrong.  If you could see fit to admit there was even a 1% chance that your interpretations could be wrong, I bet most of us would view you in a more favorable light.

More absolute nonsense.  My views are my best interpretation of the information currently available and subject to change as more information or better analysis presents itself.  So for there is no better information that these newspaper accounts and the alternative analysis being offered by you and Mike is hardly worth addressing.  

The most significant alternative which has presented itself (by relatively contemporaneous source material I brought forward) is that Parker and Bush played a greater role than has been acknowledged.  But you guys laughably ignore even this because it does not fit in with your preconceived conclusions.  

Quote
I respectfully disagree about how easy it is for cub reporters to interpret the info gathered from the source to make it into a coherent piece.  I know this from personal experience, reading quotes of my own, and seeing articles based on press releases at grand openings that get a lot of facts wrong the VERY NEXT DAY. I cannot dismiss my own experience in formulating opinons on this. Nor should you!  Even 140 years apart, you cherry pick the parts that you find the same, and dismiss the ones that you find not fitting your scheme of things, same as me.

Those columns were like bulletin boards.  The accuracy depended upon the knowledge of the person conveying the information.  In the case of the article above, that person was obviously very knowledgeable about was was ongoing at Myopia.  

Quote
I  wasn't dishonest and I didn't defend TePaul's behavior in the last post, and frankly, my statement of what are the facts of his expericence and what his opinions presented here are spot on.  I quizzically ask how you can find wholesale disagreement with my actual words: I concur with you that TePaul's opinions are surely not source material to be relied on) I will say that I believe making this a battle about TePaul is a diversionary red herring on your part with no real impact on "the truth."
 

I stand by what I said, but would rather not get into it all.    But if you try rehabilitate his credibility on these matters I will challenge you every time.  

Quote
And that said, I still think there has to be a reason Campbell wasn't apparently mentioned in club records as an employee, or for that matter, obviously not hired as back to design the revamped course a year later, even IF he had been hired originally for design work, and even though he was hired as club pro in 1896.  How can we debate a newspaper account ad infinitum, and barely take up some obvious facts that show his course design contributions (if any) weren't considered too highly by the contemporary club members not once, but 2-3 times?

You have no basis for writing any of this.  You don't have the "club records" and don't know what they said or didn't say.    You don't have any idea what club members thought of his design contributions or if they knew enough to even consider that sort of thing.  So don't pretend like you know what you don't know.   "Obvious facts" is rhetorical code for I am just pretending it is obvious because I have no support for what I am saying.

Quote
Again, among a few other things,  the club record might explain some of it if available to us.

It is doubtful.  Otherwise Weeks would have known about Campbell's involvement and  would not have had to speculate about what happened.  


[/quote]
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 04:10:25 PM
David,

Well you have proven that in 2011 that reasonable discussion with you on any topic will apparently be impossible.

Short version of your post is summarized in your words, Unfortunately I do seem to have a monopoly on unbiased logic, thought, and reason here".  As long as that is your standard operating position, its obvious that there will be no discussion, just arguing, as it is clear (sigh) that you are the type of person who will never die until he has the last word, whatever that word may be.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 04:16:13 PM
I see why that would offend you Jeff,  but unfortunately, when it comes to you and Mike that statement is accurate and on point.

Your positions not only rely on faulty logic, they are obviously driven by your desired result and as opposed to any reasonable understanding of the source material.   There is no other way you guys could throw out the best indication we have of who laid out the course. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 04:30:04 PM
David,

It is fairly obvious that it will forever be a tit for tat argument here between us.  The only question left is whether its worth it.

Just for fun, and to discuss something different, why don't you address how the fact that Willie never got involved by any account on the long nine and expansion to 18 holes fits in with your theory that he was solely responsible for the original, rudimentary nine hole course. 

While you dissed me even mentioning it, I know you think you ought to be allowed to explore any area that interests you, and I should get the same right.  And, I  thought at one point even you conceded that Campbell didn't have much to do with those expansions, and Leeds did the work and should get the credit.

And is it really so unreasonable to think we ought to use all documents and events to interpret history rather than argue about whose interpretations of which are best?  I mean, that doesn't really sound unbiased to me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 04:49:33 PM
David,

It is fairly obvious that it will forever be a tit for tat argument here between us.  The only question left is whether its worth it.

It is only tit-for-tat for you.  I keep hoping you guys will be reasonable about the source material, but I will admit this desired outcome is really more a leap of faith on my part and nothing supported by the record thus far.

Quote
Just for fun, and to discuss something different, why don't you address how the fact that Willie never got involved by any account on the long nine and expansion to 18 holes fits in with your theory that he was solely responsible for the original, rudimentary nine hole course.

While you dissed me even mentioning it, I know you think you ought to be allowed to explore any area that interests you, and I should get the same right.  And, I  thought at one point even you conceded that Campbell didn't have much to do with those expansions, and Leeds did the work and should get the credit.

Explore any area you like, but dont pretend it is "fact." There is one report that suggests that the changes to make the long nine were in the works from the beginning, and if this was the case Leeds wasn't likely involved and Campbell may have been.  As for the rest, I don't know one way or another and have no interest in discussing your speculation.

Quote
And is it really so unreasonable to think we ought to use all documents and events to interpret history rather than argue about whose interpretations of which are best?  I mean, that doesn't really sound unbiased to me.

It is reasonable to use all the information available. It is extremely unreasonable and extremely biased to assume into existence information that is nonexistent or unavailable in an attempt to bolster your case.   That is what you are trying to do here.

ADDED:

It is also biased and unreasonable to assume that the best contemporaneous account we have of who laid out the course should be discounted, dismissed, and/or ignored based on the generality that not all newspaper articles are always exactly accurate.  Yet this is what you and Mike Cirba keep trying to do.

Again, if the article was the same but said that AM&G laid out the course would you be going to great lengths to assume it was incorrect?   If not, then what could the justification possibly be for you doing so with the article as is? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 05:51:41 PM
David,

I think Mike and I, and even TePaul have been reasonable on this specific point.  We have all stated that those newspaper articles definitely suggest that Campbell was involved somehow, but not in enough detail to know exactly how. 

To answer your last question, if both the articles and the club record said AM&G and/or Willie Campbell designed the first course at Myopia there would be no debate.  But, the club records (as interpreted by Weeks, which is the best we have at the moment) say one thing and some newspaper articles say something else. 

You have generally praised Weeks at some times, but also totally dismissed his interpretation of club records at others.  While I hear and understand your contentions, I simply don't discount that he is all wrong either.  The all or nothing thing doesn't seem logical to me, and once again, we are not summarily dismissing the newspapers.

I believe there is a difference between "non existent information" and unavailable information, while it appears you consider them to be the same for your purposes.  I am wondering why you place so much importance on being right "for now", knowing that at any time, if unavailable information becomes available information, the game probably changes. 

We are all guilty of cherry picking and as speculation, even if you deny it.  No doubt when I see an article mentioning the Appleton golf course and tree planting, my mind goes in certain ways.  But, yours goes in other ways just as quickly. 

Too quickly, in fact, as your constant and instant refutations of others' contentions, seldom stopping to say "geez, maybe I ought to consider that?" says more about your mindset and reasoning ability than ours, suggesting you don't ever really stop to consider facts.  Intuition and logic tell us that of all the generally intelligent people on these threads couldn't be as constantly wrong as you say.  Yet, us being wrong 100% of the time is the one factor most of your historical analysis depends on, and is the one constant in most of these exchanges.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 08:07:16 PM
David,

I think Mike and I, and even TePaul have been reasonable on this specific point.  We have all stated that those newspaper articles definitely suggest that Campbell was involved somehow, but not in enough detail to know exactly how.  

The article says he "laid out" the course.  It is unreasonable and incredibly biased to reduce that to "Campell was involved somehow.". It is worse to suggest, as your friends have, that all he did was some menial manual labor.

Quote
To answer your last question, if both the articles and the club record said AM&G and/or Willie Campbell designed the first course at Myopia there would be no debate.  But, the club records (as interpreted by Weeks, which is the best we have at the moment) say one thing and some newspaper articles say something else.

You didn't answer my question.

Qut pretending that you know that what Weeks wrote was from he "club records.". There is no conflict among the source material.  On the one hand we have the article, and on he other hand we have nothing at all.  We know of NO contemporaneous source material contradicting this article.   And there is little chance such even exists, otherwise Weeks wouldn't have had to speculate, and he wouldn't have gotten details wrong!

Quote
You have generally praised Weeks at some times, but also totally dismissed his interpretation of club records at others.  While I hear and understand your contentions, I simply don't discount that he is all wrong either.  The all or nothing thing doesn't seem logical to me, and once again, we are not summarily dismissing the newspapers.

Nonsense. His interpretation was surely the best he could do based on what he had.  But I am little concerned with Weeks beyond the FACTS which back up his claim.   Whether you make the claim or Weeks makes the claim, the claim is only as good as the facts backing it up.  And here no one can come up with a single fact backing it up.  And the inaccuracies and speculation in the Weeks claims cast further doubt on their factual basis.

But bring forward facts which back up the claims and I will gladly consider them.

Quote
I believe there is a difference between "non existent information" and unavailable information, while it appears you consider them to be the same for your purposes.  I am wondering why you place so much importance on being right "for now", knowing that at any time, if unavailable information becomes available information, the game probably changes.

For the purposes of historical analysis, there is little difference.  As much as you like to, you cannot assume facts into existence by hope or good intentions.  

As for being "right for now" that is the best that historical analysis can ever hope for.  This is obviously something you guys refuse to understand.  When the ultimate goal is the truth then being proven wrong is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Quote
We are all guilty of cherry picking and as speculation, even if you deny it.  No doubt when I see an article mentioning the Appleton golf course and tree planting, my mind goes in certain ways.  But, yours goes in other ways just as quickly.

Only you stretched that article.  I dont know what the trees were for.

The record in this thread and elsewhere reflects that not all is equal when it comes to cherry picking, just as the record reflects that some of us are more likely to come up with ridiculous and biased interpretations than are others.

Quote
Too quickly, in fact, as your constant and instant refutations of others' contentions, seldom stopping to say "geez, maybe I ought to consider that?" says more about your mindset and reasoning ability than ours, suggesting you don't ever really stop to consider facts.  Intuition and logic tell us that of all the generally intelligent people on these threads couldn't be as constantly wrong as you say.  Yet, us being wrong 100% of the time is the one factor most of your historical analysis depends on, and is the one constant in most of these exchanges.

You think that because I am able to quickly deal with your speculation and assumptions, that this means I must be biased?  Interesting theory, but I can think of some more likely reasons which explain why I can so easily dispose of your claims.  But I too am surprised at how often you get things wrong, but what surprises me about both you and Mike is that no matter how many times you are wrong, you guys remain undaunted and never stop to reconsider your methodology, or even to consider that others might be better suited to this sort of thing.   From my perspective the recurring issue is that both of you guys let your agendas control your factual interpretation, Mike is more likely to take real facts and stretch his analysis so the facts are no longer recognizable.  while your analyses may be more sound, you are more likely to misremember and  misrepresent the facts or simpy assume facts into existence.  Indeed you are doing that regarding this very issue.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
David,

What exactly is my agenda?

Hell, I could go on and rebut a lot of your points, admittedly not conclusively and surely without another rebuttal from you, but there is no point.  Hey, I have admitted you might be right, even if I just don't think we are using all the relevant information that will someday become available, somehow.  Not really my objective.  Maybe the debate will start up again when something new and signifigant comes along and we can be productive.

To be perfectly honest, sparring with you a bit today was more mentally interesting than watching football (as a big ten fan, what a disaster, other than my Illini a few nights ago) and I enjoy the back and forth.   As you know, I don't mind a spirited back and forth, but I really don't care to upset you or turn gca.com into a mud wrestling match. 

But, now its time to watch outdoor hockey!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 01, 2011, 08:25:24 PM
David,

What exactly is my agenda?


Agenda might not be the right word in your case.   I am referring to you having a preconceived belief in what happened  and misrepresenting or/and assuming facts in service of this.  Whether this is motivated by an overriding agenda is another question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 01, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
David,

Oops, my edits did cross.

I believe I do know myself.  And I do recognize that at some level, being in the golf biz and parts of major organizations, that I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the existing records that exist over time.

I also know and have stated that I spar with some local Kennedy Conspiracy Theory guys around here, generally thinking they stretch things a bit to make their points.  And, I know they won't go away, and that from time to time, some long time historical thinking is overturned by those same kind of folks that question everything, even if some of the big stories - like Kennedy - never really get over turned.   Either way, I know I disagree with that kind of mindset in general.

So, net, net, I do view you and TMac in that preconcieved light based on my own personality type and some other things.  I believe I try to keep those things in proper perspective, and I do ask a lot of more theoretical/analytical questions as opposed to digging out facts, which you and TMac do better.  I don't reallly think my logic is as flawed as you portray it, but I can see why you argue that I have preconcieved beliefs, with some truth.  

I do like gca history, and I don't mind sparring, but in reality, I really don't think I have an agenda.  Sometimes, we have hurled a few barbs at each other, and so at times, it becomes personal, but most times it isn't, at least for me.  Its kind of like kids playing rough until some one gets hurt in many cases.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 02, 2011, 12:13:14 AM
Jeff Brauer,

You just implied that TomM and I are akin to Kennedy conspiracy theorists, and to me that speaks volumes about your point of view on these issues, whether you call it an agenda or not.    I'd say that when it comes to historical analysis, TomM's and my respective batting averages are excellent when compared to conspiracy theorists and even better when compared to the usual participants in these conversations.  

I keep coming back to those reports that Campbell laid out the course as well as those articles that indicate the course was not laid out before mid-May.  I don't think there is any reasonable basis for dismissing or even discounting those articles.  And as long as you guys refuse to acknowledge that, it is very difficult for me to take your analyses seriously.

Likewise, it is impossible to take your analysis seriously when instead of producing support you just claim that there must be magical mystery documents out there somewhere. t support out there for your claims.   And you wonder why I accuse you of letting preconceived notions drive your understanding of the facts.

If these magical mystery facts exist then bring them forward.  I doubt they exist but I won't stop you from hunting ghosts.  Find the information and bring it forward and I will be glad to consider it.  That is the way historical analysis works.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 02, 2011, 12:40:31 AM
David
Don't waste your time arguing with JB. He has a casual interest in golf architecture, and based on his track record as an architect 'casual' may be an overstatement. He looks at these historical debates as more of a mental exercise than anything else; he really doesn't care one way or the other. This is a game to him. He has no interest in research which is the lipnus test in my view because research takes no great skill beyond desire and effort. If you don't have the desire or effort what really is the level of your interest.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 02, 2011, 11:05:31 AM
The girl in the back of the room standing on the right is credited with bringing golf to to New England. The painting is the 'Daughters of Edward Darley Boit' (1882) by John Singer Sargent and the little girl is Florence Boit. In 1892 she brought a set of clubs and balls to Arthur Hunnelwell's estate in Wellesley, and the game took off from there. Edward Boit was an American artist, like Sargent, who had moved to Paris, which is where the painting was made. Both men had ties to Boston as well. Florence Boit was introduced to the golf while on holiday at Pau.

This is a well known painting and when I first saw it never had a clue there was a connection to golf. It is a very unusual composition; I had always wondered if the two girls in the back (Florence and Jane) were servants, because of their dress.  

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/John_Singer_Sargent_-_The_Daughters_of_Edward_Darley_Boit_1882.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 02, 2011, 11:29:58 AM
One thing is for certain:  if you browse the Boston Evening Transcript from 1894 until his death in 1890, there are numerous mentions of Willie Campbell being involved with laying out golf courses.  The other day I found this blurb (November 26, 1898) by the BET golf writer, which indicates the original 9-holer of Cohasset Golf Club was done by Campbell:

(http://i55.tinypic.com/33wpnyg.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 12:41:22 PM
David,

I said I thought of you that way in some respects to illustrate our differences of opinion and approach, but I am sorry if it came off like I thought you were whack jobs.  As I have said before using several different analogies, I believe that certain groups of general thought processes tend to go together in most people.  No right or wrong intended, just an observation of how those differences can cause endless conflict.

I can’t compare your batting average with those Kennedy conspiracy guys, but you have had some successes as a hobby historian.  Hopefully, you will have many more, and I will not dwell on any failures that may arise from your efforts, which can be the “nature of the beast”.

And, all I have really askied you to do is consider those old club records, if they become available, and if relevant to the topic at hand.  I think we would both agree the historical process works best using all the documents (official and otherwise) we can assemble, but if we can’t get them, I believe acknowledging what we probably don’t have (as Phil suggested) rather than strongly dismissing and ignoring them is more credible.  Simple point, and not worth ten pages of disagreement.

TMac,

From your last post, is there a chance that George Singer Sergeant is somehow related to the current Golf Course Architect George Sergeant? 

From your post last night, I think your insults are off base in the context your relative accomplishments in golf history.  I have designed 50 courses, some of which are ranked, and many others that are simply enjoyed daily by thousands of golfers, which is nothing to sneeze at.  I do acknowledge it would always be nice to get a few more plums, but am happy to have provided high quality and affordable golf on most of my projects. 

Since you start the insult ball rolling, without ever having seen one of my courses, I have seen your "work" and can sum up your crowning accomplishments in your chosen hobby in a few words:  HH Barker, train schedules, and Merion.     You won't live that one down, and we take most of your stuff with a grain of salt. 

But, my comments do not mean that I don’t appreciate your desire to inform us about early architects who are not as well known (as I am not well known). I hope you will have many more successes in your hobby, and I will try not to dwell on inevitable failures that may arise from your best efforts.

You are right, BTW, that I don't really care one way or the other if Willie Campbell actually designed the first nine holes at Myopia that lasted a year.  In reality, the world ain't gonna rock off its axis if the Myopia design riddle is never solved to your satisfaction, nor are many institutions going to change their views. And the legacy of Willie Campbell is secure with all his other accomplishments regardless of whether he gets one more notch in his bedpost.

I have been happy to acknowledge that those newspaper reports place WC on the scene, but my “casual" interest in history of my profession is oriented to the actual process used over time, and in different places, to better understand my profession, rather than adding to a credit list, like someone with a historian mindset might.

As Seinfeld might say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that!" 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 12:58:33 PM
As I've mentioned numerous times, I do think Campbell was involved but don't feel that somehow precludes the initial planning work of the three members.

But here's where I keep getting stuck:

We know Dacre Bush told us the course opened for play around June 1st and we know he also told us they used sod (at least for the greens) as we saw they did at Appleton's far, and we then read an account of May 19 (repeated in a few papers) suggesting that the course is still needing to be "laid out".

Something about that makes no sense to me...the same account states one can watch play on the "entire course" from a high vantage point.

How could one watch play on the entire course if a routing plan didn't already exist and how could the course not already be planned and green locations already identified if sod is going to be used and time (greater than approx 10 days post-article) is needed for construction, grow-in, and sheep cutting? 

Does this make sense to anyone?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 01:23:04 PM
Mike,

Add in Weeks retelling of Bush's account of them "footing the property" after being appointed in March 1894, and I can agree with you it makes sense that they at least got the ball rolling, and later called in Willie C for reasons unknown, but most likely related to his greater experience and their lack thereof, or perhaps some specific problems.

That said, I think our word parsing friends will tell us that me backing you up doesn't count, and that attribution must be an either/or proposition, even if it has been proven that it wasn't always that way back in those days, but if it makes you feel better, at least I agree with your premise.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on January 02, 2011, 01:30:22 PM
Something about that makes no sense to me...the same account states one can watch play on the "entire course" from a high vantage point.

How could one watch play on the entire course if a routing plan didn't already exist and how could the course not already be planned and green locations already identified if sod is going to be used and time (greater than approx 10 days post-article) is needed for construction, grow-in, and sheep cutting?


Mike

You can't actually watch play if the course doesn't exist. In your earlier post I think you referred to the article stating that you WILL be able to watch play on all the holes once it has been laid out and that therefore implies the course MUST have already been planned (my paraphrasing and my capitals). That I think is basically wrong.

Lets take for example a club leasing a 50 acre field to lay out 9 holes, and that the entire field can be seen from a higher vantage point. There are numerous examples, at least in this country, where new clubs went ahead and negotiated the lease of land first and then designed the course after therefore if all of the land acquired can be seen from the vantage point then so will the course once it has been designed and built, no ?

Thats not to say that the course hadn't already been planned when the article you refer to was written, its just from what you say of it, that it can be taken that it was.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 01:39:34 PM
Jeff,

Thanks for your feedback and thoughts on this;  it certainly makes me wonder what the men appointed sometime before the 4/15 news report indicating their assignment to bring golf to Myopia, most likely done at the March meeting...well, it makes me wonder what the hell they were supposedly doing for two months?

I guess they were perhaps just sitting on their keisters waiting for some time two months later when Willie Campbell would come by around May 19th, hungry sheep apparently in tow, and then would route a gold course, order sod, and then use it to construct greens and open for play about ten days later, all the while turning HC Leeds into an expert golfer and knowledgeable architect, laying out TCC and Essex at the same time, and teaching the game to the Boston citizenry, all with his hands tied behind his back..  ;)

Who says good help is hard to find? Apparently not in those miraculous days!!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 02:09:36 PM
Mike,

To avoid upsetting others, its good that you labeled your comments as speculation or wonder.

I think you have mixed up May 19th and March 19th in your post.

And, while I didn't have waffles for breakfast, and did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, to prove my open mindedness, I will say that I can see that TMac may be completely right.  To be honest, if we put ourselves in the mindset of taking the opening day articles that WC laid out the course as gospel, I have no problem following out the DM/TMac logic to its conclusion.  

On that March day they had the annual meeting in Boston, perhaps they did realize Campbell was coming within a month, and thought it likely they would hire him to lay out the golf course, as would Brookline, but knew much prepratory work needed to be done before that.

As such, perhaps the "footing the property" was only to figure out a general area that wouldn't upset the horsey set, as that was apparently a big issue.  Thus, they started talking to Hopkins about whether he would lease his land, and that was decided by the May 19 article, as was the decision to import some more sheep.  Perhaps sod suitable for greens was located and even trimmed down by existing sheep in preparing for cut based on Appleton's experience.  

All would fall under the literal words in the report that they took actions in "preparation for golf" without actually having the course designed itself.   In the Merion threads, the record shows that they waited until March for CBM to come out, which seemed very delayed for construction starting right about the same time, albeit, history shows they also did some prep work in routing, agronomy and the like before having CBM approve it.  In my opinion, the record also shows that they selected the land pre-routing, although they had and used the right to tweak it.  This process at Myopia could have been similar and as time consuming as what has been proven at Merion, a club with a similar amateur sportsman mindset.

When WC got here about April 1, and after a month to settle in, they brought him up for a day to lay out "18 stakes in an afternoon".  While they may have taken stabs at routing, they did nothing until he approved it or had a chance to see the property.  Maybe he laid out Appleton's course in early april, and came back to Myopia in May. He may have also designed the greens.  One was said to be far too narrow, but hey, perhaps they told him to design them anyway he wanted, as long as he didn't exceed the 10,000 SF of sod that they had put aside based on the Appleton experience, and Willie decided to get jiggy with one green making it long and narrow.

Because of their earlier preparations, it may have been easier to get the course in rough shape for a June 18 opening tournament.  Things do take time, but we also know they considered this an improvised course.

All of the above timeline is only loosely supported with facts, but it does seem plausible.  Like you, I do have questions that could torpedo that time line.  I also wonder why, if WC was planned to lay out the course in March, why the club, which supplied the info to the reporter, wouldn't have said "to be laid out by WC on land fully visible from the clubhouse".  But, we don't know that for a fact, either. Perhaps they mentioned it and the reporter didn't understand the importance of the statement.
 
I also wonder how it was that WC was dismissed later in favor of club memeber Leeds.  Logic says that either WC wasn't considered the designer, of if he was, when the real course got built, they decided he wasn't as good a fit as Leeds, perhaps because of that same amateur sportsman outlook.  But, maybe the early guys didn't have that stern, Leeds outlook, and had no reservations about using Willie until Leeds came along and convinced them otherwise later in 1894.  Nothing known necessarily precludes them from using Willie up front, or suggest that his work was inferior.  It may also be a result purely of Leeds desire to design courses, and/or the club's respect for Leeds, or his attitude towards pros, which caused them to never mention Willie's original work again.  Or maybe, once the final course was in play, as a result of Leeds, their mindset was that the actual creation of that improvised course simply wasn't important any more since it was bulldozed a year later (horse dozed?).

Thus, TMac is right that WC didn't get the proper notch in the bed post that he properly deserves by todays attribution standards.

It is all fascinating to me, but you know me, I just look at this stuff as a parlor game anyway!  Like a good debater, I could probably take one side in the morning, and the other in the afternoon.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 02:38:35 PM
Niall,

Good point, and agree that it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.

I just find it very odd that the course was supposedly not routed by May 19th, yet was sodded and opened for play about 10 days later.

Melvyn in another thread tells us that courses took about 3 months from inception to opening in those very early days, and I'm presuming he's talking mostly about linksland, sandy soils.  

I simply can't imagine how one could route, sod, grow-in, and open a course within 10 days, but perhaps I'm simply underestimating the skills of Willie Campbell.

Jeff,

All possible scenarios, and some interesting speculation.

Frankly, I think anyone who posts here about Myopia's origins is speculating by definition because none of us knows the answer for certain and none of us besides Tom Paul has seen the other evidence in the form of club records, and he told me it was about five years ago and he was only looking up something very specific to see where Weeks got his info, and had about 10 minutes to do so.

I'm hopeful he'll get more information this coming year, but also doubtful that he'd share it here given the present unfortunate tenor around these matters.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 02:45:37 PM
Mike,

Yes, it is speculation and we all do it to fill in the blanks between the few actual documents in use.  TePaul also told me of his brief time in the Myopia archives and his opinion that Weeks used early records extensively.  But, we don't know what they say, and really, if there is no mention of Campbell, it really could be because of Leeds lowly opinions of pros.  They might have felt a bit cheap and dirty using him to lay out the course, thus causing Willie's ghost to roll over in his grave at the lack of attribution for his fine, albeit temporary work.

IF they did that, I don't think it makes them bad guys, but it would just be a reflection of the signs of the times then, and their attitude.  On the other hand, its possible that they simply did it in house, following Appleton who was apparently a few months to a season ahead of them.  Or like Merion, they could have chosen to do it themselves, but be practical enough to use Willie as an outlet backup source, just as a double check, but didn't think he did enough to credit him for.

Its all possible.  I wonder if I will get an earful for speculating, even when it is an attempt to be 100% supportive of the opposing theories?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 02:55:38 PM
Oh Jeff...I'm sure we'll both be scolded.    Likely we'll both also have cause for personal embarrassment, I'm certain.  ::)

btw...I just noted that the authoritative anonymous, high-society gossip columnist who said the course was laid out by Campbell also said that Leeds beat Dr. Hopkins in the opening day tournament at Myopia by two points, which leads me to now believe we should immediately yield to what is clearly an expert opinion on the game of golf and its architecture.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 02, 2011, 02:59:13 PM
Mike,

See you once again show a complete inability to understand what was written in the article. That newspaper writer was quite savvy as Leeds did beat Hopkins as they were playing a match for the very first time under the Stableford system of scoring...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 03:00:58 PM
Phil,

Is that why Dr. Hopkins let caution fly to the wind and actually tried to reach the daunting 8th hole with his 7th shot?? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 03:02:08 PM
Mike,

I will probably hear it from David, TMac, and most of all, TePaul!

But, I bring it on myself for trying to be humorous and cheeky when discussing a subject that right along with global warming and world peace, is among the most important topics and debates we face in this country today!

Shame on me!

So, how bad do the Eagles beat the Boys, with our newly crowned head coach? (as of 10:24 this morning?)  His temporary status was similar to, and shorter than the first nine holes at Myopia!

Phil,

Pure specluation!  Why not speculate on how high the ankle socks were on the cart girls for the opening tournament?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 02, 2011, 03:03:07 PM
See, now you're starting to understand!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 03:04:34 PM
Jeff,

I don't know...it seems the Eagles have really nothing to play for, correct?   Of course, the way the Cowboys season has gone they might trip over themselves trying to score a winning touchdown against the Eagles bench reserves.

Or am I speculating without the appropriate supporting facts again?  ;)  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 02, 2011, 03:05:21 PM
Mike,

Add in Weeks retelling of Bush's account of them "footing the property" after being appointed in March 1894, and I can agree with you...


Retelling Bush's account of them 'footing the property'? Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you just making up it as you go?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 03:07:59 PM
Mike,

It actually occurs to me that if they were playing on less than month old sodded greens, well over half their inflated strokes could have been fifth, sixth, or seventh putts that no one could make on account of ridges, bumps and irregularities in the sod.  They may have really been experts from tee to green!

I wonder if all the rules of etiquette applied, or if they played "multiple contemporaneous recovery strokes" from the reportedly rough through the greens areas?

Tom MacWood,

Try to keep up bud.  Our turn to talk trash.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 03:28:41 PM
Jeff,

Hey, c'mon...I'm sure Campbell had his sheep working those piece of sod down to the sheen of bikini waxed thighs in two weeks time!

And then, in his spare time, taught Leeds everything he knew so that Leeds could become an expert player and then design Kebo Valley a week later.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2011, 03:36:20 PM
Mike,

Yeah and probably multiple sheep chomping contemporaneously, not to mention sporadically fertilzing while they mowed.
One thing we can be sure and agree on regarding this thread, is that there has definitely been some sporadic fertilzers thrown around, dropped, or whatever.

But seriously folks,  I have speculated, which may have diverted this thread unnecessarily at times, but I haven't gotten my head around Leeds and Myopia, and his very sudden entry into golf, expert golf and then design, all in a short time from November 1893 until 1894.

Honestly, for all the brain power and research expended here, he seems to be the guy we ought to be studying more, or at least, his story seems as worthy of telling here more than Willie's.  Not that I don't appreciate all the hard work that TMac did in enlightening me as to the broad scope of Willie's life and times.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 02, 2011, 03:40:38 PM
How do you connect Bush to Weeks' telling of them 'footing the property'?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 02, 2011, 05:37:23 PM
Niall,

Thanks for explaining that to Mike.  I've explained it to him about five times, but to no avail.

I'd add that with Myopia it is not even like they had to go out and lease or buy land.  They owned the land, and the land has a hill, so it wasn't a big leap to say there would be visibility of the course.

I'd also add that this idea of the whole course being visible is one of those notions that comes up again and again about many courses in these early articles, even when it is not quite the case.  Apparently golf was more of a spectator sport in those days, so having visibility was a bragging point.
__________________________________________

Mike Cirba,  

If the "points" reference is as close as you can come to undermining that article, then you haven't a "point" to make. The "point" comment as likely came from the source of the information than whoever wrote it up.   Given that Leeds needed 38 less "strokes" than Hopkins, saying Leeds was only two "strokes" better might have sounded odd.

________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

So far as I know Bush did not describe anyone "footing the property."  Again you seem to be basing your theories on evidence you have assumed into existence.    

As for bad lies and putting at the opening tournament, one of the articles indicated that something akin to 'local rules' were in effect.  Imagine the scores had they been playing golf.  

As for your summary above, beyond Campbell laying out the course I have no idea your basis for any of that.  

Likewise I don't understand your basis for thinking Leeds was more important to the game than Campbell, but I am willing to learn, but in a different thread of course.   Why don't you research the issue, see if the facts support it, and let us know what you find?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 02, 2011, 05:46:38 PM
The Weeks book indicates the 5th Masters of the club, succeeding R.M. Appleton in 1901, was George Mandell.  Also in the Weeks book is that Mandell was editor of the Boston Evening Transcript, although it does not say specifically when, but suggests it was during his time as the Master (1901-1910).  His obit in 1934 reveals more, lots more:

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/myopia/Aug12_1934_NYTimes.jpg)

If the Boston Evening Transcript could not get details of the club reasonably correct, then what paper could?!   ;) ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 02, 2011, 06:17:03 PM
Joe, Thanks for posting that article. 

I don't understand your last comment.  What did the paper get wrong?   How is it relevant to who designed Myopia?   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 07:10:47 PM
David,

Could you please explain exactly what the local rule likely was the permitted something resembling golf play with competitors attempting to putt?!? on blocks of hairy, bumpy, unknitted, brand-new, transplanted turf? 

Why even play?

I sure hope that subcommittee charged 3 months prior with bringing golf to Myopia got their butts fired for gross malfeasance of duties!  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 02, 2011, 07:46:45 PM
Mike Cirba, have you ever noticed that when you post these indignant, over-the-top posts, that you are almost always wrong?  

The reason is that bombastic incredulity, no matter how heart-felt and well-meaning, can never trump the contemporaneous source material.  Reportedly, the course was laid out no earlier than mid to late May.  If you have facts that contradict thes reports, bring them forward.  Your childish outbusts don't cut it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 02, 2011, 09:55:48 PM
David,

Perhaps if you attempted to answer the obvious question(s) based on the facts we do know we could actually have a decent conversation about the origins of the game in this country.

It's not a trick question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 02, 2011, 11:19:50 PM
You chastise me for not answering your questions?  I am still waiting for an answer to mine.  

How would I know that specifically the locals rules were.  I wasn't there.  All I know is what was reported:

"The rules of these links are adapted to the layout and include some peciliar to the grounds.  The links are as yet new and rough but the natural features are such that they will in a short time be equal to any in this vicinity."  

Hardly sounds like ideal playing conditions.   But then that makes sense.  After all, reportedly Campbell had just laid out the links some time in the last month.    By the way Mike, at Shinnecock in 1891 they were reportedly golfing on their nine hole course very soon after it was laid out.

As for a conversation about the origins of the game, that'd be great, but if you cannot even honestly deal with unambiguous accounts about who laid out Myopia, I don't think there is even any reason to bother.  For the conversation to be at all worth while you would need to set aside all your unreasonable assumptions about "amateur sportsmen," and "scratch golfers" who shot 112, and "expert golfers" who were lucky to shoot in the 120's, and a host of other untenable interpretations that you think unequivocally address the main issues.

Come up with some facts or give it up.  You are wasting your time and ours.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 06:53:13 AM
David,

I'm not the one who called Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill "experts"...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who claimed (inaccurately) that HC Leeds had only taken up the game that spring...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who claimed that Dr. Hopkins was playing amazing golf one week after having touched a club...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who claimed that Leeds beat Hopkins by "two points"...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who wrote that the Opening Day tournament at Myopia was played at Essex in Manchester...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who wrote that a Prof (as in Professor)  Campbell was giving lessons at The Country Club...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

I'm not the one who claimed that "two new links" were opening at Myopia...your vaunted gossip columnist did.

So in a flurry of posted blurbs that spring that mentioned Essex and Myopia almost synonymously, why am I wrong to have some doubts that this expert writer was actually talking about Myopia when Essex was being redesigned by Campbell at the same time?

Why is it wrong to question that when we know that Campbell was brought over here to work in a shared arrangement with The Country Club and Essex, (but not Myopia) both of which he then redesigned?

Is there even one other attributed mention of Campbell designing Myopia that is not associated with the Opening Day tournament and what you must admit is a lot of bollocks on multiple fronts?  

If there is, I don't recall seeing it.

How long after sod was laid at Shinnecock were they playing?

Don't you think the local rules adapted to the grounds were more about stone walls, horse poop, and perhaps free drops from untended areas than rules about how putting would be impossible if the greens were brand new sod placed there two weeks previously?  

I mean, why even play if you can't putt out?   How would you actually post a score??

Did you ever think that perhaps the members thought Campbell would have some native expertise in laying sod and building/planting a green, and perhaps that's the extent of what he did for them in May?   That he came and laid out tees, greens, and perhaps some artificial hazards on the grounds previously mapped by Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner?    Frankly, that's what it's sounding like to me.

Where do you think John P. May from Golf Digest got his information from that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner designed Myopia's first course and that it was 2050 yards long when he wrote that in 1974, prior to the Weeks book

In case you don't have the book, he wrote;

It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill and A. P. Gardner."

Do you think this is pure coincidence?   

Why do you think they needed/wanted to use land from Dr. Hopkins on this first course?   Do you think this is something that Campbell suggested to them if he was the one responsible for the layout?   Doesn't this seem like an odd request to you if it was coming from an outsider?   What if I told you that this is the lowest-lying, wettest, most problematic land on the property?   Why do you think they moved away from it when Leeds laid out his "long nine"?



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 07:08:33 AM
Mike
Where do you think the story about the Squire & Co laying out the course originated? If true you would've thought one of the numerous gossip/society page columnists would have written at least one mention. And apparently Weeks had no internal document to quote from regarding it. It really doesn't add up when you consider what was being reported at the time and WC's being on the scene and his activity. You have to admit the story is very strange. What is your latest scenario to explain what happened?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 07:35:22 AM
And perhaps the strangest part of the story is Willie Campbell being completely written out of it despite the fact he was credited at the time for laying out the course (by numerous sources) and the fact he worked at the club. What is your theory about that?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on January 03, 2011, 07:42:17 AM
Niall,

Good point, and agree that it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.

I just find it very odd that the course was supposedly not routed by May 19th, yet was sodded and opened for play about 10 days later.

Melvyn in another thread tells us that courses took about 3 months from inception to opening in those very early days, and I'm presuming he's talking mostly about linksland, sandy soils.  

I simply can't imagine how one could route, sod, grow-in, and open a course within 10 days, but perhaps I'm simply underestimating the skills of Willie Campbell.



Mike

You could well be right about the course having been already routed, I just think it is hard to be conclusive based on newspaper articles.

I wouldn't necessarily dispute Melvyns reckoning either although I'm sure timescales would have varied dependant on turf/soil/vegetation etc. I've read a number of articles from that time which refer to ground under pasture as being the best inland ground to lay out a course on as the grass or "old turf" was already there. From memory Park talks about it as well in his book.

Also from what I read they didn't necessarily hold back play for some grand opening or until the course was "ready". The thought was that foot traffic helped consolidate the turf ie compress it and flatten it. Old Tom and indeed Park talked about having the tees forward at first and then putting them back once the ground had been consolidated by play. I would imagine that would have been the way things were generally done back then and Willie Campbell would have proposed the same. Likewise with the greens, Park talks about alternative greens while the main greens are rested. I can't recall if he specifically rights about building rough and ready temp greens while the new greens nit in properly but I suppose its a possibility.

The point is, they didn't tend to wait for some beautifully finished product back then, they got on with hitting the wee white ball as soon as there was something reasonable to play on, and that this play in turn helped the course.

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 08:00:43 AM
Tom,

I think a lot of scenarios are possible, even plausible.

As I mentioned though, I think both stories are true.

I think what happened is simply that because Campbell was not formally employed by Myopia, but likely working informally under the close relationship with TCC and Essex, that he simply wasn't recorded in the club's administrative records, thus the Weeks omission.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 08:24:20 AM

I think what happened is simply that because Campbell was not formally employed by Myopia, but likely working informally under the close relationship with TCC and Essex, that he simply wasn't recorded in the club's administrative records, thus the Weeks omission.
 

Mike
The facts don't support your theory. Campbell only worked one summer in 1894 at Essex County. He worked at TCC in 1894 & 1895, and it was widely reported at the end on 1895 they would not be rehiring him.

There are numerous reports in 1896 that Campbell was pro at Myopia, most of his obituaries mentioned he was the pro at Myopia, and in a story on his wife in 1902 it was reported he was the pro at Myopia. That doesn't sound informal to me, but even if it was informal everyone seemed to know he was connected with Myopia including Herd and Kilkardy when they visited in 1906. Do you have any other theories?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 09:02:13 AM
Tom,

I'm talking about Campbell not being under direct employ of Myopia in spring of 1894 when the course was designed and laid out, whatever that entailed.  That is what I think wasn't in the administrative records that Weeks worked from.

As far as his brief stint as the club pro, I think either Weeks omitted because of the short stint or simply overlooked.

Just speculation, but in spring of 1894 we know he was directly employed by TCC and Essex, and I'm thinking anything he did for Myopia (given the cross-population of memberships between the three clubs) was likely done informally and off the record, thus the Weeks omission.

As far as Herd and Kirklady, all I recall is that there was some discussion in an article that Campbell had played this or that hole a certain way, and we know Campbell had the course record, probably still at that point.   I don't really see that as all that important to the original design question.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 03, 2011, 11:43:27 AM
Mike Cirba,

As is your wont, you dishonestly twist and distort the record to try and make your unreasonable points.   For example there was no single "gossip columnist" responsible for all those articles.   The information you list came from a variety of papers, articles and columns.   And you cannot conclude an article is mistaken just because you refuse to interpret it in the context of the time.   For example, as used the reference to "expert players" was no mistake.  The mistake was your absurd stretch that this was somehow proof that AM&G designed the course.   

But set aside ALL the articles for a minute -- after all by your logic they all must be invalid.  What is out there that supports your interpretation?

WHAT CONTEMPORARY SOURCE MATERIAL SUPPORTS YOUR NOTION THAT AM&G DESIGNED THE COURSE?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 12:11:03 PM
Here's a few more related articles...

On the first, from January 21st, 1894 talks a little about the golfing interests of Mr. Burnham, who along with Appleton and Merrill were named to the subcommittee to bring golf to Myopia that year.   Mr. Burnham also served on the golf committee of The Country Club at Brookline that same year.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5320135993_d8cf84fb0a_o.jpg)


This one I posted previously from April 15th, 1894 mentions multiple related matters.  Interestingly, the first golf course at Essex had actually opened in July of the previous year;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5320318223_339a2cc4c9_o.jpg)


The next article(s), from May 13th, 1894 projects the Opening Day of the course consistent with S. Dacre Bush's recollection of June 1st.   The second article again mentions both Appleton and Gardner as being expert at golf prior to the course being opened.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5320737554_0b49ceef18_o.jpg)


The final article, from May 27th, 1894, talks about the course(s?) at Appleton Farm(s?).

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5320136043_592f9747c2_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 01:35:10 PM
Tom,

I'm talking about Campbell not being under direct employ of Myopia in spring of 1894 when the course was designed and laid out, whatever that entailed.  That is what I think wasn't in the administrative records that Weeks worked from.

As far as his brief stint as the club pro, I think either Weeks omitted because of the short stint or simply overlooked.

Just speculation, but in spring of 1894 we know he was directly employed by TCC and Essex, and I'm thinking anything he did for Myopia (given the cross-population of memberships between the three clubs) was likely done informally and off the record, thus the Weeks omission.

As far as Herd and Kirklady, all I recall is that there was some discussion in an article that Campbell had played this or that hole a certain way, and we know Campbell had the course record, probably still at that point.   I don't really see that as all that important to the original design question.


What administrative records?

Willie Campbell was not directly employed by the vast majority of courses he designed, most golf architects are not employees of most clubs they designed. Not being an employee did not stop most clubs from crediting WC.

Willie Campbell set the course record when the course was 9-holes. It had been an 18-hole course for eight years when Herd & Kirkaldy visited, and Campbell had been dead for six years. The idea that they would known he set the course record on the old course (when he was the pro), but they would not be aware he was the pro at Myopia is pretty bizarre. By the way it was reported in the UK he was the pro at Myopia.

It is important to the question who designed the original course because whoever is the source for the Squire & Co designing the course is apparently not aware of Campbell's involvement, either as the architect or the club's pro. You combine that knowledge gap with the fact their are no contemporaneous reports the Squire & Co were involved in any way and I think you have to question the credibility of your one and only source.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 01:53:34 PM
Here's a few more related articles...

On the first, from January 21st, 1894 talks a little about the golfing interests of Mr. Burnham, who along with Appleton and Merrill were named to the subcommittee to bring golf to Myopia that year.   Mr. Burnham also served on the golf committee of The Country Club at Brookline that same year.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5320135993_d8cf84fb0a_o.jpg)


This one I posted previously from April 15th, 1894 mentions multiple related matters.  Interestingly, the first golf course at Essex had actually opened in July of the previous year;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5320318223_339a2cc4c9_o.jpg)


The next article(s), from May 13th, 1894 projects the Opening Day of the course consistent with S. Dacre Bush's recollection of June 1st.   The second article again mentions both Appleton and Gardner as being expert at golf prior to the course being opened.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5320737554_0b49ceef18_o.jpg)


The final article, from May 27th, 1894, talks about the course(s?) at Appleton Farm(s?).

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5320136043_592f9747c2_o.jpg)

So what does all this add up to? Based on this can you give us your current theory of what happened and when?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 02:08:50 PM
Tom,

My point of posting those articles is that there is still a lot of unknowns here, and this is more evidence for everyone to consider.

Did RM Appleton have a course before his brother?

Who knew previously that all of the identified members of Myopia had significant previous golf experience and were known as local "experts"?

Who else mentioned a June 1st Opening date, consistent with the remembrances of S. Dacre Bush?

So, while we're all trying to piece this together I thought they were relevant.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 03, 2011, 02:09:31 PM
Tom Macwood,

You stated about Campbell, "Willie Campbell was not directly employed by the vast majority of courses he designed, most golf architects are not employees of most clubs they designed. Not being an employee did not stop most clubs from crediting WC."

So are you stating that:
1- You are aware of some clubs that don't credit him as the designer when he actually was? If so, which ones?
2- You used the word "most" because you believe it to be a true statement that you made but can't give proof of it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
Tom,

As far as administrative records, we know that Weeks references the administrative "Run Book", Leeds' scrapbook, and the recollections of S. Dacre Bush.   We also know that May from Golf Digest referenced the same three members designing the course prior to Weeks book, but also had info (that the course was 2,050 yards) not included by Weeks.   I'm not sure why this is a point of debate?  

I'm betting that the administrative records of other clubs who "hired" Campbell to do work for them indicated that in their records, especially if they paid him.

My point here is that he likely did any of his 1894 work for Myopia as part of his broader duties as a dual employee of TCC and Essex, given the incestuous fraternization and cross-memberships of the three clubs.

***EDIT*** I was just informed by another person who has the Weeks book that the listing of Club Champions has 1895 (Henry) and 1896 (Leeds) listed, but then strangely states "No Record" for the years 1897-1904, picking up again in 1905.   It seems very possible that perhaps the club minutes for that period were either not available to Weeks or somehow lost.   That might explain the omission of Campbell's 1898 stint as golf pro from Weeks book.

As far as Kirkaldy's mention of Campbell, these are the articles I have in that regard.   The first is very interesting in that it speaks directly to where HC Leeds got his design influences from;

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3446539750_4dd548e5cc_o.jpg)


The next article is where Kirkaldy mentions Willie Campbell at Myopia;

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3449754649_47400e23a3_o.jpg)



David and Tom,

Strange, but I don't recall you embracing this contemporaneous account from a "Gossip Column" in a Philadelphia newspaper that reported the opening of the new Merion course in September 1912?


(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3595808030_3d7362431e_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 03:15:22 PM
Tom,

My point of posting those articles is that there is still a lot of unknowns here, and this is more evidence for everyone to consider.

Did RM Appleton have a course before his brother?

Who knew previously that all of the identified members of Myopia had significant previous golf experience and were known as local "experts"?

Who else mentioned a June 1st Opening date, consistent with the remembrances of S. Dacre Bush?

So, while we're all trying to piece this together I thought they were relevant.

You are just grasping for straws. The golf course was at Appleton Farm, Francis's place.

You put more weight in the term golfing expert than any one I know. It was a relative term, and those same golf experts were members at TCC and Essex County, and as you know they turned to a real golf expert. WB Thomas was responsible for Campbell coming to Boston

Yes, June 1 is consistent with what Bush wrote. Why is that significant? It was reported the golf course actually opened mid-June.

So from your non-answer I guess you are saying those blurbs don't really add up to anything.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Tom Macwood,

You stated about Campbell, "Willie Campbell was not directly employed by the vast majority of courses he designed, most golf architects are not employees of most clubs they designed. Not being an employee did not stop most clubs from crediting WC."

So are you stating that:
1- You are aware of some clubs that don't credit him as the designer when he actually was? If so, which ones?
2- You used the word "most" because you believe it to be a true statement that you made but can't give proof of it?


Phil
I'm saying Campbell was not the professional at the majority of courses he designed. Mike said Campbell was not the pro at Myopia at 1894 and because he wasn't the pro they probably wouldn't have had record of him being involved. The fact that he wasn't employed as the professional should have no bearing IMO.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 03, 2011, 03:40:32 PM
First Mike, starting near the end of the latest batch of newspaper accounts you are twisting and turning to support your unsupportable theories . . .  

I have always agreed that Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course at Merion - AFTER IT WAS BUILT.   And I have always acknowledged that he "helped largely in the planning of the holes" at Merion.   This is what was happening at NGLA, and during the few weeks between NGLA and when CBM and HJW returned to finalize their layout plan, and then probably even after the plan CBM approved had been submitted to the board and construction began.  But once again, you twist both the facts and my ideas to try and make your pithy points.  

As for the rest of these articles, I hope anyone still bothering to read has noticed your hypocritical methodology.  
-  You throw out the only newspaper articles we have that actually directly address the issue based on the faulty logic that because some articles contain errors, these must, too.  
-  Once you have disposed of the relevant articles you then parade out all sorts of articles, that while interesting, are pretty useless when it comes to addressing the issue at hand.
-  Then you start in on all sorts in illogical implications and suppositions from this latest batch of articles, as if you hadn't just damned all newspaper articles out of the conversation.

It doesn't work that way Mike.  You cannot throw out relevant and then accept and stretch the irrelevant.  If articles are as inaccurate and unreliable as you say, then this entire batch of articles has no place in this conversation.  

So, answer my question:  

WHAT CONTEMPORARY SOURCE MATERIAL SUPPORTS YOUR NOTION THAT AM&G DESIGNED THE COURSE?

Even if you used articles, you cannot meaningfully answer.  But without your stretched and twisted articles?  You have a blank page.

______________________________________________

Other of your Suppositions:

-  The Mystical "Leeds Scrapbook" counts as an Administrative Record?  Even covering events from before Leeds was a member of the Club?    You are funny.

-  You conclude that the "Run Book" was definitely there in 1896 and before, but then went blank from 1897 to 1905?  Perhaps it should have been called the "Skip Book."  

-  A more reasonable explanation is that whatever records Weeks had, they didn't much consider golf, and the information from 1895 and 1896 came from somewhere else.  For example, the account I have repeatedly mentioned from 1897 indicates the Club Champions from 1895 and 1896, but then not after (for obvious reasons.)

- Fancy how the Mystical "Leeds Scrapbook" is also apparently missing information about golf at Myopia from 1897 to 1905.  Or was the scrapbook so detailed about other golf matters that it didn't bother to list any of the Club Championships?  I think that the only safe assumption, and the one we should embrace as truth, is that Mr. Leeds himself was the Champion for all these years, but his modesty as an "amateur sportsmen" precluded him from mentioning his feat even in his own "Scrapbook," a book affectionately described by some as more like Leeds' diary.   "Dear Diary, someone we know won again, but it wouldn't befit an amateur sportsman such as myself to tell you who . . . "

- Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1896, not 1898, but nice try.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 03, 2011, 03:44:36 PM
Tom,

Why would a writer state that Appleton had a golf course on his farm, which is near to his brother's farm?

The topic was the golf course, not the farm.   Who cares if his farm is near his brother's?

Are you certain that there wasn't a golf course on each brother's property?  

As far as the term "expert", prior to my research you would have had us believe that none of them, including Leeds played golf before 1894, and the term you repeatedly used as "Master of the Hounds" to deride Appleton as knowing nothing about the game.   At one point you even speculated that some of them never even played the game, pointing to an erroneous article that didn't list them in the Opening Day tournament at Myopia, that I later corrected.

We've since learned much differently, and we've learned that all these men were avidly and fervently playing golf at TCC and probably at least Hunnewell's estate course (and possibly Appleton's) for over a year before Myopia was laid out.

As regards the Opening date, we know the tournament was held on June 17th, but we don't know when they started playing.   Dacre Bush told us it was around June 1st.   I think this is important based on the odd report of May 19th that the course hadn't been laid out yet, which seems incredible, if not unbelievable if they used sod, which we also now know they did.

I think all of these things are very relevant to getting the whole picture painted.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 03:48:23 PM
Mike
Where did Weeks' quote from the Run Book regarding the design of the course?

Same with the Leeds scrapbook when did Week's quote from it? And why would the scrap book be important regarding the events of 1894 when Leeds didn't even join the club until 1896?

Recollections are not contemporaneous administrative records, and Bush never mentions who designed the golf course.

Do you know who or what is the source for the story that the Squire & Co designed the course?

I don't think it is any great mystery why Campbell was called to design Brookline, Essex County and Myopia, or why he designed so many golf courses in the region in the late 90s. He was the resident expert.

Campbell was the pro at Myopia in 1896, so the lost records theory is out the window.

I don't think it is surprising Kilkardy mentions Leeds design activity considering he had been working on the course for almost a decade.

The reason I didn't discount the gossip columnist is because I don't dismiss society columns out of hand, and the column is consistent with my understanding of what transpired. I don't want to turn this into another Merion thread but I have said IMO the turning point at Merion occured when Wilson went overseas, it was only after that trip he began to assert his design influence.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 03, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
Tom,

Why would a writer state that Appleton had a golf course on his farm, which is near to his brother's farm?

The topic was the golf course, not the farm.   Who cares if his farm is near his brother's?

Are you certain that there wasn't a golf course on each brother's property? 

As far as the term "expert", prior to my research you would have had us believe that none of them, including Leeds played golf before 1894, and the term you repeatedly used as "Master of the Hounds" to deride Appleton as knowing nothing about the game.   At one point you even speculated that some of them never even played the game, pointing to an erroneous article that didn't list them in the Opening Day tournament at Myopia, that I later corrected.

We've since learned much differently, and we've learned that all these men were avidly and fervently playing golf at TCC and probably at least Hunnewell's estate course (and possibly Appleton's) for over a year before Myopia was laid out.

As regards the Opening date, we know the tournament was held on June 17th, but we don't know when they started playing.   Dacre Bush told us it was around June 1st.   I think this is important based on the odd report of May 19th that the course hadn't been laid out yet, which seems incredible, if not unbelievable if they used sod, which we also now know they did.

I think all of these things are very relevant to getting the whole picture painted.

Obviously they were referring to the proximity of the farms. There were a handful of private golf courses around Boston that were mentioned in different publications. I've never seen a mention of a golf course at RM Appleton's farm.

I don't think the time frame is that incredible based on the fact that there is no mention of sod being laid at Myopia (or Brookline or Essex County).

It seems to me you are grasping for straws.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 03, 2011, 05:44:13 PM
Tom,

Thanks for clearing that up. The way you worded it, "Not being an employee did not stop most clubs from crediting WC." seemed to indicate to me that you were speaking more to giving him credit as a designer than as to his being employed by a club as a professional...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 03, 2011, 07:02:31 PM
Mike Cirba,

How come your attempts "to get the whole picture painted" leave out all the best evidence we have as to who laid out the course? Your big picture is by Rorshach.  You reach the same conclusion no matter what the facts.

How come you are posting all these articles after pleading for weeks that all such articles must be discarded as inaccurate?

WHAT CONTEMPORARY SOURCE MATERIAL SUPPORTS YOUR NOTION THAT AM&G DESIGNED THE COURSE?

I've answered your questions, yet you won't answer mine?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 07:13:01 AM
After absorbing all the information presented so far I think it is pretty clear Willie Campbell deserves lone credit for designing the original golf course. The question remains where did the story about the Squire & Co come from. I have no idea, and no one else seems to know either. I suspect one of two possibilities. Someone just made it up, perhaps in attempt to mirror the story of TCC origins when three members laid out a six-hole course over and around the race course in 1893. The second more likely scenario IMO, the Squire & Co began playing golf somewhere on the Myopia property in 1893. Forget the part about the snow melting, I think that was clearly an embellishment by Weeks. Forget the part about the sod being laid, sod may have been laid at some point, but it wouldn't have been 1893, or probably even 1894.

I can see the three members after being exposed to golf at TCC in 1893, and Essex which had a crude golf course in 1893 (a five hole course shaped like a diamond), probably batting the ball around Myopia. There is no mention of anyone playing golf at Myopia in 1893 so my guess would be they were playing very informally. No golf course per say, but a hole or two or three, that could be approached from different angles. And then the following spring, led by the Squire & Co prodding, the club voted to build a formal golf course. How's that for speculation.

The question remains why, when and by whom did Campbell get written out of the story. I've speculated it may been from an earlier history book in 1941. Another possibility is Leeds himself wrote Campbell out of the story for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 09:18:25 AM
Tom,

All interesting speculation, and you may be correct, but without someone here actually viewing any internal documents and/or administrative records that may exist at Myopia we are basing this entire discussion on a series of copied gossip column articles from the Opening Day tournament that have been shown in many instances to be almost frightfully wrong and uninformed as to the particulars of the then-nascent game.

So, the best any of us can do is speculate, and sometimes grossly so, unfortunately.

Personally, I'd love to see if a copy of the original history book you referenced is available anywhere...perhaps Library of Congress, but suspect based on the title that it may be much more about the Hunt, than about golf.

I do understand why David, and perhaps you, would simply like to close the book on this one and consider it done, but way too many things don't make sense, or sit right, and with only partial evidence at your/our disposal you can never really settle these matters anyway.  

For instance, assuming Campbell laid out the course, why would he, with untold acreage at his disposal, suggest they use land that was owned by Dr. Hopkins, particularly since that land is low-lying and sort of swampy?

How many 2,050 yard courses did Campbell lay out?   Doesn't that seem to be a very short course, even for those times?

Why is there no other mention of Campbell laying out the course at Myopia than in those Opening Day articles, and we know for a fact that these gossip columns either stole shamelessly from each other, or else it was the same writer penning for multiple papers.

You also have no further mention of any involvement of Campbell in the changes to the layout over the next few years, even during the 1896 summer that Campbell was pro there...everyone at the time credited Leeds.  

There is also the almost continual confusion in every article of the time that mentions the new course at Myopia almost synonymously with the new course at Essex that we know Campbell laid out, culminating in ridiculousness with the report that the opening day tournament at Myopia actually happened in Manchester on the Essex course!  

Hardly something to close the book on, as much as we'd all like closure.

As regards Campbell and his employment at/with Myopia, I put together the following timeline to try and understand how he might have been omitted by Weeks, and what might have happened with him during that period and would certainly appreciate your input and any corrections you feel are appropriate.   Let me know what you think.

March 1896 - The New York Times reports that a Mr. Weir is likely going to be the new pro at The Country Club as it has been decided (without explanation) not to renew Mr. Campbell's contract this year.'

Spring 1896 - Campbell visits Philadelphia and lays out a few courses, including nine holes for the Merion Cricket Club.

July 1896 - The first mention of Campbell playing golf for Myopia in professional tournaments.   I believe it can be reasonably assumed that he was hired for the season that began in June.

October 1896 - The last mention of Campbell playing golf for Myopia in professional tournaments.    The public course at Franklin Park opens this same month.

November 1896 - It was reported that Campbell has been retained as "greenkeeper" at Franklin Park and has been very busy at it.   The article speculates that once he gets things running properly that he may get permission to give lessons during certain hours of the morning.

May 1897 - It is reported that the Franklin Park course is not ready yet and that the Commissioners are dragging their feet on contracting Campbell to be the greenkeeper, or perhaps Campbell was not going to sign the contract without sufficient workers being provided.  During this period it seems Campbell is keeping the greens cut, but the grass is so high on the fairways as to discourage any playing.  

July 1897 - It is reported that after many weeks of waiting, the situation (and presumably Campbell's contractual arrangements) at Franklin Park regarding conditions has been resolved.

This timeline leads me to a few questions....I'm wondering if his engagement with Franklin Park didn't somehow sour his relations at Myopia?   Those courses are about 30 miles away from each other and if he was involved with the startup of the FP course it may have conflicted with his expected duties at Myopia perhaps?     I'm also wondering exactly why his employment with TCC and Essex ended.

I also wonder exactly what his duties at Myopia involved?   Unlike when he was employed originally at TCC and Essex, I have been unable to find any newspaper documentation mentioning where and when of the particulars of his employment at Myopia.   Did his role include greenkeeping, clubmaking, lessons?   Or was he simply their playing professional?   Hard to know from what is documented.

Any additional information you might have to shed light on these questions would be helpful, Tom...thanks.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 09:31:14 AM

And I have always acknowledged that he (Wilson) "helped largely in the planning of the holes" at Merion.   This is what was happening at NGLA, and during the few weeks between NGLA and when CBM and HJW returned to finalize their layout plan, and then probably even after the plan CBM approved had been submitted to the board and construction began.  


David,

If this is what you've always acknowledged, it would have been great if we all caught on quicker and saved ourselves about three man-years worth of debate and contentiousness.  
 
All that time, against any and all evidence to the contrary,  I thought you had steadfastly and stubbornly defended the main theme of your IMO piece, which reads;

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.


I'm not sure how your statement above squares with your original synopsis, but it's great to see you've come around so like Tom MacWood, I have no interest in rehashing the Merion debate but found your sudden agreement with the gossip piece I posted to be pleasantly unexpected, to say the least.

As far as your question about contemporaneous materials at Myopia, I think my response to Tom MacWood makes clear my position.

If you actually want to have a discussion with me this year, I'd suggest you stop your habitual continued personal insults in your posts, and your YELLING of questions.    I love to discuss these topics but I'm not going to engage in or entertain that type of behavior.    I'd like to have a much more pleasant time here this year and I hope you do, as well.

Thanks.




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 10:12:14 AM
Campbell laid out quite a few courses around 2000 yards, the course Joe B found a couple of days ago was 2000 yards. Your timeline for Campbell has been discussed numerous times on this thread, I'm not sure why you need to rehash it unless you're trying to create some more doubt he worked at the club. And the timeline of events is consistent with golf season at Myopia begining in June. He worked at Myopia one season.

One more time, he worked at Essex County in the summer of 1894, that is it. He worked at TCC in 1894 & 1895. It was widely reported at the end of 1895 TCC would not be rehiring him. Are you having trouble following this?

Why would his duties at Myopia be any different than his duties at the other clubs he worked? Playing professional? This isn't 1960, Sam Snead & The Greenbriar. You are grasping for straws.

If the course was changed in 1895 then once again TEP and his supposed board minutes have been proven wrong. And I do think there is distinct possibility the course was changed in 1895, and quite possibly Leeds was involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if Campbell was also involved since Leeds wasn't a member at the time. I believe the first pro at Palmetto was one of Campbell's assistants, which is also interesting to note.

There is no place for Merion on this thread...please show some self controll.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 04, 2011, 10:21:53 AM
If this is what you've always acknowledged, it would have been great if we all caught on quicker and saved ourselves about three man-years worth of debate and contentiousness.  
 
All that time, against any and all evidence to the contrary,  I thought you had steadfastly and stubbornly defended the main theme of your IMO piece, which reads;

Mike,  It would have been great if you had all caught on earlier, but that is indeed what I have always acknowledged.   Perhaps if you had read past the  "Synopsis" you'd have been able to catch on.   While it is accurate, the synopsis is not a "theme" nor is it even the body of the work, it is a brief and general overview and preview, but the paper itself fleshes out the ideas in much more detail and included discussions of Wilson helping with the planning both at NGLA and even after the course was initially built, you'd have figured this out.    Had I only wanted to state what was in the synopsis, I'd have quit there, and apparently you did.  

______________________________

As for my bolding and capitalizing my questions, I am hoping you might notice them enough to answer them.  

As for what you term as personal insults, they are accurate reflections of what you are doing here.  Nothing personal at all.  

Are you ever going to answer the questions, Mike?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 10:48:30 AM
Campbell laid out quite a few courses around 2000 yards, the course Joe B found a couple of days ago was 2000 yards. Your timeline for Campbell has been discussed numerous times on this thread, I'm not sure why you need to rehash it unless you're trying to create some more doubt he worked at the club. And the timeline of events is consistent with golf season at Myopia begining in June. He worked at Myopia one season.

One more time, he worked at Essex County in the summer of 1894, that is it. He worked at TCC in 1894 & 1895. It was widely reported at the end of 1895 TCC would not be rehiring him. Are you having trouble following this?

Why would his duties at Myopia be any different than his duties at the other clubs he worked? Playing professional? This isn't 1960, Sam Snead & The Greenbriar. You are grasping for straws.

If the course was changed in 1895 then once again TEP and his supposed board minutes have been proven wrong. And I do think there is distinct possibility the course was changed in 1895, and quite possibly Leeds was involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if Campbell was also involved since Leeds wasn't a member at the time. I believe the first pro at Palmetto was one of Campbell's assistants, which is also interesting to note.

There is no place for Merion on this thread...please show some self controll.

Tom,

I'm not trying to create doubt that he worked at Myopia....I'm trying to understand the reason(s) why that might have been either skipped in Weeks's account, or per your speculation, written out of the history by Leeds and/or others.

I'm not sure why any of the questions I posed are cause for indignation or frustration on your part, Tom.   They certainly seem pretty obvious to me.

Why after bringing him over as a champion golfer who seemed popular and even celebrated early on did TCC opt to sever their relations with him after only two seasons?   

His time at Myopia is very poorly documented...the only references I can find simply mention he's associated with the club during reports of professional tournaments.   

Why the overlap to Franklin Park duties during the latter part of his one and only season at Myopia?   

I'm just thinking if there was some bad blood spilt during that time it may explain more about why his involvement was either not documented well, or as you suggested, possibly expunged.

While I think it's been really a good thread here overall, there are obvious gaps, such as what any club records might say on the matter.

If it were simply a case of Weeks stating that AM&G designed the course, I might be willing to just dismiss this as an error, but for May to state the exact same thing before Weeks book was even published and also to include information that Weeks did not leads me to conclude we're all playing here with half-a-deck, and we don't have all the facts at our mutual disposal.

I also respect what Campbell did, and his involvement with public course golf very early on makes him a bit of a hero in my eyes.   I just don't think questioning what he actually did, as well as questioning the actual quality of his architecture versus some attempted post-mortem canonization of the man serves to diminish him in the least.   I think it shows a truer story, warts and all.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 01:33:34 PM

Tom,

I'm not trying to create doubt that he worked at Myopia....I'm trying to understand the reason(s) why that might have been either skipped in Weeks's account, or per your speculation, written out of the history by Leeds and/or others.

I'm not sure why any of the questions I posed are cause for indignation or frustration on your part, Tom.   They certainly seem pretty obvious to me.

Why after bringing him over as a champion golfer who seemed popular and even celebrated early on did TCC opt to sever their relations with him after only two seasons?  

His time at Myopia is very poorly documented...the only references I can find simply mention he's associated with the club during reports of professional tournaments.  

Why the overlap to Franklin Park duties during the latter part of his one and only season at Myopia?  

I'm just thinking if there was some bad blood spilt during that time it may explain more about why his involvement was either not documented well, or as you suggested, possibly expunged.

While I think it's been really a good thread here overall, there are obvious gaps, such as what any club records might say on the matter.

If it were simply a case of Weeks stating that AM&G designed the course, I might be willing to just dismiss this as an error, but for May to state the exact same thing before Weeks book was even published and also to include information that Weeks did not leads me to conclude we're all playing here with half-a-deck, and we don't have all the facts at our mutual disposal.

I also respect what Campbell did, and his involvement with public course golf very early on makes him a bit of a hero in my eyes.   I just don't think questioning what he actually did, as well as questioning the actual quality of his architecture versus some attempted post-mortem canonization of the man serves to diminish him in the least.   I think it shows a truer story, warts and all.

Mike
I believe the severing of ties at TCC was a mutual agreement. Campbell wanted more money devoted to improving the golf course and the club did not. Not only did he leave but many of the club's best golfers left for Myopia, including Leeds and Quincy Adams Shaw.

IMO Campbell's stint at Myopia is not poorly documented. Tournament play is normally how you track where a professional is working - the US Open, w/Leeds & Shaw (July); a match at Meadow Brook w/Leeds & Henry (July); a home and home match with Newport CC (Sept) w/ Shaw & Henry; w/ Leeds, Shaw, Henry, Longworth, Appleton; another match at Meadow Brook (Oct), and St. Andrews (Nov). You have numerous obituaries mentioning him being the pro at Myopia, plus the article about Mrs. Campbell. That is pretty well documented.

There is no overlap between Myopia and Franklin Park that I know of. He laid out Franklin Park late in 1896, but the first mention of him working there is 1897, pretty late in 1897. There is no evidence there was any bad blood. The first patrons of Franklin Park were the same folks who played at Brookline and Myopia; it wasn't your average public course at the beginning. It was fairly expensive and required you be an experienced golfer.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 01:39:51 PM
Tom,

When Campbell moved back and forth between TCC and Essex there were articles that documented that.   I haven't been able to find any indicating that he had taken a position at Myopia.

As far as Franklin Park, I have one that has him there in November 1896, and which says he has been very busy, and that he may get permission to give lessons a few hours in the mornings once things get up and running satisfactorily.

Since the course opened for play on October 27th, 1896, and since he had to design it sometime prior to then, I assume there was some overlap in his responsibilities with Myopia, leading me to speculate that his might perhaps have been some cause for consternation at the club.    Perhaps not, but there was some overlap in timing.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 01:51:05 PM
Tom,

When Campbell moved back and forth between TCC and Essex there were articles that documented that.   I haven't been able to find any indicating that he had taken a position at Myopia.

As far as Franklin Park, I have one that has him there in November 1894, and which says he has been very busy, and that he may get permission to give lessons a few hours in the mornings once things get up and running satisfactorily.

Since the course opened for play on October 27th, 1894, and since he had to design it sometime prior to then, I assume there was some overlap in his responsibilities with Myopia, leading me to speculate that his might perhaps have been some cause for consternation at the club.    Perhaps not, but there was some overlap in timing.



Franklin Park opened 10/26/1896, not 1894, and there was no mention of Campbell when the course opened. On October 20 he was playing in a golf tournament representing Myopia.

I've not seen any announcement of his hire at Myopia or Franklin Park. Its possible he left Myopia in November. That wouldn't be surprising, I don't think there was much winter golf to be played at either location.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 01:52:05 PM
Tom,

Here's the portion of the article from November 21st, 1896 that discusses Campbell's activities to date at Franklin Park.   As mentioned, the course opened October 27th, 1896***;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5324045333_2468c92b2a_o.jpg)


***Note*** I caught and since edited my mistake about 1894...thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 02:05:25 PM
There you go, another mention of him being the pro at Myopia (past tense). It is pretty well documented wouldn't you say?

I don't think there is any evidence there was any bad blood at Myopia. Like I said the early patrons of Franklin Park were well seasoned golfers like Fenn (Leeds' rival and friend). The names Mrs. Campbell mentioned at FP were the Sargents, the Olmsteds, the Hoopers, and the Shaws. And she made a point of saying that the course was better than Brookline. If there was any bad blood it was more likely with Brookline.

Why does it matter if he left Myopia because of bad blood?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
Tom,

I'm completely in agreement that he was pro at Myopia that summer...just wondering if it was more of a travelling competitor gig than a "in the shop" doing club-making and lessons type of deal, but also agree with you that this should have been in the club history book.  

As far as your question, the "bad blood" only matters to your speculative point about Leeds or someone there "writing him out" of the club's administrative records and history.

I think that's unlikely...I'm just exploring any possible reasons that might have been the case.  

Or, perhaps given that he had friends within the club that came with him from TCC they were paying him "under the table", in which case there wouldn't necessarily have been an administrative record of it that Weeks or anyone else could have found in their search.   Of course, that's speculative, as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 04, 2011, 02:40:28 PM
MIke,

Once again a reference to a possible 2nd course at Myopia. First was the article that mentioned the "two links" and now this new article in which it refers to Campbell working last year at the "Myopias"... Note, it is plural. Isre any possibility that another course either nearby or maybe one of the private courses of those mentioned as founders was also known either privately or publicly as "Myopia?"

If so it would certainly aid in both really messing up the understandings of some as well as provide answers to seeming contradictions...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 03:34:35 PM
Phil,

It sure is perplexing language used in many of these old articles.

I'm not sure however that they didn't use "links" synonymously with "holes", as I've seen an article that paraphrased stated something like, "the course covers 2 and a half miles with nine links."

Insane arcane.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 04, 2011, 03:37:58 PM
Well that makes two contmporaneous accounts now of Myopia possibly having not one but TWO courses...  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 04, 2011, 03:41:04 PM
Well that makes two contmporaneous accounts now of Myopia possibly having not one but TWO courses...  ;D

Phil,

Actually, that's THREE contemporaneous accounts of multiple courses at Myopia.

I vote that they had multiple courses based on the clear evidence.  ;) 


Tom MacWood,

I'm KIDDING!!!   ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 04, 2011, 04:56:47 PM
Don't be so quick to disbelieve Mike. It is my understanding that after the "short nine" and before the "Long nine" that they hired "Goldilocks" bearbuster who designed a nine hole course that the book editor reviewed and said was "just right!"
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 04, 2011, 07:34:13 PM
Tom,

I'm completely in agreement that he was pro at Myopia that summer...just wondering if it was more of a travelling competitor gig than a "in the shop" doing club-making and lessons type of deal, but also agree with you that this should have been in the club history book.  

As far as your question, the "bad blood" only matters to your speculative point about Leeds or someone there "writing him out" of the club's administrative records and history.

I think that's unlikely...I'm just exploring any possible reasons that might have been the case.  

Or, perhaps given that he had friends within the club that came with him from TCC they were paying him "under the table", in which case there wouldn't necessarily have been an administrative record of it that Weeks or anyone else could have found in their search.   Of course, that's speculative, as well.

Mike
I don't believe it either. There is nothing to indicate there was any bad blood, and even if there was that would only explain an omission a decade or two after the fact. Certainly no one would have bad feelings eighty years after the fact.

And I think it is very unlikely there are any administrative records, TEP sold you and us a bill of goods. That is obvious. There is nothing in that history book that would indicate there are any records on the early history of the golf club or golf course, which is why Weeks was forced to rely on Bush's remembrance. And as far as I am concerned the idea that the administrative records don't mention Campbell (for whatever reason) is no excuse for Weeks not knowing. If he did just a minimal amount of research he would uncovered the Campbell connection. The level research that went into this book is really pathetic.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 05, 2011, 07:02:46 AM
Tom,

I wouldn't rush to make that same value judgment.  

Without knowing what internal documents, minutes, and/or records Weeks used, and whether or not he believed they were definitive I think that's very premature.

Don't forget...Weeks didn't have the easy access of being able to search across vintage newspapers in seconds back in 1975 as we do today.   If he based his book totally on internal documents, believing them to be comprehensive and inclusive, then he could hardly be faulted, frankly.

I think what may have happened is that any "laid out" work Campbell did for Myopia was simply considered part of his duties as professional/greenkeeper at TCC and Essex, and likely no separate record or payment of it existed at Myopia, and similarly his very short four-month stint as pro at Myopia may have been paid "off the books" by friends who went there with him from TCC.  

I do believe that it's too coincidental that both May and Weeks working separately would get the same three members right as having laid out the first course, and with May providing additional info about the course being 2,050 yards there has to be some record somewhere that this happened that these men were gathering this information from.   I also believe that the course that opened in June 1894 was indeed "sodded", much like the Appleton farm course that Joe documented, and much like S. Dacre Bush recalled.

I don't believe someone made up this whole creation story...basically created a lie...out of thin air.

Whether or not the member-designed course was what Campbell "laid out" for the club that they played on in June 1894, or whether it was some temporary, provisional course they played til Campbell created something more formal by June we'll probably never know, even with access to the internal documents.  

Unfortunately, sometimes we're lucky to even get a partial record of events on these very old courses.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 05, 2011, 08:43:52 AM
Mike
There is nothing in that book that gives any indication the man had access to internal documents. He does not quote from TEP's board minutes. He does not know the date of the annual meeting in 1894. He has no idea Campbell laid out the original course. He has no idea when the original nine was changed or how it was changed. He does not know precisely when the course was expanded to 18 holes. He has no idea when or in what capacity White and Campbell worked for the club.

Good researchers have been scowering old newspapers using microfische for a long time, and still do. Do you think researching old magazines and newspapers was invented with online digitized sites? There is no excuse. The level research that went into this book is really pathetic.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 05, 2011, 09:03:03 AM
Tom,

We don't know what exactly he accessed internally, do we?   We know he references the "Run Book" various times, quotes from S. Dacre Bush, and refers to Leeds' Scrapbook.   In any case, I don't think either one of us actually knows what those things entail, what they document, and/or when they were written so again I think we need to be careful before casting aspersions.

He tried to write it as a story book for the members.   It was not written as a research piece with footnotes and bibliography.

As someone who searched old newspapers on microfiche 20 years ago to find course attributions on courses much more obscure and mundane than Myopia, I do get where you are coming from in your criticism there, but if Weeks thought what he had internally was comprehensive I can't fault him.

And then...there's that pesky John P. May report in Golf Digest that preceded Weeks book which cited the same members designing the original nine, so that information had to come from somewhere.  

We just don't know the source.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 05, 2011, 08:40:44 PM
(and what could be my best ever. . .       ;).      )



































Bump!




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 07, 2011, 12:32:04 AM
And I think it is very unlikely there are any administrative records, TEP sold you and us a bill of goods. That is obvious. There is nothing in that history book that would indicate there are any records on the early history of the golf club or golf course, which is why Weeks was forced to rely on Bush's remembrance. And as far as I am concerned the idea that the administrative records don't mention Campbell (for whatever reason) is no excuse for Weeks not knowing. If he did just a minimal amount of research he would uncovered the Campbell connection. The level research that went into this book is really pathetic.

TMac,

Hmmm, I don't know about that conclusion.  It does seem apparent that the club had a secretary and meeting minutes, as the date of the annual meeting in Boston was recorded.  Do you think he folded up the pad and stopped taking notes at that point?  Ditto with a secretary for the Golf Committee in Bush, and even the Bush remembrances.  Why would a club ask him to write them (or he take it on himself) if they hadn't had an interest in recording their history and actions?

What about meetings and a secretary suggests to you there were no admin records, at least initially?  (they may have been damaged or lost later)

At least, that's how I see it......
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 07, 2011, 07:35:28 AM
What was the date of the annual meeting?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 07, 2011, 10:46:10 AM
Typical TMac BS to avoid the obvious and deflect from the fact that someone has pointed out his clearly erroneous logic and bombast as to the club records.

To answer his non-question, I believe DM posted who the club secretary was for 1894, when Bush was club secretary, etc.  It may or may not have been he who posted the date of the meeting in this thread, but I am not going back through to look it up and play his games.

As to his second point, I actually kind of concur, but would put a slightly different spin on it.  If Weeks had wanted to be as thorough in his research as he could, he would have looked up a few outside sources like newspapers of the day.  Of course, if TMac and others wanted to be as thorough as they could now, they would look up old club records rather than try to contend they don't exist. 

That the two accounts come to different conclusions using totally different sources shouldn't surprise us, should it?  To use a phrase often bandied about here, it would seem more "intellectually honest" to dig deeper and find out if there was a reason WC wasn't mentioned (lost records, different employment arrangement) than to merely assume Weeks got it wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 07, 2011, 11:27:54 AM
Jeff
One of the more frustrating aspects of dealing with you on these historical questions (this one, Merion, etc) is the fact you often have your facts wrong. How can you draw any intelligent conclusions when your information is wrong so often. Bush did not mention the date of the annual meeting, and Bush did not mention anything about the Squire & Co footing it across the site, as you claimed the other day.

Bush wrote something called 'Golf: the triumph of Hope over Experience.' I don't know if that was part of an early club history, or just what it was written or why and when it was written.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 07, 2011, 12:26:50 PM
Some quotes and observations from the Weeks book;

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March, 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894.   Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournaments was held June 18th, 1894.   About twenty-five entries.   Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch.   Score, first round 58, second round 54.   Total 112.   Laurence Curtis made 63-59 - 122.  W.B. Thomas 63-62 - 125.   The second tournament was held on July 4th, 1894.   About twenty entires.   Won by Herbert C. Leeds, scratch 52-61 - 113."

"We know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club, and those of our fellow member, Dr. S. A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse.   Once the nine greens were sodded and cut, all that was needed for the tees were a level space, a box of sand, and a pail of water to moisten the pinch of sand on which the ball was placed.   Nature provided the hazards..."

"That this new course was difficult is evidenced by a note stating that, on June 24, "H. C. Leeds covered the 9 holes in 48 strokes, previous best on record 54."  It goes on facetiously, "Prof. Baxter, fired by the talk, which in warm weather provides ventilation, through headgear for the overheated vacuums of the Myopians, purchased several clubs and having broken one or two without moving the ball eventually succeeded in finishing in 214 strokes.""

"Professor Baxter is a caricature probably written into the Run Book by a sarcastic member of the Hunt.   The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years;  the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another..."

Later, the book goes into a long section where S. Dacre Bush describes the Long Nine in significant detail.  

Bush's familiarity with the original course is evident in this statement;

"Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point.   This hole was originally 300 yards and it was thought wonderful when anybody did it in five.   The teeing ground for this hole is on rising ground and the remains of no less than four teeling grounds can be distinguished.   Each time the golfers have been put back about twenty-five yards as the game of the players has become longer.   The green is also many yards to the right, and farther along than at first and the hole is now four hundred and fifty-five yards."

That the Run Book was used for documenting golf can be seen in the following;

"That summer of 1896 home-and-home team matches were played against the Newport Golf Club on the links erected by Theodore A. Havermeyer.   The flavor of the soggy, salty day comes through this note in the Myopia Run Book;"

"A team match between the Newport Golf Club and Myopia took place on September 19th.   The Myopia was disappointed by the illness of one of their players, and the inability of another to get away.   The original intention was to play teams of six, but teams of five were played, the match being in a thoroughly sporting and friendly spirit.   There had been heavy rains, and the Links (Newport) was, so to speak, sodden.   The match was also played in thick fog.   At the end of the first round Myopia was 11 holes down.   (Then Myopia rallied.)  The appended telegram gives the results and names of the players.   Myopia won seven holes up."
"NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND"
"LEEDS HALVES WITH COATES, LONGWORTH HALVED WITH HAVERMEYER, APPLETON TWO DOWN WITH RUTHERFORD, HENRY SIX UP WITH COCHRAN, SHAW THREE UP WITH STILLMAN."


The book then goes on in the next several pages to quote directly or paraphrase from several external sources, including the Boston Herald of 1895, the Boston Evening Transcript of 1898, The Golfer's Magazine of 1898, the Boston Journal, and New York Sun.

Given access to these sources, it seems odd that he would have missed the attribution to Campbell in local papers during the Opening Day tournament.   Perhaps something in the club records clarified Campbell's role, because it is very clear that Weeks was indeed working with both internal documents as well as contemporaneous publications.

One related question...did the local newspapers in Boston report the names and dates that the original members at TCC and Essex designed their six hole courses in 1892 and 1893 respectively?





Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 07, 2011, 04:09:33 PM
TMac,

Good afternoon.

May I say that I was frustrated by your technique of asking deflecting questions?   And some of the things you say are "obvious" and conclusions you draw are anything but obvious to folks with a mindset like mine?

I will admit that I can be wrong sometimes.  In this case, I suggested that the historical record we do know (and presented by David Moriarity) that shows they had meetings, club secretaries, etc. shows that they most likely had club records.  Why have meetings and a secretary if not to record those minutes?

Instead of answering a seemingly simple question, you claim I have facts wrong and go on to say Bush said nothing of this or that.  BTW, I have seen the Bush remembrances, and like you, don't know when they were written.  I presume we can both agree that he penned them before he died? :)

Here is another question you may not answer, but doesn't the title of "Hope over Experience" suggest they were feeling their own way in designing the course?  And the text I recall suggests that their members laid out the golf course.  You once asked where that story came from, and I gather it probably originated with Bush himself, no?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 07, 2011, 04:25:17 PM
I guess the question I'm wondering is this;

What would/should Weeks do or mention if he knew about the news articles mentioning Campbell had "laid out" the course, but internal club minutes talked about the 3 members staking out a routing, and then the hiring or use of Campbell to build and sod the greens and perhaps otherwise try to prepare the new course?

Because I don't think that is far-fetched in the slightest.   I think it's highly possible given the timing of events, including when Campbell arrived here and his concurrent pressing duties at TCC and Essex.

From my perspective, there is no way to come to a conclusion here without examining ALL of the evidence, both external and internal.

It seems to me from the references in the book that Weeks may have indeed done both.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 07, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Mike,

I tend to agree.  A conclusion without either club records or outside contemporaneous sources seems to be likely to be incorrect, although anything is possible.  As I hinted above, I think its anything but obvious that Campbell designed the course, but I really don't know.

I will say this....if Cornish and Whitten had found those three articles that TMac did, they would have had no second thoughts about crediting WC for the design of the original nine holes, so if TMac has appointed himself as Willie's sketch biographer, none of us can criticize him for putting that original course on his list. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 07, 2011, 05:16:27 PM
Tom MacWood,

Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have not only figured it all out, they are in agreement, so I guess there is nothing more to discuss with them.

Strange, though, because the more I find out about the Weeks' book, the more I wonder how these guys can possibly justify their various theories about the reliability of the Weeks' account.

For example, when Bush wrote what he wrote about the 2nd hole (originally the first) the tee had been moved back four times, and the green had been moved, and the hole was 455 yards!  I've gone back through some of the yardage listings for Myopia, and the first mention I have of the hole having been 455 yards was in 1908.  What is the first mention you have seen of the 455 yard distance?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 07, 2011, 05:58:39 PM
David,

Not at all.  How does "I don't think we can figure it out" translate to "we have it all figured out?

For that matter, I asked a simple question that didn't involve the Weeks book at all, and both of you keep bringing it back to Weeks.

I quoted TMac's post above:

And I think it is very unlikely there are any administrative records, TEP sold you and us a bill of goods. That is obvious. There is nothing in that history book that would indicate there are any records on the early history of the golf club or golf course, which is why Weeks was forced to rely on Bush's remembrance. And as far as I am concerned the idea that the administrative records don't mention Campbell (for whatever reason) is no excuse for Weeks not knowing. If he did just a minimal amount of research he would uncovered the Campbell connection. The level research that went into this book is really pathetic.  Here was my simple question, rephrased a bit.

At one point in the TMac quote he says there were no administrative records.  In another, he suggests they exist, but are wrong to not mention Campbell.  So my question is does TMac think no records exist as he says before he contradicts himself?  I think it unlikely, given the club had a structure.

Have portions been lost?  Maybe.  Is there a reason they don't mention WC?  Probably.  Would the story be clearest if we had those records in front of us?  Certainly.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 07, 2011, 08:18:33 PM
Jeff Brauer,

I thought you were done with me?  I was so looking forward to that . . .

David,

Not at all.  How does "I don't think we can figure it out" translate to "we have it all figured out?

Because you guys are pretending ambiguity exists in the record where it does not.   To accomplish this, you guys 1) pretend that there are "club records" dealing with the initial creation of the course; 2) pretend that those mystery club records must support Weeks' account even though his book strongly suggests that he had no such records on which to rely; 3) and you then use your pretend records and pretend account as an excuse to discard contemporaneous reports of what happened.

Quote
For that matter, I asked a simple question that didn't involve the Weeks book at all, and both of you keep bringing it back to Weeks.

Didn't involve the Weeks book at all?  All you guys have is the Weeks book.   Everything thing you pretend to know about the supposed "administrative records" is necessarily about Weeks.  There are no pretend records without you guys misreading them into Weeks.  Plus, your initial question made no sense.

Quote
At one point in the TMac quote he says there were no administrative records.  In another, he suggests they exist, but are wrong to not mention Campbell.  So my question is does TMac think no records exist as he says before he contradicts himself?  I think it unlikely, given the club had a structure.

Either you didn't understand what TomM wrote or you are simply fudging the record again.

TomM wrote that there was nothing in the Weeks book indicating that there are any records on the creation of the golf course.   From what I have been told about the Weeks book, I agree.   Beyond records about the creation of the golf course, I doubt TomM knows or cares what administrative records exist.  

Quote
Have portions been lost?  Maybe.  Is there a reason they don't mention WC?  Probably.  Would the story be clearest if we had those records in front of us?  Certainly
.

This is ridiculous.  You cannot assume into existence records to cast doubt on real, tangible accounts of who laid out the course.    

The story would be clearest if we had a time machine, but we don't.  And only a fool would use their desire for a time machine to override contemporaneous accounts of what happened.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 07, 2011, 08:57:13 PM
David,

So you believe Weeks's references to club records, to the "Run Book", to the Leeds scrapbook, to the Bush remembrances were all imagined?

Are you suggesting that Mr. Weeks was something akin to golf history's version of "A Beautiful Mind"?

Weeks clearly had access to the clubs administrative records and history while you and Tom MacWood unfortunately but just as clearly do not.

While that is unfortunate, it's really akin to you both claiming certainty that the moon is made of Swiss cheese without either of you ever having been there.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 07, 2011, 09:08:40 PM
Mike Cirba, you and Jeff Brauer really ought to read and consider posts before responding.  

I wrote that whatever administrative records there were obviously did not address the creation of the initial course. Otherwise Weeks would not have had to been speculating.  

As for Bush, that was obviously not an administrative record,  despite Weeks' erroneous claim that he was the Club Secretary at the time.   Bush's recollections were obviously written much later, after many iterations of the course. Your own quotes of his leave no doubt about it, yet you still pretend it is an administrative record?  That neither you nor Jeff Brauer seem to be able to comprehend the later timing of the Bush account speaks volumes about your ability and willingness to accurately consider the facts.

____________________________

Above you quoted Weeks quoting Bush: "Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point. . . . "

The word "evaluation" seems to be a mistake.  "Evolution" would make much more sense.   My question to you is whether this was your mistake, or Weeks mistake?   Does the book say "evaluation" or "evolution?"
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 07, 2011, 11:01:53 PM
David,

You stated: "Above you quoted Weeks quoting Bush: "Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point. . . . " The word "evaluation" seems to be a mistake.  "Evolution" would make much more sense.   My question to you is whether this was your mistake, or Weeks mistake?   Does the book say "evaluation" or "evolution?"

I have no idea which it states, but would gladly wager that it is Evaluation and NOT Evolution.

You say that makes no sense, except it actually does. The game of golf that was being played in the late 1800s through to the 1920s was constantly being compared or evaluated against the game in Scotland. Likewise the nature of the designs and quality of the courses in America were also. There was a great deal being written on both sides of the Atlantic with those in the UK claiming that the upstart Americans and their courses were no match for those in Scotland while in America, not only was the exact opposite being written but even claims that our players and courses were already exceeding theirs. In fact, what was written about the quality of the Myopia course in comparison to those others by some who had come across the ocean and had played it? Wasn't that it was among the best courses in the world? Before you ask, that article has already been posted several times on this thread.

NO, it makes PERFECT sense that Myopia was the best course in America at that time upon which the merits of the American game and the greatness of its courses could be evaluated against those overseas...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 08, 2011, 12:10:36 AM
Mike Cirba,

What do you think?  Are we pretending? I mean other than pretending to be discussing Myopia with two guys who are sane and rational? :o

And talk about pretending....David imagines I was talking about him, TMac says everyone involved at Myopia was making things up...

How credible is an argument when it relies on top drawer guys like Bush in the 1890's and Weeks and others "making things up" and "obviously being wrong" despite not reading much of what at least Bush said because they don't have the records?  I mean, talk about some world class speculation....you don't see the records, but you can tell us what they say.

All I have really asked is two questions, have you seen the contemporaneous records and do you believe they exist? 

And yet they say we need to consider what we post. Wow.   :(
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 08, 2011, 02:03:52 AM
Phillip,

Interesting speculation, but I am not trying to make any broad substantive point here.  I just want clarification on what exactly the quote said.

Because it doesn't make sense.  Read the sentence. "Perhaps no course illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country."  

I have no idea what that means.   I have even less idea when I read it in context with the rest of the quote.

____________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

What do you think?  Are we pretending? I mean other than pretending to be discussing Myopia with two guys who are sane and rational?

Neither of you can come up with a shred of contemporaneous evidence supporting the theory that AM&G laid out the course.  Yet you have been writing for months about how the answer lies in some mystery source material.  So, yes, you are pretending.

Quote
And talk about pretending....David imagines I was talking about him

I have no idea what this means, or what the hell you are talking about, and frankly I don't care.   I just wish you would quit making shit up about my perspective on all of this.  

Quote
How credible is an argument when it relies on top drawer guys like Bush in the 1890's and Weeks and others "making things up" and "obviously being wrong" despite not reading much of what at least Bush said because they don't have the records?  I mean, talk about some world class speculation....you don't see the records, but you can tell us what they say.

What you write has no relationship to the record as we know it.
- Bush wasn't writing in the 1890s.
- You throw around quotes, but those are YOUR WORDS not mine.   You and Mike are the ones making things up, not Bush or Weeks.  
- Don't have the records?  You mean as opposed to you and Mike, who DONT HAVE THE RECORDS, BUT PRETEND THEY EXIST.
- Your last sentence is just so bizarrely irrational that I am not even sure what to say.  You scold me for supposedly telling you what records say without having read them, but you seem to have forgotten that these are phantom records, one's that you made up.  I cannot tell you what they say any more than you can tell me what they say.  No one can really read pretend records.    

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY INDICATION THAT RECORDS ADDRESSING THE CREATION OF THE COURSE EVEN EXIST.  IF THERE ARE SUCH RECORDS BRING THEM FORWARD.

Quote
All I have really asked is two questions, have you seen the contemporaneous records and do you believe they exist?  
 

See immediately above.

Quote
And yet they say we need to consider what we post. Wow.   :(

Yes, you really should. Please.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 08, 2011, 05:25:30 AM
A full text view of the "Early Myopia" book by Forbes is not available at this site below, but they allow it to be searched for keywords.  Put in Leeds and you'll get a few hits.  Put in Campbell and nada results.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058150343
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 AM
Joe,

Thanks for that link.

As I feared, it seems mostly about the Hunt and probably polo.   There are only 3 pages in the entire book where the word "golf" is even mentioned.

One of them, Page 16, also includes the names Appleton and Gardner on the same page, but not Merrill.

I'd conclude that this book is NOT the source of the story that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill staked out the first course at Myopia in spring of 1894.


David,

The word used in the book is indeed "evaluation".   I'm not sure if Weeks made an error in transcribing Bush's written text.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 08, 2011, 10:07:09 AM
Well, that seems to rule out the original 1941 history book being responsible for the Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill creationist story.

So, do we think that both John P. May for Golf Digest, and Edward Weeks, writing separately at different times, sort of like the 1,000 typing monkeys in a room coming up with Shakespeare if you leave them there long enough, simply made up the same myth with the same cast of players (except May included the course length of 2,050 yards), or do we think they got their information from internal club records?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 08, 2011, 12:16:23 PM
John P. May wrote about Myopia, Chicago GC and Philadelphia CC in his little piece, with emphasis on little. Him traveling to those three cities to search each clubs' internal records is not very likely, in fact it is highly unlikely.

If Weeks had internal documents (dealing with the golf course) at his disposal we would have seen evidence of it in his book. There is no evidence in that book.
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 08, 2011, 01:06:20 PM
The word used in the book is indeed "evaluation".   I'm not sure if Weeks made an error in transcribing Bush's written text.

Thanks.   I suspect it was a transcription error, else it makes little sense.  To me at least.

I hope you realize that Bush's words indicate that he was writing much later than 1894, and possibly later than 1908. 

Has anyone seen any references to 2nd hole as 455 yards before 1908?     I've gone through yardage listings I have and the first one I have seen was 1908, but it is possible I missed an earlier one.   
________________

As for May's piece, I think you are stretching past the point of breaking when you suggest that May and Weeks had come up with the AM&G story independently of each other.  It seems much more likely that, for whatever reason, the AMG story was the accepted legend at the club, and both were reporting that.   Isn't one of your main points here that the club should control to the research?   So if May called Myopia, then what do you suppose they would have told him.   Do you think Weeks hadn't even bothered to begin his history book, which would be published the next year?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 08, 2011, 02:00:14 PM
David,

May included info apparently not known by Weeks...the course yardage of 2050 yards.

I'm trying to find out when May's article was first published...I have a reprint of it in a 1974 book.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 08, 2011, 02:29:35 PM
In the acknowledgements the background information on Myopia is credited to Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper. Apparently the story came from a newspaper not internal documents.

David
I found it listed as 455 in 1905, and it was also 455 in 1911. The better question may be for how long period was it 455.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 08, 2011, 04:25:29 PM
Tom,

"In the acknowledgements the background information on Myopia is credited to Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper. Apparently the story came from a newspaper not internal documents."

So you know for a fact that Stoddard was not a member at Myopia nor, if he was, on any of the boards giving him access to minutes, documents, etc...?

Just because he was the publisher of a newspaper doesn't mean that he himself went to libraries and sat through rolls of micrfiche, or worse, the actual papers themselves, in search of information on Myopia.   

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 08, 2011, 04:46:33 PM
"Carlton S. Young, manager, Myopia Hunt Club, for vintage photographs of Myopia, and Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper, for background information on Myopia."


Phil
Have you read the piece by John May?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 08, 2011, 04:52:11 PM
So you are stating that the story "did not come from internal club documents" because Stoddard was a newspaper editor even though Carlton S. Young, coincidentally named BEFORE Stoddard as a contributor, as MANAGER of the Myopia Hunt Club, was an equal contributor as well? I guess a club's manager wouldn't have access to minutes, documents, notes, etc...

First of all, why didn't you include Young's name and background when you first posted Stoddard's? You so often have complained about others leaving out portions of phrases when they've quoted from sources, yet here you left out this?

Tom, how can you even believe yourself on this one? You've got to admit your conclusion as to where the article's info came from is wrong based upon your Stoddard statement... By the way, where does it even infer that Stoddard wasn't a Myopia member?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 08, 2011, 05:19:09 PM
"It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill and A. P. Gardner...

In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned). It was 2,930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again. Myopia proved such an outstanding test that despite the fact that it had only nine holes, it was chosen as the site of the 1898 Open...

...With each of the nine holes that existed in 1898 still included in the present course, Myopia is the model par excellence of the marriage between a great golfing tradition and sound course-design principles. Surely despite their spectacles, Myopia's designers were far-sighted."

John P May 1974

Was it common to list the yardage of a golf course in 1894?

I don't recall seeing the yardage listed of any Boston course in 1894 or 1895, the first mention I have found is 9/1896: "The Myopia club has the best links, covering 2836 yards; the Essex county club course is 2511 yards long, and the Country club 2334 yards."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 08, 2011, 06:11:05 PM
Phillip,

What is wrong with you?   Are you just trying to pick a fight?    TomM's representation of the source of the background information on Myopia appears to be spot on.  Almost a direct quote.  Apparently the club provided historic photographs.   So why are you lashing out at TomM?  And why did you similarly lash out at me yesterday for questioning what seems to be by a nonsensical sentence?  

Your behavior raises serious questions about your willingness and ability to deal with this sort of thing reasonably.  

____________________________________________

Tom MacWood,

Mays seems to be quite confused about a number of things.  
- So far as I know there was no "new site."  
- There was no eventual abandonment of the original nine hole course.  
- And Myopia was not chosen for the 1898 Open because it "proved such an outstanding test."  Rather, no one else wanted the Open.   As of the Annual meeting, not a single club had stepped up to take the Open by itself, and only one club (St. Andrews) would take it only if they were also given the Amateur.    There was even talk of providing a financial incentive to convince some USGA club to step up!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 08, 2011, 09:54:10 PM
David,

There isn't a thing wrong with me and I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight. You have this constant problem when someone disagree's with you that you feel you are being personally attacked. That certainly isn't the case in anything I've said to either you or Tom and in no way did I "lash out" at either of you.

First of all, I'm sorry that the word "evaluation" makes no sense to you. That it doesn't suggests to me that you actually have no true understanding of the overall picture of the game and the courses upon which it was played in the late 1800s to 1920 in America. The comparisons to the abilities of American players vs. Scots and American courses vs. Scots was a constant. There were ongoing arguments, including numerous insults, on both sides of the Atlantic. The phrase, as used, is both proper for the time and quite easily understood. I am greatly surprised that you don't understand.

As for Tom, he has constantly demanded proof of statements made by others, yet here, when he makes a pronouncement that no club documents were used and bases it upon one man being referred to as a newspaper editor, why then it means that none were used and that the information must have come from newspapers? That is an absurd leap in logic. How does he know which newspaper Stoddard worked for as it isn't listed? How does he know how accurate the information about Myopia contained in his paper was? How does he know that Stoddard WASN'T a member of Myopia? That is what I asked him. He responded by now including that they also received information form the MYOPIA CLUB MANAGER yet he can't believe that direct records and/or information from the club was used? That is beyond an absurd leap in logic. Frankly, knowing that the Myopia Club Manager supplied photographs convinces me that Stoddard MUST be a member because if one wanted information about a club and he had the cooperation of the club manager, the ONLY possible reason that I can think as to why the manager wouldn't give him it is because the person who did was a very knowledgeable member of the club who was either an eyewitness to the events or had the documents from the club available to him. To think otherwise in this situation is simply beyond reason.

Actually David, it is your behavior that raises serious questions about your willingness and ability to deal with this sort of thing reasonably, not mine...     
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 08, 2011, 11:15:59 PM

Tom MacWood,

Mays seems to be quite confused about a number of things.  
- So far as I know there was no "new site."  
- There was no eventual abandonment of the original nine hole course.  
- And Myopia was not chosen for the 1898 Open because it "proved such an outstanding test."  Rather, no one else wanted the Open.   As of the Annual meeting, not a single club had stepped up to take the Open by itself, and only one club (St. Andrews) would take it only if they were also given the Amateur.    There was even talk of providing a financial incentive to convince some USGA club to step up!


I also question his claim about 1896, be it a new course or a revised course. There is compelling evidence that change actually took place in 1895. Weeks could not confidently say when the change took place.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 09, 2011, 12:42:54 AM
Phillip,

Notwithstanding your lecture, the sentence makes no sense.   It is not a substantive issue, but one of semantics.  Besides, I really don't need any lectures from you about the beginnings of golf in America.

Your comments about TomM's post are just more of your bizarre tit-for-tat logic. Not worth addressing.  

_____________________

TomM,

I agree with you that  the 1896 comment may have been mistaken as well.

Do we know for sure where the Hopkins land was, or is Weeks the only source on that one as well?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 09, 2011, 05:11:42 AM
David,

You really need to update your vocabulary. It is no surprise that when you cannot refute you proceed to mud... THAT is bizarre! It is just as typical as Tom not responding to either my questions or my statement. I'm sure we'll see his standard "I don't pay attention to what you write, what did you say" response shortly.

No, David, you evidently are in need of someone to school you on the beginnings of golf in America...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 09, 2011, 09:57:33 AM

TomM,

I agree with you that  the 1896 comment may have been mistaken as well.

Do we know for sure where the Hopkins land was, or is Weeks the only source on that one as well?


David
I think most agree 'evaluation' makes no sense. Elevation was the first word that came to my mind, though evolution makes sense too. Weeks also got the name of the most important man in club history wrong, 'Herbert Carey Leeds'.

I'm not sure if that map you posted pages ago also showed Hopkins land or not. Weeks is the only source I'm aware of for how the original course was changed, creating the so called Long Nine. And basically he claims three new holes on the ridge replaced three holes on Hopkins land.

His timing for how it occurred is confusing however. On one hand he gives the impression they began developing the holes on that first year or soon after and then on the other hand claims Leeds oversaw the change after he became a member (mid-1896 to 1897). If there is one thing clear by now it didn't take very long for a nine hole courses to be laid out and ready for play; one would think three holes would be quick.

Based on the report in late 1895 that the course was new, and the report in early 1896 that Leeds of Brookline was responsible for Myopia, and the report in 1896 that the course was over 2800 yards, I believe the course was changed in 1895 by Leeds prior to him becoming a member. I would not be surprised if Campbell was also involved because of their close ties.

Phil
Stoddard worked for Gloucester Daily Times. I don't know what clubs he belonged to, if he belonged to any, I don't know his religion or political affiliation, or where he was educated, or if he was married or single, or his family history and background. Unlike some of the other acknowledgements in the book that mention the person's club affiliation, and their position within the club, this one only says he is the publisher of a newspaper.

Have you read May's piece; do you have the book?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 09, 2011, 11:25:38 AM
So that we can all be on the same page...

In the 1974 Golf Digest coffee table book, "Great Golf Courses of the World", by William H. Davis and the Editors of Golf Digest, there are any number of previously published stories and course profiles put together in a colorful compendium.   The book has special meaning to me as it was the first golf course architecture related book I ever received, which my dad got for me in my late teens.

Among the articles is one titled, "early open courses", by John P. May.

First, May profiles Chicago Golf Club, and then Philadelphia Cricket Club, with some cool vintage photos of each accompanying the text.  Then, on page 50, across from a photo of the 8th hole at Myopia taken from the tee in 1900, May writes;

MYOPIA HUNT CLUB

The Myopia Hunt Club near Boston sprang from fox hunting, polo, trap shooting, riding plus a healthy interest in lawn tennis.   Myopia first surfaced in 1875 when a tennis club by that name was formed in Winchester, Mass.  In 1881 fox hunting became popular, and the Myopia Fox Hounds was founded.   Finally, on December 16, 1891 the Myopia Hunt Club became official.   It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill, and A. P. Gardner.

Myopia Hunt Club's unusual name comes from the fact that the original founders had two things in common -  a compelling interest in "sport", particularly hunting, and myopia or what's commonly called nearsightedness.   Yes, they all wore glasses.   Myopia's first president, Marshall Kittriedge Abbott, even wrote that "eyeglasses were a badge of distinction, amounting to a decoration."

In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned).   It was 2,930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again.   Myopia proved such an outstanding test that despite the fact that it had only nine holes, it was chosen as the site of the 1898 Open.   Fred Herd, a Scot professional working in Chicago, went around the nine holes eight times in two days and won with 328.   Designer Leeds, incidentally, finished eighth.   Another nine had been added at Myopia by 1901 when Willie Anderson won there the first of his four Open titles.   He won it there again in 1905 and little Fred McLeod took the last Open held at Myopia in 1908.

Today Myopia is a 6,353-yard, par-72 courses with a rating of 71.   It is still a site of occasional state and area tournaments; the 1976 Massachusetts State Amateur will be eld there.   Fairways burrow through thick stands of trees, marching up and down well-defined grades.  Fairway mounds are not uncommon and can cause a sidehill lie on a shot right down the middle.   The bunkers around the green are low and not so noticeable from the fairways.   The small greens call for pin-point approaches.

With each of the nine holes that existed in 1898 still included in the present course, Myopia is the model par excellence on the marriage between a great golfing tradition and sound course-design principles.   Surely, despite their spectacles, Myopia's early designers were far-sighted.

-- John P. May


Later, in the Acknowledgments Section it is written;

The following individuals provided extensive help, research, and background materials for the sections indicated:

US COURSES
- Donald E Casey, president, Chicago Golf Club, for photographs and material on Chicago Golf
- Joseph Hoover Jr., Joseph Hoover and Sons, for photographic film of man courses
- Carlton S. Young, Manager, Myopia Hunt Club, for vintage photographs of Myopia, and Alexander N. Stoddard, Publisher, Essex County Newspaper, for background information on Myopia
- The help of dozens of club managers and presidents of golf courses and clubs in the United States who edited material for accuracy is also gratefully acknowledged.

MEXICO
- and so on....

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 09, 2011, 11:36:48 AM
Tom,

Since you don't know what clubs he belonged to, how can you so blithely declare that Stoddard's knowledge of Myopia HAD TO HAVE COME FROM NEWSPAPERS as sources and NOT as YOU put it "INTERNAL DOCUMENTS?" That is, after all, EXACTLY what you stated.

He worked for the "Gloucester  Daily Times" and that is it? That is all that you could find out about him? I'm quite surprised. Even someone as untalented as myself was able to find out that he was such a fine golfer that at one time he held the course record at Essex with a 66. By the way, he also happens to be a past "Master of the Green" at Myopia so I don't think he would have had too much of a problem accessing "INTERNAL DOCUMENTS" for "background information on Myopia."

It only took from last night till now to get that information...

Now as far as your latest statement, "I think most agree 'evaluation' makes no sense..." on WHAT could you possibly base that conclusion? A late-night telephone poll conducted after you stopped at Stoddard working for the Gloucester Daily Times? Your conclusion is invalid as it is solely based upon your own belief and nothing more... I personally have no problem with your "interpretation" but please, don't make a blanket declaration that it is supported by "most" when only four people have commented on it. Doing so sounds like the Marketing guy who talked to himself in the bathroom so that he could state how "Most people he talked with enjoyed the products he represented..."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 09, 2011, 12:47:45 PM
Phil,

Nice finds.

I have a few comments about the John May piece.   I do agree with Tom MacWood and David Moriarty that it's likely Leeds began to design/expand the course from almost the beginning, and was definitely involved in club and course matters from almost inception, winning the Opening Day and July 4th tournaments in 1894.  

If the original course was only 2,050 yards and very "rough", then I think those in charge would have been looking to improve matters quickly once the game caught on among a segment of members and looking to build something more substantive and probably with more permanency (and possibly more real challenge, and not just difficulty due largely to unkempt rough and poor conditions).

Also, if Weeks is correct that the original course was also on land owned by Dr. Hopkins, then May is also technically correct when he states that the original course was in a different location from the course in 1898, although certainly some of the same land was used for both, so perhaps May was simply confused by reference materials that mentioned the course being on Hopkins'  land.

What I find confusing and inconsistent between the Weeks and May accounts is the total yardage.   Weeks tells us that "we know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club and those of our fellow member, Dr. S. A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse", and then goes on to partially describe six holes of the course, which roughly follow the corridors of today's holes 2 (at 300 yards), 8 (400 yards?), 9 (100 yards), from right of 9 green to today's 11th green (250 yards), today's 12th, (300), today's 13th (at 250 yards).

If May is correct that the course was only 2,050 yards, that configuration would have only left approximately 420 yards for the three holes on the Hopkins property, which seems unlikely.

My guess is that Weeks had bits and piece of factual information and descriptions of the original nine holes, and perhaps hole names, but also had to admittedly speculate.   Tom Paul has mentioned that he didn't believe Weeks was correct in naming today's 8th hole as the 2nd of the original course, but I also think that if Hopkins land was used it likely was not in any configuration that we know in the holes that exist there today. (most of holes 4, 5, & 6)

I say this for a few reasons.   First, we do know that some version of today's 2nd hole with both tee and green in different locations at 300 yards was the original first.   Second, it does seem likely given other factors (such as Weeks citing specific hole "names") that the last four holes of the original course would have been something like today's 9th, then 10th tee to 11th green, then a shortened Valley hole (today's 12th), and then the "Pond" hole, of about 250-280 yards, sort of like today's 13th but with a tee well left of today's in what is today a forested area.

That would give room for the other four holes to go out and back across Hopkins land, perhaps on a diagonal, ending up around today's 6th green, or perhaps even climbing as high as the 8th green.

I also say this because I think we (and Weeks) fall victim to only imagining hole corridors as they exist today.   I remember when we started researching Cobb's Creek I was astounded to learn the paths that some original holes took, simply because to look at them today one looks simply at tall trees and thick woods.

Earlier this morning I came across a very early photo of the 4th hole at Myopia, which is mostly on land that was owned by Dr. Hopkins.   I'll see if I can't scan and post it in the next couple of days, but I was very surprised to see the land around and out to the right of the green, today which is thick woods, was all open hillside, and certainly playable land for golf.

So, while Weeks might be mistaken in his admitted speculation as to the exact nature of the holes, I still think the parallels between the Weeks account and the May account means that there are internal club records that we are not privy to that 1) Document the work of the three members in staking out the original course, and 2) Provide some limited insight into where and what those golf holes entailed.

Whether this is the course that Willie Campbell "laid out", what that work entailed, and whether Campbell made changes to the original members' hole configuration(s) is something I still don't think we know for certain based on what's been presented to date.

Personally, I think both stories are very likely true, but neither is something I'd bet the farm on.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 09, 2011, 01:51:50 PM
Mike,

Knowing who Alex Stoddard was and his position at Myopia also convinces me that there are internal documents and that they are the basis for information about the club's history that has been placed into the public venue...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 09, 2011, 02:07:45 PM
Phil,

To contend otherwise I think one would have to believe that some combination of Stoddard, Carlton Young, Edward Weeks, and John P. May simply made it all up.

Personally, I think they got it mostly right based on internal club documents, and likely missed Campbell's role due to his being under the direct employ of TCC and Essex and therefore not included in any internal club documents.    Either that, or his role in designing a new course for Essex at the same time was mistaken with the reporting for Myopia's new course and then perpetuated in multiple Gossip Columns is a possibility, but I would think it likely that he did have a role at Myopia prior to the course opening.

Whether he simply built the greens and original course to the member's wishes, or modified it based on his own ideas is, and will likely remain, unknown.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 09, 2011, 02:16:22 PM
There were many newspapers available in the early Myopia days in Essex County:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/titles/results/?state=Massachusetts&county=Essex&city=&year1=1880&year2=1900&terms=&frequency=&language=&ethnicity=&labor=&lccn=&materialType=

I'm quite confident much more information is out there to fill in the gaps.  Maybe one of our Boston GCAers will spend a weekend at the Boston Public Library looking at many of these papers on microfilm.  It has to be a treasure trove of early golf history just waiting to be "rediscovered"!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 09, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
David
You quoted from the 'Myopia Songs & Waltzes', which was an early history of the club originally published in 1897:

"Golf has been introduced as a Myopia sport. Its development has been principally due to the efforts of Mr. Bush and Mr. Parker, who, in the opinion of many, have laid out one of the best inland courses in the country."

In Country Life (January 1916) an article claimed in 1894 under the leadership and stimulus of SD Bush and James Parker a nine hole course was laid out.

In James Lee's 'Golf In America' (1895) James Parker is listed as the head of the golf committee and Bush as his secretary. Leeds joined the golf committee sometime after he came to Myopia. In 1898 during the US Open Parker was head of the golf committee, Leeds and MJ Henry were the other two. James Parker was Leeds male companion.

It is interesting to note in 'Myopia Songs and Waltzes' it says golf was formally introduced in 1894, which may mean golf was played informally prior to 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 09, 2011, 06:15:42 PM
Phillip,

I can't refute your blathering about the evaluation of Americans versus Scots?  Why bother to refute it?  It has nothing to do with the apparent mistake in that quote.

Mike,

Knowing who Alex Stoddard was and his position at Myopia also convinces me that there are internal documents and that they are the basis for information about the club's history that has been placed into the public venue...

Interesting analysis.   May claimed Stoddard was his source, yet May gets a number of facts wrong, and your conclusion is that there must be internal documents which form the basis of the various accounts of Myopia's history?    With internal documents like those, who needs fiction? 
____________________________________

TomM

I have read that Country Life article and came away from it thinking that the  author relied heavily on the 1897 Myopia songbook.   If I recall correctly, he even refers to it.   

I
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 09, 2011, 07:11:57 PM
Sorry David, but you simply can't seem to reason well on this one. Tom Macwood concluded that all the information in May's account came from NEWSPAPERS simply because he didn't know of Stoddard's membership at Myopia and position as "Keeper of the Green." He therefor jumped to wrong conclusions. Its interesting because according to his way of thinking it is the NEWSPAPERS that supplied all of the misinformation, yet his conclusions of what actually occurred are newspaper-based.

In this case, you are jumping to a conclusion as well that might also be fallacious. You are assuming that with a new understanding of Stoddard that ALL of the so-called mistakes in MAY'S writings are from Stoddard. Since you can't state with any reasonable certainty as to exactly what facts presented by May were from Stoddard you simply cannot reach that conclusion.

All I've done is concluded that there must be early club records...

p.s. - blather, blather, blather... simply because YOU don't understand something doesn't in any w3ay mean that the quote is mistaken...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 09, 2011, 08:36:42 PM
Yawn.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 09, 2011, 09:41:07 PM
"Yawn."

Now you know how we so often feel...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 09, 2011, 10:07:18 PM
I'm not understanding why the conversation always erodes and turns negative every single time we get past basic newspaper articles?

All of us here seem to be digging pretty deep for evidence and information.   Why the need to try and negate the obvious conclusions and why the need to insult others to make rhetorical points?

I really don't think amy of that is necessary here, and it certainly doesn't advance the discussion or seriously address what is certainly new information that has been presented here.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 10, 2011, 06:14:13 AM

TomM

I have read that Country Life article and came away from it thinking that the  author relied heavily on the 1897 Myopia songbook.   If I recall correctly, he even refers to it.   


David
It doesn't mention it, but you're right it is very similar and likely the primary source of the article.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2011, 06:29:01 AM
Tom,

Where does it say that "golf was formally introduced in 1894"?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 10, 2011, 06:40:30 AM
Phil,

To contend otherwise I think one would have to believe that some combination of Stoddard, Carlton Young, Edward Weeks, and John P. May simply made it all up.

Personally, I think they got it mostly right based on internal club documents, and likely missed Campbell's role due to his being under the direct employ of TCC and Essex and therefore not included in any internal club documents.    Either that, or his role in designing a new course for Essex at the same time was mistaken with the reporting for Myopia's new course and then perpetuated in multiple Gossip Columns is a possibility, but I would think it likely that he did have a role at Myopia prior to the course opening.

Whether he simply built the greens and original course to the member's wishes, or modified it based on his own ideas is, and will likely remain, unknown.  

To my knowledge no one has ever suggested they made it all up other than you and Jeff B. There is nothing in Weeks' book or May's article that gives any indication either man had access to internal documents. They do not quote from TEP's board minutes or any other contemporaneous document. Weeks does not know the date of the annual meeting in 1894. Neither man knew Campbell laid out the original course. Neither man knew when the original nine was changed or precisely how it was changed. And they don't agree on the basics of how it changed - Weeks claims three holes were changed and May says the course was completely abandoned, a new course was built at different site. Neither man knew precisely when the course was expanded to 18 holes. Weeks gives the impression it occurred after the '98 Open, when actually the work began in 1897. Weeks has no idea when or in what capacity White and Campbell worked for the club. They are not aware of the circumstances behind Myopia being chosen to host the 1898 Open.

If these men were relying on internal documents for their information how do you explain the misinformation, contradictions and gaps of knowledge, and why no direct quotes?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 10, 2011, 06:44:09 AM
Under 'Some Myopia Dates':


SOME MYOPIA DATES

ii

Hunted from Gibney Farm, first season 1882

First Hunt Ball, Odd Fellows' Hall, Boston . . . 1885

First Village Dance, Wenham Town Hall .... 1885

First Polo Game, Gibney Farm 1888

Dinner given to Farmers 1887

Ball given to Farmers and their Families 1890

First Labor Day Sports 1890

Gibney Farm purchased 1891

Coach "Myopia" ran season of 1891

Ladies' Annex opened 1892

Coach " Constitution " ran season of 1892

Hamilton Centennial 1893

Golf formally introduced 1894

New stables erected 1896
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2011, 07:39:18 AM
Tom,

Where does it say golf was "formally introduced" in 1894?

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2011, 07:53:17 AM
Tom...ahhh, I see.  Thanks.

So, is your theory that Appleton, et.al. laid out and played on a makeshift course prior to 1894, thus the conflicting accounts?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 10, 2011, 08:50:30 AM
Ahh, another Monday morning on golfclubatlas.com......

For the record, I didn't ever say these gents made up anything, and that is a misrepresentation of what I said.  As to TMac's post 1444, I disagree with many of his conclusions.

First, comparing Weeks to May, who was writing a 200 word summary of the club isn't really germaine to the subject, IMHO.

Second, no one really knows what Weeks is using as source material from his writing, but we cannot conclude that he didn't have club records from what he writes, can we?  In paging through the entire book, he uses quotes in some spots, but for the most part, writes it as his own narrative.  Some of the quotes, like one about Frick, come from outside sources.  Others must come from some old insider info from the club because of the details contained in some areas.

As to the changes Weeks suggested took place after the 1898 Open, he does write that Leeds had "already scrutinized unused portions of club land" suggesting at least the planning work had taken place prior to the successful tournament, if not any actual construction.  The map on the next page clearly shows that the land from Hopkins was acquired for $3500 in 1897.

Because he chose not to write the exact date of the March 1894 meeting, does that prove he didn't know when it was, or just that he didn't think his readers wanted to know that?  

And assuming that Campbell has been proven to design the golf course, and then claiming Weeks is wrong because he didn't know it, well that is assuming facts not in evidence, is it not?  There is a reason WC isn't known to be in club records over 100 years later, but we haven't proven that it was because Weeks was wrong.

Those are just a few examples of what I think are (or at least might be) improper conclusions.  I don't think the writing in Weeks allows those conclusions to be accepted as anything more than another interpretation at this point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 10, 2011, 12:44:11 PM

TMac says everyone involved at Myopia was making things up...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 10, 2011, 02:12:59 PM
TMac,

Good morning and thanks for making my point for me.  I never said they were making things up, but sure think you have to believe that to have your theory make sense.

Now, I agree that particular verbiage is a bit too strong for the situation.  But, as described above, you have to interpret many things in a specific way to discount the things anyone at Myopia wrote about themselves in favor of those newspaper articles.

And again, I do not believe that your conclusions regarding what Weeks and others wrote about their own club over the years are necessarily correct.  They could be consistently wrong as you contend, but I think the odds of it are slim.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2011, 02:47:23 PM
Tom,

So, is your theory that Appleton, et.al. laid out and played on a makeshift, "informal" course prior to 1894, thus the conflicting accounts?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 10, 2011, 03:04:03 PM
Mike,

In rereading Weeks to respond to TMac, I was struck on how it appears that they walked the course ("footed it" in Weeks parlance) in early March before the annual meeting to make that presentation.  He does say "when the snow melted" and implies it was pre annual meeting which actually makes sense.

I am now wondering (yes, speculation, but TMac shouldn't mind since it would concur with his theory) if Weeks only read so far in the club records as to see that the committee had laid out the course in preparation for that annual meeting, and then didn't look any further in the architectural record to see anything that might have happened later, such as Campbell being employed?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 10, 2011, 04:13:55 PM
Jeff,

It is possible but then May and/or Stoddard would have had to repeat the error.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: RSLivingston_III on January 10, 2011, 07:01:13 PM
In the US, most everything I have ever read from regional publications pre-1900 had significant factual problems. Golf was so new the reporters knew nothing about the game. Heck, the players largely were ignorant of what they were doing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 10, 2011, 07:13:45 PM
TMac,

Good morning and thanks for making my point for me.  I never said they were making things up, but sure think you have to believe that to have your theory make sense.

Now, I agree that particular verbiage is a bit too strong for the situation.  But, as described above, you have to interpret many things in a specific way to discount the things anyone at Myopia wrote about themselves in favor of those newspaper articles.

And again, I do not believe that your conclusions regarding what Weeks and others wrote about their own club over the years are necessarily correct.  They could be consistently wrong as you contend, but I think the odds of it are slim.

The point I was trying to make is that no one ever claimed they made it up, but for some odd reason you (and Mike ) claim I said they did. I don't see what value you bring to these threads when you are constantly misrepresenting what people have said and confusing the facts.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 10, 2011, 10:30:20 PM
TMac,

You are probably right, and I don't mean to fling more poo at you.  I will try to stop that.

As I said, its probably too strong language, but some of my other points stand, as we are many months in and from time to time, I feel like I help distinguish what is fact and what is still interpreatation.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 11, 2011, 06:05:33 AM
Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 11, 2011, 06:28:19 AM
Ahh, another Monday morning on golfclubatlas.com......

For the record, I didn't ever say these gents made up anything, and that is a misrepresentation of what I said.  As to TMac's post 1444, I disagree with many of his conclusions.

First, comparing Weeks to May, who was writing a 200 word summary of the club isn't really germaine to the subject, IMHO.

You and others believe Weeks had access to contemporaneous club records, that his account is based on contemporaneous club records. And because May account predates Weeks, and May & Weeks both have the Squire & Co. laying out the course (and neither has knowledge of Campbell) there has been an assumption by some that May also had access to those same records. They have similar stories, they have similar errors, and they have similar holes in their stories. Personally I don't believe there are contemporaneous club records regarding the early years of the golf course, but the story about the Squire & Co (sans Campbell) had to come from somewhere and I think there is a good chance it was the same source.

Second, no one really knows what Weeks is using as source material from his writing, but we cannot conclude that he didn't have club records from what he writes, can we?  In paging through the entire book, he uses quotes in some spots, but for the most part, writes it as his own narrative.  Some of the quotes, like one about Frick, come from outside sources.  Others must come from some old insider info from the club because of the details contained in some areas.

Why didn't he quote from the source material? To my knowledge he never quotes from contemporaneous source material when it comes to the design or redesign of the golf course. He also has no knowledge of Campbell who laid out the course in 1894 and was employed by the club in 1896. By the way the old insider never mentions the Squire & Co., or anyone else for that matter, designing the original golf course.  

As to the changes Weeks suggested took place after the 1898 Open, he does write that Leeds had "already scrutinized unused portions of club land" suggesting at least the planning work had taken place prior to the successful tournament, if not any actual construction.  The map on the next page clearly shows that the land from Hopkins was acquired for $3500 in 1897.

If he had good internal documents (or carried out any decent research) he would've known the decision to expand the course to 18 holes and construction began in 1897.

Because he chose not to write the exact date of the March 1894 meeting, does that prove he didn't know when it was, or just that he didn't think his readers wanted to know that?

Because Weeks had no or poor club records, and did not carry out very extensive research, he was forced to rely on Bush's later account.  

And assuming that Campbell has been proven to design the golf course, and then claiming Weeks is wrong because he didn't know it, well that is assuming facts not in evidence, is it not?  There is a reason WC isn't known to be in club records over 100 years later, but we haven't proven that it was because Weeks was wrong.

Doesn't that speak to the thoroughness of the supposed internal club records and Weeks' research or lack there of?

Those are just a few examples of what I think are (or at least might be) improper conclusions.  I don't think the writing in Weeks allows those conclusions to be accepted as anything more than another interpretation at this point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 11, 2011, 06:31:14 AM
After absorbing all the information presented so far I think it is pretty clear Willie Campbell deserves lone credit for designing the original golf course. The question remains where did the story about the Squire & Co come from. I have no idea, and no one else seems to know either. I suspect one of two possibilities. Someone just made it up, perhaps in attempt to mirror the story of TCC origins when three members laid out a six-hole course over and around the race course in 1893. The second more likely scenario IMO, the Squire & Co began playing golf somewhere on the Myopia property in 1893. Forget the part about the snow melting, I think that was clearly an embellishment by Weeks. Forget the part about the sod being laid, sod may have been laid at some point, but it wouldn't have been 1893, or probably even 1894.

I can see the three members after being exposed to golf at TCC in 1893, and Essex which had a crude golf course in 1893 (a five hole course shaped like a diamond), probably batting the ball around Myopia. There is no mention of anyone playing golf at Myopia in 1893 so my guess would be they were playing very informally. No golf course per say, but a hole or two or three, that could be approached from different angles. And then the following spring, led by the Squire & Co prodding, the club voted to build a formal golf course. How's that for speculation.

The question remains why, when and by whom did Campbell get written out of the story. I've speculated it may been from an earlier history book in 1941. Another possibility is Leeds himself wrote Campbell out of the story for whatever reason.


Mike
You asked yesterday about the Squire & Co playing golf at Myopia prior to 1894, and yes I still do think that is the most logical explanation at present.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 11, 2011, 06:46:24 AM
Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

Thanks.

Mike
I agree, the story about the Squire & Co. (sans Campbell) had to come from somewhere, but I have no idea where. Bush's account is the only one Weeks mentions in his book, but he apparently does not mention who designed the original course.

I'd have you ask TEP since he has claimed to have gone through the club's records, but he already told us the story came from board records, which seems highly unlikely at this point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 11, 2011, 11:39:43 AM
Tom MacWood,

Thanks for the answers.

I wouldn't agree that Bush was the likely source...Weeks seems to have no trouble quoting him directly and does so very liberally throughout the section, including just after he identifies the three members having staked out the course.

He also reproduces Bush's entire detailed description of the holes on the Long Nine.
 
I believe its a different internal source.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 11, 2011, 12:54:43 PM
Mike and Tom,

I reread the Weeks account early this morning, pre-coffee, and I still believe some if not most of the account comes from club records.  Why?  Because the story of the three laying it out is said to have come from a terse entry in club records by Bush, just prior to being quoted.

I do understand the theory that it must have come from his later remembrances, but it says it came from the records.  If it had come from his rembrances after he was President, about 1908, would it not have read as "Remembrances of President Bush?"  (hmmm, which one?)  I doubt Weeks could be reading those and casually call them club records, but perhaps.  Or, it could just be that since he held position of golf committee secretary it was written but his full title not used, or it could have been written a few years later, in 1987 when Bush had ascended to Secretary of the Club, and wanted to fill in some historical records. 

Speculation?  Yeah, but it does take Weeks at his word that the quote came from club records.   Would a remembrance from ex President Bush be called a club record?  Not sure.  To assume a club secretary would not have entered any other events into the club records seems a bit incongruous to me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 11, 2011, 02:00:59 PM
Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

1.  There is a big difference between getting things wrong and "making things up."  One can make mistakes without lying or making things up, and as I have explained repeatedly,  I think that is what happened with Weeks.

2.   I have never claimed that there were no internal club records.   I have claimed that I don't think there are internal club records which adequately explain who laid out the original course.   I other words, there may be some club records, and they may even help explain why Weeks got it wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely that they will explain who exactly laid out the course.  

3.  As for where Weeks got is information, I have no idea, but like all historical analysis his claims carry very little weight without the backup.  Unfortunately, it does not sound like he properly sourced his book and so we are left guessing at his source(s.)  All we know is that there a a number of things about his account that are either outright wrong or in direct contradiction with contemporaneous documentation, and from that I think it is safe to infer that whatever information he was relying upon did not provide a complete picture of what happened.  

4.  While you guys seem to put great weight on club records, they can seriously mislead the researcher, especially by virtue of things that they may not have even addressed. Take Shinnecock, for example, where we have been told that the records  do not indicate that Shinnecock had a professional in 1892 and 1893.  From this the assumption was apparently drawn that the club must not have been a professional for those years.  Therefore, if there was no other professional there for those years, then Davis must have been responsible for the lay out of the golf course as it existed in 1893. Not trying to open up a Shinnecock discussion here, just trying to point out how easy it is to get started down the wrong path because of club records.

5. Something similar might have happened at Myopia.  Say, for example, that the minutes from the March meeting read something like this:
Bush: Appleton, Merrill, Gardner proposed formal introduction of golf to Myopia, and reported that land east and south of slope is well suited for 9 hole course.  Board approved the proposal, authorized expenditure, and authorized Bush and Parker of grounds committee to direct above named members to oversee the development of course.  Formal introduction of golf at Myopia tentatively scheduled for first gala event of season, mid-June.

I am not saying that the minutes say this or anything like it, I am just trying to give you an example of how the minutes themselves could have lead to the confusion about who laid out the course.  Except for the colorful descriptions of the snow melting, etc., about all the speculation about the initial course (including the oft ignored claim that Parker and Bush were responsible) could have come from such an entry.   Combine this with the lack of a mention of Campbell, and it would have been very easy to conclude that either AMG were responsible or that BP were responsible.    Yet the actual entry is entirely consistent with Campbell having laid out the course.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: John Kavanaugh on January 11, 2011, 02:04:53 PM
I clicked on this thread only because I thought I could avoid another list.  Low and behold David lists reasons 1 through 5.  I'm going home to take a nap, these damn lists have worn me out.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 11, 2011, 04:10:25 PM
David,

Thanks...I think we've all exhausted this one unless someone comes up with additional external documentation and/or evidence or better yet, reviews club records.

I don't think we can draw any definitive conclusions, but I've learned a lot about Myopia and early Boston golf through the process.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 11, 2011, 04:49:51 PM
Given that the only one with access to the supposed documents  has repeatedly shown himself to be dishonest and unreliable even in regard to these very documents, I won't hold my breath.  

Based on the record as it now stands, it is unreasonable for you state that we cannot draw any conclusions from the information we have.  We have contemporaneous sources that directly address the issue at hand.   That is about the best we can ever hope for.

According to various contemporaneous newspaper accounts, Campbell laid out the course.   So far as I know the only account contradicting this is the 1897 account by the member stating that Bush and Parker laid it out, but you inexplicably refuse to give that version any credence.  

Unless you can come up with any contemporaneous source material suggesting otherwise, then that is where we stand for now.  


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on January 11, 2011, 04:58:35 PM
We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: PThomas on January 11, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side... ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 11, 2011, 05:10:59 PM
We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side... ;)

Dear Paul,

   This is a very good idea.  I think Judge Wapner would love take on this challenging case.

Sincerely,
Doug Llewellyn

P.S.  Please see Rusty as you leave as he has some papers for you to sign.

-----------------
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 11, 2011, 05:13:44 PM
How funny!  To be honest, I thought about posting the same idea a week or so ago, and didn't because I didn't want to upset David.  But, because he is a non practicing lawyer, from time to time, I get the sense he is bringing courtroom tactics to the debate, which may or may not be appropriate.

On all sides, we are debating essentially "what is permissable evidence" so Judge Judy may have been helpful!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: PThomas on January 11, 2011, 05:16:30 PM
We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side... ;)

Dear Paul,

   This is a very good idea.  I think Judge Wapner would love take on this challenging case.

Sincerely,
Doug Llewellyn

P.S.  Please see Rusty as you leave as he has some papers for you to sign.

-----------------


ha! :)....and Terry is a nice guy so of course if i was king i wouldnt assign him to this case....

i wonder what happened to the good judge Wapner and Doug L...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 11, 2011, 09:49:07 PM
Nice call on letting a judge decide rather than a jury.  Given that one side is basing their position on the hope that somewhere out there some support exists, I doubt their case would make it to a jury.

But going before a judge wouldn't be quite right either.   For a few of us at least this isn't about winning, convincing a judge to side with us, or defeating the other side, it is about figuring out what really happened.  Despite what some judges might think, this cannot be determined by judicial decision or decree, popular vote, or mandate from a club or someone else.  This isn't a trial, election, or a popularity contest.  Another opinion has no bearing on what really happened.

That all said, it might be a useful exercise if both sides briefly listed out the actual factual basis for the various claims.  And by factual basis, I don't mean reference to someone else's speculation, I mean actual contemporaneous evidence of what happened.  

Who goes first?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 11, 2011, 10:17:59 PM
David,

I'm happy for you to have the last word.

Evidence in the OJ murder case didn't get this much scrutiny.

No need for a judge or jury;  anyone interested can make up their own mind and that's probably as it should be in these minor matters.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 11, 2011, 10:39:27 PM
Why not a provide a concise list of the contemporaneous support backing up your understanding of what happened? That way anyone curious can cut straight to the heart of the matter and make up their own minds.  It would be cruel to make them sift through this mess.

So how about a brief list of  the contemporaneous source material indicating that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill laid out the course?  

Surely after 43 pages you can do this, can't you?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 12:46:01 AM
If this had been a court, I suspect most of the participants would have been cited for contempt by now. ;)
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 01:13:32 AM

No need for a judge or jury;  anyone interested can make up their own mind and that's probably as it should be in these minor matters.


As much as some want a "resolution" to this topic, I think Mike's final statement is true.

Mike has repeatedly expressed his reasons why he has doubts about David and Tom's assertions.  Are they reasonable doubts? That is really up to each person to decide for themselves. More point/counterpoint discussion isn't going to advance things any further.

I have been through all 43 pages of this, and I'm not thoroughly convinced of any of the theories advanced.

And that's fine with me, because it has still been interesting reading about the early development of Golf in America.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 02:11:43 AM
David,

If either of us had any further evidence to provide here, we should really do it now or just let it rest.

We've made our points...don't you think?

Good night,
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 06:14:08 AM
~
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 06:25:24 AM

As much as some want a "resolution" to this topic, I think Mike's final statement is true.

Mike has repeatedly expressed his reasons why he has doubts about David and Tom's assertions.  Are they reasonable doubts? That is really up to each person to decide for themselves. More point/counterpoint discussion isn't going to advance things any further.

I have been through all 43 pages of this, and I'm not thoroughly convinced of any of the theories advanced.

And that's fine with me, because it has still been interesting reading about the early development of Golf in America.

Kevin
Note the title of the thread. There is no one still remaining on this thread who does not acknowledge Campbell laid out the course in 1894 and Campbell was the pro in 1896, accept you. And that ain't no theory; that is a fact.

Way to go. I'm not sure the purpose of your post other than to make us all question your intelligence, judgement and reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 06:25:38 AM
I believe David's was more a rhetorical question. By now we all know there are three contemporaneous reports Campbell laid out Myopia; no reports the Squire & Co. did anything. Really what this thread should be about is acknowledging and celebrating Willie Campbell's important contribution to early American golf architecture. That contribution has been under valued for sometime, in part due to him being completely written out of the Myopia history in error.

Here are Campbell's American designs in approximate chronological order. There are three other courses - Warren Farm, Pride's Crossing & Appleton Farm - I suspect he was involved in laying out but have not found the confirming documentation as yet.  

The Country Club, MA 1894
Essex County, MA 1894
Myopia Hunt, MA 1894
Nahant, MA 1894
Wakefield, MA 1894
Merion Cricket, PA 1896
Belmont Cricket, PA 1896*
Philadelphia, PA 1896
Franklin Park, MA 1896
Huntingdon Valley, PA 1897
Winchester, MA 1897
Salem, MA 1897
Topsfield, MA 1897
Hawthorn, MA 1897
Cambridge, MA 1897
Wakefield Park, MA 1897
Bridgewater, MA 1897
Beaver Meadow, NH 1897
Wannamoisett, RI 1898
Tatnuck, MA 1898
Moorestown Field, NJ 1898
Oakley, MA 1898
Cohassett, MA 1899

* may or may not have been executed
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 09:04:32 AM
TMac,

I agree with most everything in your post above, especially starting with the third sentence!

Seriously, for all the goo, I read and enjoyed both your earlier IMO pieces on the early American architects, and the many articles you (and others) posted on Myopia and others of the time frame.  That part of the thread shows the true value of gca.com to any interested in gca in America, or elsewhere.

So, I learned a lot, which is never a bad thing.  Truth of the matter is, I didn't really like the methods of all my teachers back in grade school either, but I still remember some of the lessons!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 09:47:10 AM
Tom,

As I said about 50 times, I agree that it's very likely that Willlie Campbell had something to do with the initial course at Myopia.   We just don't really know what that entailed, or the timing of it.

All we have is three very similar articles in three gossip columns related to the opening day tournament, and we know those papers either copied shamelessly from each other or had the same person moonlighting...after all, how many people were actually so "in the know" as to be able to hob nob with those upper-crust folks and yet still have to work for a living as an ink-stained wretch?  

Multiple of those gossip columns also reported that Myopia had "two links", and various other errors, so are we to accept that as factual, as well?

So, I think there is ample, if uncertain evidence that BOTH things happened...the members staked out a basic routing and Willie Campbell helped them get it up and going, probably helping with sod, green building, etc., and possibly revising in part or whole the original routing...we don't know.  

However, if everyone at Myopia was just going to wait around for Willie Campbell to arrive in the states in April and get some time away from his employ from TCC and Essex then there really wasn't even a point to assign a committee back in the March/April time frame....what was that committee going to do but wait for Willie to come at the end of May ten days before opening??  

As you often say, it makes no sense.

So, I think Campbell came and helped them get to the finish line.   What that work entailed we'll likely never know as there seems to be no record of it anywhere at Myopia, and we can't even be certain based on just huge errors and misunderstandings we've seen in those gossip columns that they didn't mix up his work with Essex, or even had some common understanding of what "laid out" meant in a way we'd think of it today.

I wish we knew more.   We don't.

Thanks for the information you brought forward.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 10:22:25 AM
Kevin,

Welcome to the TMIMFNRC! That's the Tom Macwood Insulted Me For No Reason Club!

One normally gains entry as you did; after reasoning through a question and coming to a different conclusion than he did only to see him declare what is actual fact and how it is you who are in error! Of course his absolute "fact," that "There is no one still remaining on this thread who does not acknowledge Campbell laid out the course in 1894 and Campbell was the pro in 1896, accept you. And that ain't no theory; that is a fact" doesn't appear to be so absolute. For example, can anyone show me in what you posted that even mentions anything about Campbell and his laying out the course in any manner? Of course not. So either he is among the handful of most intuitive men on the planet in that he can read your thoughts through the internet or he is just winging it and making a blanket declaration in hopes that it will in some way stick and be accepted.

Interestingly, he doesn't quite say what Campbell's "laying out of the course" actually means that everyone but you are in agreement with, and since Ive been on this thread from very early on I guess that he believes that he is speaking for me as well. Thank you Tom for taking away the pressure of thinking and reasoning for myself... it was such a burden. Actually, if his understanding of that phrase means what I believe it does, then his "fact" needs to be more than a bit revised as I don't agree at all with what I believe he is implying, and the actual FACT is that there are a number of others who disagree as well...

Welcome to the club! 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 10:46:39 AM
Phillip,

Maybe when its your turn to be a lister you can give us top ten insults by TMac! Just kidding, and I have thrown out a few myself, but I also welcome Kevin to the club.  My biggest insult was him telling me I must have been hitting the nog too hard before posting.  I would be more upset, but it was actually at least a little clever (even if DM had posted a similar insult the minute before).  I can live with that as well as the occaisional grammatical error, since we all make those too.

But I do agree that he has, from time to time, made statements, waited a few weeks, and them brought them back as "fact."  I think we all know it happens, but probably 3/4 of these pages is guys like you and me not allowing them to have the last word, which I still think is the end result of this thread.  That said, I hope my next post is the last word on this thread, although I half expect a ten point response from David......
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 10:46:48 AM
Word.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 10:57:11 AM

So, I think there is ample, if uncertain evidence that BOTH things happened...the members staked out a basic routing and Willie Campbell helped them get it up and going, probably helping with sod, green building, etc., and possibly revising in part or whole the original routing...we don't know.  

Mike Cirba.  

Well since you are still posting on the matter, then how about we provide a list of the evidence. Specifically, why don't you list out the "ample evidence" that the members laid out the initial course.   Surely that ought to be simple.

Why is it that you will go on like this indefinitely, but when it comes to actually providing a synopsis of the state of the facts, you inevitably say the thread is over and you don't think it is necessary.   Wouldn't such a list be helpful to those who might want to "decide for themselves."

Quote
However, if everyone at Myopia was just going to wait around for Willie Campbell to arrive in the states in April and get some time away from his employ from TCC and Essex then there really wasn't even a point to assign a committee back in the March/April time frame....what was that committee going to do but wait for Willie to come at the end of May ten days before opening??

You've said this repeatedly, but it is a red herring.   The annual meeting - the meeting where they decided to build a golf course at Myopia -  occurred in March.   Do you think they should have postponed their annual meeting because the golf season would not begin until June?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 10:58:32 AM
Jeff,

There was absolutely no reason for him to insult Kevin as he did, and when you think about it, include myself, you, Mike and everyone else who has commented on this thread in the process.

I'm sorry, but his "fact" is nothing of the kind and demands at least a single disagreement. I'm not looking to get the last word; I learned a long time ago that isn't possible...  ;D

Actually, I think it is time that he declared EXACTLY what he believes that campbell did in 1894 at Myopia by DEFINING what the phrase "laid out the course" meant in the case of MYOPIA. Then and ONLY then can his "fact" have any possibility of being proven. Of course, we in the TMIMFNRC are quite used to asking questions of him that he doesn't even deign to answer...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 11:04:12 AM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5287523029_68de5805e3_o.jpg)


David,

Why appoint a committee at all then...why not just wait for Campbell to do his ten-day soup-to-nuts, instant-presto golf course gig?  

But since they DID assign a committee, what "measures" do you think they were assigned to take?

To just go to market and buy some sheep?  ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 11:13:52 AM
Because the Annual meeting was in March, and that was when such decisions were made.

As for what "measures" needed to be taken, the most obvious one is that someone had to hire Willie Campbell to lay out the course. Given that he would soon be arriving at the Country Club, and that these three were actively involved in golf at the Country Club, they were well positioned to hire him.  There was also the matter of clubs, balls, and whatever else equipment they would need for the course or to play the course.

Your version contradicts  the multiple accounts which note that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May.

Now how about that list of facts supporting your belief that AM&G laid out the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 11:21:04 AM
David,

As you stated multiple times here, it's very possible for a golf course to have been routed, or "staked out", yet not "laid out" on the ground, and/or constructed.

I'm pretty certain based on the evidence here that Campbell "laid out" the golf course on the ground.

He may have done more...we don't know.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
No, I've stated that it is quite possible to have planned a golf course yet not have laid it out on the ground.     Here, your story is that they had already staked out the golf course on the ground some time before the annual meeting.   "Staked out" and "laid out" were synonymous at this point in the history of gca.     Had they already staked out the course, there would have been little else for Campbell to do.     

Now how about that list of facts supporting your conclusions?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 12:00:26 PM
David,

I'm really not trying to be obtuse or purposefully frustrating here, but I'm very unclear what you mean when you talk about how the terminology was used at given points in time.

For instance, you mentioned your belief that Macdonald and Whigham routed the entire golf course of NGLA on horseback in a day or two prior to optioning a specific 205 acres in December 1906, yet various reports of that time state that their next step is to "lay out" the course, which they planned to do over the next several months, which would result in plasticene models of the specific holes that could be used to guide those building/constructing the course.  

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 12:04:41 PM
David,

Are you stating that it is your belief that Campbell planned the course before he staked it out on the ground? If so, when did he do that and when did he then stake it out?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 12:15:28 PM

Kevin
Note the title of the thread. There is no one still remaining on this thread who does not acknowledge Campbell laid out the course in 1894 and Campbell was the pro in 1896, accept you. And that ain't no theory; that is a fact.

Way to go. I'm not sure the purpose of your post other than to make us all question your intelligence, judgement and reading comprehension.

Wow!  I must be an idiot, because I was under the impression that Tom, Mike, Phil, Jeff & David still had some differences of opinion on the extent of Campbell's involvement.  I guess I'm too stupid to realize that everyone is in complete agreement what "laid out" means.  Of course, then I must be imagining the dozens of pages of debate on what it means (in various threads).

Nowhere did I give the impression that I denied Campbell's involvement.  And my quote about not being fully convinced of any theories includes the theory that Squire & Co did it all by themselves.  Is it possible that the members took a shot at the routing themselves before Campbell's arrival (at which point there may have been some minor or significant revisions?)  Could the omission of any mention of Campbell's involvement be related to prevailing attitudes towards pros in the early days (I seem to remember an article regarding a potential boycott of Myopia based on poor treatment in previous tournaments)?  Does the timing of the "Campbell did it all" theory cause any questions?   These aren't black & white "facts" that I fail to comprehend.  Rather, there are questions that are difficult to answer without considering what the Club's internal records show - whether they were lost, never existed, or were recollections of early members of the Club.  

Tom said he wanted this thread to shed some more light on Willie Campbell's contributions to early American GCA.  I think it was successful in that.  Tom is correct that it is a shame that there was no mention of his contributions in the Club History, IMO.



Unfortunately, the only "fact" that I'm convinced of through this thread is that some people don't do well in responding civilly to disagreement or questions.  I'm intentionally not naming names, but if you feel this was pointed at you, you may want to think about why that is.


Also, I think I'm convinced that aggressiveness isn't the best tactic when trying to persuade someone to your point of view.  Insulting people's intelligence probably isn't lifted from Dale Carnegie, either - except when you don't care if the person accepts your point of view.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 12:21:26 PM
Kevin,

I once responded similarly, saying "Call me an idiot, but....."  Within minutes, about five posters wrote, "Jeff, you're an idiot!" but it was all in good fun.

What was the old Steve Martin joke about DC's seminar on how to win friends and influence people?  "Yeah, I took that class with some asshole!" ;D

I can understand why TMac would want to have Willie Campbell's one (or ten) day contribution to the design of MH added to his credit list.  That said, it doesn't enhance WC's rep by much, given it was an improvised course, and despite his club connection, supposed fame, and later gca record, it was torn up and gone (largely) within a year or two.

WC was what he was to golf in America whether or not he designed the temporary nine at MH, right?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 12:25:58 PM
David -

I seem to remember you chastising people for not speaking up regarding TEPaul's insulting behavior in other threads.  I thought you were correct and added my thoughts in attempt to have your work looked at without such boorish behavior.

Your silence on Tom's comment seems odd in light of this.  Is "insulting" behavior judged on a different standard when you agree with the person?

Don't worry - I'm not sitting here holding my breath until I'm apologized to, defended, or vindicated.  But I just thought you could use a moment to reflect on your past positions.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
Kevin,

I once responded similarly, saying "Call me an idiot, but....."  Within minutes, about five posters wrote, "Jeff, you're an idiot!" but it was all in good fun.

What was the old Steve Martin joke about DC's seminar on how to win friends and influence people?  "Yeah, I took that class with some asshole!" ;D

I can understand why TMac would want to have Willie Campbell's one (or ten) day contribution to the design of MH added to his credit list.  That said, it doesn't enhance WC's rep by much, given it was an improvised course, and despite his club connection, supposed fame, and later gca record, it was torn up and gone (largely) within a year or two.

WC was what he was to golf in America whether or not he designed the temporary nine at MH, right?

Sorry Jeff, those comments fail the "reasoned and measured" test to be included in a forum like this (you used too much reason and constraint).   ;D

Like I said earlier, it's been interesting to read about the early development of Golf here and getting to know more about the roles of the early Professionals.  My knowledge has been broadened - I don't need to come to an absolute black/white verdict to have received value from this topic (see, Jeff, it always comes back to the "black/white" paradigm we've been discussing). 

Now that I've got my feet wet on these debates, I think I'll do a search for the Joe Burbeck / Tillie thread on Bethpage to see what I can learn there (or did I just rip open a can of worms with that statement?)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 01:03:53 PM
Kevin,

Would you like ketchup with those worms?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
See...this is why I get confused when we make blanket statements such as, paraphrased, "at that time, this is how "laid out" was used".

This article from January 1907 came after Macdonald and Whigham supposedly routed all of NGLA in a day or two on horseback, and then secured 205 acres of land.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5208/5349175559_42d44caf49_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 01:42:48 PM
Here's perhaps a better example Joe Bausch found some time back.

In this one, seemingly even Charles Macdonald falls prey to using the term "lay out" incorrectly.   ;)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5349859128_98e662a87b_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 01:49:53 PM
This similar one Joe Bausch found mentions that Macdonald believed he'd only need about 110 of the 205 acres for the golf course at the time he bought the property, and was going to use the other ground for approx. 1.5 acre plots for the Founders, as well as 5 acres for the Clubhouse and surrounds.


(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5349859300_d14d66515e_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 02:23:01 PM
David,

Are you stating that it is your belief that Campbell planned the course before he staked it out on the ground? If so, when did he do that and when did he then stake it out?

No. I am not stating that.

__________________________________________________

Kevin,

While not nearly rising to the level of the posts to which you vaguely refer, Tom MacWood's remark was impolite and uncalled for. Had Jeff Brauer and Phillip Young not already turned this his comment into its own special sub-topic, I might well have said something.  Perhaps your comments about only selectively speaking up depending upon the identity of the wrongdoer should have been directed to them as well?

As for your post itself, while I disagree with the insulting nature of TomM's response, I might understand his frustration.  I cannot speak for TomM, but as I see it (and as I tried to explain immediately above your post)  conclusory opinions do little to advance the conversation, unless they are accompanied by a sound understanding and presentation of the source material backing up that opinion.   That is why I keep asking Mike Cirba to provide me with facts that support his position.

Let me ask you the same thing.  We have these articles which stated that Willie Campbell laid out the course.   So what is your factual basis for doubting that Campbell laid out the course?  

__________________________

Jeff Brauer

Whether or not your comments fail a "reasoned and measured" test, they contain assumptions and/or factual inaccuracies about Myopia's early course.

__________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Please, please do not turn this into another crazy exploration of those 1906 and 1907 NGLA articles.  Again and again you seem to forget that much of the information in those articles is from Macdonald's agreement drafted in 1904, long before he found the NGLA property.  We've been through them a half dozen times at least.   Go back and read my responses to you on those numerous other threads.

Besides, you are misrepresenting my understanding of what happened at NGLA and of the verb "to lay out," but this isn't the place to get into it as it relates to NGLA.  

To "lay out" generally meant to place the course on the ground.   With the early simple courses, this often meant that the the course was staked out or otherwise marked off on the ground, then maybe the  greens were prepared and they golfed.  Myopia was initially a very simple course requiring little else than marking off the course and preparing the greens and maybe the tees.

As time went on the process became more complicated and "to lay out" became more ambiguous.   Sometimes "to lay out" referred to construction, and sometimes it referred to marking off the course on the ground before construction.   I think this confusion is understandable given the evolution of golf design from simple to more complicated projects.   Laying out rarely meant the sole act of planning on paper.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Sean Leary on January 12, 2011, 02:31:24 PM
David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 02:40:23 PM
Kevin,

Would you like ketchup with those worms?

To all with vested interest in Tilly/Burbeck:

My above comment was not meant to "tweek" anyone in any way.  I remember reading Whitten's articles on the issue awhile back and vaguely remembered a reference in a book I read where Roger Maltbie dismissed the notion, but I haven't had a strong opinion either way.  

Now that I've pulled the book from my library, I realize that was an excerpt in "Golf's Finest Hour" written by none other than Phillip Young.  I can honestly say I rarely know the background of people here on the site and usually have these moments where I stumble upon their "real life" identities.  

Does anyone have a link to the most "comprehensive" discussion on this topic?  I saw it appear in several threads by doing a quick search, but was hoping for some guidance to the most thorough discussion (I realize asking for the most "productive" thread could be a stretch).  I promise that I'm entering the discussion with an open mind.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 02:41:48 PM
David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me.

Sean.  I don't think I called the ultimate conclusion about who laid out the course a "fact." If I did, I shouldn't have.

I think what I have tried to say is that having three contemporaneous articles telling us who laid out the course is about as good as evidence as one can reasonably expect, especially when at least one of the articles contains a load of detailed and accurate information about the golf course and its creation.   I have also said that, aside from the reference to Bush and Parker, there really isn't anything in the contemporaneous record refuting these articles or even calling them into question.  

When I ask Kevin for his "factual basis" for doubting that Campbell laid out the course, I am asking him for contemporaneous evidence suggesting that it did not happen as the articles state that it did.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
David,

I would agree with you that the term "lay out" or "laid out" were used ambiguously, and certainly confusingly, and that some of these definitions evolved as the art did, which is why I said I would avoid blanket statements as to its usage and meaning at any given point.

I would also like to correct something and perhaps you are also correct that this isn't the place for it.

However, at the time CBM bought the land for NGLA in late 1906/early 1907, he did indeed believe that only 110 acres were needed for the golf course.   He included this information in the Original Agreement Signed by the Founders, and referred to it again in 1912 in a letter to those founders, when he wrote, under the heading "Surplus Land";

You will note in the original subscription it was stated that there would be some acres of land which would not be required for the golf course proper.   This has proved to be true, and this land is at the disposal of the Founders, but you will note in the minutes of the Founders' meeting of December 20th, 1911, that no action was taken in the matter, it being left to the wishes of the Founders, to be expressed at some future time.  

Macdonald wrote, again in 1912;

Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually compared favorably with the championship linnks abroad and serve as an incentive to the elevation of the game in the United States...There is attached a copy of the original agreement, the spirit of which has been carried out as closely as has been consistent with the object which the Founders had in view.

...The attached copy of the Original Agreement read in part;

With this end in view, it is proposed to buy two hundred or more acres of ground on Long Island, where the soil is best suited for the purpose of laying out a golf course, and which at the same time is most accessible to the larger body of golfers in this country...

...Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories.   We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple.   The ground in itself should be worth $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character.  


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 03:00:59 PM
Mike Cirba, that Agreement is from 1904 and it generally set out what CBM thought it would take at that time.   It is unreasonable to treat those 1904 statements as if CBM was directly and specifically referring to events that would not happened for a couple of years.  You always neglect to notice that the text you always quote was followed by "This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."  In fact, they knew they would use more than 110 acres when the bought the property for NGLA.  The course has already been planned before they finally purchased it.

Rather than doing this again here, why not go back and read those other threads?  We've covered this again and again.  

Or better yet, why don't you provide a concise answer to the question I asked Kevin above?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 03:10:08 PM
"Sean.  I don't think I called the ultimate conclusion about who laid out the course a "fact." If I did, I shouldn't have."

David,

In the last 10 pages of debate (or so) that is basically what many of us have been waiting to hear.  Your statement above means many of us are closer to understanding each others points of view than the hyperbole might suggest.

We understand your conclusions, we understand most of your reasoning, and we think it has a good chance of being correct, subject to filling in a few interesting details, but don't think for now it can be the "ultimate conclusion" much less fact.  It seems you are saying the same thing, and I understand why and how you come at it from a different way.

Sean may have confused you with TMac, who emphatically called it fact and told us no one disagreed with it.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 03:14:06 PM
Jeff, I have written the same thing repeatedly.

And you can call it anything you want, but is by far the best explanation for what happened based on the contemporaneous source material.   Running second is that Parker and Bush laid out the course.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 03:19:03 PM
David,

EXACTLY what do you believe that Campbell did and when? It would be most helpful if you DON'T use the term "laid out" but rather DESCRIBE what it is that he did (e.g. - design as separate from build as separate from route...). I ask becaus I do think that the term "laid out" AS USED BY the ones writing those articles are different from your definition. This is based upon the example from earlier in the thread where the same newspaper columnist referred to a a TENNIS COURT being "laid out" and then in the next paragraph a golf course having been "laid out." It seems quite clear that he was referring to CONSTRUCTION only and not DESIGN.

Again, by this I am not saying that Campbell DIDN'T design the course, but I am saying that I don't believe that you can use the term "laid out" as proof that he did if the ones writing it didn't use it that way specifically.

Kevin, if you'd like a good understanding of the Tillinghast/Burbeck/Bethpage issue, there is a wonderful white paper published on the Tillinghast Association website that discusses it. This was published in June of 2002 in direct response to the GD/Whitten article and was used by both Bethpage and the USGA as an answer at that time. the website address is: www.tillinghast.net.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 03:45:29 PM
Phillip,  I've explained to you why I don't think you should let a single article about a tennis course dictate your understanding of what the verb means in relation to golf courses, but to no avail.    

IMO, your understanding is an oversimplification, given that there is little or no design element involved in creating tennis courts.   Like a tennis court, one could lay a golf course out on the ground based upon some preconceived plan.  But unlike with a tennis court, laying out a golf course often involved choosing the routing as one marked off the course on the ground.  Early on it was unusual for there to have been a written plan in place before the course was laid out.

The papers indicate that Campbell "laid out" the course.  Based on how this term was generally used in the mid-1890's, and based on my understanding of what Campbell did at other courses, I take this to mean that he marked off the course on the ground as he saw fit, and that this included what we think of as planning the routing of the course.  

Likewise, if true, the story of AM&G marking off the course with pegs would also constitute "laying out" the course, and include planning the routing as they laid it out.   And if they had already laid out the course back in March (or before) then why would the papers say that no course had been laid out as of mid-May?  Or that Campbell had laid it out?  

To turn Mike's oft repeated question on its head; if they had already marked off the course before mid-March, then why  would they have just let it sit there through mid-May?    Why not finish the job, or have someone finish the job long before the season so it would be ready instead of rough?   If they had already planned it then any laborers could have done the job.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on January 12, 2011, 03:52:39 PM
This reads like a history book written by the Speculation brothers, Rank and Idle.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 03:55:10 PM
Terry,

When it comes to who laid out the course, the article below is far from speculative.  The other details in the article, including the hole names, are correct.   

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on January 12, 2011, 03:55:53 PM
Just teasing, David.

Levity and brevity occasionally helps a controversy subside.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 12, 2011, 03:58:59 PM
David,

Several pages back, I laid out a scenario for Mike that would fit into your theory.  Of course, you seemingly dismissed it as unfounded speculation (probably, but it did fit all the documents).

The short version was that I believed they did enough work, like picking out the appropriate land, given horse set concerns, to submit to the annual meeting where it was approved.  That may have involved walking the property to somehow generally make sure a course fit, and maybe even a rudimentary layout, which may have been partially or totally changed when Willie C got there with his expertise.

The reports only say they made preparations for golf, which involve a lot more than design.  And, I think deciding what land to use, acquiring sheep and sod, etc. may have taken a part time committee all of that 3 months, without having designed the final course at all.  I think we all sometimes underestimate the amount of time it takes, now, then, whatever.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 04:07:18 PM
Mike Cirba, that Agreement is from 1904 and it generally set out what CBM thought it would take at that time.   It is unreasonable to treat those 1904 statements as if CBM was directly and specifically referring to events that would not happened for a couple of years.  You always neglect to notice that the text you always quote was followed by "This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."  In fact, they knew they would use more than 110 acres when the bought the property for NGLA.  The course has already been planned before they finally purchased it.


David,

Did Macdonald know for certain in 1904 that his golf course was going to be on Long Island?

George Bahto's book reads;

"In 1904, Macdonald was off again to make a more detailed study of the holes he admired in Europe.   Upon his return, he began a preliminary search for land on which to build his dream course.   It was to take years.   He scoured the East coast of the United States from Maine to Cape May, New Jersey before deciding the best approximation of traditional links land was on New York's Long Island.   While the search continued, his close friend Devereux Emmet spent a winter in the British Isles carefully measuring holes he felt noteworthy for Macdonald."

A September 1905 article in the New York Sun indicated;

"Mr. Macdonald indicated that the course would probably be on Long Island, and as accessible to New York City as possible."


As regards my omission you mentioned earlier, the next paragraphs actually read;

"Further than this it is proposed that each subscriber receive a $1,000 3% debenture bond.   We would issue this so as to identify the holder, and make it a debenture bond so that it would not be a fixed charge.   This debenture bond must be held so long as one is a member of the Founders, and in case of selling, it can only be sold to one who would be elected a member of the Founders."

"This is simply a suggestion.   The details can be worked out later."

"As to the building of the golf course, it is well known that certain holes on certain links abroad are famous as being the best considering their various lengths.   It is the object of this association to model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous ones abroad, so that each hole would be representative and classic in itself."

"Mr. Charles B. Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate himself with two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme.   In the meantime, you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter entirely in his hands."

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 12, 2011, 04:21:14 PM
David -

You keep asking people for the contemporary proof that AM&G laid out the course - you know that it simply has not been located or presented here.  Fine.

However, I still find it hard to believe that the story of AM&G's involvement just precipitated out of thin air.  Then you consider the pre-Myopia course on the Appleton estate, it's possible these members may have "had a go" at routing, with the idea that Campbell may give some input.  You couple that with some of the "tight timing" questions that Mike raises, along with plausible confusion over usage of the term "laid out" in an early sport, and it's not an extraordinary leap to believe the recollections of Bush / Parker, even without seeing "contemporaneous club records."

However, to be fair, the "Squire & Co did it" story has a similar set of questions which raise doubt (as you've presented).  You've offered your explanation about the "tight timing" and given me things to consider.

And that's all I'm saying - I'm not ready to conclude anything as "fact" (Tom's term, not yours).  But the bigger point, for me, is that I still learned something without having to say I know conclusively what happened.  I've appreciated all the articles and history, and even liked hearing the conjecture on what might have happened from both sides or the extent of Campbell's role.

I'm sorry if that wasn't the conclusion you or Tom were looking for when this topic was being discussed, but I'm satisfied with what I got out of it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 04:26:20 PM
Kevin,

You ignorant sl*t!   How dare you not accept my interpretive version of incomplete evidence as historical fact?!   >:(


Sorry...I just hadn't insulted anyone here in a very long time and I really felt I was falling behind.  ;)  ;D

Just kidding, and trying to follow the Terry Lavin humor approach, which is muuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccchhhhhhhh* needed in these topics! 


* Wardian language
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 04:40:05 PM
Terry,

I got the joke but nonetheless want it to be clear that, while speculation is rampant, when it comes to who "laid out" the original course only one side is speculating beyond the source material.   TomM and I are going with what was reported after the first tournament; that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  
_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Whether consistent with my position or not,  more speculation does nothing to advance the discussion at this point.  This is especially so when much of the speculation contains unsupported assumptions or misrepresentations of the record.

- The  "horse concerns" are in all likelihood overplayed.  The stables were on the other side of the property.  The polo field was up by the railroad tracks.   There were no hunts, only drags, and they took place all over the countryside.  

-- The reports say they that Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham (not Gardner) had been appointed to take measures for the introduction of golf this season.  There were no reports that they had already taken measures as you suggest.    I am sure you will write this off as "word parsing" but the tense is key when we are trying to figure out when things happened.  You and Mike keep changing the tenses of these articles as if these expected events already took place.  

- There is no record that any of the three named to the committee were even in Hamilton between the annual meeting (which took place in Boston) and the opening of the summer social season around June 1st.   There are reports of them at the Country Club during this period though, which was where Campbell was as well.

- I am not "underestimating" the amount of time things took back then.  In fact, I am not estimating at all.  There are multiple reports that the course had not been laid out by mid-May, and that conditions were still very rough at the opening.  

- If I were to estimate, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that my own experiences should control.   Rather, I would obviously have to look at how long it usually took between the time these simple, early courses were laid out and the time they were used for play.   Somehow I doubt you have ever done this.    In this regard, I have read various accounts of courses being used for play almost immediately after they were laid out.   Shinnecock is one such course.  

____________________________

Mike Cirba,  I'll not discuss NGLA with you here.   Given that CBM covered the progression toward NGLA in great detail in his book, you should read it if you are curious.

_______________________________

Kevin,

- If there is no contemporaneous support for the belief that AM&G laid out the course, then it is a matter of faith, not reason, and there is nothing really to discuss.

- It was common early on for the club member in charge of these projects to receive credit for the design, especially when the early pro was not the golf pro at the course at the time.    Appleton and Merrill were on the subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia for that season.   Parker and Bush were reportedly the first golf committee.  So it is no surprise to me that these guys have been credited where Campbell apparently should have been.
  
- The problems with the two positions are in no way similar.  One is based upon contemporaneous accounts of what happened.  The other contains errors, has no sources backing it up, and conflicts with the contemporaneous source material.
____________________________________

I am always astounded at how people will substitute their own unsupported ideas of what might have happened for actual reports of what happened.    Surely contemporaneous newspaper accounts containing detailed and accurate information should considered above  unsupported speculation 120 years after the fact.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
David,

So are you still saying that the letter to the NGLA Founders was sent in 1904 and that Long Island had already been identified at that time?    

Why would Macdonald say it was "some six years ago" when he wrote his "Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald" to the Founders again in 1912?   That would put the date to 1906, the year he secured the property.   Do you think he would have sent his prospectus without first securing a site?

That will be my last question on NGLA here if I might.   I just don't find the dates lining up real well.

Thanks for your consideration.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 04:50:06 PM
David,

I am not using a single article as there are other examples of the term being used in the exact same way during those years. I stress the use of that single article because it was written by the GOLF writer who also mentioned the tennis court. It is obvious then as to how he viewed the meaning of the phrase. I am NOT stating that it wasn't used as you have stated, but I believe that you are simplifying the meaning by stating that it can ONLY be used as you state in the case of Myopia. It is you who is limiting its meaning by stating that you take the term as you understand it's "generally used" meaning.

I think that a good case can be made that, at least in this specific instance, the use of the term "laid out" may have been one of course construction rather than design. I believe there is at least enough uncertainty that one simply cannot definitively state that the newspaper articles refer to Campbell planning, routing and designing the course.

Consider this in light of what else you asked:

“Likewise, if true, the story of AM&G marking off the course with pegs would also constitute "laying out" the course, and include planning the routing as they laid it out.   And if they had already laid out the course back in March (or before) then why would the papers say that no course had been laid out as of mid-May?  Or that Campbell had laid it out?”

If the meaning of the term is one of “constructed” then the answer is obvious. But let’s say it is more than merely one of construction and includes the “staking” out of the course. The question follows as to why do it twice if it had been already staked with pegs? The answer for that might very well lay in the severe snow storm that occurred in April. The possibility that the pegs were either moved or gone when the snows melted and the land exposed once again is very real and can’t simply be sloughed off. This would certainly explain then why Campbell would “lay out” the course again.

It also answers your next question:

“To turn Mike's oft repeated question on its head; if they had already marked off the course before mid-March, then why would they have just let it sit there through mid-May?    Why not finish the job, or have someone finish the job long before the season so it would be ready instead of rough?   If they had already planned it then any laborers could have done the job.”

With a large and long-lasting snowfall occurring at the time that Tom Macwood has presented, then no work could have been done.

Based upon all of the above, here then is a theory that I believe is just as credibly possible as any other that has been presented so far.

The “sub-committee” was formed and the three members staked out a course sometime in March. At this time there were no plans for Willie Campbell to come to Myopia, because if there were, there simply is no need to form a new “sub-committee” since the work they would do, if it was simply arranging for Campbell, was already done. No, I believe the fact that one was formed shows that Campbell became an unexpected addition 45+ days later.

The “sub-committee” appointed the three members to create plan and create the course which they did immediately did in March as a result of their own plans made previous to the Board meeting at which they received the official appointment.

They waited until April to begin construction when the weather would be normally better and, fortunately/unfortunately depending on one’s perspective, were unable to do anything before the thaw.

Willie Campbell arrives to much acclaim and so they hire his services to build the course based upon their own routing/design/staking out from March. Due to the severity of the snowfall, the staking out needed to be re-done and because he was able to follow what was originally done by the members, it was done very quickly and with minimal, if any, changes.

The above addresses every single issue and question raised and allows for the different permutations of the seemingly contradictory writings, reports, newspaper articles and memories to reach agreement.

It is a THEORY only, but until access is granted to the actual board minutes and historical documents at the club, NO ONE can reach a conclusion, including mine, that reflects what ACTUALLY happened…


  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 04:51:59 PM
Everyone in this recent discussion seems to be forgetting that S. Dacre Bush tells us that the greens were SODDED.

That isn't a plug and play deal, no pun intended.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 05:00:06 PM
David,

I'm sorry, but I simply can't accept your statement "If there is no contemporaneous support for the belief that AM&G laid out the course, then it is a matter of faith, not reason, and there is nothing really to discuss." to be anything other than a similar "matter of faith and not reason."

If you simply add the phrase "THAT I AM AWARE OF" then it becomes acceptable. Have you gone through EVERY newspaper and magazine published in the region during the time period? If not, then how can you make that statement? I don't have any problem with you stating that you don't BELIEVE that there are board minutes/documents/records at Myopia that tell what actually happened; I have a rather large problem with you stating that this is FACT which is what your statement clearly does, because if they do have them, they are the most contemporaneous of all, wouldn't you say?

You have presented a great deal of good information and "facts" for consideration; but they are for consideration only and come no where close to being definitive. There simply are too many questions that can't be answered, reasonable explanations for them all and that big elephant in the room, club records and documents that no one has had access to that you deem trustworthy or believable for your own theoretical conclusion to be considered as the factual answer.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 05:22:23 PM
Here again is what Weeks (and S. Dacre Bush) wrote; (bolding for emphasis mine)

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed at which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

"At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 05:29:32 PM
Phillip
The article was by "the GOLF writer" who also happened to mention a tennis court?   Nonsense.  

Both blurbs were from a long, bulletin board article reporting on the goings on of the social set at the North Shore. The information in such columns was generally compiled from various sources.   There is no way one can reasonably call the author a "GOLF writer."  

You say there are other accounts from the mid 1890's where "laying out" a course meant only construction with no planning element?   I'd like to see those examples, especially from golf courses laid out in the mid-1890's.  

Surely you acknowledge that oftentimes laying out a course and planning it were often the same step?  In fact I remember you arguing this very thing in the past!

In short, I think yours is a logical fallacy:  You are equating construction and laying it as if the words had the same meaning and meant nothing else, and are working from a particular example (a tennis court) and generalizing from there to circumstances that are by their nature very different (a golf course.)   Laying out a tennis court is not the same thing as laying out a golf course.  Some of these early golf courses were not constructed at all.  But they were "laid out" on the ground.  

I met a dog named Phil.  Your name is Phil, therefore are you a dog?   I doubt it.  

____________________________________

Mike Cirba.  

I am not forgetting about the sod at all.   I am also not forgetting that reportedly  the conditions were so rough that some of the membership objected to playing on the sodded course.    

________________________________________

Phillip, Your last post makes no sense.   I made no blanket final statement.  Rather, I was clearly talking about the support (or lack thereof) for the belief held here about AM&G.   One cannot use that which about which one is unaware as support, can they?   (Apparently some here think they can.)

Plus, I've always left open the possibility that more information will be found and that I will change my conclusions based upon that information, so I don't understand the point of your last post.  

We cannot pretend that there is information out there that will support this conclusion.   Unless one of us is withholding information, then none of us has any contemporaneous support for the notion that AM&G designed the course.  

No doubt if this were about Tillie instead of Campbell you'd find much less ambiguity in the multiple contemporaneous accounts of who laid out the course.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on January 12, 2011, 05:43:54 PM
my·o·pi·a
   /maɪˈoʊpiə/ Show Spelled[mahy-oh-pee-uh] Show IPA
–noun

2.
lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
3.
narrow-mindedness; intolerance

Looks like those who named this club were prescient, indeed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 05:49:15 PM
Sorry David, but you are wrong. If this was about Tilly I would demand far more proof than has been presented so far. In fact, there are 5 different courses that have similar documentation to what you have shown that mention Tilly as their creator that I am presently researching further on because I don't believe what has been shown is enough.

You misunderstood what I meant when I called him "the" golf writer. I simply was stating that the person was writing about golf, nothing more. There was no implication that the person was the paper's "golf writer" but rather as one who was writing about it, even if it was simply in the "gossip" column.

"You say there are other accounts from the mid 1890's where "laying out" a course meant only construction with no planning element?   I'd like to see those examples, especially from the mid-1890's...  Surely you acknowledge that sometimes laying out a course and planning it were often the same step?  In fact I remember you arguing this very thing in the past!"

You obviously didn't read what I wrote very well as that is EXACTLY what I stated: "I am NOT stating that it wasn't used as you have stated, but I believe that you are simplifying the meaning by stating that it can ONLY be used as you state in the case of Myopia. It is you who is limiting its meaning by stating that you take the term as you understand it's "generally used" meaning."

Once again you are wrong when you state, "In short, I think yours is a logical fallacy:  You are equating construction and laying it as if the words had the same meaning and meant nothing else…”

I NEVER stated that and it is YOU who are demanding that the definition of the phrase is SINGULAR in use at that time. This despite the proof from the contemporaneous article that shows the exact phrase being used as I stated, that is, construction only in the case of the tennis court. If he didn’t mean it the same way for the golf course, why didn’t he use a DIFFERENT term for the tennis court such as “BUILT IT?” Especially as he mentioned the golf course AFTER first using it for the tennis court in the paragraph immediately preceding it.

I’m sorry David, you simply can’t say with anything close to being definitive that the phrase used HAS to be as you define it in this particular situation.

Nice illustration…
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 06:10:02 PM
How about those examples, Phil?

If any source material suggested that the course was separately planned, I'd consider it.  As the record contains no such information, reading it into the equation is unjustified.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 08:41:36 PM
David,

Once again you overspeak... "If any source material suggested that the course was separately planned, I'd consider it.  As the record contains no such information, reading it into the equation is unjustified..."

You haave no idea at all as to what information the RECORD contains, only what certain newspaper articles contain. When you examine the actual RECORD, which is the files, documents, board minutes, etc... at Myopia, THEN you can make that statemant... and only if it is true and if the club gives you permission to release it. I would find a certain amount of poetic justice in their granting you access and withholding permission from you to discuss what it contains...  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 09:17:37 PM
Phillip,  I didn't over-speak in the first instance or the second.  In the first instance your interpretation made no sense whatsoever given what I had written.  Same goes here.

I am not referring to the club "records," whatever they may be, but rather I am referring to the record here in this conversation, particularly the source material thus far brought forward.  "The record" is often used to connote the information before us on which a decision will be made.  

Ironically, I used the term so as to be clear I was limiting my comments to what we have been dealing with here, so you wouldn't misunderstand me like you did above.   Naturally, you found a way to misunderstand me here as well.  In fact, your interpretations here lately have been well off the mark yet unusually obstinate, as if you were purposefully going out of your way to misinterpret what I am writing.  Why do you suppose that is?  

And Phil,  how about all those mid-1890's examples where "to lay out" a golf course meant construction only. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 09:34:20 PM

Mike Cirba.  

I am not forgetting about the sod at all.   I am also not forgetting that reportedly  the conditions were so rough that some of the membership objected to playing on the sodded course.    


David,

God love you, but you sure have an interesting way of interpreting the English language.

The sentence in question is;

"Accordingly the ground were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began around June 1st, 1894."

I'm not sure how you derived the membership complaining about poor, bumpy putting on the new greens from that sentence, because clearly the "opposition" was about something else entirely.  

It's clear that "despite the opposition, the greens were sodded and cut", with the expense that entailed, as well as the setting aside of significant club acreage and riding areas for the purpose of playing the new game.

In the preceding paragraphs, Weeks tells us more about the "opposition".

"At both The Country Club and Myopia there was opposition, not to say derision, from the horse lovers:  at Clyde Park idiots intent "on chasing a Quinine pill around a cow pasture," as Finley Peter Dunne put it, were warned not to foul up the race course; at Hamilton they were not to interfere with the Hunt!"

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of the Fox Hounds, R. M. Appleton.   Bud Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular that he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties.   When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, "Squire" Merrill, and A. P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.  The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true."

Later he writes;

"The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years;   the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another.   A member of the Hunt, when asked if they really had a golf course at Myopia, replied: "I believe some do play a game of that name around here".

Like most people trying to stop something they don't agree with, the "opponents" of golf at Myopia seem to have objected to the game out of principle, and apparently found any reason to argue against it.

Thankfully, they didn't hold sway.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 09:45:43 PM
Mike Cirba, Unless you have some sources for all that Weeks speculation, I am not interested.   Historical analysis doesn't mean just chirping someone else's book, especially if that book doesn't provide much of any support for its claims.

I've seen the quote.   Either way you read it, it looks as if the sod was laid at the last minute.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 10:00:21 PM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5287523029_68de5805e3_o.jpg)


David,

Why appoint a committee at all then...why not just wait for Campbell to do his ten-day soup-to-nuts, instant-presto golf course gig?  

But since they DID assign a committee, what "measures" do you think they were assigned to take?

To just go to market and buy some sheep?  ;)


Mike
That is what clubs do, they appoint committees...field sport committees, house committees, golf committees, tennis committees, social committees, etc. TCC appointed Arthur Hunnewell, Laurence Curtis and Robert Bacon to their golf committee and they ultimately hired Willie Campbell. Essex County's committee was TJ Coolidge, WE Putnam and Lewis Sargent and they also secured Campbell. WB Thomas, the man who brought Campbell to America, was on ECC's house committee. He was also a member at Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 12, 2011, 10:01:42 PM
David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Tom MacWood,

Where is any record that Myopia "hired Campbell"?

My understanding is that he was "hired" by TCC and Essex in a shared arrangement.

Myopia was not part of that paid arrangement, was it?

By the way Tom...do you know when Macdonald's original solicitation agreement letter went out to the potential NGLA Founders?    Was it before or after he found the property next to Shinny?

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 10:16:16 PM
When trying to figure out who did what in golf architect IMO it is important to put it into historical perspective. When looking at the 1890s you can not project what was going on in the 1900s or 1910s or 1920s. The very formative 1890s were completely different from the 1910s. When I read someone laid out a golf course in the mid-1890s that tells me he designed and built the course. And one should not confuse what design and built meant in 1894 with design and built meant in 1914 or 1924. There was very little construction, which is why courses were developed in days and weeks, not months or years, and design entailed finding good natural holes. Some architects today may say that finding good natural golf holes in a week is unsophisticated by today's standards. I disagree.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Tom MacWood,

Where is any record that Myopia "hired Campbell"?

My understanding is that he was "hired" by TCC and Essex in a shared arrangement.

Myopia was not part of that paid arrangement, was it?

By the way Tom...do you know when Macdonald's original solicitation agreement letter went out to the potential NGLA Founders?    Was it before or after he found the property next to Shinny?

Thanks

Mike
Apples and oranges, why compare the first year or two of American golf to something over a decade later? That is like comparing the Wright brothers (1903) to the developments in airplanes during WWI.

I assume Campbell did not work for free, laying out Myopia or as their professional in 1896. Don't you think he was probably hired?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 12, 2011, 10:51:37 PM
David,

First of all, even if you are limiting your uswe of the word "record" to what has been discussed on this thread, again I say that you overspeak and are incorrect. There have been far too many different articles taht refer to things ho did what and when to draw a definitive conclusion that Campbell did anything more than possibly be involved in the construction of the course. As far as being the designer/router, that too is not conclusive.

Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 10:54:22 PM

Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.


Why not? It shouldn't be that difficult. How many golf courses were there in America in 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 10:59:11 PM
Phil
By the way he did not ask you to find examples of the term 'laid out' in 1894 or before, I believe he asked you to come up with examples of courses that were designed by someone and built by someone else during that period. With your knowledge of early American golf architecture that should not be difficult.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 11:03:26 PM
David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Because the conditions were so rough at the time of the opening tournament that some members did thought that they  should not even play over the course as it was.   Either they laid the sod to appease those members, or they had already laid the sod and the conditions were still too rough. Had they laid sod at the beginning of spring then the course wouldn't have been rough at the opening tournament.

Besides, there are multiple accounts indicating that as of mid-May they had not laid out the course yet. Surely they didn't sod the greens before they laid out the course, did they?   That'd been a real trick!

You seem to want AM&G to have sodded the greens sometime earlier.   If they had, then what of the multiple reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May?   And what was left for Campbell?  Carrying their bags?  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 12, 2011, 11:15:58 PM
David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me. Just my opinion.

Sean
There are three contemporaneous reports from three separate sources that say Campbell laid out the course. Kevin Lynch referred to the idea that Campbell laid out the course as a theory. Would you say the proof elevates it above theory?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 12, 2011, 11:18:10 PM
David,

First of all, even if you are limiting your uswe of the word "record" to what has been discussed on this thread, again I say that you overspeak and are incorrect. There have been far too many different articles taht refer to things ho did what and when to draw a definitive conclusion that Campbell did anything more than possibly be involved in the construction of the course. As far as being the designer/router, that too is not conclusive.

What do you mean "if" I am limiting my use of the word.   You aren't implying I am a liar, are you?  

As for your third allegation that I have "over-spoke," more nonsense. I wrote that there is no contemporaneous source material presented here which suggests that the course was separately planned.  So far as I know that is accurate.

Where are these "many different articles" which suggest that someone other than Campbell planned the course?    I am aware of none.

Quote
Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.

Okay.  I choose to give your claim very little credence.   If you aren't willing to back up your claims, then what is your purpose here?  To lecture us and expect us to take your word for it?  

What courses during this period were planned by one person and "laid out" by another.   I am not aware of any.  


[/quote]
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 13, 2011, 12:06:00 AM
David,

No David, I am not calling you a liar and I apologize for my poor choice of word. I actually meant that I accept what you stated.

As far as my "third allegation" is concerned, your use the term "So far as I know" shows two things. First that you don't accept the other articles, such as the one Mike Cirba posted above on this page, which calls into question your conclusion. It also shows that you are close-minded toward considering anything other than what you have posted.

As a result, your using the terms "that I am aware of" and "I am aware of none" doesn't make what you state as fact.

I am willing to back up my claims. Your absolute inability to even consider the example already shown on this thread where the same writer used the same term "Laid out" three sentences apart in the same article, once about a tennis court and the other about a golf course, shows that you are absolutely and completely close-minded to anything shown to you on the subject. I'm sorry, but a reasonable person could admit that the example shown might be understood as I contend. Mind you, understood, not agrees with me, just understood. You won't even do that. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to provide you with anything else. If you showed any true willingness to give consideration to others thoughts, I would gladly produce them. Since you don't I won't waste my time.

So David, consider this just some more annoying blather, but you really should ask yourself what YOU are doing on here as you absolutely don't want to discuss any of this...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 12:39:59 AM
"So far as I know" is another one of those qualifiers I put in to remind people like you that I am only talking about things within my scope of knowledge.  That should be obvious to you and everyone else, but nonetheless you have mistakenly accused me otherwise three times so far this evening alone.

First that you don't accept the other articles, such as the one Mike Cirba posted above on this page, which calls into question your conclusion. It also shows that you are close-minded toward considering anything other than what you have posted.

The article Mike Cirba posted said that Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham were appointed to a committee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.  Surely this cannot be the sum total of the "many articles" that support your theory that someone else planned the course?    If so, why even bother?


Quote
As a result, your using the terms "that I am aware of" and "I am aware of none" doesn't make what you state as fact
See above.

I
Quote
am willing to back up my claims. Your absolute inability to even consider the example already shown on this thread where the same writer used the same term "Laid out" three sentences apart in the same article, once about a tennis court and the other about a golf course, shows that you are absolutely and completely close-minded to anything shown to you on the subject. I'm sorry, but a reasonable person could admit that the example shown might be understood as I contend. Mind you, understood, not agrees with me, just understood. You won't even do that. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to provide you with anything else. If you showed any true willingness to give consideration to others thoughts, I would gladly produce them. Since you don't I won't waste my time.

More nonsense.   I not only considered the "tennis" example, I explained to you why I think it is inapt.  Also, I have said repeatedly on this thread and others that some golf courses were planned and "laid out" by different people.   Merion - where the Board decided to lay out the course according to the plan that CBM had chosen - is a perfect example.  There is just no evidence of it here.

Plus, I am unaware of any such examples or usage this early.  You claimed there were plenty of examples - golf examples, not tennis examples, so let's have them.   What are your examples from the 1890's?

Quote
So David, consider this just some more annoying blather, but you really should ask yourself what YOU are doing on here as you absolutely don't want to discuss any of this...

Huh? I have discussed it, Phillip.  You just keep coming back to this silly tennis example, beating the same dead horse, as if laying out a tennis court and laying out a golf course were the exact same thing.    

Your claims are support are unsupportable on this one Phil.  You said there were plenty of articles indicating that the course may have been planned by someone else.  There are not.   You claimed you knew of plenty of GOLF examples during this era of courses being planned and laid out separately.  You cannot even come up with even one.  

Perhaps you should quit accusing me of "over-speaking" and take a look at yourself.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 13, 2011, 02:03:41 AM
David,

I'm sure you'll be thankful as these will be my last words. Don't you think its about time that YOU contacted Myopia and sought permission to research their history? One would think with your driving ambition to uncover the "truth" that you would have by now... By the way, nice job of trying to twist what I ACTUALLY said...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 02:27:18 AM
Good Luck Phillip.

If you ever run into any of those many articles you think indicate that the planning was done seperately, let us know. Same goes for all those 1890's golf courses where the planning and lay out were supposedly done by seperate entities.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 13, 2011, 06:42:00 AM

Because the conditions were so rough at the time of the opening tournament that some members did thought that they  should not even play over the course as it was.   Either they laid the sod to appease those members, or they had already laid the sod and the conditions were still too rough. Had they laid sod at the beginning of spring then the course wouldn't have been rough at the opening tournament.

Besides, there are multiple accounts indicating that as of mid-May they had not laid out the course yet. Surely they didn't sod the greens before they laid out the course, did they?   That'd been a real trick!


Now David...that is just a silly interpretation of the "objections" to golf at Myopia.   No one was forcing anyone to play golf under opening day conditions, yet S. Dacre Bush tells us that there were about twenty-five entries anyway.    Earlier in the thread I posted the box scores if you want to see who played.

But, I'm sure you'll persist in reading it however you choose.

As far as multiple accounts, you should simply say "multiple newspapers".   They read virtually verbatim, and none of them have an identified author, as they appear in respective gossip columns in different papers.

I'm still trying to figure out if it was simply the same person writing for different rags or they were simply plagiarizing from each other.

Do we have any idea whatsoever, really, what they even thought the term "laid out' meant?   After all, they were brand new like everyone else to the game, and made almost ridiculous and obvious mistakes in their articles, such as "two links".    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they thought the term meant laying out tee markers, cutting holes, inserting some type of flags, or perhaps just digging up some artificial bunkers or mounds.    Or, probably more likely, they had not a clue what the game even involved, much less course architecture.


Tom MacWood,

Can you tell us at what point in golf architecture history the term "laid out", or "lay out" when written in news accounts began to simply mean construction to someone else's plans, divorcing it from the planning stage? 

Perhaps you can share a date when you think this transition happened?   1900?   1910??  1920??   In modern times?

You and David seem to want to make the term mean whatever you want it to mean at different points, leading to stark logical inconsistencies that trip up both your arguments when examples (like Macdonald at NGLA) are given that belie your convenient use of terminology.

I'm not comparing NGLA to Myopia a decade prior.   I'm comparing use of terms and what people meant when they used them.

Do you know when the Founders Letter seeking solicitations for NGLA was sent out?   Thanks.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 13, 2011, 10:15:39 AM
The first examples I've seen are around the turn of the century in the UK. I cannot think of the earliest example I've seen in the US, probably around 1910. American golf architectural development ran about decade behind, give or take, Britain.

Perhaps you can help Phil. Are you aware of any golf courses in America, circa 1894, that were designed by one person and built by another?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 10:26:47 AM
Now David...that is just a silly interpretation of the "objections" to golf at Myopia.   No one was forcing anyone to play golf under opening day conditions, yet S. Dacre Bush tells us that there were about twenty-five entries anyway.    Earlier in the thread I posted the box scores if you want to see who played.

But, I'm sure you'll persist in reading it however you choose.

Huh?   It is not my "silly interpretation," it is Bush's.  The clause reads: ". . . and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough . . . ."   How you can read this as anything but opposition because the ground was so rough is beyond me.      There is nothing about a general opposition to golf at Myopia; you just read that in because it it fits with the point you want to try and make.  Now that is "silly."

Quote
As far as multiple accounts, you should simply say "multiple newspapers".   They read virtually verbatim, and none of them have an identified author, as they appear in respective gossip columns in different papers.

I'm still trying to figure out if it was simply the same person writing for different rags or they were simply plagiarizing from each other.

More likely the same information was sent to each paper by the person connected to the club who was providing these columns with such information.   As I have said, these columns were like bulletin boards to pass on information, make announcements, etc.

Quote
Do we have any idea whatsoever, really, what they even thought the term "laid out' meant?

Whoever sourced the information in that article I keep posting obviously knew what he was talking about.  Even you must realize this.

Quote
You and David seem to want to make the term mean whatever you want it to mean at different points, leading to stark logical inconsistencies that trip up both your arguments when examples (like Macdonald at NGLA) are given that belie your convenient use of terminology.

My use of the phrase has remained consistent. One has to understand the evolution of golf course architecture to understand how the term was used. In contrast, we have your flip-flopping on the term between here and Merion.  

Quote
I'm not comparing NGLA to Myopia a decade prior.   I'm comparing use of terms and what people meant when they used them.

Of course you are comparing NGLA to Myopia.  That is how desperate your argument has become. The terms were used differently because they were being used to describe very different types of projects.  Your attempts to muddy the water as opposed to getting at a real understanding are getting very old.

Quote
Do you know when the Founders Letter seeking solicitations for NGLA was sent out?   Thanks.

Do you think this was a mass mailing or something?  CBM wrote the Agreement in 1904.  He acquired an option on the land eventually purchased in 1906.  For all your interest in NGLA and early golf course architecture in America, you'd think that by now you'd have bothered to read CBM's book.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 13, 2011, 10:52:55 AM

Perhaps you can help Phil. Are you aware of any golf courses in America, circa 1894, that were designed by one person and built by another?

At the risk of being called stupid again, suppose Phil does not find any courses circa 1894 that were designed by one person and built by another.

What logical extension would you make from that?  Would that honestly prove anything?

Turning that line of questioning around, how about this?  When was the first example you find of a separate designer / builder in America?  Once you answer that, explain to me why Myopia couldn't have been the first. 

Why couldn't Squire & Co have been one of the first to try and lay down a rough routing on their own (e.g. pegs in ground) and then said "hey, perhaps this famous professional could make some suggestions / revisions while helping us put it in the ground."   

In other words, your line of questioning would seem to imply that the "first" of anything is highly improbable because there was no example of it before.

Again, please understand that I'm not necessarily refuting your theory that Campbell "designed and built" Myopia (I'm staying as far away from the term "laid out" as possible for fear of further attack for confusing widely accepted FACT with debated THEORY).  I'm just challenging what logical conclusion you may draw from Phil not answering your question to your satisfaction. 

With that, I'll leave in my peaceful acceptance of "I'm not positive what happened but was happy to learn something." 

Peace.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 13, 2011, 11:05:08 AM
Kevin,

I am not going to address Myopia specifically, but your question would be a good one to understand more about.

TMac, David, and others have shown us that there were (from memory) 907 courses in America by 1900, and I think all were built after 1890.

They are right in that there were no formal contractors in those days.  By the time Merion was built in 1910, a guy named Pickering apparently had an ongoing golf construction biz, and guys like American Park Builders in Chicago weren't far behind.

In 1890-1900, I am pretty sure that the organizers/founders/clubs probably hired local labor to build courses.  If and where Willie Campbell and other pros were hired to design the course, most were reported to stay a day and put pegs in the ground, perhaps give some general instructions, etc.  Whoever was going to be the greenskeeper built the course.

To the degree that Scots designed the courses before Myopia, I would say there probably were instances of one person designing and others building, but in many ways its a technical distinction.  As a fledgling industry/field, there was no formal training in golf construction, no standard contracts and no standard method developed.  It started to standardize after 1910 or so, as TMac suggests, but I think throughout that era, we could, if we dug, find a lot of different ways that those courses were built, given how little work actually went into them, as TMac also tells us.

There is some irony in the fact that David is arguing that WC would be expected to build the course at Myopia, but earlier argued vehemently that this sort of thing would be just table scraps, unless he had also spent that extra day routing it.  While that may be true, he may have been happy to take the money to implement the clubs routing, or may have made a suggestion to change it and then built it, since he was so new to the country.

But of course, when we say things like that, its speculation.  When DM says what he says, its fact.

To address Myopia, I have to concur with Mike Cirba that the Weeks report makes it clear that there was big opposition to golf.  David is way off base on that particular point.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 12:48:26 PM
Kevin,

The verb "to lay out" has been hotly debated here for years now.  I have argued that the application of the verb evolved as golf course design evolved, and that while early on the term "to lay out" encompassed planning a course because most planning was done on the ground.   For example, if AM&G had really staked out the course in March, then they would have already "laid it out" or placed it on the ground, they would have also planned it even though they were planning on the ground.   Likewise, for those visiting designers who didn't spend much time on a project, they generally walked around the property and marked the course off on the ground, and at this point the course would have been "laid out" whether or not it was quite ready for play.   

The confusion generally came in later, when golf was more established and golf courses generally became more complicated and construction dependent.   Preparing the course for play became much more time consuming and construction dependent; it wasn't as simple as just marking off a course on the ground like one might mark of a course for a cross country foot race.  At this point it became more common for plans to be drawn up on paper, sometimes even before the land was secured.  It was with these projects where  "to plan" emerged out of "to lay out" and became more of an independent action.   "To lay out" still meant to place or arrange on the ground, but with these projects the arrangement and placement was first determined on paper.   But even with these projects the person who drew up the plans was usually the person who arranged the course on the ground.

[We have to be careful with generalizing too much, because there were some early examples where the professional may have drawn up a plan before the course was "laid out" on the ground.   I am not certain, but I suspect that Willie Dunn may have used written plans for his work, but Dunn was also involved in laying the course out on the ground at his projects, a few of which were major undertakings.   On the other hand, I am unaware of Campbell having worked off a written plan.]

So while obviously the early date makes a difference, key to understanding how the verb is used is to look at how the project was created.  The date helps there, but the nature of the project is also very important.    For example, Myopia was a rudimentary course using the features already there (such as walls, a pond, trees, etc.) as hazards.  All that was reportedly done is that the areas chosen for greens were sodded, and maybe areas were flattened for tees.  Otherwise it was very much like one might mark off a course for a cross country foot race or horse race. 

In the case of Myopia, we cannot just assume that the course was planned separately then laid out on the ground.   That was definitely not the norm for that type of project or the norm at that time.  And it was not Campbell's norm either.  And it was not even the norm of the members, as many of them also belonged to clubs were Campbell laid out their courses as well.   More importantly, there is nothing in the record even suggesting this.  More than that, even the Weeks account contradicts this, as he describes AM&G arranging the course ON THE GROUND.  In other words, "laying it out."   

As for the first instance in America of one person planning a course and another laying it out pursuant to those plans, I am not sure, but think that it was most likely around a decade later.  The indications I have seen are really just the opposite scenario as here.   There are accounts from mid decade 1900 where a golf professional (sometimes not even named) was brought in to advise about the course, and then the committee "laid it out" on the ground.   Then, as we approach 1910, it became more common.   

The real irony here is that until the Myopia conversation Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba have long mocked my understanding of the verb, and have flipped over to my definition here opportunistically, because it suits their purposes.
______________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Is there a purpose to your bitter and petty little comments other than to make yourself feel good?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 13, 2011, 01:11:38 PM
David,

I am sorry I couldn't resist one little comment in that post, but still believe most of the differences on these types of threads come mostly from your insistence that your definition or interpretation of words and their meanings should be the controlling aspect without ever admitting that your definition could be wrong.

I have read your post above, and find it a well reasoned attempt to define lay out, but can still question its consistent useage by clubs, Scot pros, and newspapers.  While you have taken great care to research and define that meaning in 2010, I doubt all those who used it 100-115 years ago really did, and so confusion THEN could reign, even if you have mentally sorted it out now.  There were close to 1000 American courses built in that period of evolving process and there is no way, IMHO, that all that fit any standardized process, even though many were similar.

To be honest, the short version is I have never mocked your understanding of the verb, but have questioned the absolute certainty you have with your understanding, which some of us simply don't share.  And, I believe you have misinterpreted the degree of opposition to golf at Myopia, based on Weeks.  He makes it clear it was strong, but I see no point in debating whether you or Mike is closer to correct in how strong it was.  It was real.

Your last post, except your comment to me, was a good one.  I would love to know more and see any examples of early routing plans anywhere.  Most seem to be produced after the coruse is open for newspaper articles, or whatever.  Even the ones at Myopia for the long nine and expansion to 18 look to be reproduced after the fact, perhaps in conjunction with the Opens.  Do you think that is the case?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 01:29:04 PM
Whatever Jeff.  

You can take or leave my understanding of the way these terms are used, and apparently do so as it suits your rhetorical needs.  As you have said, this is all just a game for you anyway.

As for Weeks, you and Mike can lean on Weeks all you want about all this opposition to golf at Myopia.  But let's not pretend that is historical analysis.  There may have been opposition, I don't know.   Neither do you, though, as you are just believing what Weeks tells you.   I am interested in historical analysis, so unless you have source material addressing the point there is no use discussing it with you.  

Besides, my comments about "opposition" regarded a single quote which Mike misread, casting it as about opposition to golf, as opposed to opposition to playing on the course in its rough condition.   The quote leaves no doubt it was the latter.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 13, 2011, 01:39:44 PM

The real irony here is that until the Myopia conversation Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba have long mocked my understanding of the verb, and have flipped over to my definition here opportunistically, because it suits their purposes.


David,

Overall, I appreciated your thoughts on the evolution of the verb.  That's constructive information, regardless of whether or not you believe the "newspaper writer" viewed it the same way.
_________

As for irony of changing viewpoints, I'm not going to get into the whole Merion thing.  However, when I spent last evening looking at some old Burbeck / Tilly threads, I was struck by how different the tone of that discussion went, with TEPaul actually serving as the "moderating voice" encouraging people to keep an open mind in challenging "accepted history."  It was funny to see the "evolution" of thought processes between 2002 and today among participants in these architectural debates.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 02:00:43 PM
Overall, I appreciated your thoughts on the evolution of the verb.  That's constructive information, regardless of whether or not you believe the "newspaper writer" viewed it the same way.

We rarely think of the meaning of words as we use them, and we rarely have to consider the context because we are already and inescapably embedded in that context.  We just use words as they fit.  There was little understanding of "designing" a golf course as we think of it.  They were just having some guy lay out a course on the ground so they could try this new game.  

Also, in this case, the verb most likely came from the same person who provided the rest of the information contained in those blurbs.  And that person sure seems to have known what he or she was talking about.      
_________

Quote
As for irony of changing viewpoints, I'm not going to get into the whole Merion thing.  However, when I spent last evening looking at some old Burbeck / Tilly threads, I was struck by how different the tone of that discussion went, with TEPaul actually serving as the "moderating voice" encouraging people to keep an open mind in challenging "accepted history."  It was funny to see the "evolution" of thought processes between 2002 and today among participants in these architectural debates.

I don't recall being involved in that discussion, and have generally always tried to avoid that issue so as to avoid stirring up controversy.   Obviously, I have done a real good job of that.  

I think if you reviewed all these threads over the years, you will find that the standards that TomM and I are held to are much, much different than the standards that anyone else around here has ever been held to.   That is ironic because compared to most, our opinions are much more thoroughly researched and have proven time and again to be accurate. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 13, 2011, 02:03:30 PM
Kevin
Logically there are reasons why no examples exist, because that process would not become a reality for another decade.

According James Lee author of Golf in America (1895) there were approximately 75 golf courses in America in 1895. The majority of these golf courses were crude by the standards of 1900s much less the standards of today. To use the term 'design' to describe what was going on in 1894 or 1895 displays a certain level of ignorance. Golf courses were laid out in matter of days, not weeks or months, and laid out referred to routing a golf course and preparing it for play (i.e. cutting holes). Nothing was put on paper, and hazards were an after thought. Unfortunately there are some golf architects today who believe what Campbell (and others) were doing in 1894, routing a golf course utilizing the natural features of the ground, was not very sophisticated or impressive, and didn't require much skill. I disagree.

It should also be noted by modern standards these courses were maintained in very crude manor, greens, tees, fairways were not descernably different. The tee was the starting point; the green was end point or hole; the fairway was the area between point A and point B; and the next tee was a few club lengths from the previous hole.

I suppose it is possible the golfing novices Squire & Co were a decade ahead of their time, and were the first in the world to design a golf course and have one of the most accomplished golfers and golf architects in the world (Campbell) build it according to their plan. Weeks never suggested that is what happened, and neither did May. You and Phil may be the only people who seriously believe that is what happened or could have happened. Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 13, 2011, 02:14:03 PM
David,

Finally, the definitive word on this subject, that we can all agree 100% with: 

 "Whatever."   ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on January 13, 2011, 02:22:24 PM
"I have never mocked your understanding of the verb."

Wow.  Is this all that's left here?  A debate about semantics and choice of words?  Parsing?

You guys must've loved Bill Clinton's handling of the Lewinsky allegations, because this is one of the great examples of linguistic parsing that I've ever seen.

I guess it depends on the meaning of ____________.

I'd look away, but a train wreck is compelling viewing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 13, 2011, 02:36:46 PM
"Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane."

Darn it Tom, and I was just getting ready to announce it! What you didn't say is that her last name was Macwood...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 13, 2011, 02:56:16 PM
Terry,

I have seen train wrecks, and they also seem to unfold in slow motion......

To your original question, with David involved, I have long contended that too many of his theories have come from exactly that - a detailed parsing of words, selection of sources to be trusted, etc.  I know he will disagree, but for me, and because of at least the example you list, but also my distrust of lawyers in general (and DM is a non practicing attorney) has always made me a bit suspect of his work.

That may very well be a reflection on my preconcieved bias over David's work and I openly admit that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 13, 2011, 02:57:31 PM
How about some real data I've unearthed.  (I now re-set the over-under on the pages of this thread at 115!).

I have the Early Myopia book by Allan Forbes.  It was published in 1942.  As far as I can tell from a quick browse through it, there is not a single mention about the golf course.  It is basically about fox hunts and stuff like that.

But, here is the Foreword:

     The information presented here... [is] now contained in the six large volumes in the Myopia club house.

     The material was collected for the reason that the early run book has been lost or mislaid.  Much data was found in the Boston newspapers through the help and kindness of officials of the Boston Public Library and other suburban libraries.

     This seems and appropriate opportunity to thank the many persons who have helped in the collection of so much material, which it is hoped will be of interest to past, present and future members of the Myopia Club.

     This volume is presented with the compliments of the author.

Allan Forbes
1942
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 03:09:34 PM
Imagine that.  Myopia determining its history using early newspaper accounts.

Can you tell the period covered by the missing run book?

______________________

Jeff Brauer, 

Openly admitting you have a bias against what I write but then continuing on with your bias unchecked is about like you apologizing on the other thread,but then continuing on doing the same things.  Empty words, perhaps only making things worse.
   
Your inability to take my words at face value says much more about you than it does me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 13, 2011, 03:10:00 PM
Joe,

I swear that you really enjoy giving a list of chemicals to your students in hopes that they will blow up the lab... and smile the entire time as you wait...  ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 13, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
David,

If people were playing on courses cruder than cow pastures, then why would anyone object to putting on sod, whatever its maturity.

Its a very silly interpretation you have of a very unambiguous sentence. 

No offense, but the opposition was to buying, building, laying, cutting and opening that portion of the property for golfing purposes.

Joe,

Wonder what year(s) the earliest Run Book(s) are/were missing from?

Any clue what the six volumes entail?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
David,

If people were playing on courses cruder than cow pastures, then why would anyone object to putting on sod, whatever its maturity.

Its a very silly interpretation you have of a very unambiguous sentence.  

Mike, can you read?  If so I refer you to the highlighted portion of the quote below:

"Accordingly the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began around June 1st, 1894."

Pay particular attention to the clause, set off from the rest by commas, reading:

 " . . . IN OPPOSITION FROM A NUMBER OF MEMBERS BECAUSE THE GROUND WAS SO ROUGH . . ."

You think this "very unambiguously" meant that they were opposed to golf coming to Myopia at all?  And that it is "very silly" of me to think that they were objecting to golfing on the rough grounds?  

Do you know what a tell is?   Well, your tell is hyperbole and definiteness.  Whenever you are being unreasonable, or bluffing, you try to mask it with words like "very silly" and "very unambiguous."    Remember how you described that newspaper articles as full of mistakes and equivalent to Charmin?  That is another good example of you bluffing.  

They weren't objecting to laying sod, they were objecting to playing on the course before it was ready.  Either the sod wasn't ready or they put on sod at the last minute to try and mollify the objecting members.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 13, 2011, 03:41:47 PM
If only just begun to look through the book in more detail.  But it is clear that for many years Forbes is relying upon information from newspapers.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 13, 2011, 04:45:16 PM
Joe,

Interesting that the Weeks book doesn't mention the Run Book missing...wonder if it was found by 1975?

Weeks also uses some newspaper sources, but also mentions direct quotes from the Run Book during those years.

Wouldn't it be funny/ironic if the AMG attribution came from a news source? 
I wonder what May used and where Stoddard and the club manager pointed him to as source material?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 13, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
"Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane."

Darn it Tom, and I was just getting ready to announce it! What you didn't say is that her last name was Macwood...

Sorry, there were no MacWoods living in Ohio in 1903, they were all in the NY/NJ area, however my grandfather was a chauffeur for Albert Einstein among others, so you might want to follow up on that lead. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 13, 2011, 04:57:11 PM
Mike Cirba,

Funny.  I was going to post, ironically, that they must have found the Run Book because TEPaul has told us that he as read it and claimed to know many details from this period because of it.  But I thought better of it.   Now, your reality is my joke.

What years are the quotes from the Run Book in the Weeks book?   The Bush quote isn't in the "Run Book."  

Someone mentioned that the Weeks book doesn't have the early club champions, except for 1895 and 1896, but those two years were listed in the Abbot book.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 13, 2011, 05:18:43 PM
David,

Which comes first; the objections or the sodding and cutting?

It says that despite the objections, nine greens were sodded and cut....now how in heavens name could that refer to bumpy putting?

Ay yi yi...

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 13, 2011, 05:23:02 PM
David,

The quotes from the Run Book refer to certain events during the period, such as the Opening tourney or July 4th tourney...not at home right now and don't recall which specifically.  I'll look it up and post later if its still an open question.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: PThomas on January 13, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
"Wow.  Is this all that's left here?  A debate about semantics and choice of words?  Parsing?

You guys must've loved Bill Clinton's handling of the Lewinsky allegations, because this is one of the great examples of linguistic parsing that I've ever seen.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 01:17:56 AM
Mike,

One of the reasons I get frustrated and my tone changes with you is that I really see very little effort from you at trying to be reasonable.  If you don't like some piece of information, you go out of your way to minimize it, mud it up, or even misrepresent it.    This is just the latest example.  

The one thing the quote DOES NOT refer to is a general opposition to golf at Myopia.  The opposition from a number of members was  "because the ground was so rough."  Yet you still try to misrepresent this as being about general opposition to Myopia, and even claim that my disagreement is "very silly" and your interpretation "unambiguous."  

Unfortunately, it seems that  you are playing rhetorical games.   I can't go on indefinitely pretending to be having a reasonable conversation with people who are obviously not so inclined.  The quote is very sloppy and not easy to understand, but obviously you aren't even trying.  Rather you are going out of your way to obfuscate the meaning!

Let's go through it again, starting with what is most obvious:  Some members were opposed to something "because the ground was so rough."  So the question is, to what were they opposed?  On this issue you again play dumb, re-quoting the next clause but leaving out the part that might help us make some sense out of what Bush said:  . . . nine greens were sodded and cut and play began around June 1, 1894.   Part of the membership opposed something because the conditions were too rough.  Can we please try to think in terms of what makes sense, as opposed to intentionally twisting it so it doesn't make sense?    Let's break it down by multiple choice.  Which of the following makes the most sense:

A)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to sodding the greens.
B)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to cutting the greens.
C)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to opening the course for play.

Seriously, Mike, which one of these makes the most sense?   Which one does NOT render the entire clause absurd?  

Which comes first; the objections or the sodding and cutting?

I don't know because it does not say.  It could be that they laid the sod at the last minute to quell the opposition to opening the course, or it could be that they laid the sod late in the game and that some of he membership were opposed to playing on it until matured and smoothed out.

Quote
It says that despite the objections, nine greens were sodded and cut....now how in heavens name could that refer to bumpy putting?

This would be true had the sodded when you think they sodded.    But if they had just sodded, then the greens would be quite rough, and arguably not ready for play.  That is what you guys have been arguing, isn't it?

Quote
Ay yi yi...

Another tell.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 07:04:25 AM
David,

I'm sorry, but I'm sincere and I believe it's you who is missing the meaning of the sentence.

I think your zeal to try and make it seem like it was sodded right before opening isn't allowing you to read it correctly, and you're missing the point.

The meaning is this;  members objected to sodding greens because the ground was too rough and the soil was too thin.  

Weeks tells us that in the preceding paragraph;  

"The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true."

They weren't objecting to playing on the golf course.   Dacre Bush tells us that "...the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut..."

The members, likely some of the same who objected to the game on principle, now didn't want to spend club monies and time and energies on this new game so they likely said, "ahh...the ground is too rocky and the soil is too thin...it's a waste of money on this foolishness.".    More importantly, they likely also didn't want to dedicate any portion of their extensive land holdings to this nonsense.  

The previous chapter talked about The Hunt, and how the members would ride over large expanses.  

"With the country still so open, with the contiguous estates of those members devoted to hunting, and particularly with the extensive range of Bradley Palmer's "Willowdale" and of Appleton's own farms at his disposal, the Master had plenty of scope for both fox hunting and the drag.   In 1901, Appleton was succeeded by George S. Mandell, and for the next ten years the new Master was concerned with opening up new country, such as the Beach Run over Sagamore Hill and the two-horse runs at West..."

In answer to your other question, the Weeks book contains quotes, purportedly from the Run Book, outlining Leeds tournament victory in 1894 and an account of a team match at Newport in 1896, both of which I've previously quoted here.

Let's make a deal, David...

I won't ask any more questions about NGLA's origins before first reading Macdonald's 1920s account which I ordered yesterday, and how about you not telling us any further what's in the Week's book you haven't read.    I'm pretty sure someone would be happy to scan the relevant pages and get you a copy.

I'm tired of typing.   Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 12:33:43 PM
The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 01:15:39 PM
Mike Cirba,

Weeks again?  You do understand that without basis Weeks' opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis, don't you? Weeks wasn't there.   He is obviously dealing with extremely limited sources.  And it isn't even clear that he understood what he was looking at.   For example, he calls Bush the Club Secretary and claims Bush's reminiscences - written many years later - are Board records!

Likewise, I recall the mention of the Newport Tournament and the reference again to club records.  My thought when it was posted was that it read much more like reminiscences any sort of administrative record which which I am familiar.  My guess is that was from the same source as the other information, Bush's reminiscences, which Weeks mistakenly thought some version of the administrative record.

Likewise, as I recall, the information thus far presented about the first tournament also came from Bush's reminiscences.

I am thoroughly unconvinced that Weeks even had the "Run Book."  Surely if he had the "Run Book" you could do better than these two references and a bunch of other stuff that was printed in the newspapers.

As for your "deal,"no way.   This thread is about Myopia.  You should quit interrupting it with your strange theories about NGLA because of that alone.  I am glad that you are finally getting around to taking a look at the CBM's readily available book, though.   Given that it is readily available and one of the most important books on the origins and evolution of golf in America, I'd have thought you would have read it years ago, but I guess not.

By the way, it is plenty ironic that you have repeatedly scolded me for not going to the clubs or reading their histories, yet you have been spouting off about NGLA for years - completely rewriting their histories - without even bothering to read CBM's account of what happened at NGLA.  I got my copy at a Barnes and Nobles for God's sake, so it is not as if the book is rare or hard to find!  And why haven't you taken all your ideas to NGLA before shilling them here?   After all, that is what you demand of me.  Why the double standard?  Other than hypocrisy, I mean.  

I'd be glad to take a look at the Myopia book but it is unfortunately not readily available.  I'd love for someone to forward me digitized copies, but I won't hold my breath.  I will just keep asking questions about it, but only on threads where it is relevant.


Quote
The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.

You are getting more and more like your mentor by the day, and that is NOT a compliment.  If you've got something to say about the "quotes" from the Leeds Scrapbook, then let's hear it, otherwise quit playing games with the source material.

------------------------------------------------

Joe Bausch,

Did Forbes have the Run Book covering 1894?  

Thanks.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Phil_the_Author on January 14, 2011, 01:33:45 PM
David,

After reading what you just posted to Mike I simply have to ask you how you can say about the Weeks Scrapbook that "You do understand that without basis Weeks' opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis, don't you?" and then because Mike doesn't quote from it when he mentions it, you now refer to it as "If you've got something to say about the "quotes" from the Leeds Scrapbook, then let's hear it, otherwise quit playing games with the source material."

How can something that has "nothing to do with historical analysis" actually be "source material?"
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 01:40:28 PM
David,

You wrote all of that instead of simply just saying, "Mike,  you're right...I read that statement about the rough grounds incorrectly, and I see your point."?  

Even if you wrote your other criticisms after that, it would help to advance the discussion.

I've had George and Gib's book on Macdonald for many years now.   I've also read everything CBM wrote contemporaneous to the events as he was building and opening NGLA, as well as Whigham's articles.   I've heard that CBM's book doesn't get into architecture quite as bit as one might hope and also that the 20 year after the fact recollections is more about golf generally than golf course architecture and not really that useful as a tool for precise historical analysis sourcing and time-lining, so it hasn't been at the top of my need-to-have limited funds library, but you are correct that I need to read it and plan to.

Then, if there's any further need, I'll ask questions to you about NGLA on another thread.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 02:32:43 PM
Phillip,

Weeks is not source material, but it may refer to source material (although clearly not enough.)   Mike is playing games by alluding to these references without even bothering to mention what they are.

------------------------------------------------

Mike Cirba,

Why would I write that?  I strongly disagree with your reading of that quote and don't see justification for such a reading whatsoever.  I already explained why a few times.  Your reference to what Weeks thought is what doesn't advance the conversation.  Weeks wasn't there.   I don't care what Weeks thought unless you can show me why he wrote what he did.   So far as I can tell, Weeks saw the word "opposition" and just assumed it must have been related to opposition to golf generally, same as you.    That interpretation makes no sense whether you say it or Weeks.

__________________________________________________

Frankly I don't care if you read the CBM book or not.  I'll just not entertain questions about NGLA which distract from the topic at hand.  I'm not expert on everything NGLA, but I'd be glad to answer any questions the best I can on the appropriate thread.  

That said, your excuses for not having read CBM's book do not justify the hypocrisy you have exhibited toward me and TomM on these issues.  How can you demand that we contact clubs, obtain their records, scour their club histories before we offer our opinions,  yet you offer your opinions without even bothering to look at the most obvious sources?  

__________________________________________________

From what you and others have presented about Weeks, it seems that he was quite confused about the nature of some of his source material, particularly Bush's recollections.   Weeks confused Bush's recollections with the administrative record, did he not?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 14, 2011, 03:08:26 PM
For example, he calls Bush the Club Secretary and claims Bush's reminiscences - written many years later - are Board records!


I'm not going to try and go back through all the previous 43 pages, but can someone please confirm when Bush was at the Club, and when he wrote down his "reminiscences" that David is referring to.  I just want to make sure I'm not "misremembering" the timing or if I missed something.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
I don't think we know when Bush wrote Golf: A Triumph of Hope over Experience, but in it he reportedly described the evolution of the 2nd hole, which had already been lengthened several times.   He said it was 430 yards then.   Tom MacWood found listings of the hole at 430 yards from 1904 on.  

Bush was definitely a member of the club and a "Steward" in 1894, but he was not the Club Secretary as Weeks claimed, and what Weeks claimed was his "terse entry into the club records" by Secretary Bush actually appears to be some later account, probably the same reminiscence.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 14, 2011, 04:26:40 PM
 
Bush was definitely a member of the club and a "Steward" in 1894, but he was not the Club Secretary as Weeks claimed, and what Weeks claimed was his "terse entry into the club records" by Secretary Bush actually appears to be some later account, probably the same reminiscence.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure why it matters whether Bush wrote down something he remembered informally or if it was an official "record" of the Club (there seems to be some discussion whether it's a "recollection" or something in the records).

If he was an early member of the Club, wouldn't anything he wrote down or relayed be pretty compelling, no matter what the format?  I suppose you could contend that he may be "misremembering" details if he wrote them down years later, but I think something as big as who designed the course would stick with an early member.

I can understand why you may dismiss Weeks account, since he wasn't there and would depend on sources.  But since Bush was there, wouldn't any form of his recollection be important?

Looked at another way, isn't a newspaper account just a write-up of someone's recollection? I'm assuming the writers received their information from a member, rather than a review of club records.

_______________

Having said all that, I'm trying to remember what, exactly, is attributed to Bush's recollection.  There's reference to his short entry that the Executive Committee decided in March 1894 to build a golflinks on the Myopia ground (which doesn't prove who actually made the layout), but what else is specifically attributed to Bush's recollections?

I haven't seen "Golf: A Triumph of Hope Over Experience", so I'm not sure what is claimed in that.

____________
Again, I apologize if I've missed something through all the pages and am asking a pretty dumb question.  In the course of processing all 43 pages of this (in one evening), I may very well have confused "who said what."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 04:27:35 PM
Bush was Secretary of the golf committee at Myopia in the beginning.

It's truly horrific and tragic even that Weeks dod not make this life and death distinction.

David,

Which courses of CBMs are in question that his book provides adequate documentation about?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 05:06:52 PM
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure why it matters whether Bush wrote down something he remembered informally or if it was an official "record" of the Club (there seems to be some discussion whether it's a "recollection" or something in the records).

For what it is worth, I do take Bush at face value.  But Bush did not write anything about who laid out the initial course.   The reason the mistake is significant is that Weeks would have known who the Club Secretary was had he actually been looking at the club records, and he would have known that Bush's snippet was not an administrative record. It is also significant because it strongly suggests that Weeks was really confused about what was going on here.

Now Joe Bausch tells us that the Run Book had been lost, and while he has not yet confirmed that the records were lost for 1894 in particular, it nonetheless looks more and more like Weeks was NOT relying on club records as the basis of his narrative about AM&G.    

Quote
If he was an early member of the Club, wouldn't anything he wrote down or relayed be pretty compelling, no matter what the format?  I suppose you could contend that he may be "misremembering" details if he wrote them down years later, but I think something as big as who designed the course would stick with an early member.

Again, I do take what Bush wrote at face value. But no one has brought anything forward indicating that Bush even addressed who created the course.  

Generally, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that these guys would definitely remember, because don't think these guys were all that concerned with who designed their courses. They apparently did not see these things as significant or permanent like we do today.  There was no concept of the "design" of a course like there is today.  Take a look at the Shinnecock thread for a key example.   Parrish was the Club Secretary and actually with Willie Davis when they located the land for the Shinnecock course.  And, while with Davis, Parrish even hit the first golf ball at the location.  Yet he wrongly attributed the initial course to Willie Dunn, and wrote that the initial course was a 12 hole course, apparently confusing the original nine hole course with Dunn's 12 hole course from 1893.    

Quote
I can understand why you may dismiss Weeks account, since he wasn't there and would depend on sources.  But since Bush was there, wouldn't any form of his recollection be important?

Again, I do take what Bush wrote at face value, even where he is a bit confusing. But no one has brought anything forward indicating that Bush even addressed who created the course.  

Quote
Looked at another way, isn't a newspaper account just a write-up of someone's recollection? I'm assuming the writers received their information from a member, rather than a review of club records.

I am not sure "recollection" is the correct word since those articles appeared in conjunction with the opening tournament. Yes the information likely came from a member, but it had just happened and was likely fresh in the member's mind.  It wasn't mixed up with all of what else happened regarding the course for the next decade or so.    Plus, the main article contains plenty of information suggesting the person supplying the information knew what he/she was talking about.

_______________

Quote
Having said all that, I'm trying to remember what, exactly, is attributed to Bush's recollection.  There's reference to his short entry that the Executive Committee decided in March 1894 to build a golflinks on the Myopia ground (which doesn't prove who actually made the layout), but what else is specifically attributed to Bush's recollections?

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

I don't recall anything else from Bush of direct significance to the creation of the course having been brought forward.   That little blip seems to be the basis for Weeks' claims and the basis for the alternate "theory" that and Weeks' narrative about AMG are the only "support" for the claim that AMG were responsible.   This complete lack of support is why I find this conversation frustrating.  There is just nothing there.    

That is why I keep trying to get a list of facts.    So far as I can tell, there is NOTHING which points to AM&G as the creators of the course.  

________________________________

Mike Cirba tries to downplay Weeks error by noting that Weeks was the secretary of the golf committee.  But Weeks reported that Bush was the one keeping the club records!  That is the job of the Secretary of the Club.  

____________________________________

Mike Cirba.  I thought you were done trying to inject NGLA into this discussion?   You've repeatedly and mistakenly tried to rewrite NGLA's history even though it is well documented, so I have know idea what other histories of CBM's courses  you might decide to distort.    You still owe us an explanation about your hypocrisy.

What else about the Weeks book makes you think that the had the Run Book for 1894?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 05:20:17 PM
David,

An explanation?  And here I mistakenly thought you were lacking a sense of humor!   Good for you and mea culpa!!  ;D

You should just ask TMac to make you a copy of the Weeks book so you actually can argue about it with facts and knowledge at your disposal. 

That would be welcomed at this point, I'm sure.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 05:39:00 PM
Your getting as bad as TEPaul with this implying that you are relying on information that I haven't seen.   If you want me to have the book, send me yours.  It is already digitized.   But I am pretty confident that between the four of you with copies that you have brought forward any listed source material relating to the initial creation of the course.   Given that there is NOTHING SO FAR, it is pretty easy for me to keep track.

As for your hypocrisy, why do you demand things of TomM and I that you don't live by yourself?  Here is your self-serving and self-righteous statement of your "methodology" from the Shinnecock thread:

"In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible."

You've come up with all sorts of crazy theories about NGLA which would rewrite portions of their history.   You've claimed various individuals should be added to the credits, claimed it was part of a real estate scheme, claimed the course was 110 acres, credited Hutchinson, Travis, and Emmet with the design, disputed the date it was ready for play, disputed the opening date of the club, etc . . .  So tell us about how you reached out to NGLA and examined their internal records?   Tell us about you went to them first as a show of respect?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 05:53:04 PM
David,
There is nothing I've claimed about NGLA that would be a surprise to the club to my knowledge. 

Your characterizations of my positions is inaccurate, but I expect that by now.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 14, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
Weeks quotes the 1896 Run Book on page 36 of his work.  On page 37, he quotes a July 1895 Boston Herald article concerning an upcoming golf event.  On Pages 38 and 39 he quotes the Evening Courier and the Golfer's Magazine about the long nine and another golf event.

This doesn't answer whether the 1894 Run Book was lost, obviously.  On the other hand, he either used a variety of sources or just quoted from the 1941 book, with its combination of club records and newspaper clippings inserted as replacement club records in an attempt to recover their history.

Even so, given that he quoted other sources with dates, etc., is it is merely speculation that he quoted a post 1904 Bush remembrance as being written by the Club Secretary?  Weeks seems pretty precise to me, not confused and I believe that Bush, as Club Secretary in 1897-8 did write that into a club record and that Weeks recorded it exactly right, including Bush's vagueness on exact dates in March and June of 1894.  It is pure speculation that was written by Bush many years later is the only scenario that makes sense.  

Given the precision with which Weeks attributes his quotes throughout, and the occaisional use of the word "probably" to tell us when he is writing on his own, I believe that when he wrote that it was a quote from Secretary Bush in the club records, that it was a quote from Secretary Bush in the club records.  To pretend that this is one he got wrong, without reading the book, or to pretend he is generally incompetent to make one argument or another seems wrong to me.

BTW, as far as I know, this thread isn't supposed to be about NGLA, Shinny, or Merion!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 14, 2011, 06:11:18 PM
None of this long winded debate has come close to answering the question of why the only two men who looked at all the available evidence from inside the clubs walls came separately to the same conclusion.

Pretending evidence doesn't exist without searching for it doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Bush was Club Secretary in 1897-98?   Do you have a basis for writing that, or is it just another mystery fact you made up to suit your purposes?  

Bush wasn't the club Secretary when the events happened.  He is writing about events that took place in the past. To insist that this was an entry by the Club Secretary into the Club Records defies logic.

You say that Weeks quoted the Run Book from 1896, but if that is the same quote Mike provided then that sure reads like a reminiscence on golf to me.  IMO it was written as if for an audience, not to log events.   It sure reads like the sort of thing one might read in a reminiscence about golf, such as the one we know that Bush wrote.    

Weeks was obviously confused.

I agree with that this isn't about Shinnecock, NGLA, or Merion.  But your hypocrisy and Mike's are a big presence here as well as in those conversations.

____________________________________

Mike Cirba

 I accurately and gently portrayed some of the absurd positions you have taken regarding NGLA.   Should I start a thread pulling some of them up so you can explain why you didn't go to NGLA?  

Your last post about the two accounts is nonsense.  You don't know what the two men looked at and you certainly don't know that they SEPARATELY came to their conclusions.  In fact May acknowledges that his information came from the club.   You think that Weeks was some outsider doing his own work separate from the club.     You do bring up a good point if only accidentally.   If May relied on the run book he would likely have said have said so.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 14, 2011, 06:59:24 PM
David,

What year do you think he was club secretary?  I ask, because I am pretty sure that when you properly explained that he was golf committee secretary in 1895-6, you or someone mentioned in this thread that he ascended to club secretary.  Of course, that was perhap 30 pages ago, so I could be wrong, but someone did post that here, IIRC.

The Run Book quote is on page 36 of Weeks and says its a "note in the 1896 Run Book" concerning their match with Newport.  So where do you get the idea that it was really a remincisence and Weeks just mislabled it?

I guess I get frustrated that we are supposed to take your "opinions" as to what something sounds like, even without having read it as historical analysis while actually quoting something directly or reading it is dissed.  And a harder time being called a hypocrite by someone like you.

  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 14, 2011, 07:11:15 PM
I actually don't think Weeks was confused at all. Reading more of the Weeks account again, I notice another quote from a note in the 1896 Run Book:

"Members come in from a hunt exilharated, but the golfer is usually downcast after a round."  He then mixes in an ancedote, labeled as a "conversation overheard on the Pond hole tee."

My point is that it seems that the run book also had some remembrances and glimpses into club life, and was not just a dry club record, so David's assumption that Weeks isn't quoting from club records, because they don't look like any he has seen may also be wrong.  I agree that club records tend to be dry, but there are exceptions, and perhaps, like architecture itself, as a pioneer in the US club note taking field, the standards simply hadn't been, well, standardized yet.

BTW, if the 1894 Run Book had been lost, would it defy logic to have the golf secretary or club secretary try to rewrite those records as best he could a year or two later?  Is that any less probable than Weeks mislabeling a quote from a phamplet published many years later?  And to say WE twist things to suit our own conclusions.  David, you again tell us that your theory depends on your logic, which is not historical analysis, is it?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 09:23:24 PM
Well someone is confused.    


You really think that quote came from the Run Book?   My understanding is that the Run Book was supposed to log events at the club.  In fact it was called the "Log-Book" then, not the Run Book.  

I am interested in the anecdote supposedly from the Run Book, "conversation overheard by the on the pond hole tee-box."   Let me guess:

"I just drove over the pond with a putter!"
"Why did you do it ? "
"Oh, in the cause of science," was the reply.

This is the only sunbeam that was ever known to penetrate the gloom of Myopian golf.


How'd I do?    I'll bet not all bad, considering I have neither the Weeks' book nor the Run Book.  

Someone is or was confused.  Either Weeks or you guys. Either way what you are presenting from this book has more holes that Myopia's golf course.

What did Weeks discuss next?  The coach "Myopia" which ran from Manchester-by-the-Sea to the kennels on polo days in the mid 1890's?  Or perhaps the coach "Constitution" which years earlier had run from Pride's Crossing to
Manchester-by-the-Sea, thence to the kennels?  If so, I'll bet they were both a credit to the club, well horsed and well managed in every way.

_____________________________

As for your last paragraph, no it makes no sense to recreate an administrative record a few years after he fact.  If they had, then why would it still be lost in 1940?   Plus, you have to assume yet another string of your factions into existence, this time that the book was lost in 1894 or thereabouts and then recreated a few years later.   

You cannot just make things up.

And logic is very much a part of factual analysis.  That is the analysis part.   But it is analysis of FACTS, not stuff you make up to suit your needs. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 14, 2011, 09:37:23 PM
Recently I've been trying to follow the last few weeks or the last ten pages of this thread but it isn't easy. All the discussants are making all kinds of misinterpretations about the actual records of the club. As I mentioned on a group email to the regular participants on this thread some time ago I am willing to go to Myopia this year to review their archives. I have spoken to some members of the club about this including their historian. I have not broached the subject to them about how or if they would like to make various material public but that is something I promise I will certainly bring up.

I hope that helps the discussants on this thread and gives them some encouragement. If not, I will take that into consideration as well.

The idea here, I hope, is to get the most and the most accurate historical material and information that may be available. I think that is what this website ultimately hopes to accomplish with these kinds of subjects on these kinds of significant Amercan golf courses.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 14, 2011, 10:05:04 PM
TePaul,

Works for me. I am interested to know more about this historic place.

David,

As long as you continue to make things up (i.e., Weeks was confused) then the rest of us probably will too.

BTW, the discussion by the pond was the separate anecdote, not said to be in the run book.  So again, you get it wrong.  Give it up David, and for once just admit you might be wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 14, 2011, 10:51:36 PM
It sickens me to see TEPaul posting again after what he pulled.  I had hoped Ran would show better judgment this time before again giving him a forum for his garbage.

_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer. 

Both the supposed "Run Book" quote and the "pond conversation" quote are from the songbook written by Abbott.

Did Weeks continue on with a discussion of the coaches running to Myopia for polo games?  That is from Abbott as well.   

Did you make up the bit about Bush being Secretary in 1897-1898?  That wasn't from Abbott. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 15, 2011, 02:03:16 AM
It sickens me to see TEPaul posting again after what he pulled.  I had hoped Ran would show better judgment this time before again giving him a forum for his garbage.
 

David,

What is the point of that? What possible good can be accomplished by going off on TEPaul when he re-enters thus discussion with fairly genuine sounding offer to help forward thus discussion?

If you're upset about things he said before - fine. A number of us made comments about some of the unfortunate statements Tom had been making recently.  But as far as I can tell, those behaviors stopped for the last several weeks as Tom stepped back.

Perhaps he stopped and reflected on those things. Maybe he didn't.

But it seems to me that there was nothing in that last post warranting that reaction.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Kevin Lynch on January 15, 2011, 02:15:25 AM
TEPaul,

That would be much appreciated in advancing these discussions.

I think your last paragraph is very true, and know that your experience and connections could be invaluable towards achieving that goal. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Niall C on January 15, 2011, 06:27:30 AM
For what its worth I got this from the UK edition of Golfing from 22nd January 1903.

"Mr Herbert C. Leeds, of the Myopia Hunt Club (remarks New York Golf), found out more during a two months tour of the principal golf courses of England and Scotland than the average Scottish professional could tell one in a life-time. Only those who have been active on green committees can get so great a benefit in so short a time."

Clearly Mr Leeds was no fan of Scottish pro's. I wonder where he came into contact with them, apart from Scotland obviously ?

Niall
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 09:47:49 AM
Weeks quotes the 1896 Run Book on page 36 of his work.  


Here is page 36. I assume the parentheses were added by Weeks. 

"That summer of 1896 home-and-home team matches were played against the Newport GC on the links erected by Theodore A. Havemeyer. The flavor of the soggy, salty day comes through this note in the Myopia Run Book:

'A team match between the Newport GC and Myopia took place on September 19th. The Myopia was disappointed by the illness of their players, and inability of another to get away. The original intention was to play teams of six, but teams of five were played, the match being in a thoroughly sporting and friendly spirit. There has been heavy rains, and the Links (Newport) was, so to speak, sodden. The match was also played in a thick fog. At the end of the first round Myopia was 11 holes down. (Then Myopia rallied.) The appended telegram gives the result and names of the players. Myopia won seven holes up.

          Newport, Rhode Island
          Leeds halves with Coates. Longworth halved with Havemeyer. Appleton two down with Rutherford. Henry Six up with Cochran.
          Shaw three up with Stillman.'"

What is interesting about this entry, or wherever it is, it does not jive with what was reported in the NY Sun on 10/2/1896.

It is a little confusing to understand how these matches were conducted. The article said the matches were 27 holes. Leeds went against Coats and it ended 0 for Leeds and 0 for Coats. I would find it hard to believe they would halved 27 consecutive holes, but who knows. Maybe they both got zeros if the match ends in a tie. Whatever was going on it was some kind of aggregate score. After the first day at Newport on Sept 19 Myopia lead 9 holes to 2 holes. Exactly what the telegram reports. The second match on the 26th at Myopia ended Myopia 24 and Newport 4. The final score Myopia 33 to 6.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 09:58:30 AM

Even so, given that he quoted other sources with dates, etc., is it is merely speculation that he quoted a post 1904 Bush remembrance as being written by the Club Secretary?  


Bush's remembrance could have come anywhere between 1904 and his death 1936. The distance of the hole changed in 1904, but I don't believe it changed again until after WWII, and it was actually shortened.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 10:10:20 AM
I'm not sure if the following is a 1894 Run Book entry, or not.   Certainly it can be read that way.

Weeks writes:

"That this new course was difficult is evidenced by a note stating that, on June 24.  "H.C. Leeds covered the 9 holes in 48 strokes, previous best on record 54."   It goes on facetiously, "Prof. Baxter, fired by the talk, which in warm weather provides ventilation through headgear for the overheated vacuums of the Myopians, purchased several clubs and having broken one or two without moving the ball eventually succeeded in finishing in 214 strokes"."

"Professor Baxter is a caricature probably written into the Run Book by a sarcastic member of the Hunt.  The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years; the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 10:28:01 AM
Regarding Bush and the timing of his writings, evidently titled, "Golf: the triumph of Hope over Experience", Weeks writes;

"Under the caption "Golf: the triumph of Hope over Experience", the Club secretary, S. Dacre Bush, wrote this description of the Long Nine when it was ready for play:", and then goes on to quote Bush directly, hole by hole.   There is an obvious confusion in the first sentence, because if Bush wrote it precisely when the Long Nine was ready for play, that would logically have been before the course was 18 holes.   One possible explanation is that we know the 18 holes were already designed and under construction by 1897, and just not ready for the US Open of 1898.   I suspect it was written around the time of the US Open around 1910, but I could be wrong. 

In any case, it's fairly detailed...a few examples from Bush;

The first hole was the present 2nd.  The tee was on a high ridge above and to the east of the Club house.   The tee faced north, the fairway was bisected by a wide sandtrap at a distance to catch a topped second shot and the green was guarded by four-foot mounds and deep traps, approached down a sharp declivity and with rough at the back.

The second was the present 8th.   This was one of the two longest holes, the fairway covering ridges which cut off the view of the green and which necessitates uphill and downhill lies.   The green, three full shots from the tee in those days, pitched sharply from right to left, and when sunbaked, lightning fast.   Players stroking a chip firmly from the upper edge have seen their ball gather speed, cross the 25 yards of the green and disappear into the rough.   Distance 427 yards, par 5.

The third was the present 9th, minus the pond.   The player, probably with a mashie, aimed at a long domino green, never wider than 15 yards, and entirely surrounded by sand traps, placed to catch hook or slice, in the deepest of which a player, bending over his ball, would disappear.   Distance 130 yards: par 3.   The bullrushes which gave the hole its name were death on a topped shot.


and so on...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 10:33:00 AM

On page 37, he quotes a July 1895 Boston Herald article concerning an upcoming golf event.  


"The close ties with The Country Club which had drawn the Hunt so often to Clyde Park were renewed on the links. This announcement in the Boston Herald in July, 1895, despite the odd terminology, shows Myopia acting as host and setting the handicaps:

'The Myopia Club golf links will hold a handicap at Clyde Park, Brookline, July 4, open to members, associates, and their friends. Dinner will be served at 7:30, and display of fireworks in the evening.'

The club was beginning to take the game seriously. 'Members come into the Red Room after the hunt exhilarated, enthusiastic,' says a note in the Run Book. 'The golfer is usually downcast after a round. Evidently to him, "Youth is a blunder, Manhood a struggle, Old Age a regret."'

But golf had its lighter side, too, as witness this conversation, over heard at the Pond tee: 'I just drove over the Pond with a putter.'
'Why did you do it?'
'Oh, in the cause of science.'"

It is a little strange he would choose the non-eventful handicap event on July 4 to illustrate the tight connection with Brookline, especially when you had so many cross over members (Thomas, Leeds, Shaw, Appleton, etc) and also the Campbell connection.

David is correct the second part comes from 'Myopia Songs and Waltzes,' which was originally published in 1897.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 10:40:50 AM
In all three cases Weeks quotes from 'a note' in the Run Book. Does the use the word 'note' instead of entry seem a little strange? He uses the word 'entry' to describe Bush's remembrance in the club records. That is a little strange too, and misleading. I think it is pretty clear Weeks is not a reliable source.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 10:46:36 AM
The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.

Mike
What quote are you referring to?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 10:53:39 AM
Tom,

If Weeks wrote "notation", that would probably not sound so strange, but agree that note sounds pencilled in.

In answer to your question about the scrapbook, page 84 reads;

"In Leeds's scrapbook is this entry:  "The one thought of the New School seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score.   They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as  Sir Alexander Kinlock so well expressed it, 'that this is not golf, and please God never will be golf.   Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent!'  To eliminate chance from an game is to spoil it."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 11:12:14 AM
Tom,

If Weeks wrote "notation", that would probably not sound so strange, but agree that note sounds pencilled in.

In answer to your question about the scrapbook, page 84 reads;

"In Leeds's scrapbook is this entry:  "The one thought of the New School seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score.   They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as  Sir Alexander Kinlock so well expressed it, 'that this is not golf, and please God never will be golf.   Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent!'  To eliminate chance from an game is to spoil it."

Why would they pencil in 'Songs and Waltzes of Myopia'?

What is most interesting about the Leeds quote IMO is the fact it is the only one in the book. That tells me one of two things, either Weeks did not have Leeds' scrapbook and was quoting from another source (probably from Forbes) or there never was a Leeds' scrapbook,  there was a Forbes' scrapbook with some of it devoted to Leeds.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 11:22:58 AM
Tom,

I think you are far too quick to jump to speculative conclusions.

If the book was meant to be a history of golf course architecture, perhaps, but a history of a club would be written, and meant to be read, more as a story than a footnoted thesis paper.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 11:35:28 AM
Mike
There is actually quite a bit of the book devoted to the golf course and to Leeds. I would have thought he would have quoted from the architect's scrapbook if he had it. Instead he relies on Bush's description of the Long Nine; he also has no idea how or when Leeds altered that nine. The same is true with the new and expanded eighteen hole course. He doesn't know precisely when that work began or finished. One would think the scrapbook would have covered that, it was reported in magazines and newspapers.

Also a Leeds scrapbook would certainly referred to or mentioned Campbell. There are numerous articles that mention the two men together at Myopia.

How do you explain only one quote and Weeks' ignorance on these matters?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
Tom MacWood,

I'm not saying your theory isn't possible...I just think you're jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts if you think those are the ony two possibilities?

Which "numerous articles" mention Leeds and Campbell together at Myopia?   I can only recall the Herd/Kirkaldy article I posted here mentioning something about how Campbell played this or that hole.   

Certainly you seem to be placing a great deal of stock in that one, but I don't see it as unusual or telling that Leeds would have brought some recollections of up their old, deceased friend to the foregin visitors during their visit.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 01:36:14 PM
There is that article plus articles 5/18/94, 5/19/94, 5/20/94, 6/19/94, 6/23/94, 8/12/95, 6/20/96, 7/15/96, and 10/20/96.

If he has Leeds' scrapbook how do you explain only one quote and Weeks' ignorance of when and how the Long Nine was changed, when work began on the new eighteen, and Campbell's relationship with Myopia & Leeds?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Tom,

Are each of those articles simply reports of competitions that both Leeds and Campbell played in?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 02:19:03 PM
No, not all of them. Why would that make difference?

Wouldn't you think Leeds would include articles in his scrapbook involving competitions he won & big events he participated in, and articles profiling his golfing and athletic prowess, not to mention articles dealing with his architectural activities/interests? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 02:22:30 PM
Tom,

We don't really know what if anything Leeds's scrapbook entailed or focused on, do we?     We don't know what year(s) are covered, or when Leeds started it.   It could have been more like a diary of thoughts for all we know...I have no idea, but that one caption sure reads like it..

I'm not sure why it would make a difference to Weeks to see fellow competitors of Leeds in the scrapbook anyhoo, even if Leeds clipped news articles with his name in them.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 02:30:43 PM
Mike
Diary? I think you and everyone understands what a scrapbook is, a scrapbook it not a diary, which is why, I take it, you edited your post.

A couple of those articles mention Campbell laid out Myopia; the last three mention Campbell is the pro at Myopia. I think it is unlikely Weeks would have ignored that information, which is why I doubt he saw the scrapbook, if it ever existed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
Tom,

Depending on when Leeds started or wrote his scrapbook, your questions may or may not be relevant.

Again, with less than half-the-story at our disposal, we just don't know.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 02:35:57 PM

You've come up with all sorts of crazy theories about NGLA which would rewrite portions of their history.   You've claimed various individuals should be added to the credits, claimed it was part of a real estate scheme, claimed the course was 110 acres, credited Hutchinson, Travis, and Emmet with the design, disputed the date it was ready for play, disputed the opening date of the club, etc . . .  So tell us about how you reached out to NGLA and examined their internal records?   Tell us about you went to them first as a show of respect?  

Mike Cirba

 I accurately and gently portrayed some of the absurd positions you have taken regarding NGLA.   Should I start a thread pulling some of them up so you can explain why you didn't go to NGLA?



David,

Don't bother...I'll start a separate thread to discuss this, probably tomorrow.

Thanks for prompting me to purchase the CBM 1928 reminisces...there are some terrific pictures in there, as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 02:38:57 PM
One would presume if you are going to bother to put together a scrapbook it would be devoted to the high points of your life, when you were most active. In Leeds case that would be from 1875 to about 1906. It doesn't make much sense for him begin a scrapbook when he was curtailing his activities.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 02:40:49 PM
Tom,

Sh*t Tom, at age 52 I'm still hoping my best scrapbook days are ahead of me!  ;)

We don't know what we don't know.   You may be right.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
Mike
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have or wouldn't have a rich and interesting scrapbook full of great successes and accomplishments. May I suggest you enlist the help of TEP, if you are running out of material he is very good at making things up.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 03:07:10 PM
"If he has Leeds' scrapbook how do you explain only one quote and Weeks' ignorance of...............Campbell's relationship with Myopia & Leeds?"


Tom MacWood:

It seems Mike Cirba has asked you to explain what you mean about a relationship between Campbell and Leeds but you haven't answered that question.

Although this thread has been running on and off for close to a year and a half now I recall you have stated on here that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf and you also seem to have suggested Campbell was somehow Leed's mentor in golf course architecture.

I have never seen or ever heard of such relationships between Campbell and Leeds----not from anywhere or at any time other than from you. Where did you come up with that notion other than perhaps the fact Campbell was at TCC at the same time Leeds was or that Campbell apparently played tournament golf using Myopia's name in 1896---the same year Leeds joined Myopia?

So what evidence do you have that Campbell and Leeds ever had any relationship at all in anything? That is what Cirba asked you and I'm asking you. Let's hope you don't just ignore this question as you have so many other relevant ones on here or just dance around it as you seem to be doing now with Cirba.



Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 03:16:30 PM
TEP
Why don't you start a new thread? I'll present what I have over there, and you can present what you have that shows Leeds was self taught.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 03:39:46 PM
Tom:

That's OK; if you don't want to answer that question on here, that's fine, we've all come to expect that kind of response from you. This thread is about Willie Campbell and Myopia, and unless Willie had some talent for fox hunting, polo, tennis or court tennis none of us have heretofore been aware of this thread is about Myopia's golf architectural history. Throughout most of my life and then after I became familiar with the history of golf architecture and the history of golf architecture at Myopia, I have been aware that it has always been inextricably inter-related with the life and times of Herbert C. Leeds at Myopia.

So if you don't want to answer a question on this thread about what you have to support your claim that Campbell and Leeds ever had any kind of relationship----eg with the teaching of Leeds how to play golf or with mentoring or even influencing Leeds with golf course architecture, that's fine with me. I think you just made that up as just another way to try to make it look like Willie Campbell had more to do with the golf architectural history of Myopia than he apparently ever did.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 03:48:19 PM
TEP
Where did I say I would not answer your question?

If you are interested go ahead and start a new thread and I'll present what I have there, and you can present what you have that shows Leeds was self taught.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 15, 2011, 04:04:50 PM
TMac,

In the acknowledgement section of Weeks book he says that George Batchhelders started looking up both the history and legend of Myopia.  He later notes that he has used "all the run books" and then mentions that he had the Leeds scrap book at his disposal, together with some research from the USGA, five living Hound Masters, and many letters of rembrances from people who had been at the club as long ago as 1911.  One was a Reverand Moore.

Do you suppose he started the big lie right in his acknowledgements?  Hoiw about the Rev?  Was he a liar, too?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
Well, I guess that answers that!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
Tom:

That's true, you did not say you wouldn't answer that question.

The question was---what are you using as evidence to support your statements on here that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf and that Campbell was Leeds's mentor on golf architecture or Campbell was an influence on Leeds's architecture?

I can tell you right here and now what I'm using as my sources of information for the story that Leeds was self-taught, and of my sources of information about others aspects of Leeds at Myopia and otherwise. The first one for this discussion on here is Weeks's book in which he mentions Leeds was self taught. That story was confirmed to me before the fact of reading Weeks's book. It goes back over the last 50 years via a whole list of men who I have known well over my life because they were all such good friends of my father's. I would even be willing to tell you who they were and what they said about Leeds over the years. A good half dozen or more of them are mentioned in Weeks's Myopia history book and you can even see photographs of them in the book.

Why did they all talk about Leeds as they did and so long after his life and times? I have my own theories about that but it should be sufficient to say that of all those kinds of clubs I have known through my life I would have to say that the 3-4 that for various reasons seem to be completely imbued with the aura of a particular person in the history of a club would be Pine Valley with John Arthur Brown, ANGC with Cliff Roberts, Oakmont with particularly W.C. Fownes and Myopia with Herbert Leeds. As far as I know Leeds was never the president of Myopia as the others were of those clubs but his aura was nevertheless as pervasive as the others were and I expect it always will be with Myopia.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 15, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
TMac,

I may have been a little strong in contending that you are calling Weeks a liar.  But just to get it straight, are you contending over the last year and a half that Weeks is an unreliable source because of what you say are strange choices of words, use of quotes, etc?  

Do you believe that the long time editor of the prestigious Atlantic Monthly magazine was in poor command of the English langauge?  Unable to use grammar correctly? Not knowledgeable about how to research a story?  No dedication to presenting it as accurately as possible, using the same standards that would be brought to bear in the Atlantic Monthly?

Which skills do you think he lacked that would make him make such strange and bizarre choices in his writings about his home club of Myopia, the one where he undertook writing of the book specifically because he thought the history of golf at Myopia had been underrepresented?

Do you think he only kept the top job at Atlantic monthly all that while because he had pictures of the publisher with some of those Myopia sheep?

And, do you think it coincidence that when he listed his sources in the acknowledgement, that he didn't happen to mention the Bush Rembrances along with the more first hand accounts that he seems to have relied on?  Given your belief about contemporaneous sources, who do you believe knows better what sources he used - you 50 years after the fact, or him, writing a foreward immediately on completion of the book?

I will say this, though - if he used Leeds, and for whatever reason Leeds was dismissive of WC, and thus left him out of his scrapbook concerning design, then it is possible that his writing may reflect Leeds bias or omissions.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 05:32:06 PM
Tom,

I think TMac based his theory on that erroneous news article that stated Leeds had only started playing in the spring of 1894.

I subsequently posted two articles from 1893 that made clear Leeds was playing from the inception of golf at TCC, or over a year before Campbell arrived in the US and was already a top player.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 05:59:38 PM
"Tom,
I think TMac based his theory on that erroneous news article that stated Leeds had only started playing in the spring of 1894."

Mike:

That could be so, and it is understandable, I suppose, that he may make that assumption if a 1894 newspaper article said it, and it's understandable as well if at the time of his theory and assumption he was not aware of any other articles (or other information) that mentioned Leeds had been playing golf earlier than the spring of 1894.

Nevertheless, he still seems to maintain that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf so perhaps he will tell us what evidence he bases that notion on.

Personally, I feel that points like this border on the irrelevant and trivial but I suppose they are worth discussing anyway, but not if any of us get ridiculously intransigent about the discussion of some of these minor points.

I feel this particular thread, at least when it was begun by Tom MacWood about a year and a half ago was presented by him because of a concern that he had----eg that Campbell's contribution to early American golf architecture has been ignored or minimized or misunderstood and that Myopia's lack of acknowledgement for what Campbell did for them was in a significant way responsible.

I think that particular point is a good one and one that should be revisited if this subject is ever going to get wrapped up on here.

I will make a post on my feeling about that later.




JeffB:

I do not recall that Tom MacWood has ever actually said or implied that Weeks was a liar; but he has stated numerous times on here that he thinks Weeks was a poor and unreliable researcher. He said the same thing about Merion's history book writer Desmond Tolhurst.

That of course is his opinion but what I feel is so illogical on MacWood's part is his constant contention that if Weeks did not mention some detail that automatically must mean he could not have been aware of it.

I feel the far more logical reason for him not mentioning something was that he just didn't think it was important or significant enough to mention in a 147 page club history book that also dealt with the club's history of fox hunting, polo and tennis as well as golf and the club's golf course architecture.

Frankly, Weeks's Myopia history book does not deal with the history of the architecture of the golf course for more than about ten pages but that does not mean and should not mean, in my opinion, that there is not information on more of the details of the history of the architecture in the archives of the club.

This has been mentioned and explained to Tom MacWood numerous times on this thread but as is his habit, he just chooses to ignore it or to discuss it.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 07:07:32 PM
TMac,

In the acknowledgement section of Weeks book he says that George Batchhelders started looking up both the history and legend of Myopia.  He later notes that he has used "all the run books" and then mentions that he had the Leeds scrap book at his disposal, together with some research from the USGA, five living Hound Masters, and many letters of rembrances from people who had been at the club as long ago as 1911.  One was a Reverand Moore.

Do you suppose he started the big lie right in his acknowledgements?  Hoiw about the Rev?  Was he a liar, too?

What big lie? If Leeds had the scrapbook it begs the question why did he not know when and how Long Nine was created, when the new eighteen was created, and the Campbell connection.

What do you make of the story about the Leeds scrapbook getting lost? Where did that story originate? How do you loose an historical document like that?

Who is Reverand Moore?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
Tom:

I'm quite sure no one on this website can speak to the apparent lose of the Leeds Scrapbook like I can but I do understand as well that it probably does gall you to have to actually acknowledge that fact and that reality. Nevertheless, if you want to know I would be happy to discuss all I now know about it with you and civilly, hopefully.

I am of the belief, that those kinds of assets that were used as the Leeds Scrapbook was by Weeks are not actually lost and gone, it's just that the Leeds Scrapbook specifically has been misplaced or mislaid for some mundane reason. It is very possible that the Leeds Scrapbook ended up in the possession of Lincoln Boyden and that it is in his estate's possessions somehow and somewhere even if that avenue has recently been pursued.

The way assets like that get lost or misplaced is actually remarkably simple and mundane in the case of history book writers. The factual stories about that are becoming legend and they are becoming perhaps more problematic than old club assets being lost to fires or floods or even having old records just thrown away over the years. I do understand that you do not get involved with clubs like that though and so it is completely understandable that you would not appreciate these things and that you would ask a question on here like that. It is actually a very good question to bring up on a website like this one.

Lincoln Boyden died some time ago but his widow just died and consequently their estate possessions are probably still in probate or flux. Just to show you the wrench of the aspect of time passing by, I believe that is  Mrs Boyden in the photographic set in Weeks's book just after page 102. I remember seeing her----she was a cool lady, and it's not hard at all to tell from that photograph she was athletic.


Reverend Moore was Paul Moore and he became an Episcopalian Bishop! He was one of a group of unusual WASP social "Do-Gooders" who were basically social liberals and who all went to St Paul's and college together and were lifelong friends and "cause" collaborators. They included Moore, Tony Drexel Duke who created Boys Harbor and US Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. All of them are eminently findable and researchable these days on GOOGLE! So you should look them up. It will help you understand the larger tapestry of this subject.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 15, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
David,

What is the point of that? What possible good can be accomplished by going off on TEPaul when he re-enters thus discussion with fairly genuine sounding offer to help forward thus discussion?

If you're upset about things he said before - fine. A number of us made comments about some of the unfortunate statements Tom had been making recently.  But as far as I can tell, those behaviors stopped for the last several weeks as Tom stepped back.

Perhaps he stopped and reflected on those things. Maybe he didn't.

But it seems to me that there was nothing in that last post warranting that reaction.

Kevin,

To say that I am upset about TEPaul's past behavior and his return understates the matter in the extreme.  He has gone so far over the line with me and on so many occasions that the thought of even having a conversation with him makes my blood boil.  His last transgression was malicious and actionable libel per se, defamation at its lowest and most blatant, made worse by the fact that he had purposefully spread the EXACT SAME LIES about me in the past.  While I appreciate that a few posters were appalled and said so, that by no means sets things right or corrects the damage done, and it by no means prevents him for digressing into his abhorrent behavior as soon as anything doesn't go his way, or just getting carried away agian late at night as some sort of sick joke.

I do my best to make a contribution here, and I think some would agree that I have added to our knowledge of the history of golf course design, and have provided interesting and valuable information.  My efforts should not have to face such garbage and lies, yet surely further insults and defamation await me as soon as he again loses control.   After all, he has repeatedly and publicly promised to do do all he can to tear me down and ruin my reputation, and has been attempting to do so for at least four or five years now.  Is it reasonable to think he will suddenly stop?  I don't think so.  Everyone who knows him - including Ran - must realize that he cannot control himself and that it is only a matter of time until he comes after me again.

As for Tom "stepping back" and reflecting on his behavior, you have got to be kidding me.  Surely the only reason he wasn't posting was because he wasn't allowed to post.  And the idea of his using this time away to reflect upon his past behavior and change his ways?  That is even more of a joke.  During this supposed contemplative respite he still managed to find time to send insulting emails to my personal email.  Here is an excerpt:

"You guys give all other half-baked amateur historians a good name by comparison. Your lack of knowledge, understanding and your limited information on the history of that club is about on par with your lack of knowledge, understanding and limited information on Merion."

Does that really sound like he was reflecting on and contemplating changing his ways to you?  When I told him to stop contacting me not only continued to contact me, he even questioned why I wanted nothing to do with him!  It apparently hadn't even occurred to him that I might have good reason to be pissed off, as if he was somehow immune from consequences.  He even had the nerve to tell us that we needed to quit discussing Myopia until he got around to telling us what really happened. Hardly reflective contemplation aimed at more productive participation.

As for his offer to go to Myopia and obtain accurate information about the club, he must think we are complete fools, and unfortunately your response plays right into that idea.   He has been telling us for years that he already conducted a review of the very same documents he now claims he will go see!   Supposedly he has already gone over these club records, but it turns out now that those very records that he claims he has reviewed may have been lost sometime before 1940!  Yet he has not only been insisting that he had seen these records, he repeatedly claimed that these records contained specific information and that we needed to take his word for it!   Must of that information has turned out to be mistaken and unreliable.

Trust TEPaul, who occasionally even fudges the contents of existing source material?  No way. When he did not think anyone would be able to check up on it, he deleted key words from a S. Dacre Bush quote, and tried pass off the falsified quote as real.  (He had done the same thing on the Merion threads; deleting the key sentence out of a Alan Wilson letter when he thought no one else had it to verify it!)  Outrageous.

Yet you think it is a productive step for us to put our faith in him to tell us what happened at Myopia?  I don't agree.  Surely this is just the latest attempt to exert control over the history of a golf club, and to dictate to us what the history is without allowing any questions or vetting.   Just like with the rest of the clubs where he has pulled the same thing.    

This all may sound harsh, but every bit of it is accurate and I would be glad to document any or all of it if you are interested.   And this is only Myopia.   It barely touches on the numerous other deceptive and dishonest games he has been playing on other threads and about other issues.

In short, while I cannot control how Ran administers his website, it is too much to expect me to not express how I feel about Ran allowing TEPaul to return, and it is much too much to expect me to greet him with open arms.  He deserves a far worse response than he has received thus far.   Some day he will get his just reward, but for the here and now I want nothing do with him.

So if you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend like the slate is clean, then go ahead. I won't stop you, but I'll not join you either.  But I will try channel my anger into something more productive.  Except perhaps for a bit of unfinished business, I want nothing to do with him.  He is not worth it.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 15, 2011, 10:07:08 PM
With that off my chest, I'll return to the topic at hand.  

With each new piece of information from Weeks, it becomes more and more obvious that the Weeks book is not not reliable when it comes to its supposed sources. This thread is turning out to be an excellent example of the dangers of treating these club histories as Gospel, treating the information therein as infallible, and drawing all sorts of crazy and self serving conclusions from them.  

The latest example is the quote from the supposed "Leeds' Scrapbook," or as it is sometimes called around here, "Leeds' diary."   We've been hearing for years about the significance of this "Scrapbook" and about how it was much more than just a scrapbook - it was supposed to contain the elusive Leeds' writings, his actual ideas on golf course design, and compelling ideas they were!   Here is TEPaul writing about the the "diary" from a few years ago:

"In my opinion, Myopia's [records] are better than most and probably a whole lot better than most in both accuracy and comprehensiveness. The reasons for that are many and complex with a club like Myopia.

With Myopia, however, there is one "asset" (we now call these valuable historical items "assets") that seems to be missing and may be gone even though the search for it should not be given up at this time. And that is this famous so-called "Scrapbook" that Herbert Carey Leeds, the course's long time architect, kept for apparently many years. From the references and quotes from it contained in Edward Weeks's Myopia history book of 1975 it was definitely a most important diary that Leeds kept about all kinds of things certainly including his thoughts and philosophies on golf and golf course architecture.

Edward Weeks had it and used it in his 1975 book but where it is now noone seems to know. I'm going to keep searching though."


And I see above he is going on again about his expertise and this "source" as if on cue.  Now I finally understand the basis for all this diary talk, and the "basis" for TEPaul's ideas about this latest holy grail of golf course design. Like everything else TEPaul and friends know about Myopia's history, it is all just an extension from the Weeks' history book, or rather conclusions they have drawn based on the Weeks' book.   Weeks' quoted from some Scrapbook but doesn't mention a second source, so it seems as if these are Leeds' words; as if Leeds himself was explaining his "thoughts and philosophies on golf and golf course architecture."   Surely this explains why TEPaul and unnamed others have concluded that this Leeds' scrapbook amounts to some sort of a Leeds' diary, revealing his innermost thoughts on the game.

Trouble is, like the quotes above from Jeff Brauer which were supposedly from the "Run Book," this blurb isn't what people think it is.  As soon as it was posted, I knew I had read it before,  and not in some Leeds' diary --I no more have possession of the Leeds "diary" than I have possession of the old Run Book or Weeks book!    I have a terrible  memory for many things, but things I read usually stick with me, and I knew I had seen this before.

After poking around a bit looking at some of my notes, I would wager that this quote is from a 1903 Golf Illustrated, and might know the author but want to double check to be sure.  If I get a chance I'll go and reexamine the original and provide more details sometime next week, but in the meantime with a little searching I have managed to locate an online excerpt of part of the piece:

 The whole tendency for years has been to remove all difficulties from courses. The horse- mower is in constant use, and nearly the whole course is now cut and rolled and made to look more like a bowling-green than golf links.  Instead of filling up the bunkers complained of, the course would be much improved if many more similar ones were made, to punish long, erratic driving.
   During the late championship I had talks with several old golfers. Archie Simpson said to me, 'I mind when I was here if I got round in 80, I thought I thought I was playing grand golf; look at it now,' I met James Kay at the thirteenth hole. He said 'this is easy golf; I have had nothing but teed balls.' Willie Park and Andrew Kirkaldy expressed the same opinion. One of the new school said to me the course was in beautiful order, but he thought more of the long grass should have been cut round the greens! The one thought of the new school seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score. They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as Sir Alexander Kinloch so well expressed it “That is not golf, and, please God, never will be golf.  Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent.” To eliminate chance from any game is to spoil it.
 (my bold)

Look familiar?  Great stuff, but am almost positive it wasn't Leeds who wrote it. Yet according to those who have presented it here, Weeks quotes out of the article but doesn't bother to mention it was even from an article, instead crediting the diary?  Is that correct?  Did he really not site the article?  Or have those who brought this up misrepresented it?  

Is it just me, or are a number of these Weeks quotes not what they purport to be  The supposed "entry" into the record by Secretary Bush?  The supposed Run Book entry that came from the Myopia Songbook?   This latest quote which is at the very least misattributed?  About everything you guys bring forward to prove the credibility of the Weeks book backfires and undermines it further.   No wonder Mike Cirba hasn't gotten around to sending me the relevant sections.  

And what of the supposed researchers who think they know so much about Myopia.  FOR YEARS we have been hearing about the "dairy" but these guys just assumed it into existence because they didn't bother to check up on the Weeks book. I guess it makes a better story to pretend that the Scrapbook must have been a "diary" than to simply figure out where the quote actually came from.   What a joke.  

Are there any other supposed diary entries?   Surely we can quickly find the real source there as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 15, 2011, 10:40:56 PM
David,

This one is over.

It4 obvious that Weeks had many more sources than any of us have ever seen and perhaps somehow Campbell got missed in Myopia's records but that point is nearly moot given the evolution very early of the golf course.

Let's move on to discussing NGLA on another thread...

This one is done til someone sees the Runbook.

Stick a fork in it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 15, 2011, 10:46:45 PM
Mike
I've been following GCA for a number of years and I don't recall anyone successfully putting a fork in any thread with a post like yours. If you don't like the direction of the thread, which is understandable, don't post on it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 15, 2011, 10:49:33 PM
David Moriarty:

I sure do know that I would, and I suspect others would as well, just love to know who actually was the one who first spoke the words in that second quotation of yours in blue in your post #1636!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 15, 2011, 10:50:40 PM
It is over?   Right after we figure out that two more of Weeks quotes were misattributed?  That is convenient.  

I think the notion of a Leeds diary appears to be "over."  And the notion that Weeks was quoting from a Run Book is close to over.  

I warned you guys about this a long time ago.  As well meaning as Weeks was, these insider histories are far from Gospel.  Treating them as such is bound to backfire.  We are better off just focusing on the source material than following Weeks' lead.

I believe the relevant Run Book was most likely lost, but I am still waiting for Joe Bausch to confirm that.

Joe?  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 15, 2011, 11:56:46 PM
I will extend my question on Weeks qualifications and motivations a bit further:

Does anyone believe that the long time editor of the prestigious Atlantic Monthly magazine was not familiar with what a good source was, the need to have corroborating sources, etc?  While I understand that a 147 page club history leaves some unanswered questions, I really have a hard time thinking he would forget everything he knew about good research and jounalism while writing this book, and mistakenly quote a 1903 article as something in the run book, or a attribute a quote to Bush that was really a passage in the Songbook.  Maybe once, but for a year and a half, that kind of premise of gross neglect is among the most argued here, according to David and TMac.....

If I happen to be wrong on this one, I will be the first one to stand in line and congratulate DM and TMac, as appropriate, for their great work in figuring out what really happened.  I really will.

PS to Mike Cirba - send me some of what you're smoking if you think you can end this thread.  It's only half way done, or less, trust me.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 16, 2011, 01:19:42 AM
Jeff Brauer,

Gross neglect is your premise, not mine.   I told you guys a while back that it was unfair to these authors for you guys to hold up their books as infallible and treat their words as unquestionable truth. Your emulation of these books is antithetical to the nature of historical analysis.  You entirely miss the point by making them the issue instead of the source material.

Do you think I am making this stuff up? Do you think I fabricated that quote from Golf Illustrated above? How about when I informed you that the bit about the downcast golfer and bit about the pond hole are in the Myopia Songbook?  Do you think I made it up when I told you guys that Bush was not the Secretary in 1894?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 16, 2011, 09:59:46 AM
Why does it matter whether the entry in the Leeds Scrapbook was personally journaled by Leeds or clipped from an article he liked?   Weeks makes no claim that it was either.

The fact that's exhibited here is simply that Weeks had access to Leeds Scrapbook, whatever it entailed, which absolutlely and admittedly NONE of us know a thing about.  

Weeks also had access to ALL of the Run Books, and makes that point in the Acknowledgements.  

Why we continue to debate all playing with less than half-a-deck is beyond me.   What further speculation is going to miraculously solve this?   Instead, we're left playing word games, such as David making the apparently life-and-death point that Bush wasn't the Club Secretary, he was actually only the Secretary of the Golf Committee in 1894.   Wow...

The only place that answer lies is the same place Weeks and May went for answers.   The rest if just uninformed speculation and too much typing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 16, 2011, 10:33:58 AM
Kevin Lynch:

This morning for some reason I just happened to read your post #1263. It was a very good and thoughtful one. At the end of it you said the following:




"Usually, the posts that start the downward spiral include one of these phrases:


"Like I'm going to listen to a guy who  (insert past mistake / regrettable behavior here)..." 


Perhaps a New Year's resolution for these threads can be to hit "Preview" before "Post" and if anything in the post resembles the above two phrases, it be given a second consideration (and third, in cases of high tension)."




That was about ten pages and a bit over two weeks ago. Considering what we just saw on here yesterday, I would have to say that your foregoing remarks were pretty danged prescient, my boy! 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 16, 2011, 10:51:20 AM
David,

First, while we have both said at times that we don't know what a particular sentence means, I really don't have a clue as to what your sentence "emulation of these books is antithetical to the nature of historical analysis" means.

If the words gross neglect is overstating the case, then I'm sorry.  However, both you and TMac have pointed out numerous things which you feel are in error.  Even in this post you reveal that you believe Weeks is not infallible, to which I agreed eariler, to a degree.  However, I don't think its a valid premise in general, given Weeks nature and credenitals.  My questions are certainly valid ones to answer.

And, given how much you say you rely on contemporaneous evidence, I would say Weeks writing in the forward of his book vs. you providing examples of some inconsistencies is more reasonable historical analysis that he looked at the runbook and Leeds scrapbook over the view that he didn't.  I don't think you made up the fact that some quotes also appeared in the 1903 Golf Illustrated, but I also think its possible that they got the info from Leeds, too, rather than Weeks badly misattributing it. 

As to the second part of the "pond" quote, that was clearly labeled by Weeks as an anecdote, as opposed to the first part of the paragraph that he said came from the run book.  So, no, you didn't make that up, as Tom MacWood confirmed, but you will note that even TMac said "the second part is correct" and didn't share your view that the entire sequence came from the songbook.

Are you saying trying to propose more than one theory and then follow it to its conclusion with contemporary evidence is not good historical analysis?  If so, I disagree.  And while I don't want to sound ugly, I would say that continually pounding only one theory (i.e., Weeks was wrong) by ignoring some evidence, twisting others, would not be considered good analysis either.  It seems to show too much bias on your part to assume your conclusion and then make facts fit.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 16, 2011, 10:58:39 AM
"Why we continue to debate all playing with less than half-a-deck is beyond me.   What further speculation is going to miraculously solve this?   Instead, we're left playing word games, such as David making the apparently life-and-death point that Bush wasn't the Club Secretary, he was actually only the Secretary of the Golf Committee in 1894.   Wow...

The only place that answer lies is the same place Weeks and May went for answers.   The rest if just uninformed speculation and too much typing."



Mike Cirba:

I just don't see how anyone, at this point, could disagree with what you said there. Consequently, I would lobby at this time that this thread end and not restart until something else of real relevance is uncovered or discovered.

As I see it the question about Myopia in 1894 and for Myopia, at this time, is if those men who researched for and were involved in the writing of the Weeks book---George Batchelder, W. Lincoln Boyden and Edward Weeks, were aware of some mention of Willie Campbell's involvement with that original nine hole course in 1894 or not. We sure can see now that his involvement was mentioned in some newspaper articles in 1894. Were those men aware of those articles? Unfortunately we probably will never be able to know that since all of them are dead now. But what if there are copies of those newspaper articles in the archives of the club or what if some of the records of the club from that time actually mention Campbell? Then the question becomes why those three men who were involved in that book never mentioned it. We will never know, though, if the club has any copies of those newspaper articles or if it has some mention of Campbell in its records without reviewing the club's archives.

And on the flip side we cannot escape the fact of what Weeks wrote about the early involvement of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner. Clearly the question on that is what was he looking at or hearing that could have led him to write what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner? If it wasn't something then the next question becomes is it possible that he could've just made all that up out of thin air, including their names and all?

Of course I have my own experiences with that but given what has been said on here and what has happened on here I will not now address that again. But obviously if it becomes possible to comprehensively review Myopia's archives then these questions very well may find their appropriate answers.

Therefore, I lobby that this thread and this subject go into hiatus until something of real relevance does come up in our future.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 16, 2011, 11:07:06 AM
Tom,

Other than mentioning that John P. May of Golf Digest separately and earlier came up with Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, as well, but also mentioned that the original course was 2,050 yards, I have nothing further to add.

I agree that this thread should be put in hiatus until such time as someone has new materials to present for our consideration.

Otherwise, pun fully intended, this horse has left the Hunt!  ;)


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Steve Lang on January 16, 2011, 11:11:42 AM
The porch surrounding the clubhouse is severely worn from the decades of metal spikes that once tread upon it. Apparently, a couple years ago, someone came up with the bright idea to flip the floorboards on the porch, and tidy the place up a little bit. In perfect irony, when the crew began the porch repairs, they discovered that several years ago, someone had came up with the same brilliant idea, and the underside of all the floorboards were equally worn. Appreciating the humor, the club decided to leave the porch as is, and move on.

now that's scrapbook material

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/RZfcwscPMpI/AAAAAAAAACo/vQPIoZK_CcE/s1600/Myopia)

Is that the club history or scrap book seen propped up on the table?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/RbISNmpfJNI/AAAAAAAAAEI/GIyAo9-1QxA/s400/myopia+Bar.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 16, 2011, 11:23:47 AM
Steve Lang:

Thanks for the humor; we always need humor on a website like this one. Personally, I don't think we can ever have enough of it.

To be honest with you I have come to believe that it just might be one of the modern wonders of the world that the Myopia clubhouse has never burned down. When anyone sees it the first time they could not possibly not marvel at this amazing historic fact. And to boot, do you realize one can still smoke in a section of that clubhouse?? I think it just may be the last one left in America that allows that (allows me to smoke cigarretes in there).

As for those floorboards and the spike marks on both sides, something tells me if Herbert Corey Leeds could actually come back today to see that everyone now must use plastic soft spikes he would very likely throw them all off the property as total whimps and not people of class and tradition worthy of setting a foot on HIS porch!

I have always loved that place, going back over fifty years now but having watched it put through what it's been put through on here I think I love it more than ever. I have no doubt that Myopia will do the right thing with their history as they see it and as they understand it and for me that is all I would ever want to ask a club like that to do.




PS:
By the way, Steverino, speaking of spiked up floors, my wife informed me some years ago that she would like to have what she called "pecky wood" hardwood floors in our house. I suppose that must mean that a floor company must go out in the bush and find some tree that had woodpeckers working on it for a time. So I said, sure Honey, "pecky wood" floors you will definitely have. I just got regular hardwood floors, then I put on my golf spikes and stomped up and down them for a few hours and presto we had some of the coolest old fashioned looking "pecky wood" hardwood floors you ever saw!!!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 16, 2011, 11:39:14 AM
TePaul,

I was wondering the other night about how Myopia would treat whatever revelation about their first nine holes.  I suspect they would embrace it whatever it was.

Then, one line would be added to their next history saying something like Some sources reported that Willie Campbell laid out our original nine holes" or some such.  The words "It's likely" or "may have" might be substituted depending on how strongly they felt that he had something to do with the improvised first golf at Myopia.

But, they would still credit Leeds with making it the course that is revered today.  Life would go on, without the world wobbling off its axis either way.  Just to put this in perspective.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 16, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
Last thought...

Tonight I reviewed the "Early Myopia" book and almost all of it concerns events prior to the club moving to Hamilton.

I suspect that the Run Books were missing for the club's time at Winchester, and others, because there are certainly a lot of newspaper references during the accounts of those years.

It seems they were either located by the time Weeks wrote his book, or I doubt he would have claimed that he had used "all" of the Run Books. 

Just also thought I'd mention that the sporting exploits of AppletonN MerrillM Gardner, and somewhat surprisingly, even HC Leeds well in advance of his "joining" the club are well documented, although golf is little mentionedd.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 16, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
Jeff,

I think we are in agreement that probably a year and a half woth of "discussion" here could have been averted if some had bothered to read Weeks's "Acknowledgments", which clearly listed that his sources were all of the internal clun  documents that Tom Paul originally claimed they did.

Oh well...hopefully everyone following was able to learn as much about early Boston golf as I have. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 17, 2011, 01:09:00 AM
Why does it matter whether the entry in the Leeds Scrapbook was personally journaled by Leeds or clipped from an article he liked?   Weeks makes no claim that it was either.

I wish you were kidding here.   First, Weeks called it an "entry," which is extremely misleading considering it was a magazine article.  If you don't believe me that it was misleading, then go back and read all of the posts about how this was Leeds' diary.  Surely your buddies were mislead by Weeks here but never bothered check up on it.

Second, the problem is that he didn't credit it. His references to sources are incomplete, misleading, and/or outright wrong.  Whether he knew it or not (I suspect not) he was copying a magazine article for the quote.   As a magazine writer he would have known that he needed to acknowledge that.  More likely he didn't know what he was quoting, and was just parroting someone else who had copied the article without properly attributing it.   As Brauer wrote, had Weeks been dealing with the actual sources, he would have known better than all these mistakes.

Quote
The fact that's exhibited here is simply that Weeks had access to Leeds Scrapbook, whatever it entailed, which absolutlely and admittedly NONE of us know a thing about.  

Not So. We don't know if he had the scrapbook or if he was copying what someone else had written previously. Given that he apparently didn't even know what he was quoting (as an author would have know to say so if he did) I'd be surprised if he had it.  Believe it or not, I am trying to give Weeks the benefit of the doubt here.   Because it would have been unethical for him to knowingly copy something from a magazine without acknowledging that he was doing so.  

The same thing might apply to the pond anecdote.  It obviously came from the Abbott book, but Weeks doesn't provide any credit for it, does he?

And we know much more about the "scrapbook" than we did before, or at least I do.
__________________________________________

Jeff Brauer

So you think I made up the part about the bit about the downcast golfer coming from the Myopia Songbook? Well here it is:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MyopiaSongbookExcerpt.jpg?t=1295214620)

Look familiar?  

So what now?   Do you think I got some old paper, typed it up in old timey font, digitized it, and posted the snippet here to fool you?  After all, Weeks cannot be wrong in your eyes, so I must be.

As for the Golf Illustrated quote, I don't get your point.  Either Weeks' badly misattributed it, or he is copying from someone else who badly misattributed it.  When it comes to understanding the reliability of the Weeks' sources, the above is a distinction without a difference.

Quote
Then, one line would be added to their next history saying something like Some sources reported that Willie Campbell laid out our original nine holes" or some such.  The words "It's likely" or "may have" might be substituted depending on how strongly they felt that he had something to do with the improvised first golf at Myopia.

But, they would still credit Leeds with making it the course that is revered today.  Life would go on, without the world wobbling off its axis either way.  Just to put this in perspective.

I agree.  But this only begs the question of why you guys are so hell-bent on ignoring the contemporaneous evidence indicating that Campbell laid out the original course.  Why on earth would you fight so hard to tear down credit for this guy when multiple contemporaneous sources credited Campbell.   Aside from strong dislike of TomM and me, what could your motivation possibly be to fight so hard about something so petty?  

_______________________________________

As for his acknowledgements, nice try, but your conclusions are way over the top.  Again. Weeks thanked someone for looking through all the Run Books.  It is a simple acknowledgement, and doesn't touch on what specifically he had to work with.  What did you expect him to say? Thanks so much for looking through all those Run Books, except for that one from 188x to 189x;  I can't thank you for looking through that one because it was lost a long time ago.  You couldn't have looked through it, so no thanks for that then, but thanks for the rest.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 17, 2011, 06:55:23 AM
David,

Isn't it likely that the snippet appeared in both the Run Book as well as the Song Book, which was mostly made up of humorous and/or playful club activities?

What about the other direct Run Book quotes, such as the 1894 report of Leeds score, the 1896 Newport Match...you simply can't wish or explain them all away.

Like I said, until someone is able to again look at the source material inside the club, and see what if anything it mentions about any role for Campbell (I suspect it won't...I suspect anything he did for Myopia was simply under his employ by TCC and Essex), the rest of us are playing with less than half-a-deck.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 17, 2011, 08:57:32 AM
David,

Good morning and thanks for posting from the Song Book.  I agree with Mike that it is very possible that the author also quoted from the run notes, so your snippet is inconclusive.

As to the still existant possibility that the run book notes from the era 1894 didn't exist, I should say that the quotation marks around "all" were mine, and added specifically to acknowledge that possibility.

As to not liking you, well, no comment, but I have said on numerous occasions that I think Willie had something to do with it, I would like to know the deeper story of why he isn't mentioned in club records, and I would congratulate you if you turned out to be spot on.

That said, a year long discussion, driven by you and "your historical analysis" that relies largely on documents all being wrong or interpreted wrong, seems to have taken a hit.

You have contended that Weeks misattributed many, many quotes, when his qualifications would make that unlikely....

You have contended that he didn't have access to the run books and scrapbook, when his words tell us he did....

You have done all of that without via "analysis" that fails to include the SIMPLEST possible measure - reading the document you spend so much time dismissing.

At this moment, I would say both your conclusions and methods have taken a severe hit in credibilty by any standard.  I would wager that if you ever had a case in court when a witness dropped such a bombshell that surprised you, that you would admit it would be pretty hard to recover in your case.

In this case, truer words than TePaul's were never spoken - We are ALL speculating with HALF A DECK, which we have admitted, but you continue to say that only we are, and that you are being a great historian. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 17, 2011, 07:30:45 PM
Mike Cirba,

Given that, reportedly, the early Run Book was long ago lost, it is not likely that Weeks got the information form the Run Book.   Besides, Abbott was there, and wouldn't have needed to consult an administrative record to tell us about he dour seriousness of the golfers.  Had Abbott been relying on the the same source as Weeks, then why do he and Weeks come to different conclusions about who laid out the course?  

My guess is that those other reports were misattributed like the rest, and came from other sources.  

The Run Book was made up mostly of accounts of humorous or playful activities?   Earlier your pal represented that he Run Book was the official administrative record of the club!  If an anecdote and joke book, then its value as a source of information is extremely limited.

As for your suggestion that we wait for "someone" to review the records, I note that the suggestion is so preposterous that not even you can use "someone's" name when making the suggestion.  "Someone" has already falsely claimed that he had been through the records, and that "someone" has made a number of claims (mostly mistaken) about what was and was not contained in those records.  Yet, after repeatedly insisting that there is nothing about Campbell in those records, now that "someone" wonders out loud whether or not there is some record of Campbell in those records. "Someone" has been been having trouble keeping tracks of his fibs lately.  

I do agree with one thing, though --the idea of relying on "someone" to tell us Myopia's history or any other history is too ridiculous for even you use his name.  "Someone" doesn't deserve mention here at all.

______________________________________

Jeff Brauer,  More of your wishful thinking falls flat, yet it is my credibility that is damaged?  Nice projection on your part, given your various theories of late.

Remember how you claimed Bush was the Club Secretary in 1897-1898?  Reportedly he was never Club Secretary, despite repeated claims by Weeks and your buddy that he was.    Remember your theory that they must have lost the Run Book, recreated immediately thereafter (thus the past tense), then apparently lost it again before 1940, and then found it again sometime before 1970?   Yet you question my credibility?  Your analysis makes your research skills look sound by comparison.  

As usual, your contentions about my positions are wholly inaccurate.  You guys are the ones who have insisted on trying to make this about Weeks. For me, I have little interest in what Weeks said other than for the the source references, but they are unfortunately proving quite unreliable.

You seem to have this crazy notion that my position relies on some contention or another about Weeks.  It doesn't.   Weeks never claimed that he was relying on the Run Book regarding the creation of the course.   You guys just made that up and seem to think that what you say goes unless proven otherwise.   Not so.    Whether by you or Weeks, speculation about he creation of the course is only as good as the supporting documents.  You have none, and neither does he.  

On the other hand, we have a number of contemporaneous documents indicating what happened.  So far they are uncontradicted, and each of your attempts to prop of Weeks as infallible has failed.    If you think that some secret documents will redeem your position, then don't let me stop you from finding them.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 18, 2011, 09:12:00 AM
David,

I trust you know I meant it was the Song Book, not the Run Book, that was made up of playful, humorous club ditties and stories.

In any case, I hope you enjoy the Weeks book, and perhaps we can all learn more about the sourcing of information in the coming year.   It's a great old club with a fabulous course...probably the first really good example of preserved excellent architecture in this country, and I think that's what has fascinated many of us and led to such a lengthy discussion here.

Have a good day.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 18, 2011, 10:36:55 AM
David,

I trust you know I meant it was the Song Book, not the Run Book, that was made up of playful, humorous club ditties and stories.

No Mike, I didn't and don't know that is what you meant.  In fact that doesn't even make sense given the context of your original statement.  You were claiming that those anecdotes in the Song Book came from the Run Book.  So it sounds like you think both were full of jokes and anecdotes.  Abbott was there.  He didn't need to consult the Run Book to sense the mood of the golfers.  The point is that we really cannot tell where Weeks got the information -- his information could, and likely did, come from the Songbook.    Your assumptions that he got the AM&G story from some administrative record are unfound. 

"In any case, I hope you enjoy the Weeks book."  Huh?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 18, 2011, 10:58:15 AM
David,

I had hoped that providing you with the Weeks book would help clarify some matters, as well as be seen by you as a goodwill gesture.

Apparently I was wrong on both counts.

Oh well, have a good day anyway.  

We now know that Weeks had access to all the Run Books, we know he had Leeds Scrapbook, and we know he had a lot of other sources, any one of which could have led to the attribution.   However, until someone actually gets to see the original records within Myopia that both John May and Weeks used to credit Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner all this typing by the rest of us is purely speculative and probably moot anyway.   I'm moving on to more verifiable and hopefully productive areas of concern.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 18, 2011, 11:52:02 AM
It would be virtually impossible to do anything other than assume (read; speculate) if Weeks got (or didn't get) his story on AMG from the club's records without reading the club's records. So far as I know, almost no one on this website has ever read any of Myopia's records.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 18, 2011, 12:03:27 PM
Mike,

We do NOT know that they had all the run books.  Only you would try try to distort a simple acknowledgement into a binding inventory of what of what Weeks had and didn't have.  

What we do know is that there were multiple contemporaneous sources indicating that Campbell laid out the course, and that after 48 pages of you guys trying to cast doubt on this and challenge it, it remains the only theory with any real support.  We also know that the Weeks book does not appear to have been reliably sourced.

As to the Weeks book, I've no idea what you are talking about, but am nonetheless not surprised you would twist it that way and try and milk it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 08:04:46 AM
Jim Kennedy said the following about Myopia on another thread ("Chronology of NGLA..."):

"The Myopia articles, for better or worse, challenge that clubs guarded and conventional narrative. As it becomes more apparent that it might be part fact/part fiction, it causes those taking the conservative position to make the articles appear less than valuable instead of trying to sort out their proper worth."


The 'Myopia Articles' Jim Kennedy is probably referring to are 3-4 newspaper articles from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 nine hole golf course.

The questions become about those articles----was Myopia itself ever aware of them; was any of Myopia's history book writers aware of them and is the club today (and its historian) aware of them?

I cannot answer the first question without a through review of the records of Myopia from the 1890s. I cannot ever know if Myopia's history writers, Abbot, Forbes, Batchelder, Boyden and Weeks were aware of them because they are all dead and I can't ask them. I can answer the question of whether Myopia is aware of those articles now because I have told a number of people at Myopia, including their apparent historian about them.

So what are they going to do about them and some determination of their relevance and worth? Good question; I guess we will all have to wait and see about that.

But I am aware that there are some from Myopia and others who have known it well and studied its history including the evolution of its architecture from 1894 until today that are probably more aware than most about just how different the golf course that Myopia considers their golf course (their 18 hole golf course from approximately 1900) is from that original 1894 nine hole course and even from Myopia's so-called "Long Nine" that was used in the 1898 US Open Championship. And I am talking about this issue on a hole by hole basis.

The fact is there are only about five holes on that course that are even in the same place as that original 1894 nine and of them there are arguably only two greens left from that 1894 nine and of those two arguably only one is used in the same way on its hole as it may've been in 1894.

Therefore, if Myopia today acknowledges that Willie Campbell had something to do with their orginal 1894 nine hole course it would seem appropriate for them to also conclude that what it was is probably not that relevant to the course today or the course of 1900 which is largely the same course that is there today or even the Long Nine, some of whose holes or partis of them were altered as they were brought into play on the 18 hole course.

I would also expect Myopia to make their own determination of what if anything Willie Campbell had to do with the development of the Long Nine from the original 1894 nine because as far as I can tell at this time there is no factual evidence at all that he did anything with Myopia architecturally after what was reported in 1894 that he did.

The architect of record of Myopia for about 110-114 years has been Herbert C. Leeds, and there does not seem to be any particularly good or historically worthwhile reason to change that now or even to add to it (particularly considering one history book claims three members routed that original nine hole course and there is no evidence that has been produced to date that actually contradicts or disproves that). One contributor on here keeps listing Myopia as designed by Willie Campbell and even if he did have something significant to do with the design of that original 1894 nine hole course that architectural attribution is largely irrelevant and largely inaccurate and incorrect regarding what is there now and what has been there for just about 110 years!

The foregoing is not to in any way minimize Willie Campbell and what he may've done for Myopia in 1894, it is only to put the whole thing into its proper historical perspective.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 08:29:41 AM
Jim Kennedy said the following about Myopia on another thread ("Chronology of NGLA..."):

"The Myopia articles, for better or worse, challenge that clubs guarded and conventional narrative. As it becomes more apparent that it might be part fact/part fiction, it causes those taking the conservative position to make the articles appear less than valuable instead of trying to sort out their proper worth."


The 'Myopia Articles' Jim Kennedy is probably referring to are 3-4 newspaper articles from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 nine hole golf course.

The questions become about those articles----was Myopia itself ever aware of them; was any of Myopia's history book writers aware of them and is the club today (and its historian) aware of them?

I cannot answer the first question without a through review of the records of Myopia from the 1890s. I cannot ever know if Myopia's history writers, Abbot, Forbes, Batchelder, Boyden and Weeks were aware of them because they are all dead and I can't ask them. I can answer the question of whether Myopia is aware of those articles now because I have told a number of people at Myopia, including their apparent historian about them.

So what are they going to do about them and some determination of their relevance and worth? Good question; I guess we will all have to wait and see about that.

But I am aware that there are some from Myopia and others who have known it well and studied its history including the evolution of its architecture from 1894 until today that are probably more aware than most about just how different the golf course that Myopia considers their golf course (their 18 hole golf course from approximately 1900) is from that original 1894 nine hole course and even from Myopia's so-called "Long Nine" that was used in the 1898 US Open Championship. And I am talking about this issue on a hole by hole basis.

The fact is there are only about five holes on that course that are even in the same place as that original 1894 nine and of them there are arguably only two greens left from that 1894 nine and of those two arguably only one is used in the same way on its hole as it may've been in 1894.

Therefore, if Myopia today acknowledges that Willie Campbell had something to do with their orginal 1894 nine hole course it would seem appropriate for them to also conclude that what it was is probably not that relevant to the course today or the course of 1900 which is largely the same course that is there today or even the Long Nine, some of whose holes or partis of them were altered as they were brought into play on the 18 hole course.

I would also expect Myopia to make their own determination of what if anything Willie Campbell had to do with the development of the Long Nine from the original 1894 nine because as far as I can tell at this time there is no factual evidence at all that he did anything with Myopia architecturally after what was reported in 1894 that he did.

The architect of record of Myopia for about 110-114 years has been Herbert C. Leeds, and there does not seem to be any particularly good or historically worthwhile reason to change that now. One contributor on here keeps listing Myopia as designed by Willie Campbell and even if he did have something significant to do with the design of that original 1894 nine hole course that architectural attribution is largely irrelevant and largely inaccurate and incorrect regarding what is there now and what has been there for just about 110 years!

The foregoing is not to in any way minimize Willie Campbell and what he may've done for Myopia in 1894, it is only to put the whole thing into its proper historical perspective.

TEP
Throughout this whole process you have intentionally misguided and misrepresented what you've seen. As someone interested in discovering the truth you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. You have no idea how Myopia evolved.

Political, religious and social organizations are not the final word on history, and in particular their own history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 09:03:14 AM
TMac,

Two points - a Feb 24, 1896 article reports Campbell at Merion Cricket Club, noting he may well stay there to superintend the links he laid out.  We can conclude that the decision to return to Myopia was made later in the year, for whatever bearing that has on his involvement in 1896.  If they weren't sure he was not going to stay in Merion, would they have counted on him being there to help with the expansion to the long nine?

Second, I will side with TePaul here.  While he had made a few mistakes in presenting some of what he has briefly seen at Myopia, your black and white, broad brush painting of him as a dunce when it comes to Myopia is a bit over the top.  Besides, Weeks, with his access to some run books, if not all, and the Leeds scrap book tells us the majority of what we need to know about how the original nine morphed to the long nine, admitting there are three holes he has no idea about.  But the others are detailed as to what was extended, moved, modified, etc.

And, before you say it, I will challenge your belief that Weeks is totally unreliable for the same reasons as above for TePaul.  It is also an interesting and inconclusive topic as to who should control history.

Lastly, on one of your early posts here, you easily say that clubs like Myopia have bad histories, and make several assumptions based on that.  In essence, you are just as guilty of pre-debate bias as TePaul, but on the other side of the coin!

Carry on.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 09:09:34 AM
Jeff
The golf season began in June at Myopia; I don't know when Myopia extended the offer to Campbell or when he accepted.

You're free to believe whatever you want. I'm not surprised you would side with TEP, especially based upon your track record dealing with these thorny historical issues.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 09:23:17 AM
"TEP
Throughout this whole process you have intentionally misguided and misrepresented what you've seen. As someone interested in discovering the truth you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. You have no idea how Myopia evolved."


Tom MacWood:

Of course you can just keep saying things like that on here and the fact is you do keep saying things like that and you have for years. But the reality of it all is you  have no idea what you're talking about with Myopia or with me or with me and Myopia and its history. In fairness to you, there really is no way you could---you've never been there, you know no one from that club and all you have to go on about it is a couple of 1894 newspaper articles and an Internet discussion board. I've known that club and numerous of its members over a period of fifty years, from all the way back then and until today.

Given all that there is no way in the world you could understand any of it or analyze the history of it as someone like I can.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt at all you will continue to say the types of things you did above and have frequently on here. As far as I'm concerned I hope you continue to say things like that because all it really does is continue to make you look like a bigger and bigger fool, and a very insecure one at that, and on this discussion board as well as in the eyes of people from Myopia if they happen to read threads like this one.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 09:29:13 AM
TMac,

I wasn't feeling well yesterday and in spurts, went back and read the original thread.  With the exception of some DM-Mike Cirba exchanges, this was quite a civil thread for a long time, up until Dec. 2010, when it seemed to blow up.

Before that we were mostly talking info and facts, and not personalities.  At that point, Mike Cirba even agreed with you that WC laid out the original course.  Not sure what changed his mind, or simply left him wondering about the lack of WC in club records, which for anyone wanting to know the truth, should be part of the story, no?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 09:59:33 AM
"In essence, you are just as guilty of pre-debate bias as TePaul, but on the other side of the coin!"



Jeffrey:

I'm wondering exactly what you mean by that. What pre-debate bias do you think I'm guilty of? I realize some on this website have accused me of that but I wonder what it is you mean by that. If you mean that it has something to do with Willie Campbell and the fact he may've had something to do with Myopia in 1894, where on this website or any of these threads have I ever tried to deny that is most certainly a very real possibility in my opinion, and always has been since I found out about those newspaper articles. I just happen to think that that fact, if it is a fact, does not make what Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did not a fact. I do not look at these two things as mutually exclusive or necessarily mutually exclusive as unfortunately some others on here seem to be trying to do or wanting to do.

But I also certainly do feel that others, or anyone, for that matter, should not be constantly speculating about things and material and the meaning of both which they know perfectly well they have never actually seen!

I have a feeling that the fact that I have seen more than others on here of an about Myopia material, both at Myopia and otherwise, and that I may continue to do that in the future, is just continuously annoying and frustrating to some on here and their responses and accusations regarding it and me is their way of showing their annoyance and frustration about that.  

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
TePaul,

I was just writing of his perception that you blindly supported the "Amateur Sportsman" school of gca, for at least six courses in America.

If you look back, I think all of us on the "Myopia Side" have admitted that WC probably had something to do with that original nine, or at least its reasonable to conclude he did based on those three nearly identical newspaper articles that seemingly came from the same source.  Despite that, David M in particular seems to continue to argue against any shade of involvment, such as our contention that they started with Appleton, et al before the annual meeting and before WC reached our shores, and then brought WC in after he got here, because he was experienced, handy, or because they had some problems of some kind.

All he seems to care about is the black or white credit to Willie C, and not the real story of how the record came to be so muddy, no?  At least, there is no indication from any of his posts that he cares about that to me, but I could be wrong.  And, he seems MOST concerned that we adopt his historical analysis, which purposely avoids using club records.  Early in this thread, I asked if this was just another version of the "club record" vs. "newspaper article" debates, and I have concluded that it is.

Funny, but when you have seen club records, you tend to value those, and when you only see newspaper articles, you tend to value those.  We all have bias.  Mine is that in my limited historic reseach, official records (which they claim do not exist for Myopia and perhaps they don't) usually offer up the best record.  I have usually found information in newspaper articles first, but was never really sure they were right until I saw an official record confirming it.

BTW, my own efforts at research is also the basis for me saying that usually, the simplest explanation is the truest one.  Thus, saying Appletone, et. al, did something in March and Campbell did something in May rings true with me, over a simplistic (but not simple) explanation that Weeks got nearly everything he wrote wrong.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 19, 2011, 10:21:49 AM
Before that we were mostly talking info and facts, and not personalities.  At that point, Mike Cirba even agreed with you that WC laid out the original course.  Not sure what changed his mind, or simply left him wondering about the lack of WC in club records, which for anyone wanting to know the truth, should be part of the story, no?

Jeff,

Yes, at that point it did seem to me that Wilie Campbell was the sole designer of the original course at Myopia based on the evidence that had been presented to date on the thread, even if there were some obvious open questions.

He still may very well have been.   However, I now believe it most likely that both stories are true.

What changed?   Well, after having the privilige of playing at Myopia this past October, and after David resurrected the old thread to make some other point on another thread, I began my own search into Myopia's early origins using my own limited newspaper archive subscription, and began to get a much fuller, if still incomplete picture.

Before then, I did no research at all on the club and only knew very sketchily what had been presented here over months, as I periodically followed along.  

However, even just simple searches for "Appleton", "Merrill", and "Gardner" yielded a whole lot of new information that somehow had never been presented here previously.

Before then, we were told they were dunces who didn't even play the game, who were derided as "Master of the Hounds", who had no experience with the game prior to Campbell's arrival.   We were even told that HC Leeds didn't play golf until the spring of 1894 and then learned everything he knew about playing the game and about architecture from Willie Campbell.   We were also told that all of this information came from well-documented, multiple news sources.

What I found was very different.

Instead, ALL of these men had been playing the game from the inception of golf at The Country Club in Brookline.   Leeds in particular was already mastering it, being the best player there by six shots.  

I also learned that Appleton and Merrill were assigned sometime before April 15, 1894 to a subcommitee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and that the third, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton that spring as well at his in-laws.  

We also learned that Appleton was golfing on his estate, probably with the same group of friends.  

But what really led me to start doubting the story of Campbell being authoritative was the number of flagrant errors, plagiarism (or the same writer for multiple papers), and base misunderstanding of the game of golf so self-evident in many of those articles appearing in the high-society gossip columns of that time.

I had previously found, and posted, and article from one paper talking about Myopia opening "two new links".    A few weeks liater, Joe Bausch sends me an article from another paper that reported the same thing in slightly different words.   This to me confirmed what I'd seen earlier, where David Moriarty posted about sheep coming to Myopia in mid-May, and then I found a only very slightly differently-worded article in another paper saying the same thing.  

Also, strangely, almost all the articles seemed to intermingle the goings-on at Myopia and Essex, as if they were a single entitiy.   And...we DO know that Campbell was employed at Essex at that time and that he had indeed enlarged the course at that club in the same timeframe.

But the coup de grace for me was when Joe Bausch sent me an article that had the Opening Day tournament played at Myopia reported as happening on the Essex CC course in Manchester!!

So, at this stage, I can neither sincerely discount what Weeks or John May of Golf Digest found that indicated that Appletion, Gardner, and Merrill staked out the original course, and I don't think anyone could do that without seeing what sources exist within the club that they used.

Neither can I sincerely discount that Willie Campbell may have done the whole thing, sometime in late May.   Still, that doesn't seem to make any sense to me when I consider that reports were that the greens were sodded and cut prior to opening.   That just feels like something that would take some time to get done

So, I think the very sincere position is we don't know.   I think anyone who argues that they KNOW what happened is either deceiving themselves, or trying to deceive us.

I find it funny that someone would accuse me of being a "preservationist", which is something I'd like to take up on another thread at an appropriate time.   I have no issue with modifying the stories of the creation of our courses as new evidence surfaces....when we found others involved besides Hugh Wilson with the creation of Cobb's Creek we EMBRACED those stories because they added a richness of detail and complexity that we hadn't previously known, that ultimately enriched the history of that course, not detracted from it.

But I guess it's easier to argue against a stereotyped strawman than against reality.

I don't object to the addition of new materials and evidence about any course's origins;   I object to the bending of facts, the straining of phrases, the introduction of new myths seeking to wholly replace old ones.   

I want the rest of the story.

Have a great day!

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 10:35:12 AM
"Funny, but when you have seen club records, you tend to value those, and when you only see newspaper articles, you tend to value those.  We all have bias."



But Jeffrey, I have seen both----the newspaper articles and some club records, and so I am still not quite understanding what you think is my bias or 'pre-debate bias' as you mentioned above. I just may be the only one on this website that has seen both.

So show me where you think I have shown some bias about either of them. Have you ever seen me say on here that I think those newspaper articles of 1894 that mention Campbell laying out the original 1894 course are fiction or completely wrong or historically inaccurate? I don't think so. And have you ever seen me say on here or anywhere else that Myopia records from that time don't exist or are some work of fiction or pretend? I don't think so. I pretty much leave that kind of odd and illogical characterization to others on here and it is eternally disappointing to me that some on here do that. That is not intelligent historical analysis in my opinion, and I certainly do realize I have told them that and continuously, and I have every expectation that I will continue to tell them that because I believe it strongly!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
Mike Cirba:

I think your #1670 is a good one and an explanatory one to a degree (it certainly is a long one ;) ).

But I think it is perhaps no more than half the story of these threads and both how and why they evolve and devolve as they do.

I think the rest of the story of how and why they evolve and devolve as they do is because some on here, and particularly David Moriarty, try to turn these threads into a discourse and discussion that essentially uses or even tries to only allow COURTROOM PROCEDURES!!

There is no question of this in my mind and I believe trying to do that on an Internet Discussion Group like this one and as this one is supposed to be and designed to be, is inherently limiting, dangerous, counter-productive and just fosters endless argumentation and adverserialness.

I am in the process of preparing a new thread on this very subject! But who knows; Ran Morrissett of late has been strongly encouraging me to do some IMO pieces and maybe this one and this subject will be one of those as well. ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 11:09:57 AM
Mike,

That is one of the more well thought out and rational "defenses" for questioning Willie Campbell's sole attribution of the original nine at Myopia. And it makes my point - the whole either-or debate focuses more on someone deciding which one article is the "key" to understanding the whole thing, which should be discounted, etc.  I have often said there is a reason for all those different accounts being written, and believe most are mostly true, if that makes any sense, and not mutually exclusive.

I agree with your post 1670 completely.

TePaul,

It appears to me that your pre-debate bias stems from a strong belief that you must have been on the ground and at a club to really know its history.  I do think much can be gleaned from other sources, and mostly think Phil Young was right on - its ideal to have a relationship with a club, but not absolutely necessary in this information age. 

My disagreement with TMac immediately above is his long standing implication that someone outside the club MUST be the keeper of the history, as if these folks are almost counted on to be truth hiders, which I doubt is the case.  I know that we have found errors in some club histories, but I feel his bias is almost too strong in the direction that they ALL have errors.  And, maybe they do. 

I actually support the idea of continued research into any club history to see if they can be supplemented.  But, its all in the presentation.  If DM and TMac said they were supplementing Myopia's history, no one anywhere would object.  To imply they got it all wrong is certain to ruffle feathers there and elsewhere, and is really counter productive, IMHO.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 11:31:41 AM
"It appears to me that your pre-debate bias stems from a strong belief that you must have been on the ground and at a club to really know its history.  I do think much can be gleaned from other sources, and mostly think Phil Young was right on - its ideal to have a relationship with a club, but not absolutely necessary in this information age."



Jeff:

If that is what you mean by my bias or 'pre-debate bias' then I definitely admit to it. I very much do feel that way and actually more than ever as I continue to read some of these threads, particularly the ones David Moriarty and Tom MacWood participate on or start.

I do believe it is virtually impossible to ever come to know a golf club and its architectural history such as the likes of Merion, Myopia, Shinnecock, Oakmont, NGLA, and numerous others of that ilk without actually going there and experiencing the club, the course, the members and their history and ethos, and definitely more than just one time or whatever.

However, I don't think good historians and good GCA analysts have to have fifty year histories with some of those places as I have to figure some of this stuff out and the ethos of it but they do have to have some experiences at and with their subjects, in my opinion. I have seen others do it pretty well, like Geoff Shackelford, Bob Labbance and more recently certainly Jeff Silverman, but not a one of them would try to or has done a comprehensive work on any club without ever actually going to it, as MacWood or Moriarty refuse to do or just have not done with some of these clubs and courses and their histories then pretend on here to be some kind of experts on.

To me, the way they try to go about it on here is virtually impossible, not just for them but for anyone, and it shows in spades almost every day and in every way with their every post.

Of course they can just keeping claiming on here that they can do it that way and what they say on here is more accurate than those who know those clubs for years and their history writers that have spent huge amounts of time with and at their subjects. They can just keep saying that on here until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned, but I will never buy it because the fact is I know better. I wish some day they would know better as well, but for some years and up until to date they don't seem to and so I would not want to hold my breath that they ever will.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 11:42:18 AM
TePaul,

One example of not going to a club would be in researching an NLE club, which could happen to those really interested.  Would the records of the Lido be anywhere in particular, for example?

I believe that we would ALL do well to remember that historical findings can only be analyzed with a percentage of certainty, not absolute certainty, based just on the few cases debated here.  The NLE would probably be less certain than MCC, MH, etc.

It seems to me that most of the personal insults, etc. start when any particular party declares with 100% certainty that they have the answer, and the corrollary that anyone who doesn't agree must be 100% wrong......Again, who could be insulted by a statement that "I am 90% certain that........"?

Speaking only for myself, I find that TMac stating that many club histories are wrong is both factually true and vaguely insulting at the same time.  Again, its all in the presentation of their material.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 12:01:40 PM
Jeffrey:

The NLE category is definitely a different deal and a different kettle of fish. And for that and with that I can't tell you how impressed I am with Dan Wexler! Believe it or not when I was a young whippersnapping Wisenheimer growing up on the North Shore of Long Island there were a ton of people around me who could've easily told me everything I wanted to know about The Lido because they'd been there and some belonged to it or even started it but dumb me, I never thought to ask them about it. I don't really remember what the hell I was interested in and thinking about back then but it sure wasn't golf course architecture or its history. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 12:13:42 PM
TePaul,

Interesting story about Lido.  However, there has been reasoned debate here and at many clubs over the years about just how good memories are amongst old timers.  In that sense, I would probably give a higher cred to contemporaneous newspaper articles, or at the very least, back up those the 30 year old memories somehow!

As to Myopia, I am not sure that we should discredit Bush's recollections as completly appears to David has on this theory, even if 14 years later in 1908 as President.  He was still in the prime of life, presumably, and while he might have gotten some details wrong, he was on the golf committee in that period and he would surely know if Willie was out there, whether some club members laid out a course to present to the annual meeting for consideration, and the like.  That's a lot different than asking an old timer about stuff that happened at his club many, many years ago.  Heck, its even closer in time than the Francis recollections in 1950.

But, that is the crux of the argument, isn't it?  Contemporay, but outsider newspaper article vs a 2-15 year old remembrance from an insider?  I just can't convince myself that either one is totally reliable, and think both have value to the discussion.  Why does that idea seem so unreasonable to David?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 12:51:05 PM
"TEP
Throughout this whole process you have intentionally misguided and misrepresented what you've seen. As someone interested in discovering the truth you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. You have no idea how Myopia evolved."


Tom MacWood:

Of course you can just keep saying things like that on here and the fact is you do keep saying things like that and you have for years. But the reality of it all is you  have no idea what you're talking about with Myopia or with me or with me and Myopia and its history. In fairness to you, there really is no way you could---you've never been there, you know no one from that club and all you have to go on about it is a couple of 1894 newspaper articles and an Internet discussion board. I've known that club and numerous of its members over a period of fifty years, from all the way back then and until today.

Given all that there is no way in the world you could understand any of it or analyze the history of it as someone like I can.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt at all you will continue to say the types of things you did above and have frequently on here. As far as I'm concerned I hope you continue to say things like that because all it really does is continue to make you look like a bigger and bigger fool, and a very insecure one at that, and on this discussion board as well as in the eyes of people from Myopia if they happen to read threads like this one.



You have proven to be an unreliable source of information, actually worse, you have been proven to be a person who falsifies information and falsifies what records they they've seen and read, and that goes beyond this particular topic.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 01:00:53 PM
TMac,

BS. 

While he has made a few transcription errors, your contentions that he is falsely misleading you and DM (well, at least that way) are way off base.  You, on the other hand, have stated that there are no records at Myopia, and that he has sold us a bill of goods with absolutely no proof, not knowing what is at Myopia.

I remind you that discredting TePaul is not the same as discrediting Weeks and certainly provides no real historical value.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 01:10:31 PM

My disagreement with TMac immediately above is his long standing implication that someone outside the club MUST be the keeper of the history, as if these folks are almost counted on to be truth hiders, which I doubt is the case.  I know that we have found errors in some club histories, but I feel his bias is almost too strong in the direction that they ALL have errors.  And, maybe they do. 


When did I say that? What I said is political, religious and social organizations are not the final word on history. If they were the final word our history books would have no mention of the Spanish inquisition, the Armenian genocide, Irish famine or the mistreatment of the Native Americans.

Golf clubs are a great source of information, and by all means they should keep their own histories, but they do not have an inalienable right to be the final word.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 01:24:17 PM
TMac,

BS.  

While he has made a few transcription errors, your contentions that he is falsely misleading you and DM (well, at least that way) are way off base.  You, on the other hand, have stated that there are no records at Myopia, and that he has sold us a bill of goods with absolutely no proof, not knowing what is at Myopia.

I remind you that discredting TePaul is not the same as discrediting Weeks and certainly provides no real historical value.

TEP has discredited himself from urinating on CBM's grave to his portrayal of Emmet as a homosexual to intimidating the poor fellow at Clementon to misleading info about what he had access to at Myopia to the transcribing errors at Merion to privatizing the Flynn book to promoting an attitude of secrecy with historical documents. And you have supported him all the way.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 02:00:55 PM
Jeff Brauer,

Your defense of TEPaul's credibility is indefensible and completely undermines yours.

He for over a year now he as been telling us about how he has personally reviewed Myopia's Run Books and Administrative Records, and has not only made a number of specific claims about those records, he has demanded that we accept his version of what is in these records as entirely correct.   For just one example he claims to have seen an actual entry into the 1894 administrative record where Club Secretary Bush entered that the course had been staked out by AM&G.  

There are numerous other examples of his making particular claims that are highly questionable or outright false, and of course we have his habit of falsifying source material and presenting fudged version as it were real.  You laughably claim that these were "transcription errors" as if it was just some sort of coincidence that TEPaul happens to always accidentally leave out the portions of documents that cut most directly against whatever fib he is shilling at that particular point, and that it only seems to happen when he thinks no one will check up on him.  Do you really want me to start listing out his past instances of dishonesty here?    If not then stop with this nonsense about how all it amounts to are are a couple of transcription errors.  

And what about those Drexel Documents?

A while back you claimed that TEPAUL TOLD YOU that he had been lying about these documents from the beginning to try and make a fool of me.    You even had the nerve to accuse me of being dishonest for taking his claims at face value and asking him to confirm them or come clean.   What kind of bizarre logic is that? How can a person have so little credibility that those of us who chose to believe him are dishonest for even believing him?  

Well Jeff, as of two days ago your good pal was still claiming that he had these Drexel documents, and was having trouble accessing them from some sort of "abstract."  

So Jeff, what is up here:
-Is TEPaul lying to me, Ran, and the rest of the website about this supposedly crucial source material?
-Did TEPaul lie to you about lying to me about the documents?
-Or are you the one who is lying about TEPaul lying to me?


Whatever the answer, to say that he has any credibility whatsoever is a fiction.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 02:22:36 PM
TMac,

When did I say that? What I said is political, religious and social organizations are not the final word on history.

I believe one of your overall missions - and a worthy one I don't disagree with - is the continued study of club histories to supplement what we know, and that has been clearly implied by the words and tone in many of your posts over the years.  I don't think there are any real guidelines on who controls history - in many cases, like Pearl Harbor or 9-11, I am sure that there are two completely opposite interpretations of the event.  Both sides maintain their is the accurate one when its all a matter of perspective, with the other side being a really warped one in our view.

I once compared our debates of club histories to the official and unofficial bios of celebs and I still think that is apt.  One might be sanitized, but the other might be over sensationalized, given the different motives of their authors.  If your motives are to potentially change club histories, right or wrong, its going to draw the ire of those involved, since it seems like sort of an unauthorized attack on them.  Its human nature.

As to your last parapgraph in 1681, the pee on the grave line was revealed as a joke, I doubt the privatising of the Flynn books was a matter of anything other than funding, and we have had discussions here about sexuality, which is either distasteful or the new way of looking at things.  

As to the secrecy of historic documents, I think its an open question as to whether any private institution has any obligation to share documents with anyone who would care, any more than I have to share my check book contents with you.  I believe this is especially true when those who demand them also act like horses asses or are total strangers, and you are both, unfortunatly..  

Lastly, of all the actions of all of us men behaving badly (and I put myself in that group) you publicly declaring Merion's historian a poster boy for unethical behavior was by far the worst example of discrediting your self and anyone on this board, not to mention a gross distortion of any obligation he has to you.  As a practical matter, what club in America would have anything to do with you at all?  You could whine all you want, but it would be better to catch something with honey than vinegar.  

Yeah, I don't even know anyone at Myopia or Merion, but I would defend them or any golf club from the likes of your actual approach to their history, even while acknowledging your right to do it.

David,

I am not sure of your exact claims, but it is true that TePaul has strongly suggested that he understood more than he may have actually been able to learn with his 45 minutes with the Myopia documents.  Like he is the only one to make strong claims on these threads!  I believe we all - you included - have made assumptions in our claims and beliefs here that don't exactly pass the smell test.  It may not be personal, but somewhere in December 2010 it went from fact finding to a personal test of wills.

As to his hoax at your expense, I think you protest too much at being had.  It was revealed within a day that it was a hoax, and you keep bringing it up like its fresh material to you.  I do believe that your continual bringing this up in light of all the evidence that is was a hoax is a dishonest straw man to keep your battle with TePaul going.  I will tell you this - I am not lying one iota.

As to his credibility being fiction, I will agree that to you and TMac, its zero. To others, it is reduced. And to many, it is still intact.  Credibility, like history itself is not all black and white, nor is it in the possession of one person or their naturally biased opinion.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 02:37:05 PM
David,

I am not sure of your exact claims, but it is true that TePaul has strongly suggested that he understood more than he may have actually been able to learn with his 45 minutes with the Myopia documents.  Like he is the only one to make strong claims on these threads!  I believe we all - you included - have made assumptions in our claims and beliefs here that don't exactly pass the smell test.  It may not be personal, but somewhere in December 2010 it went from fact finding to a personal test of wills.

This is absolutely offensive and outrageous. I have NEVER lied about source material to try and make my case.  I have NEVER fudged text and tried to pass it off as accurate.  I have NEVER made up things about documents that I thought only I could access and refused to back up my claims.  Comparing what this guy does regularly to what Tom MacWood try to do here is beyond the pale.  You've stooped to a new low.  You owe me an apology, and TomM.

Quote
As to his hoax at your expense, I think you protest too much at being had.  It was revealed within a day that it was a hoax, and you keep bringing it up like its fresh material to you.  I do believe that your continual bringing this up in light of all the evidence that is was a hoax is a dishonest straw man to keep your battle with TePaul going.  I will tell you this - I am not lying one iota.

Then, according to you, your friend is still lying and still trying to milk whatever he can out of his lies.    Because it was two days ago that he last indicated that he had these documents  Yet you defend his credibility?  If so, you have none yourself.  

Quote
As to his credibility being fiction, I will agree that to you and TMac, its zero. To others, it is reduced. And to many, it is still intact.  Credibility, like history itself is not all black and white, nor is it in the possession of one person or their naturally biased opinion.

Honesty and integrity are not subjective, and it who we choose to stand by is a reflection on us.   Who you choose to stand by here speaks volumes about you.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 19, 2011, 03:14:02 PM

Before that we were mostly talking info and facts, and not personalities.  At that point, Mike Cirba even agreed with you that WC laid out the original course.  Not sure what changed his mind, or simply left him wondering about the lack of WC in club records, which for anyone wanting to know the truth, should be part of the story, no?

Jeff,

Yes, at that point it did seem to me that Wilie Campbell was the sole designer of the original course at Myopia based on the evidence that had been presented to date on the thread, even if there were some obvious open questions.

He still may very well have been.   However, I now believe it most likely that both stories are true.

What changed?   Well, after having the privilige of playing at Myopia this past October, and after David resurrected the old thread to make some other point on another thread, I began my own search into Myopia's early origins using my own limited newspaper archive subscription, and began to get a much fuller, if still incomplete picture.

Before then, I did no research at all on the club and only knew very sketchily what had been presented here over months, as I periodically followed along.  

However, even just simple searches for "Appleton", "Merrill", and "Gardner" yielded a whole lot of new information that somehow had never been presented here previously.

Before then, we were told they were dunces who didn't even play the game, who were derided as "Master of the Hounds", who had no experience with the game prior to Campbell's arrival.   We were even told that HC Leeds didn't play golf until the spring of 1894 and then learned everything he knew about playing the game and about architecture from Willie Campbell.   We were also told that all of this information came from well-documented, multiple news sources.

What I found was very different.

Instead, ALL of these men had been playing the game from the inception of golf at The Country Club in Brookline.   Leeds in particular was already mastering it, being the best player there by six shots.  

I also learned that Appleton and Merrill were assigned sometime before April 15, 1894 to a subcommitee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and that the third, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton that spring as well at his in-laws.  

We also learned that Appleton was golfing on his estate, probably with the same group of friends.  

But what really led me to start doubting the story of Campbell being authoritative was the number of flagrant errors, plagiarism (or the same writer for multiple papers), and base misunderstanding of the game of golf so self-evident in many of those articles appearing in the high-society gossip columns of that time.

I had previously found, and posted, and article from one paper talking about Myopia opening "two new links".    A few weeks liater, Joe Bausch sends me an article from another paper that reported the same thing in slightly different words.   This to me confirmed what I'd seen earlier, where David Moriarty posted about sheep coming to Myopia in mid-May, and then I found a only very slightly differently-worded article in another paper saying the same thing.  

Also, strangely, almost all the articles seemed to intermingle the goings-on at Myopia and Essex, as if they were a single entitiy.   And...we DO know that Campbell was employed at Essex at that time and that he had indeed enlarged the course at that club in the same timeframe.

But the coup de grace for me was when Joe Bausch sent me an article that had the Opening Day tournament played at Myopia reported as happening on the Essex CC course in Manchester!!

So, at this stage, I can neither sincerely discount what Weeks or John May of Golf Digest found that indicated that Appletion, Gardner, and Merrill staked out the original course, and I don't think anyone could do that without seeing what sources exist within the club that they used.

Neither can I sincerely discount that Willie Campbell may have done the whole thing, sometime in late May.   Still, that doesn't seem to make any sense to me when I consider that reports were that the greens were sodded and cut prior to opening.   That just feels like something that would take some time to get done

So, I think the very sincere position is we don't know.   I think anyone who argues that they KNOW what happened is either deceiving themselves, or trying to deceive us.

I find it funny that someone would accuse me of being a "preservationist", which is something I'd like to take up on another thread at an appropriate time.   I have no issue with modifying the stories of the creation of our courses as new evidence surfaces....when we found others involved besides Hugh Wilson with the creation of Cobb's Creek we EMBRACED those stories because they added a richness of detail and complexity that we hadn't previously known, that ultimately enriched the history of that course, not detracted from it.

But I guess it's easier to argue against a stereotyped strawman than against reality.

I don't object to the addition of new materials and evidence about any course's origins;   I object to the bending of facts, the straining of phrases, the introduction of new myths seeking to wholly replace old ones.    

I want the rest of the story.

Have a great day!





I guess it's easier to talk about TePaul than to address these issues.  

I notice they didn't generate much response.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 03:22:41 PM
David,

In the real world, TePaul is the USGA archivist.  He has enough cred to have achieved and hold that position with a very august body in the world of golf.

You are a horse's petute who likes to argue everything way over the top, and who could avoid arguments simply by admitting he MIGHT be 1% wrong, but simply isn't capable of doing it, at least on the internet (I have actually heard you were a fine gent in person, but that is, for the purposes of this thread, only to be considered "speculation."

As it stands, I am much less ashamed of standing with TePaul than actually interacting with you, which sadly, does say volumes about my character, mainly that I don't have the common sense to avoid a useless cat fight.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 04:02:44 PM
Mike,

I saw the highlighted parts but I quit reading your posts after the shenanigans you tried to pull on the NGLA thread.  Surely this latest bit is just the same old nonsense and not worth our time.
_________________________________________________________


Jeff Brauer,

I'd rather you not communicate with me at all.  Yet despite promises to do otherwise, you cannot seem to help yourself.  You are correct that this too speaks to your character, as do posts such as the one above.  

As for TEPaul being "the USGA Archivist"  that will come as a surprise to the USGA, I am sure.  You have been exaggerating and making things up quite a bit lately, as if your friend is rubbing off on you.   What's next?  Will you announce yourself Architect of the Decade?

It is true that your pal is somehow involved in the USGA Archives project, but for you to say he has "achieved" this by any doing or merit of his own is a joke.   His involvement is in and of itself is a serious black eye to the credibility of that organization and endeavor as far as I am concerned, and more than enough reason for me to doubt their intentions and ability to accomplish anything positive.  Apparently, like your pal, some at the USGA must think that credibility comes as some sort of birthright, handed down like a trust-fund, regardless of merit or accomplishment, or even honesty.

Surely it does not bode well for the future of golf that our governing body still behaves as if one's value to golf is dependent upon what "crowd" that person happens to be born into.   While your pal and his writing partner are involved, the USGA will have to figure out a way make due without my nominal contribution to their evergrowing riches.

Meanwhile,  I am confused by your duplicitousness regarding the Drexel Documents.  TEPaul just indicated to me that they were real two days ago. You think he is lying to me, even claiming he has admitted it?  And yet your conclusion is that TEPaul is honest and credible, and I am dishonest for taking him at his word? I really hope you are embarrassed for writing such things.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
David,

Well I'm confused, too.  If I have this right, you insist on denying the existence of documents TePaul has seen, but continue to believe that the Drexel documents that he merely made up really do exist?

I agree, and we should just let this thread die of natural causes. However, if you continue to show a sense of humor, like over on the embarrasing moments thread, I reserve the right to stay in touch with you.  Otherwise, you are probably safe!

EDIT - David, TePaul just contacted me and told me he had offered to have a civil discussion with you about the documents he did find, which he did think briefly might be Merion related, but turned out not to be.  When he told me it was a hoax, it was, but then later he started looking more, and then found the documents he thought he might have found were not what he thought they were.

So, it turns out that over several months, he was originally tweaking you, still looking for possible documents, and admitting they might exist, and offering to share his knowledge with you if you cared.  Contrary to your assertions, neither he or I had been lying all along, but I still understand your anger at the original tweak.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 19, 2011, 05:07:31 PM
David,

Thank God you've stopped reading my posts...I've stopped reading your laborious, verbose, and petulant posts too, so that will save everyone here a lot of time and grief, I'm certain.  ;)  ;D

Hallelujah and may God kill this thread, mercifully!  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 05:32:05 PM
"...I've stopped reading your laborious, verbose, bloated, and petulant posts too, so that will save everyone here a lot of time and grief, I'm certain."


Michael "The Pelican" Cirba, you old clever dude you! You are some kinda smart, do you know that? You are something else with all the clever stuff you have stored up in that big drooping bill of yours? It seems you have finally figured out how to effectively utilize David Moriarty's amazingly clever albeit specious logic-----eg if you don't actually read something then somehow it can't even exist!!! You have finally figured out how to make all his laborious, verbose, bloated and petulant posts go away and into non-existence without actually making them go away.

You are something else my boy; you are my new hero but maybe you already knew that!  ;)  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 05:34:38 PM
David,

Well I'm confused, too.  If I have this right, you insist on denying the existence of documents TePaul has seen, but continue to believe that the Drexel documents that he merely made up really do exist?

I have never denied that Myopia has records.  They obviously just don't say what you wish they said or what TEPaul claims they said.   As for the Drexel documents, all I have done is take him at his word that they exist, and ask him to either come clean (if lying) or back up his claim (if not.)   Surely that is the only reasonable way to handle it.

Obviously you and TEPaul (and unfortunately, Ran, who has let it happen) have reduced this website to a complete laughingstock, where posters are left to guess where other posters are telling the truth, and where they risk having their own honesty questioned for not adequately deciphering out posts which others think might be lies.  A pity.

How can you claim he has been lying about the Drexel documents from months ago to as recently as two days ago, yet still claim he has credibility.  I guess you too are just making shit up.   Not surprising.  

Quote
I agree, and we should just let this thread die of natural causes. However, if you continue to show a sense of humor, like over on the embarrasing moments thread, I reserve the right to stay in touch with you.  Otherwise, you are probably safe!
 

I never said this thread should die.  I think you and your buddies should go on making fools of yourselves.

And I hate to break it to you Jeff, but I'd no sooner turn to you on matters of humor than I would on matters of history.  While you consider yourself quite an expert on both, you are equally ill equipped to deal with either.

______________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I see you bought yourself a thesaurus. Next step; learning how to properly use it without making yourself look foolish. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 05:40:35 PM
David Moriarty:

About those things you call the Drexel Documents and your claims that the honorable Jeffrey Brauer Esq, Past President of the ASGCA etc, etc, etc told you that I told him I was lying about them-----his official position as of now is that you must have misunderstood him or taken what he said to you about them COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT!! On the advice of my lawyer and Jeffrey's lawyer our positions are that neither of us did anything wrong!  ;)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 05:49:52 PM
"I never said this thread should die.  I think you and your buddies should go on making fools of yourselves.

And I hate to break it to you Jeff, but I'd no sooner turn to you on matters of humor than I would on matters of history.  While you consider yourself quite an expert on both, you are equally ill equipped to deal with either."



FOOLS?? US?? I don't think so. Basically Fools don't know how to laugh at the ridiculous as we are laughing now about the ridiculousness of these threads you and MacWood start and try to keep going every way you can think of. Fools don't even see the humor in this kind of ridiculousness because they are too foolish trying to constantly take themselves too seriously.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 05:52:19 PM
TePaul,

David has apparently used up his 2011 humor quotient, so what a waste of a post.

BTW, did you spell "Pelican" correctly?

David,

Since you like to disagree with everything I say, please note I said "I agree, and we should just let this thread die" not "I agree THAT we should just let this thread die."  Just another typical example of your inability to parse words and analyze things correctly, oft displayed here.

BTW, I am still waiting for an explanation of how you can decipher what is in documents that you have never seen...... No one has to guess if what you say is the truth or not.  Most just assume you are lying out of your ass all the time, and we are right most of the time, and just pleasantly surprised once in a while that you are actually making some kind of a contribution.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 06:04:23 PM
David,

In the real world, TePaul is the USGA archivist.  He has enough cred to have achieved and hold that position with a very august body in the world of golf.

You are a horse's petute who likes to argue everything way over the top, and who could avoid arguments simply by admitting he MIGHT be 1% wrong, but simply isn't capable of doing it, at least on the internet (I have actually heard you were a fine gent in person, but that is, for the purposes of this thread, only to be considered "speculation."

As it stands, I am much less ashamed of standing with TePaul than actually interacting with you, which sadly, does say volumes about my character, mainly that I don't have the common sense to avoid a useless cat fight.

Jeff
You are much less ashamed to stand with TEP? At least you admit you are ashamed...that is a step in the right direction.

Why do you have to stand with anyone, why not stand for the truth, wherever it comes?

TEP is the USGA archivist? Is that the correct description? I'm sure it is an august body, but even august bodies make mistakes.

PS: I forgot about the fabricated disc...please add that to my previous list of his transgressions. And speaking of that august body, how about the time TEP sent me a message that he would be forwarding to me derogatory messages (about me) sent to him by other members of that august body. By the way there were no messages. Add that one too.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 06:16:05 PM
TMac,

I am always for standing for the truth.  If something proves right or different about Myopia, I will be the first to congratulate the sluth who found it out, or high five the team, if we ever work together.  As for a few posts above, I still don't see a lot of absolute truth in these matters, and when there is, not a lot of absolute certainty when interpreting a partial record of old documents.  That is what gets our little group into trouble.

And, I will admit I get my feathers rankled mostly at the arrogance of claims that anyone here has found the absolute truth.  I just doubt it, I really do. At least at this point.  Its all speculation, no matter how much we "logically" believe our positions.

I really don't know TePaul's title, but as David suggests, I know he is working with the USGA on their architecture history efforts, which I support.  I would love to see some results out of that program some time soon.  And, I have stated on this site many times, that occaisionally, TePaul exceeds the bounds of good behavior.

All that said, I will stop insulting you now.  How many posts of all of us have been devoted to personal insults rather than really discussing real history?  We are all guilty of letting tempers go a bit.  What's the point?

If you or David fire back one last insult my way, I will let it go unchallenged.  After all this time, someone needs to act like a grownup on this thread.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 06:19:55 PM
PS: I forgot about the fabricated disc...please add that to my previous list of his transgressions. And speaking of that august body, how about the time TEP sent me a message that he would be forwarding to me derogatory messages (about me) sent to him by other members of that august body. By the way there were no messages. Add that one too.

He pulled the same bullshit with me, about four or five years ago, long before my Merion IMO.  He claimed that he had been speaking with a number of those who ran various committees at Merion (he named some names) and insisted that they were all very upset about my various theories about Merion (I had just figured out the that Wilson trip abroad story was largely fiction) and that they wanted me to stop posting on the club altogether.  I have since confirmed that this was all lies, of course, as were many of the other representations he made over the years about what various people at Merion said about my work.  

But my favorite lie of his comes from around the same time.  He sent me a number of emails referencing an unnamed Canadian "expert researcher" who was very concerned with the low quality of my research.  So to help out TEPaul suggested, repeatedly, that I send all my emails to TEPaul so that his unnamed Canadian expert researcher could vet them all before I posted them, to make sure they passed muster.   I told him to pass on my contact information to this Canadian Expert but for some reason it all had to take place through TEPaul.   Hmmmm.

 I always liked this lie because it was just so desperate and also because reminds me of the old jokes about supposedly losing one's virginity on a trip to Canada, including the scene in the Breakfast Club where the nerdy kid claims to have lost his virginity with the unnamed woman while on a family vacation in the Niagara Falls area.    Interesting how we implicate the Canadians in our most pathetic lies, as if that mere mention of Canada brings honesty and credibility where none otherwise exists.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 06:20:02 PM
JEFFREY!!!!

This is totally amazing. This is the little fates of life and the timing is mind boggling. Just after speaking to you guess who called me? The Myopia historian. He went over to the club and he went through some of the archives and particularly Dacre Bush's reminiscences (Reminscences) including that thing he titled "Hope over Experience."

NEWS FLASH!!

Bush was really detailed in what Willie Campbell did for Myopia and the original 1894 nine in the spring of 1894. The Reminiscences is quite long but the only problem is in one paragraph he called him Willie Campbell, in another paragraph he called him Willie Dunn and in another he called him Willie Davis!! Apparently S. Dacre Bush was afflicted with what has become known amongst expert GCA historians as "Samuel Parrish Shinnecockitis Reminscobulbus." Doctors are beginning to diagnose it as a form of Teretts Syndrome where old golf club administrators babble "Willie, Willie, Willie over and over sometimes interpersed with interchangeable Scottish surnames.

So I don't know what the hell to say now. Was it Campbell or was it Willie Dunn or Willie Davis who actually designed Myopia? I guess to those early Boston elitist snobs any professional from Scotland back then was just a Willie and their last name was totally inconsequential or meaningless.

Or maybe I should start a new thread that might run on for a thousand pages in which we could discuss and debate and argue and insult each other about whether or not Willie Davis, Willie Dunn and Willie Campbell were all actually the same guy who used numerous surnames and aliases.

If that turns out to be the "verifiably provable" fact and case then all I can think to say, at this point, is Georgina Campbell must have considered herself to have been a very luck Scottish Lassie, for sure----eg more money, more sex, more architectural attribution, whatever. No wonder she lived so long and became so beloved around Boston----which by the way seriously and historically is the Goll-danged truth and "verifiably provable" as long as you are as good a researcher/analyst/historian as I am.

PS:
I'm gonna tell the Myopia historian that the club's archives has so many Scottish Willies going right now for attribution that he ought to just alter that official Dacre docuument and throw in Willie Park Jr too so they can at least have one early Scottish Willie architect who did something over here that actually lasted and was architecturally significant! ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 06:22:53 PM
Jeff Brauer

If you want to act like a grownup then call out your immature and dishonest friend for what he is, or at least quit your pathetic attempts to defend him.

Only children think they live in a world without consequences and it is about time your friend learned this.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 06:33:36 PM
David,

Over my life I have only judged people by how they treat me and not from rumors of how they supposedly are to others.  I also know that sometimes, personalities clash and that gives rise to people saying things they don't normally say.  However, if they say things too often, at some point, I guess I would have to conclude those things are things they normally say. 

I don't doubt he came into these initial threads years ago with some kind of negative predisposition towards you that may have affected his behavior to this day as it regards you.  If TePaul has done all that to you, I understand your differences of opinion.  That said, I can't really call him out with....wait for it....contemporaneous documentation that it really happened.....sorry, I couldn't resist.

For the last few pages, I have really tried to just wrap this useless thread up, but only managed to extend it, without any meaningful additions.  For that, I am sorry.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 06:49:06 PM
"I remind you that discredting TePaul is not the same as discrediting Weeks and certainly provides no real historical value."


Mr. Jeffrey, Sir:

Actually, you are wrong, you ignorant architecture/historician slut; it is the same thing even though you have it flip-flopped. You see, I grew up in a world and in a culture that totally embraced what we all called the "Zoro Principle" which to paraphrase and hopefully not historically alter, essentially says; "Any enemy of Zoro is an enemy of mine!"

I have lived by that principle as well as another that JME (Jeff Evensky) seems to love known as the "Dring Wetherill Principle" which dictates that if you can't deck a friend, what the hell are friends for?"  

PS:
Jeff Evensky seems to also be totally into some Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill story I once told him and for the life of me I can't now exactly remember why. He keeps claiming that story just cannot be topped. I mean Fern was blonde and hot and ultra cool but I think the thing that set Jeff Evensky on a rocker is I told him that Fern also worked on what were probably the most perfectly tanned armpits I have ever seen and perhaps ever were. That may have been what did it for JeffE and frankly I find that to be a bit too bizarre and kinky for my old fashioned and traditional tastes and sensibilities.
 
 
 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
You go ahead and keep justifying your undying support for this poor excuse for a man all you like.  But I am sure at some level not even you believe what you are writing.   I hope it pays off for you.

I probably have the emails somewhere.  Perhaps I should post them?

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 07:08:52 PM
"BTW, did you spell "Pelican" correctly?"


Jeffrey Sir:

Yes, I believe I did. You known the Pelican, that stately bird with the big droopy beak that I saw slowly cruising up and down the beaches of Florida in the last sixty years that is supposed to be the bird of wisdom who also doubles as the bird that brings beautiful little babies to beautiful attractive families all wrapped up in a pretty little bundle tied with a pink ribbon hanging from its beak.

Oh SH...t, what a silly rabbitt I am, that's a stork isn't it? Well a pelican looks sort of like a stork, at least it does to me, just like any Scottish "Willie" apparently looked like the same guy to an elitist snob who didn't even know if or when he was the club secretary like Myopia's S. Dacre Bush.

Jeffrey, I am trying to steal a march on Mike Cirba and not read any of David Moriarty's posts anymore but unfortunately I just snuk or is it snug or snook? a look at one of his recent ones. It looks like this guy is really, REALLY pissed off at us Jeffrey. Do you think perhaps we should cut out this mirthfullness now or soon or we may be relegated to looking over our shoulder for all time to come? You know, pal, it can be dangerous business these days on Internet websites being the kind of expert golf architectural and OTHERWISE, researchers/analysts/historians you and I are! ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 07:30:32 PM
TePaul,

Thanks for the correction. I could have sworn you talking about another kind of dirty bird.

Something just dawned on me.  We have legitmately debated the accuracy of club minutes as they relate to history. I wonder if golfclubatlas ought to start taking minutes?

Here is how this thread's minutes might read:

August, 2009 - Mr. MacWood introduced some newspaper articles from his vast collection, stating that one Willie Campbell laid out the original nine holes at the famed Myopia Hunt Club.  Mr. Moriarity seconded the motion providing similar articles and detailed analysis of each, which he stated confirmed their veracity.

"Spirited" conversation followed, centering on the interesting differences between the inferences of those articles and long held club history that three members laid out the original nine.  Other topics included the relative veracity of club records vs. newspaper articles, minor flaws in all sources provided, and interpretation techniques debate.

In Januarly 2011, the topic was tabled without conclusion.  However, it was resolved unanimoulsly that "History is Good."



Or how about the Slow Play Thread?

Januarly 2011 - Mr. Ward MacWood introduced topic of what to do about slow play, citing examples from his experience.  Many seconded the motion providing similar experiences articles and detailed analysis of each, which seemingly confirmed their veracity.

"Spirited" conversation followed, centering on the interesting differences between management options, articles by slow play expert Bill Yates, and more personal experiences. 

In Januarly 2011, the topic was tabled without conclusion.  However, it was resolved unanimoulsly that "Slow Play is Bad."

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 08:00:43 PM
"I wonder if golfclubatlas ought to start taking minutes?"


Jeffrey:

Interesting you would say that. I am not in the slightest tech savy but some time ago I came to a very startling realization and my capacity and ability to make sense of it all is still very much reeling in my mind and in my sensibilities.

You may not realize this Jeffrey but essentially GOOGLE and its like and kind is the biggest and most comprehensive "MINUTES" the world has ever seen or known or even imagined.

We all need to realize this and step back and take some stock in what that actually means now and in the future. It is virtually unimaginable what can be found on GOOGLE and its like and kind and what that means.

I realized this about a year or two ago when I posted a post on GOLFCLUBALTAS.com and then I hit GOOGLE to do some research on the subject I had just posted on in this website and what came up on the first page of GOOGLE?? The very post I had just posted on here not sixty SECONDS before.

I am an old guy and not tech savy but this stuff definitely gives me immense pause in the rapid action communication world we all now live in.


Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 10:10:54 PM
TMac,

I am always for standing for the truth.  If something proves right or different about Myopia, I will be the first to congratulate the sluth who found it out, or high five the team, if we ever work together.  As for a few posts above, I still don't see a lot of absolute truth in these matters, and when there is, not a lot of absolute certainty when interpreting a partial record of old documents.  That is what gets our little group into trouble.

And, I will admit I get my feathers rankled mostly at the arrogance of claims that anyone here has found the absolute truth.  I just doubt it, I really do. At least at this point.  Its all speculation, no matter how much we "logically" believe our positions.

I really don't know TePaul's title, but as David suggests, I know he is working with the USGA on their architecture history efforts, which I support.  I would love to see some results out of that program some time soon.  And, I have stated on this site many times, that occaisionally, TePaul exceeds the bounds of good behavior.

All that said, I will stop insulting you now.  How many posts of all of us have been devoted to personal insults rather than really discussing real history?  We are all guilty of letting tempers go a bit.  What's the point?

If you or David fire back one last insult my way, I will let it go unchallenged.  After all this time, someone needs to act like a grownup on this thread.

If you stand for the truth why are you so often mistaken?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 10:27:31 PM
David,

Over my life I have only judged people by how they treat me and not from rumors of how they supposedly are to others.  I also know that sometimes, personalities clash and that gives rise to people saying things they don't normally say.  However, if they say things too often, at some point, I guess I would have to conclude those things are things they normally say.  

I don't doubt he came into these initial threads years ago with some kind of negative predisposition towards you that may have affected his behavior to this day as it regards you.  If TePaul has done all that to you, I understand your differences of opinion.  That said, I can't really call him out with....wait for it....contemporaneous documentation that it really happened.....sorry, I couldn't resist.

For the last few pages, I have really tried to just wrap this useless thread up, but only managed to extend it, without any meaningful additions.  For that, I am sorry.

Jeff
Rumors? I'm pretty sure you were active on this site and read for yourself the story about the urinating on CBM's grave, his portrayal of Emmet as a homosexual, his intimidating the poor fellow at Clementon, his misleading info about what he had access to at Myopia, his deliberate errors transcribing at Merion, his bizarre story about the Drexel disc, his consistent attitude of secrecy with historical documents. Unless you recently suffered a head injury you should remember all this because you observed these things first hand.

If people treat you well you can ignore whatever else they do? A rhetorical question by the way.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 19, 2011, 10:34:33 PM
You go ahead and keep justifying your undying support for this poor excuse for a man all you like.  But I am sure at some level not even you believe what you are writing.   I hope it pays off for you.

I probably have the emails somewhere.  Perhaps I should post them?



I have my message somewhere too, and will gladly post it (with the names of the august body TEP mentioned in his message) if Jeff still thinks its a rumor.

Jeff?

By the way to give TEP's message some context it came while I was researching my Crump essay, when TEP & Wayne put on the full court press and were trying to sabotage/intimidate me into not writing it. I'm sure you believe that is a vicious rumor too.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 19, 2011, 10:39:41 PM
Jeff Brauer,

As yo can see,  his behavior is no rumor. As if on cue, TEPaul picks up where he eft off, with more bullshit about how all sorts various unnamed members at Merion have been badmouthing me.  And of course while he claims it would be in bad taste to repeat it, he will still try to milk it for all it is worth by alluding to it anyway, bad taste or not.   Like his fictional relations with the unnamed "research expert" in the Niagara Falls area,  details will not be forthcoming.  

And again another mention to supposed source material that would be bad taste to bring forward, yet in good taste to discuss ad infinitum?  He is of course lying about Merion's policies, but then that should be expected by now.

_____________________________

Tom MacWood,

That to me is the sign of a real class act and a genuine person of integrity; one who says, 'I don't give a damn who else you lie to, manipulate, or mistreat. So long as you don't do it to me, then you are A-Okay in my book!'
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 19, 2011, 11:25:05 PM
Did I wander on to bloodfeud.com by mistake?

While you two can post whatever you want to attempt to embarass TePaul, to whatever degree you succeed, it is my humble opinion that you will embarass yourselves more.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: TEPaul on January 19, 2011, 11:59:44 PM
Mr Jeffrey:

Don't worry about it. You sure don't need to defend me against the likes of Moriarty and MacWood. I've been around the block and more than once for sure and those two are complete lightweights---they are basically chickenfeed in the world and realm of where this stuff really counts!

But the thing I really find fascinating about those two dudes who keeping telling us that "independent reseach" is what this is all about is how naive they may be in that vein about themselves, particularly David Moriarty. Don't let me imply that I am trying to insult him or imply anything negative about him as they are suggesting and saying about me in their last posts of today. I would only suggest that any or all of you punch into GOOGLE the key words "David Moriarty and Anthony Pellicano" and see what comes up on that Internet search. I'm not implying a damn thing about any of it----I only suggest that you look into it on the public access of the Internet and decide for yourselves what any of it means to you. Isn't this what we do on here, at least the best and the most expert of us----eg INDEPENDENT RESEARCH? MacWood constants rides me on here for not doing enough INDEPENDENT RESEARCH so I just broke down and did some. WHOA!!! GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!!! LET THE PELICAN FLY!!!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 20, 2011, 12:03:53 AM
Jeff Brauer,

Why should I be embarrassed by any of this?  Why should I be embarrassed by calling him out for his endless stream of lies and unethical and rude behavior directed at me?  After all, he has been on his witch hunt for over half a decade now, and much of his more egregious behavior has been aimed directly at me or at trying making a fool of me.  The man, after all, has repeatedly indicated he is out to ruin my reputation no matter what he has to do, so what is wrong with me fighting back with the TRUTH.  

Look at what he just wrote, for God's sake!  Am I not allowed to call him out for lies and insults thrown at me even just now?  Do you really believe that those at Merion have nothing better to do that sit around gossiping about me?  (I mean besides his "writing partner" of course.)  And even if they do have nothing better to do, which I doubt, what kind of a creep passes on that kind of petty and nasty gossip without even having the balls to back it up? At least I don't have to hide behind made up club members to call him out.   All this creep can do is hide behind a bunch of nameless clubbys and attribute to them vague insults obviously of his own making.   As if I give a shit about what he says his "crowd" might have said about me.   As if his merely mentioning that they are members at Merion is supposed to make us shake in our boots and bow in deference.  Give me a break!  If anyone from Merion has anything to say to me, they can figure out how to find me.  Those at Merion didn't ask to be misrepresented by some pompous blowhard to whom they wouldn't give the time of day were it not for his bloodline.

Now watch, the creep will start on about how I have insulted Merion.   I haven't insulted Merion or any member of Merion, save maybe one.  My comments indict no one but him, and while he is wont to forget it he isn't even a member of Merion.  

Plus, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it weren't for you endlessly trying to defend this creep with your half-assed excuses for his behavior.   All he has done is accidentally mis-trascribe a few quotes . . .  It is all just rumors . . .credibility is a relative thing . . . we all get carried away now an then . . . I don't care how awful he is so long as he is nice to me . . .  He has earned the position of USGA Archivist.   All bullshit, and embarrassingly dishonest bullshit at that.

Not even his ever loyal Mike Cirba is still defending him at this point, but there you are spinning excuses about him about as fast as he can spin yarns about the history of golf course architecture in America.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 20, 2011, 12:46:39 AM
Jeff Brauer,

Well look at that.  Just when you thought he couldn't get any lower.   And what a surprise to see you right there with him, yucking it up.  As usual you guys have only a bit of the story and are apparently just using your imaginations from there.  You two are real class acts, that is for sure.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 20, 2011, 06:30:30 AM
Did I wander on to bloodfeud.com by mistake?

While you two can post whatever you want to attempt to embarass TePaul, to whatever degree you succeed, it is my humble opinion that you will embarass yourselves more.

Jeff
Based on his past and present behavior I don't think it is possible for TEP to be embarrassed so why drag innocents into this fiasco. I won't stoop to his level, and your level.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Sean_A on January 20, 2011, 07:57:53 AM

And I hate to break it to you Jeff, but I'd no sooner turn to you on matters of humor than I would on matters of history.  While you consider yourself quite an expert on both, you are equally ill equipped to deal with either.

David

I don't know, Jeff seems an amiable guy with a good sense of humour.  I for one appreciate his quips and forthright architectural opinions.  I'm not trying to tell you who to run down, but having guys in the industry hanging round this site is a major plus. 

Ciao 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 11:02:06 AM
Morton J. Henry won the club championship at Brookline and Myopia in 1895, and was runner-up at Essex County. I'm not sure if that was the first official championship at Myopia, or not. He defeated QA Shaw in the Myopia final.

There is an interesting profile of Henry in the December 1895 issue of the Golfer.

"...Mr. Henry was among the first in New England, certainly, and possibly the entire country, to be attracted by the possibilities of the ancient and royal game of recreative enjoyment, athletic exercise and manual skill. He commenced playing on the course laid out by Mr. HH Hunnewell, Jr., at his extensive and beautiful country seat at Wellesley, -- one of the first, if not the first golf links in this section. The novices in golf at the Hunnelwell course formed a self-tutored set of players at the time, and it was two years later, when Campbell was engaged by the Country Club as instructor at Brookline. Mr. Henry is frank in acknowledgment of his indebtedness to Campbell, and also to Mackerell for the proficiency he acquired under their instruction. It will be readily understood that he was an apt scholar when certain fact are stated relating to his fondness for field sports. Mr. Henry is now in the 26th year, having been born August 23, 1870. in Montgomery County, Penn. His boyhood was passed in Philadelphia, and as resident of the Quaker City, it was in the natural order of things that he should develop a fondness for cricket..."

"...The practice of golf which Mr. Henry indulged in at Wellesley was kept up during the autumn of 1893. After that it was a full year before he began once more playing, and when he did it was at the Essex County course, in Manchester. Here during the past summer and autumn he was on of the most constant of the member in work on the green, devoting to golf every moment he could spare from business..."
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 22, 2011, 12:05:30 PM
Tom,

I believe I posted that article previously, but it's a good one...thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 12:18:00 PM
Mike
Sorry. I don't recall you posting it, and I thought you didn't post from magazines.

Another interesting tidbit, HC Leeds won the first TCC club championship in 1893. I wonder if that was before or around the same time as the winter golf in November and December 1893?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 22, 2011, 12:21:21 PM
Tom,

I hand typed the article.  More about your other comment later when I have time.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 01:38:53 PM
In the last couple of days I picked up two club histories, The Country Club 1882-1932 written by Frederic Curtiss & John Heard and History of Essex County Club 1893-1993 by George Caner.

TCC history is pretty similar to the two later histories, which rely heavily on Laurence Curtis's account in the 1895 article. They have Campbell being hired in 1894 to serve in the spring and autumn. There is no mention of WB Thomas's role. They have Leeds winning the first club championship in 1893 over Laurence Curtis and WB Thomas. Leeds won it again in 1894. The book has Campbell expanding the course in 1894, and just prior to the Davis v Campbell match. The course was lengthened again in 1895. Thats about it for the early years.

The Essex County history quotes an article from the 1893 Manchester Cricket that nine hole course was laid out down the field from the tennis courts toward the summer side of the street, and A. R. Campbell of St. andrews was in charge. The 1893 course was revised the next year, and according to an article written by J. Warren Merrill in 1895 it went from nine holes to eleven. In 1895 an additional 34 acres was purchased, as a result three new holes were built, eliminating three others, leaving a 9-hold course according to the book. Its a little confusing because the author says the 1896 retained the third, fourth, seventh, eighth, first and second hole of the 1895 course. He also gives the impression there was a 1893 course, 1894 course, and a 1895 course. It is not clear. There is no mention who was involved in 1893, 1894, 1895 or 1896.

The author claims Tom Bendelow was an assistant pro in 1896 and was involved in building the greens that year, and may have possibly designed the golf course. He goes on to quote him extensively from an in article in Golfing. I think its possible the author confused Essex County in NJ with ECC in Massachusetts.

Later in the book discusses the first pros at the club, AR Campbell & Willie Campbell. He quotes the Cricket report once again, and has no other info on AR Campbell. He mentions Willie Campbell was induced to come to America by WB Thomas, and the arrangement he had with TCC and Essex County that first year. It quotes another article in the Cricket how Essex had become 'golf mad' since Campbell arrived. In 1895 Campbell was back full time at TCC, and was at Myopia in 1896, and then went to Franklin Park.

I have found one mention of AR Campbell of Essex was in the Boston Advertiser 7/29/1893, but it is AB Campbell, of St. Andrews, not AR. The report claims he will be arriving August 1. I have found no other mention of him, in fact I have found no pro called AB Campbell on either side of the Atlantic. I'm wondering if there was some confusion with the name.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 02:16:02 PM
This is from an article (Golf and Golf Clubs, April 1896) in the National Magazine by Arthur Tarbell:

"Golf was played on the links of the Essex County Club at Manchester, Mass, as early as the spring of 1893. At that time a few enthusiasts swung the driver and cleek in unpracticed hands, and putted much dented golf balls into flower-pots that served for holes, in the field close by the scarcely completed clubhouse. At first there were five holes in a star-shaped pattern with much crossing, which mattered little when so few played. Toward the end of the season, however, interest increased greatly and those who at first had come to scoff the remained to play. Next year witnessed extensive improvements both on the clubhouse and on the links. The latter was lengthened and relaid to such an extent that the course rapidly proved itself more excellent than had been anticipated. The opening of the present season was marked by the acquisition of a large tract of new land available for golfing purposes, and the construction of new nine-hole course. The result now is that the Essex County Club has come to be considered on the ranking exponents of the sport in the country."

From the same Boston Advertiser 7/29/1893 article I quoted earlier provisions for a golf grounds had been made; TJ Coolidge Jr, WE Putnam and Lucious Sargent were the committee in charge. Tennis courts had been laid out, as well as polo, baseball and football fields had been arranged. The grounds were laid out under the direction of CE Cotting, TJ Coolidge, Samuel Knight, PE Simpson, and CJ Morse. WB Thomas was on the house committee.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 03:42:06 PM
I found this advertisement January 1896 issue of the Golfer:


Golf Links Laid Out.

An expert Golfer will lay out links at reasonable rates in the New England and Middle States. He has laid out a number of the links in this country, and guarantees perfect satisfaction. Loam, Dressing and Sods supplied. Address for charges,

L.J. & W. J. DOOGUE
298 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MASS, USA


I suspect the expert golfer is Willie Campbell. William Doogue was the long time superintendent of the common and public grounds in Boston. Is this the first golf architect advertisement in America?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 22, 2011, 03:50:32 PM
I've seen that add quite a few times as well, but never made the connection to Campbell.  I always thought that Doogue was the designer, but thought it odd I had never heard of any courses designed by him.  Campbell makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 22, 2011, 04:25:24 PM
I should have mentioned the advertisement right about it is also for LJ & WJ Doogue, Florists and Landscape Gardeners. If the expert is Campbell, it maybe one of the first cases of a golf architect and a dedicated construction operation joining forces.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 23, 2011, 12:25:57 AM
Tom.

Whatever Willie Campbell's design cache was in Boston and elsewhere, it unfortunately seems very short lived.

The mos recent history book at TCC Brookline has him expanding the original 1892 members designed course from 6 holes to 9 and expanding that original course a bit, but then credits Alex "Nipper" Campbell, not Willie, as well as the green committee with Herb Windeler for the expansion to eighteen holes in the 1898 timeframe.

I haven't independently researched any of this myself, but given that TCC has been viewed in modern times as perhaps WC's most lasting achievement, I did find this a bit surprising when I read it. 

Apparently, whatever immediate architectural work WC actually did at Myopia, TCC. Essex, and even Franklin Park, it's very difficult to ascertain exactly what he did in any of those venues, and all of that work seems to have been very shortly replaced by the efforts of others in the rapidly expanding game.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 23, 2011, 10:21:15 AM
Tom.

Whatever Willie Campbell's design cache was in Boston and elsewhere, it unfortunately seems very short lived.

The mos recent history book at TCC Brookline has him expanding the original 1892 members designed course from 6 holes to 9 and expanding that original course a bit, but then credits Alex "Nipper" Campbell, not Willie, as well as the green committee with Herb Windeler for the expansion to eighteen holes in the 1898 timeframe.

I haven't independently researched any of this myself, but given that TCC has been viewed in modern times as perhaps WC's most lasting achievement, I did find this a bit surprising when I read it.  

Apparently, whatever immediate architectural work WC actually did at Myopia, TCC. Essex, and even Franklin Park, it's very difficult to ascertain exactly what he did in any of those venues, and all of that work seems to have been very shortly replaced by the efforts of others in the rapidly expanding game.

Mike
The original 6-hole course was laid out in the Spring of 1893, not 1892. Willie Campbell laid out a new 9-hole course in 1894, and lengthened it in 1895. In January or February of 1896 (it was reported in the March issue of The Golfer) the golf committee - Quincy A. Shaw, Laurence Curtis and Geo. E. Cabot - sent out a circular to the membership that the present course was inadequate. They proposed new land be secured and the course expanded to 18 holes at a cost of $20 per member. I don't know if it went to vote, and if it did the result, but I do know the course was not expanded until 1899, and beginning in 1896 QA Shaw and Herbert Leeds, Brookline's two best golfers, were playing at Myopia. In March of 1896 it was announced Campbell would not be rehired at Brookline, and by the summer of '96 he was the pro at Myopia.

I don't agree with your conclusion that Campbell's 'design cache' was damaged because he was not involved in the expansion in 1899. I think it is more likely his relationship with TCC was damaged as result of the circumstances of their parting. Also Campbell's health was not all that great in 1898, 1899, and 1900, the year he died.

The earlier club histories of TCC & Essex County have schematics of their evolving courses, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 26, 2011, 12:36:22 PM
Tom MacWood,

As we discussed the other day, The Country Club at Brookline has an interesting design evolution, with three members designing six holes in 1893, Willie Campbell expanding and revising that course to 9, and then the Green Committee with Herb Windeler and Alex "Nipper" Campbell expaning to the full 18 holes around 1899.

With that in mind, do you think the following widely distributed, syndicated 1902 article is probably responsible for the misattribution of TCC to Willie Campbell you often still see in modern times?

Similarly, by the time of this article, the course at Myopia had been almost wholly revised and expanded to 18 holes by HC Leeds years before this article.   In fact, all that remained of the original course was some hole corridors and perhaps 2 or 3 greensites, and almost everyone back then attributed the course by that point to Leeds.

Do you think this artilce after Willie's death profiling his widow (and presumably her rememberances) might be the culprit around the misattribution of TCC to Campbell?   It obviously only tells a very partial story regarding the architectural history and evoluion of that course, even by 1902, and does the same with Myopia's course history to that point, as well.

No wonder these things get so confused and misleading...


(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p1.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p2.jpg)

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July2_1902_SaintPaulGlobe_p3.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 26, 2011, 08:16:11 PM
Bump
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 26, 2011, 11:46:56 PM
Mike, Why do you have to put such a slant on everything? There is nothing significantly misleading or inaccurate about that article as far as can tell.  It is about Mr. and Mrs. Willie Campbell and their contribution to early golf in Boston and thus in America.   It doesn't purport to give a complete description of the early architectural evolution at Myopia or the Country Club, and it is downright ridiculous that you would act as if it is flawed or misleading because it doesn't outline every single change which took place at those courses.

Reportedly, Campbell was responsible for Brookline's first 9 hole course, having revised the original six and added three more, he made more changes and lengthened the nine the next year as well.  In 1899, weren't nine holes added, while his original nine remained?  He also reportedly laid out Myopia's first nine hole course and a number of other courses.  Why you continue to try to minimize this is really beyond me.   

As for why Campbell has long received credit for his contributions at Brookline, it is probably because they realized the significance of his contributions. This was at the dawn of golf in this Country, and these first contributors set the stage for all who followed.  The real mystery is why a club like Myopia quit giving him his due.   

Perhaps Leeds' famous dislike of professionals helps explain it.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 27, 2011, 06:27:40 AM
Mike
First of all you have no idea specifically how Brookline or Myopia (or Essex) evolved, so stop parroting TEP's bizarre all that remained of the original Myopia was some hole corridors and perhaps 2 or 3 green sites. That is what he would like you and everyone else to believe. Second, I don't agree that Campbell has been misattributed at TCC; the club to this day still recognizes his contribution. And comparatively TCC written history is light years ahead of Myopia's, which seems to have a blind spot regarding their early history.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 27, 2011, 07:56:40 AM
(gosh, this is getting hard adding new stuff to get this thread over 100 pages...  ;)    )

Here is a March 22, 1896 NY Sun article describing the new Palmetto Golf Club.  Leeds is given credit for the design.  Within the article indicates Leeds "... previously assisted in the planning at Myopia...".

Go at it David, Mike, and Tom's!  :-)

(http://i53.tinypic.com/1rdk0j.jpg)
(http://i51.tinypic.com/fa7dc7.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 27, 2011, 08:28:26 AM
Joe,

Muy Interesante.   Gracias.  

And yes, March 1896 was before Campbell's 4-month stint as pro at Myopia.   Hmmm...the plot thickens.

And why would Leeds have assisted in "planning" the course at Myopia when we are told by David and Tom that there was NO PLANNING PHASE...simply Willie Campbell coming by and presto-chango, magically laying the holes on the ground some day in late May 1894 after which the course opened in a day or ten?  

WHat's up with that, Willis?  ;)


David and Tom,

I'm really shocked at you guys.

Here we are on page gazillion of a thread about Myopia where you two guys have spent countless hours railing against the unfairness and indignity of the omission of Willie Campbell's possible/probable help over a day or two with the orgiinal course at Myopia from their official record, as well as argued about the validity and veracity of relying solely on news articles as attribution sources, yet both of you seem to sing a different tune here about a far more egregious case of misattribution, simply because the incomplete, erroeneous, and misldeading article about Mrs. Campbell isn't supporting your interests.

Sheesh...at least in modern times Willie Campbell is given attribution credit for the original course at Brookline, where he added three holes to the original member designed course and expanded the others.   Arguably, that is far greater recognition for a course of more historical and competitive cache than Myopia, and yet how much did he really do to deserve that?

And what of poor Herb Winderler?

Windeler, working with his green committee and pro Alex "Nipper' Campbell, worked for over fifteen years on the golf course, expanding it to 18 holes and refining it into the competitive test of golf it was for the 1910 US Amateur and the 1913 US Open.   He arguably did as much for Brookline as Wilson did for Merion, Fownes did for Oakmont, Leeds did for Myopia, and so on.

Yet who knows Windeler and what he did??   You guys talk about "missing" attributions, yet here is certainly the biggest case of misattribution of any top golf course in America, EVER!!

This guy worked diligently on the course, doing Raynoresque clearing of woodlands in impossible settings to create holes such as today's 9th of the composite course, or today's beautiful 3rd.  And yet, you guys want to give Willie Campbell's probably one-day of routing time for a temporary course greater credit than Windeler's on the ground work over fifteen years?!?!

Tom...you tell us that the TCC history book you have from the 30s has a map showing the early evolution of the golf course?   How much of the original six holes remain?   How much of the Campbell-expanded nine holes??   How much of what Campbell did still exists today??

In the case of Myopia, we KNOW everyone else by 1902 was crediting Leeds with the course that was on the ground.   We also KNOW from descriptions to the changes in the holes over time that very little of the original 2025 yard course remained unaltered by then, with different green sites and different hole corridors.   Yes, there are some unknowns, but very little of substance.   By 1902, it was a Leeds course.

By 1902, TCC was a Curtis/Bacon/Hunnewell, then Willie, then Windeler and Alex Campbell course, favoring the latter by a long shot, and would continue to evolve by them in the next decade.

So, for that article to claim in 1902 that Campbell was responsible for Myopia and Brookline, it is really the worst type of reporting, and leads to the type of misinformation that historians and researchers who are interested in this stuff need to wade through with hip boots today with very clear eyes looking for what other sources of information are available.

I'm really surprised that you'd be upset that Willie Campbell's one-day of possible work at Myopia was overlooked, yet give a complete pass to the erroneous crediting for the course at Brookline to Willie that probably led to the omission of Herb Windeler's work at Brookline, which lasted over more than a decade.

Why is that?   Is it because he was another of those damned amateur architects who put in the time, effort, and personal sacrifice to create the first great golf courses in America, in contrast to the early "expert" pros who by your own claims, spent a day getting a course up and running?  

I really don't understand how serious researchers could pooh-pooh such an oversight, or leave blameless such a misleading and erroneous article that was probably at least partially responsible for sweeeping poor Winderler under the rug and leaving the erroneous modern impression that Willie Campbell was responsible for designing the first course at Brookline.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 27, 2011, 06:59:40 PM
Since the 1902 article seems to be based on the rememberances of Mrs. Campbell, I was curious to see if she came over with hiim originally at the beginning of April 1894, shortly after which Campbell did work at TCC and Essex, and possibly Myopia.

Apparently, Willie travelled alone.   Not sure when she came over.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/3775909613_76ac1c5d73_b.jpg)


Following is more about Herb Windeler, about Alex "Nipper" Campbell, longtime pro at TCC, about Campbell's views on Myopia, and about how by 1910 the efforts of the original foreign pros original architectural work here was being viewed.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5283385050_578f6211ae_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5123/5283385544_55691b5172_o.jpg)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 27, 2011, 07:21:44 PM
Mike,

That raises some interesting questions - Do you trust a wife’s remembrance from 1902 over events of 1894 when she wasn't even present over Bush’s remembrance in 1908 when he was a member of the club and deeply involved as a Steward, then club officer?  Willie is dead, she may want to build him up, etc.  As DM says, the article is not about the detailed design of Myopia, so does that make its author more or less likely to accept what Mrs. Campbell said about events she never saw without double checking his facts?

TMac,

I don't think its a "bizarre" TPaul theory about what was left of Willie's original nine - Weeks tells us much about how many of Willie’s holes were moved around, probably from the Leeds scrapbook, but of course, those are all poorly sourced writings, right?  I went over the long nine map myself and the idea that most holes had been altered seemed right to me.  Have you done the same?

I can believe that Willie Campbell did something on the first nine at Myopia, but it didn’t last a year before they decided that Leeds should redo it, and that they would be better off doing it themselves.  We don’t know why, but it just seems like of the 1000 courses in play by 1900, it would happen that a few clubs thought that was the way to go, and given Leeds opinions about pro golfers, it’s not surprising that Myopia might be one of them.

The last article Mike posts notes that a TCC club member made the Scotland trip to study golf holes, and we know Leeds studied it, both of which imply that the club members were interested and certainly somehow involved in the design of their courses and that at least there is some reason for club records/Leeds scrapbook, etc. to have considered that the members did some design work, too.

It’s hardly worth arguing.

By the way, I was reading Cornish’s “18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon” and he has a partial list 32 Scot pros who came over to lay out golf courses, although many stayed at the one club they laid out and never did any more design.  At the time, I am sure most of those also got some local press, and even if Willie was one of the more famous for blowing the British Open, but in reading Cornish's account, I didn't get the feeling that he would elevate WC over the rest of them as an early architect, just one of the boys, as it were.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 27, 2011, 09:54:48 PM

From what I've been able to gather golf was played informally at Aiken beginning 1892 on three sand greens. Palmetto GC was organized in 1895, but I don't believe the course was ready until early 1896. That nine hole course was laid out by Leeds. It was expanded to eighteen in 1898. I'm not sure who was added the second nine. Prior to the first annual Winter tournament at Palmetto, in 1896, an article in a NY paper credited Leeds for designing the course, and it also claimed he designed Myopia.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
"Prior to the first annual Winter tournament at Palmetto, in 1896, an article in a NY paper credited Leeds for designing the course, and it also claimed he designed Myopia."


Tom MacWood:

How could that be? The NY paper must have been wrong, don't you think? I suppose the NY paper did not do the proper "independent" research to determine that in fact Willie Campbell designed Myopia and that the original 1894 course was no different than Myopia's 1896 course. Furthermore if the NY paper was reporting on a winter tournament at Palmetto in 1896 how could they even know that Herbert Leeds was a member of Myopia in the winter of 1896 and to have designed the course?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 27, 2011, 09:59:38 PM
TEP
You're not using your thinking cap. There is evidence the original nine was redesigned prior to 1896 (an 1895 report said the course was new that season; Weeks claimed they were looking toward the ridge as early as 1894; the course yardage did not change between 1896 and 1898), creating your so called Long Nine. If this report is correct Leeds involvement with the course came prior to him becoming a member. I know this conflicts with Weeks, err, the 'board minutes,' but those records don't appear to be as complete or as reliable as one would hope.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 27, 2011, 10:25:42 PM

If the course was changed in 1895 then once again TEP and his supposed board minutes have been proven wrong. And I do think there is distinct possibility the course was changed in 1895, and quite possibly Leeds was involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if Campbell was also involved since Leeds wasn't a member at the time. I believe the first pro at Palmetto was one of Campbell's assistants, which is also interesting to note.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 28, 2011, 01:17:37 AM
Mike Cirba,

That article on the Campbells had nothing to do with Windeler or any of the changes at the Country Club.   It was about Campbell, his wife, and their role in bringing golf to Boston. It confirms earlier reports that Campbell was responsible for the initial nines at both TCC and Myopia. So far as I know, the Country Club has long credited Windeler for his involvement in the course, so I have no idea what you are squawking about.  

You just go right ahead and keep trying to discredit Campbell's wife though, if that is what you are into.
________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,  

Bush's remembrances from 1908?   You just made that up.   And you also just made up the part about his "remembrances" contradicting the reports that Campbell laid out the original course.  Again.

Probably from the mystical Leeds Scrapbook?  You have no idea what was in this Scrapbook/"Diary," but if documented what was done to the original nine, the Weeks wouldn't have had to guess at it.   And you have no idea what happened to the original nine.  TEPaul's theory makes no sense.

That "TCC member" who was overseas? Herbert Windeler.  At this point I'm not surprised that name is not familiar to you, but you should brace yourself for a scolding from Mike.    Given that he was British, I should think he had visited courses abroad.  But he was not involved in the creation of the original 9 holes at TCC or at Myopia.  Nor was Alex Campbell.  Only you guys would try to twist an article about what was happening at TCC in 1910 to explain what happened at Myopia sixteen (16) years earlier.

"By the way, I was reading Cornish’s “18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon” and he has a partial list 32 Scot pros who came over to lay out golf courses, although many stayed at the one club they laid out and never did any more design.  At the time, I am sure most of those also got some local press, and even if Willie was one of the more famous for blowing the British Open, but in reading Cornish's account, I didn't get the feeling that he would elevate WC over the rest of them as an early architect, just one of the boys, as it were."

Not even going to address this, but thought I'd quote it because it made me smile.  I am not sure why you insist on highlighting how little you know about this period.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 28, 2011, 07:24:08 AM
David,

The article says absolutely nothing about "original nines".   It says that Willie Campbell laid out Brookline and Hamilton (Myopia), which creates a huge misperception and incomplete picture to the reader based on the current state and actual evolution of those courses up to that tiime.
 
That article was simply erroneous and to call Brookline and Myopia as they stood in 1902 "Willie Campbell" courses is almost as egregious a sentimental, erroneous oversimplifcation as HJ Whigham calling the 1938 Merion course a "Macdonald/Raynor"* course.   Wouldn't you agree?

It is yet another example of faulty, incomplete, misleading reporting that shows the unreliability of only using news articles as sole sources to determine course attributions.


*Incidentally, I believe what Whigham meant was that they started out with the idea of copying Macdonald's model of using classic principles and holes from abroad, which is what CBM wanted to foster in this country.   He merely overstated his case, by a few hundred miles.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 28, 2011, 10:09:12 AM
If Tmac and David think Weeks description of the original first being a 300 yard version of the current second, with the original tee visible (as of the writing in 1970's) the 2nd beeing a shorter version of the 8th, and the 5th being the current 12th, modified, along with 4-6 being the alps and pond holes is bogus, then I invite them to show us what they think the original routing was that makes this so ridiculous.  I have gone over it with TePaul, and it makes sense, and I recall David posting a proposed routing and TMac contradicting it.

So yes, the exact original nine is somewhat in doubt over 110 years later, but some parts were known, and some parts were known to be changed substantially, leaving only a few greens, as TePaul suggests.  If you have different contemporaneous information, bring it forward, but broadly discrediting TePaul and his versions without suggesting one of your own isn't history.

You can dispute Weeks all you want, but we know he had the run books and the scrapbook at his disposal and used them, and using those records, its obvious that those in the club believed that their members laid out the course.   Saying the record doesn't contradict the idea Campbell didn't lay out the golf course based on every other historian merely being wrong, poorly sourced, not writing the most obvious meaning of what they write, etc. but we have come to expect that out of you two. Simply put, the record to most of us is not clear. 

The question still stands as to whether Bush, as an insider writing his remembrances any time after 1898, and probably after being President of the Club (as we all seemed to agree at one point) vs. Ms. Campbell telling a reporter with no knowledge of Myopia about events that happened before she was in the US is more valid.  By any standards, Mrs Campbell is giving a second hand account.

BTW, you now imply that Geoff Cornish as another blathering idiot, and he has been studying history far longer than either of you. 

Once again, you guys took shots at the original routing once before.  Please post them again, with some kind of source material as to why you think those are right and we would love to take a look at them.  Not sure it would necessarily solve anything, but it would be historical analysis.  BTW, I recall TMac is having the same problem as I am posting photos, et al on this site, so I guess I am asking David to do it, or at least direct us back to the post number where he posted his attempt at recreating the routing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 28, 2011, 10:25:21 AM
Mike Cirba,    

Always back to Merion.   Your bitterness and partisanship shapes everything you write.  

The article didn't say Myopia and TCC were "Campbell courses."   It said Campbell laid them out, and the context was a discussion of what happened early on at those courses.  Again and again, you give these articles bizarre and unsupportable interpretations, and then draw bizarre and unsupportable conclusions based on those tenuous readings.  You ignore obvious meaning and intention, and introduce tenuous and ridiculous meaning and intention to serve your purposes.  That isn't historical analysis, it is overzealous advocacy.

Again, if you have to distort and misread articles to make your points, then your point is not worth making.
____________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

You just bounce off your last series of misrepresented facts into the next series, without missing a beat or correcting the record, generously sprinkling in misrepresentations of what TomM and I have posted in the process.  

Enough already.  I've presented my thoughts on the original routing.  That you can't even find that yourself says something about your approach here.   You obviously have no real interest in what happened, otherwise you could manage to keep track of even the simplest of facts regarding the matter.   I mean for goodness sakes, you've got the book in front of you, and you can't even bother to represent that accurately.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 28, 2011, 10:47:36 AM
David,

For someone who insists on "facts", you sure are selective.

Claiming in 1902 that WC laid out Brookline and Myopia as those courses stood by that time is like claiming in 2010 that Tom Fazio laid out Stonewall;  technically partially true, but historically incomplete and wholly misleading. 

The article clearly is meant to fluff up Campbell's reputation post-mortem by giving him sole and undeserved credit for two very prominent courses that had moved on by that time well past anything Campbell may have did.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 28, 2011, 11:02:09 AM
David,

Yes I could find your routing and TMacs immediate dismissal of it as being a hole off.  I can't post my own version, sadly.

To correct the record, I read Weeks, typed exactly what he said, so I don't have it wrong.  I also read Cornish and typed most of what he said, so I don't have that wrong.

So, nice try in trying to discredit me, Cornish, TePaul, Weeks, etc. without really saying anything.

I won't bother further in this thread.  Its useless and has always been about you and TMac telling us just which parts of the record can be trusted.  I understand where your three articles have some weight and have said so.  It is really the strength of the arugment.  The further you go into parsing, discrediting, and interpreting, the weaker your arguments get.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 28, 2011, 11:05:33 AM
Jeff,

I'm not sure why David won't re-post his idea of the original routing...I'll see if I can locate it later buried in this thread.

I think one thing to consider is May's statement that the original course was 2050 yards. I have my own idea of what that may have looked like after viewing a vintage photo of Myopia's 4th hole a few days back.

Try to ignore the personal insults...you're on the right track and this is hardly an open-and+shut case.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 28, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
Mike,

Thanks. Never have two folks been more insulted than you and I for taking middle ground and saying things are inconclusive, eh?  Now, I will admit that David in particular has been insulted quite a bit by TePaul for taking his stance, but that is a different matter.

If I have time, I will look it up, but what's the point.  Neither he or TMac has really got it figured out either, they just dismiss anything TePaul has to say out of hand, as if on auto pilot.

I will amend my previous post to say we all tend to find things that agree with our predisposed opinions, too. Its not just David and TMac.  We all just seem to look at things different ways and truly the record is not completely filled in as they like to tell us it is.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 28, 2011, 01:11:40 PM
David,

For someone who insists on "facts", you sure are selective.

Claiming in 1902 that WC laid out Brookline and Myopia as those courses stood by that time is like claiming in 2010 that Tom Fazio laid out Stonewall;  technically partially true, but historically incomplete and wholly misleading.

The article says nothing about "as the courses stood by that time."  It was about the initial golf at those clubs.   You again twist the information to fit it into your agenda.

Quote
The article clearly is meant to fluff up Campbell's reputation post-mortem by giving him sole and undeserved credit for two very prominent courses that had moved on by that time well past anything Campbell may have did.

Yes, Mike, the there was a giant conspiracy to prop up Campbell going all the way back to 1902.   They were intentionally slighting people who made changes to the course later.  The article shouldn't have been about the Campbell's at all, but about G. Herbert Windeler!  Even the choice of Campbell as a topic shows that the author was biased against the amateur sportsman.  

Either you are incredibly disingenuous, or your comprehension skills are incomprehensible.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 28, 2011, 01:21:19 PM

By the way, I was reading Cornish’s “18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon” and he has a partial list 32 Scot pros who came over to lay out golf courses, although many stayed at the one club they laid out and never did any more design.  At the time, I am sure most of those also got some local press, and even if Willie was one of the more famous for blowing the British Open, but in reading Cornish's account, I didn't get the feeling that he would elevate WC over the rest of them as an early architect, just one of the boys, as it were.  


Could explain what this has to do with Campbell laying out Brookline, Myopia and about twenty other golf courses around Boston?

Didn't Weeks write that the actual layout of the nine hole course is a matter of speculation?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 28, 2011, 01:27:45 PM
Mike
I think you've finally lost it. If I were a conspirator and looking to make maximum impact the St. Paul (Mn) Globe would be my first choice too.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 28, 2011, 02:23:01 PM
TMac,

Good enough questions.

As to Weeks, he did say there was some speculation, but also listed several specific holes he apparently knew the origins and changes to, and noted that there are some that they really don't know where they were.  To me, saying what he specifically knows and what he doesn't adds to credibility.  I listed above the holes that he writes are known to have existed, and you will note that they are shorter than was current.

It is a matter of opinion whether saving any of Willie's holes and/or hole corridords is impressive or not.  It just is what it is.

As to Cornish, it probably has nothing to do with him specifically laying out any course near Boston.  He actually lists 32 early North American designers, most of them Scots who had multiple course designs in the US.  He says scores of others designed only one course in that era.  Cornish calls Williie Davis and the Dunns the pioneers and lumps Campbell in there with the other 25 or so Scots.

So, again, it is a matter of opinion as to how important Campbell was relatively speaking, with Cornish's differing from yours.  That said, I tend to agree with you that all of these early guys may be worth some study.

BTW, I will agree with you that Mike is trying to hard to make a point of the Campbell article - while true that the courses in 1902 were no longer Campbell courses, it doesn't change whatever happened and whatever his involvement was earlier.  

EDIT:

TMac,

I will also "cut you off at the pass" by saying that I know your premise is that all those guys were lumped together by earlier historians, which you think is an omission whose time it is to start correcting, and I agree.  Thus, posting a dozen year old piece that lumps 32 early designers together does nothing more than prove your point to be true.  Again, I agree.  You are trying to look deeper into each of these guys than Cornish's survey of early golf writings (and his commentary) purported to do.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 28, 2011, 04:07:19 PM
Tom MacWood,

That article was syndicated and appeared in many papers.

We've had a lot of discussion here about relying solely on news articles on attribution questions, and much like those earlier gossip columns that contained all sorts of silly errors this article paints a very poor, wholly incomplete picture that is worse than useless for determining course authorship.

Imagine if all of the records and reports of Leeds had been lost over time...someone finding that article online would bring it here and try to make the case that the 1902 Myopia course that hosted US Opens was all the work of Willie Campbell.

Similarly, and more to my point about Windeler, have you ever seen a modern account outside the club history book that credits anyone except Campbell and Flynn?  I sure haven't.

So our two sources saying Campbell laid out Myopia are error-ridden gossip columns and then reminisces from his widow eight years later after his death when she wasn't here in this country when it happened.

So, I still believe that Campbell helped with the course but those are not exactly iron-clad proof by a long shot.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 28, 2011, 04:28:48 PM
Jeff Brauer,

I missed the part above where you accuse me of implying that Cornish was a blathering idiot.   Another example of you making things up.  And Campbell was not "just one of the boys" in America in 1894.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 29, 2011, 12:52:33 PM

The original 6-hole course was laid out in the Spring of 1893, not 1892. Willie Campbell laid out a new 9-hole course in 1894, and lengthened it in 1895. In January or February of 1896 (it was reported in the March issue of The Golfer) the golf committee - Quincy A. Shaw, Laurence Curtis and Geo. E. Cabot - sent out a circular to the membership that the present course was inadequate. They proposed new land be secured and the course expanded to 18 holes at a cost of $20 per member. I don't know if it went to vote, and if it did the result, but I do know the course was not expanded until 1899, and beginning in 1896 QA Shaw and Herbert Leeds, Brookline's two best golfers, were playing at Myopia. In March of 1896 it was announced Campbell would not be rehired at Brookline, and by the summer of '96 he was the pro at Myopia.


According to a 1914 article in Golf Illustrated, written by John G. Anderson (regarding Francis Ouimet & TCC) it appears the circular was shot down, which may explain the exodus to Myopia. 

"But in 1895 so much enthusiasm was rampant that plans were made to buy the Baker estate and convert the nine into an eighteen-hole links. Early the following year a circular was issued asking that 200 members subscribe an amount not exceeding $20 each. The response was disappointing and nothing was done. However, the matter was not dropped and two years later, January 18, 1898, to be exact, the club appropriate $42,000 to buy land and construct the course. there was countless difficulties to be overcome, the land was woody and patience combined with hard work accomplished wonders and on October 7, 1899, the new eighteen-hole course was opened with a match between Alec Campbell and John Jones." 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 30, 2011, 12:12:39 PM
Call me a masochist, but this is one possibility for the layout of the original nine hole course at Myopia, based on a few assumptions;

1) The names of the holes would indicate that the first hole and final four are pretty well known.

2) The idea that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land

3) The name of the second hole being "Miles River", leading me to believe it would have played towards the river, and towards today's 4th green.

4) The statement by Weeks that a shortened version of today's 8th hole was in play.   He claimed it was the second hole but I think he was incorrect.   

5) A picture I've seen recently that shows clearly that the land that today is very heaviliy treed to the right of today's 4th and 5th holes was simply open pastureland.   

and finally...

6) The statement by John P. May that the original course played at 2,025 yards.

All locations are meant to be approximated, based on some separate Google Earth measuring.

Bring on the Tongs!  ;)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5398693809_27ef10c344_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on January 30, 2011, 12:18:34 PM
Dear Mike,

     Thanks for still using MS Paint 0.9 beta on your Windows 2.89 box.

Sincerely,

W. Gates and P. Allen

;)  :)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 30, 2011, 12:21:14 PM
Dear Joe,

Thanks for increasing our Market Share.   Now even Kyle Harris has one of our devices.

Sincerely,
Steve Jobs
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 30, 2011, 02:53:53 PM
I was continuing my read of Geoff Cornish's "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon", a collection of golf architecture related writings over the last 100 years.  One piece is from a 1999 Golf Journal article, which states in passing that Beaver Meadow Golf Course in Concord, NH is proud to have its course by legendary Willie Campbell in an untouched state.

Geoff lets this pass without additional comment, but when I Googled the course, many websites give him credit for a 1965 design or redesign, although most say it was open in 1896.  Nothing in the photo suggests an untouched Campbell course.

So, it raises the question in my mind....are there any greens or features done by WC that are truly untouched?

TMac, do you know of any from your research?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 31, 2011, 09:22:17 AM
Anyone.....anyone?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 31, 2011, 09:33:31 AM
Jeff,

I'm not sure, is the short answer.  

Probably the one that has the best chance would be the green on today's par three 7th at TCC, which seems to be a Campbell hole that survived and that most accounts mention as the oldest green out there.   Tom MacWood believes some other holes there may have survived but we haven't yet had that discussion in-depth...if I understand him correctly he may also be thinking about today's 2nd green, 14th green, and 17th green, although I'm not sure if it's more the green that survived or the holes.

At Myopia...hmmm...if it was indeed designed by Campbell then the greens that might be original in my mind would probably be today's 8th and possibly today's 11th, although it was played from near the 10th tee originally.   I believe most of the others we know about have changed either location or construct.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 31, 2011, 09:43:32 AM
Mike,

Thanks. It would be cool to know.  That USGA article did comment on how hard it is to substantiate those type of claims as being untouched.  But, I will take a look at the TCC aerials when I get a chance. I recall thinking those couple of greens looked pretty old fashioned at TCC while attending the Ryder Cup there. 

As discussed in the Rees Jones thread, it appeared he kept the fill pads when reworking the bunkers there.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 31, 2011, 10:22:55 AM
Trying to guess what the original nine looked like is an exercise in futility IMO, especially considering the speculation is based largely on Weeks suspect book. I'd be surprised if the original nine ran off the Myopia property as Weeks suggested. Three of Mike's holes are on land owned by Hopkins. Also the seond hole was known as Kennels, Mike's second hole is no where near the kennels.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 31, 2011, 10:25:47 AM
Trying to guess what the original nine looked like is an exercise in futility IMO, especially considering the speculation is based largely on Weeks suspect book. I'd be surprised if the original nine ran off the Myopia property as Weeks suggested. Three of Mike's holes are on land owned by Hopkins. Also the seond hole was known as Kennels, Mike's second hole is no where near the kennels.

Tom,

Actually, the first hole was known as "Kennels" and while the course generally is nowhere near the kennels, the first hole (today's 2nd) went out towards them.   Believe me, I could hear them barking when I was on this green and the next.  

It was a short, 300 yard version of today's 2nd hole.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 31, 2011, 10:27:31 AM
Tom,

I agree that Mike's guess is probably flawed, as it is useless (but fun) to try to figure out where it went.  I recalled the second hole being called Kennels from your earlier post.  The only interest I would have in such a routing is, as above, to see which 2-3 fill pads might be Willie Campbell fill pads for greens, so if I ever get there again, I could see what some real Willie Campbell work might look like.

I would not be surprised if some holes did run on Hopkins land, though.  I know you posted earlier that "it made no sense" and it probably doesn't, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way!

BTW, do you know of any WC features left at any golf courses, or just holes still routed in the same corridors?  If not, I understand, and if so, thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 31, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Mike
Your first hole is no where near the kennels.

Jeff
Since we don't know which holes are Campbell's and which holes are Leeds' it is impossible to know for sure if any of his features survived.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 31, 2011, 11:43:18 AM
Tom MacWood/Jeff,

While I agree my hypothetical routing is subject to criticism, and an attempt at stimulating discussion, I certainly wouldn't agree that it's an exercise in futility.

We know the names of the holes, and even David agrees that the first hole and last four holes are roughly as I outlined.

I'm also not sure why you say my first hole is nowhere near the Kennels? (see below)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/5404446809_ea364dfaa3_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 31, 2011, 12:28:55 PM
Mike
Your 1st hole is 250+ yards from the kennel. Your 1st hole is the current 2nd hole, the next hole, the current 3rd, is today called Kennels. That green is near the kennel.

Feel free to speculate all you want, but IMO speculation upon speculation is an exercise in futility.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 31, 2011, 02:38:37 PM
If first was called Kennel and was existing No. 2 (perhaps with a shorter green near the fw bunkers) and no. 8 was no. 2 and the next holes were called Bullrush and Alps, which put them in the same place as the holes of the same name on the Long Nine, and the fifth was said to turn to the clubhouse, and the sixth had a pond, and if we presume that Weeks is right in his descriptions of the early nine, then

Orig. Nine   Current
1   2

2   8

3   9

4   9t to 11 green

5   12 (approx)

6   Called Pond –
a.  From Ex. 12 Green to Ex. 5 Pond, or
b.  Down to Ex. 4 Tee where there was a pond

7   
a. Reverse of Ex. 4 or
b. Reverse of Ex. 3

8   
a. From Ex 4 Green to Ex 7 Green, or
b. NLE, but between current 2 and 8

9   13 (probably not across road, since first tee was not across road)



If so, they MAY have these existing original greens –

2 - (although I believe it may have originally laid near the fairway cross bunkers and been shorter)
8
9
11, (but it would have to have been used at 90 degrees to what it is today
12 Likely
13 (less likely since the original first tee didn’t cross the road according to Weeks, so there would be no reason for 9 green to have done it
7 although that green would depend on the first routing being used from my speculation above.

I would have to go there to know for sure, but there is my fun attempt at the potential routing.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 31, 2011, 05:19:56 PM
Tom,

Where are you seeing that today's par three 3rd hole is called "Kennels"? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 31, 2011, 05:48:23 PM
Call me a masochist, but this is one possibility for the layout of the original nine hole course at Myopia, based on a few assumptions;

1) The names of the holes would indicate that the first hole and final four are pretty well known.

2) The idea that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land

I've never seen anything reliable which indicated where Dr. Hopkin's land was located.  I have my doubts that Weeks has this correct on this issue, but am willing to consider information confirming his description

Quote
3) The name of the second hole being "Miles River", leading me to believe it would have played towards the river, and towards today's 4th green.

The current third hole plays toward the river.  The current 4th hole plays along side it.

Quote
6) The statement by John P. May that the original course played at 2,025 yards.

This statement has never been verified in any way, shape, or form.  It contradicts other sources, such as the one you posted on the other thread, but of course you ignored the part.
______________________________________

Can anyone confirm the location of the Hopkins property?  I've measured all sorts of ways, and I have trouble finding a definite 51 acres that the club could have purchased.   And why would they purchase 51 acres for what amounts to between 10 and 20 acres of golfing land, depending upon how one measures?  In contras,t the parcel of land west of the clubhouse where most of the expansion took place seems to be about 50 acres.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on January 31, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
David,

Are you saying the Hopkins property depicted on page 43 of Weeks as 51 acres isn't an accurate depiction?

Reading page 42 again, it is a second mention that Hopkins allowed play on the fringe of his estate. I doubt Weeks quoting whoever would get it wrong twice.  At the same time, it sounds like the original course was just barely on Hopkins land, not all the way out to where four and five sit now.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on January 31, 2011, 09:14:29 PM
David,

We know who John May's source was...he made it very clear in the book.

Similarly, we know who Edward Week's various sources were...again, he lists them all in his book.

Could you tell us who the sources were for the anonymous gossip colunnists who told us there were two links at Myopia, that the Myopia opening day tournament was held at Essex CC in Manchester, who told us that HC Leeds only started playing in spring 1894, and who told us that Willie Campbell laid out Myopia about ten days before it opened for play? 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on January 31, 2011, 10:34:33 PM
Tom,

Where are you seeing that today's par three 3rd hole is called "Kennels"? 

I have no idea what they call it today, that is what they called that hole in the 1900 Golf Guide and the 1902 US Open.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on January 31, 2011, 11:17:56 PM
Jeff Brauer,

It could be that the 51 acres were to the northeast of the property, as described by Weeks, but as I said I have my doubts.   Rather than take Weeks word for it like you guys do on everything, I simply asked if anyone has any actual supporting documentation for Weeks claims about the purchase.  By your post it seems you don't, but instead cite Weeks as if Weeks obviously had all his ducks in a row.

David,
Reading page 42 again, it is a second mention that Hopkins allowed play on the fringe of his estate. I doubt Weeks quoting whoever would get it wrong twice.  

What are you talking about?  I am not aware of and Weeks "quote" about the 51 acre purchase.   There is no such quote on page 42, and no such quote on page 32, where Hopkins property was also mentioned.

Why claim he is quoting when he isn't?   It seems you are trying to imply he must have a firm basis for what he wrote when he gives no such indication.  

Quote
At the same time, it sounds like the original course was just barely on Hopkins land, not all the way out to where four and five sit now.

It is pretty apparent that Weeks was guessing when it came to the original nine holes, because says as much:  "The actual layout is a matter of speculation . . .."  He is also flat out wrong in his description of the holes.   That article I posted lists the names of the original holes, and they do not jibe with Weeks description.  Weeks has the current 8th as the second hole, but the second hole was called "Miles River" yet the current 8th was no where near miles river or the hole later called Miles River.   Weeks described the 3rd-6th as bullrushes, alps, valley and pond, but these were likely the 6th through 9th holes.   In other words, he leaves out three or four holes, and includes one that may not even have been used!   If he is secretly quoting someone like you claim, then I would question whether that someone knew what they were talking about either.  

In fact, it seems that Weeks is simply reciting the first six holes of the supposed long nine from Bush's account, changing the yardage on the first hole to further reflect Bush's comments!  

But Bush's account of the supposed long nine is also questionable.   As has already been discussed and his own comments indicate, his account was written well after the formation of the course, and when one compares Bush's account to those written closer to the time in question, inconsistencies become apparent.  For example, here is the description of that initial nine according to George Sargent, from the May 1898 edition of The Golfer:

 The golf course of the Myopia Hunt Club, on which the open championship of 1898 will be played, is said to be the longest nine-holevcourse in the country. Experts have pronounced the links the best natural golf grounds in America. The playing length of the grounds is 2865 yards. The first tee is on the side of a hill, from which the player drives over a road, a built-up bunker into a wide field, where good lies are almost certain. A brassy shot over a bunker, and a short approach will bring one to the green, which is in a hollow. The distance is 380 yards, and the bogey is four.
  From the second tee the drive is up a slight elevation and alter a brassy shot over the brow of the hill a full iron shot brings one to the green, situated on a knoll. ]oe Lloyd, the open champion, has reached the end of the green on his second shot and made the hole in four, although from the tee to the hole is 425 yards.
  One short hole—100 yards—is found on the course, but it is a clever one, although it has been done several times in two strokes. The tee is built up in the middle of a swamp. making a topped ball cost dearly, and the hole is in a depression beyond the swamp, paying a premium for accurate play.
  "The Alps," as hole number four is called, is one of the best holes of any course in the country, being much like "the Maiden" on the course in Sandwich, England.  The distance is 250 yards and two rolling hills are to be covered.  Some of the longest rivers my carry a ball over both hills and make the hole in two, but a short drive will drop in a hollow between the hills, necessitating an iron play to the green, which is then out of sight beyond the second hill.  
  Number five, "the Valley" hole, is 300 yards, and the drive is down a narrow valley, from a tee on a high elevation. With a cleek shot the player may come to the green, which is a wide one, and by careful play hole out in three, although four is creditable play. The hole must be played with good direction, as there is a high hill on the right and a marsh on the left.
  Among the traditions of the Myopia Hunt Club, one of the most highly-prized relates to the sixth, or "Pond" hole. The tee is at the edge of the pond, over which the player drives. The distance is 250 yards and the green is on a hill beyond the pond. The hole has been done in three, a long drive carrying the ball to the edge of the green, but most players drive over the pond with a cleek, and use an iron to the green. Sometimes, as in the tradition mentioned, the ball goes into the pond, followed by unsmothered curses.  History relates that in the early clays of Myopia golf, one enthusiastic tyro drove three golf balls into the pond and then sent his caddie to the clubhouse for a fresh supply. Opening the box brought by the caddie he drove the whole dozen in succession into the untroubled pond, and then returned to the clubhouse, his feelings relieved and the third commandment unbroken.
  "The Orient," as the seventh hole is called, is 400 yards and has been done in three strokes. A well-placed bunker calls lor a good second shot, and after this is passed the approach to the green is easy.
  Hole eight is the longest in the course.
510 yards, and it takes three full shots to come up to the green. A bunker penalizes a topped ball from the tee, and a high bunker and cop will punish a short second stroke.  Twice this hole has been done in four strokes but most players are satisfied with a five on the card.
  At the ninth hole, which is 250 yards a bunker entraps any badly driven ball.  As the drive is downhill there is a long roll, and several times, aided by the wind, the hole has been done in three, the drive being to the edge of the green.
[/i]

Comparing this description to the Bush description, a number of the distances are off, most notably, Bush described the fifth hole (now the twelfth) as 400 yards, while Sargent claims it was 300 yards.   Others are off by 20 to 40 yards, and a number of prominent features mentioned by Bush aren't by Sargent.
____________________________________

Back to the 51 acres.   Measure it yourself.   Take a look at that map on page 43 and compare it to an aerial (you can still see some of the fence lines, such as a corner near the fourth green and measure it yourself.   Admittedly, it is a bit tough to do given the vague course of the river, but so far as I can tell it is not even close to 51 acres.  

But measure it yourself.  And then measure the property on the other side of the clubhouse where most of the expansion took place, and tell me which one seems to be 51 acres.  

____________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Apparently you (and your sleazy mentor who is obviously chirping in your ear) don't have the foggiest idea of what it means to provide proper sources to support one's claims.  Generally referring to a library and some guy who was a member doesn't cut it. Not even close.  For you to pretend that it does exposes you as either incredibly naive or dishonest.

You do know who George Sargent was, don't you?   Well he lists the course at quite a lot longer than Mays did about 70 years later.

The right thing for you to do is admit that you really don't know how long the course was -- I'll gladly admit this myself.  But surely you will go on grasping to something someone wrote 70 years later because it supports your point.   Bush league.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 08:45:48 AM
David,

With all due respect, would this be the same George Sargent who claimed Willie Campbell laid out nine holes at The Country Club in 1893?

In any case, I'm not sure why you are comparing Sargent's description of the Leeds designed "Long Nine" that was going to host the 1898 US Open versus the original 9 hole course at Myopia that John May tells us was 2050 yards long?     We KNOW it changed from the original, and very significantly as you point out.

It was even longer by the time the tournament was actually held.   As documented, Leeds continued to try to toughen the course through this period, and the yardages for the tournament were as follows:

1 Kennels 380 Yards
2 Prairie 428 Yards
3 Bullrushes 135 Yards
4 The Alps 220 Yards
5 The Valley 400 Yards
6 Pond 300 Yards
7 The Orient 347 Yards
8 High 500 Yards
9 Home 260 Yards

Total 2970 Yards.

Now, where have I seen that number before??   Hmm....wasn't that the number you claimed that the 1899 article said the original course at Myopia was built at?

Hmmm...how did I know that was in error and dismissed it?

You've just proven it.   Thanks.

btw...John May was so happy with his sources he made special mention of them in the 1974 book, as I noted previously.

I'll take inside club sources, records, and documents over gossip columns that have been proven to be hugely erroneous any day of the week(s).  ;)


Tom MacWood,

I'm not sure what you're talking about...as noted above, the 1st hole in 1898 (and of the original course), which is along the corridor of today's second hole was named "Kennels".   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 01, 2011, 09:12:10 AM
David,

I measured the Hopkins property in CAD and it comes out to 44-46 acres, depending on where I draw the line. It also requires that I used some supposedly known hole yardages to scale the drawing, so it might be a little off.  All in all, given the methods, it doesn't seem too unlikely that it was as recorded by whatever documents existed.  I didn't measure the other side of the property because I didn't really know which area you were considering.

I see your point in the Weeks description of the original nine, and the only way those holes could be right (forgetting the names) is if the current 12th was shorter, and the then sixth played over the pond towards 12 green, and then the course ventured over to the edges of Hopkins property.  Even that might require crossing fw, which are not out of the question in those days.  I spent a little time looking at routings that fit the Weeks description of the holes, and am not sure I came up with any good ones.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 09:20:20 AM
Jeff,

Why do you think my proposed routing is off?

As I just showed, the original 1st hole known as Kennels is todays 2nd hole, and the last four are pretty obvious.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 10:16:52 AM
Mike Cirba,

Like I said, I don't know how long the holes were originally, and neither do you.   Only one of us is pretending to know.

_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer.

Can you show me the borders you used for that measurement?   I can't come up with anything close to that. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 01, 2011, 10:44:42 AM
David,

Check your email.  Yes, I know I violated your “don’t contact me rule” but since you asked…….

Mike,

Your fourth hole goes over a pretty substantial ridge.  They already had the Alps later.  While its possible, I am not sure about that hole and how it fits the topo.

I think the key to this might be to look again at hole names....

Perhaps the third, or shooting box, which would logically be located in the brush, aiming out to the open meadow.

Not sure where a track would be or was.  A Horse Track?  Certainly not an early track and field for the school?

Perhaps the key to the deal is to find out where the old schoolhouse was?  Out west, I know they were placed on top of tall hills, and the ridge between current 5 and 7 is quite tall, and we know the next hole is the current ninth, sans pond.  If it was located along Miles River Road, it could also be possible, as other holes seem like they are close to, but not necessarily right on the features they were named for.

It is also possible that something like the current sixth was called "Bullrush" and existing 7 was the original 7th, as well.

It may be futile to try to figure out the first routing, but it sure is fun.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 01, 2011, 11:17:26 AM
BTW,

I did locate a USGS map supposedly first mapped in 1893. It shows one structure across Miles River Road just north of the Bush Tract at the current corner of Miles River and Reihhalter Lane and the site appears to still be a public park.  No other strucutures are shown on the big hill.  I have no idea if this one dot on the map was the schoolhouse or not.  

I also note that there was a railroad track that came closest to the golf course about where the 4th green sits now.  In current aerial photos, you can also see remants of it at the north end of the range. The former branch line connected at Hamilton to the west, and crossed the Miles River just west of Miles River Road, and there was a small station there.  Perhaps this gave the railroad the same type of prominence/history as the old schoolhouse did?

I would be going out on a limb but these names would suggest that

1 was current 2 (green near kennels)
2 was current 3 (green near Miles River)
3 was current 4 (Tee or other feature) near a former shooting box in brush by river)
4 was the current 5 (tee by the railroad track)
5 was current 6 (tee by the old school house on Mile River Road)
6 was current 9 (without the formal pond) and same as 6 on Long Nine
7 was same as 7 on Long Nine (current 10 tee to 11 green)
8 was same as 8 on Long Nine, and 12 today
9 was same as 9 on Long Nine, and 13 today

There are obviously a few other configurations that also make sense based on the hole names.

However, if this is anything close to right, Leeds in fact used nearly all of Willie (or Appleton's holes) in the final 18 after having been abandoned on the long nine, or at least versions, thereof.  And, if correct, then David had it almost exactly right back on his post on page 13.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 12:23:53 PM
Jeff,  I looked a bit into the names back before my suggestion of the holes.  I  believe the RR station for Hamilton/Wenham was on Miles River Road across the river, to the north of the current fourth green and fifth green.  

As for school, there was (and is) a school on top of he large hill across Miles River Road from the current 6th tee.  For a long time it was a "junior seminary"  and it goes way back, but I haven't figured out whether it goes back all the way to 1894.    Given that the club obviously had horses,  "school" could also refer to that portion of the property where the young horses were kept and trained.   Shooting box could refer to one of a few things:  a shed or outbuilding where firearms, powder, hunting supplies were stored; a cabin used for hunting; or a permanent blind or structure used for shooting.   Were I to build the last of these, it would be somewhere along the river.  

As for your measure, I don't think that the drawing on page 43 is too scale.   I know it has a scale, but I have tried to superimpose it over aerials, and it doesn't  match up on the west side of the property.   If you look at the google aerial, you can see a number of the boundaries and landmarks shown on that map, including the jutting corner of the rock wall near the 4th green and 5th tee, as well as the road/trail to the left of the sixth.    Using these landmarks, the land is not anywhere near 40 acres, much less 51.

You would have a lot better luck getting others to accept your routing if you left out the part about it being the one I came up with 38 pages ago.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 03:09:00 PM
David,

Why do you accept Weeks' contention that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land?   What "source" are you using, and what corresponding information is there to verify this that you feel comfortable with?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 03:55:06 PM
David,

Why do you accept Weeks' contention that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land?   What "source" are you using, and what corresponding information is there to verify this that you feel comfortable with?

Huh?  I don't even accept the contention that land to the north east of the clubhouse was Hopkins' land.  It may've been, but I've never seen anything indicating that it was, other than Weeks unsupported claim.   If it wasn't Hopkins land, then they weren't playing on Hopkins land, were they?  

Your question makes so little sense that I have to wonder about its origins.  Just so you know, I am not interested in discussing this with your sleazy mentor, whether through you or not.  So please don't act as his conduit here.   Not saying you have been, but please don't. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 04:13:12 PM
David,

I'm speaking for myself and if Tom Paul ever wants to engage with you again I'm sure he doesn't need me.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 04:18:01 PM
Good, but he needn't bother, because I want nothing to do with him.

Your question made no sense whatsoever.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 04:27:01 PM
David,

If the only source you'll avail yourself to is newspaper articles and gossip columns and refuse to acknowledge that both Weeks and May used internal club records and deeds then I would agree that further discussion is a pointless waste of time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 04:45:30 PM
David,

If the only source you'll avail yourself to is newspaper articles and gossip columns and refuse to acknowledge that both Weeks and May used internal club records and deeds then I would agree that further discussion is a pointless waste of time.

Mike,  You really should give some thought to how historical research and analysis works.   If May and/or Weeks had the sources you claim they had, then they should have provided those specific references.   In fact, Weeks does source most of what is in his book, enough so that it raises questions about the source for the rest.   This song and dance you guys pull about how if they had access to the club then everything they write must be accurate is absolute nonsense, and has been proven to be a faulty process repeatedly.  Yet about all you guys have to offer this conversation is this mantra that if Weeks (or now May) said it, it must be true.  That is joke at this point, but not a funny one.  

You don't know how long the original course was.  I don't either.  There is no crime in that, either way.  But for you to grasp onto some claim made 70+ years later as if you were there to measure the course yourself?  That is bush league.  

___________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

I forgot to mention another slight confusion by Weeks concerning the purchase.  To read Weeks, it appears as if Leeds proposed the purchase and expansion of the course after the 1898 open was played there.  But reportedly, they had already bought the property in 1897 and had laid out the course before the open took place.  A minor detail, but not the kind of detail that Weeks would have gotten wrong were he relying on the type of records you guys assume he must have been relying on.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 04:55:33 PM
David,

I'm sorry, but I don't believe John May would have written 2025 yards without an internal source he felt was valid.

Nor would he and/or Weeks have just separately conjured the story of Appleton and co. Out of pixie dust.

Whatever their source(s), it's not something either of us have seen, but to not acknowledge they each believed they had definitive information when they respectively wrote their accounts seems a bit queer.

I do think it is funny that you are now taking it upon yourself to determine what is and isn't historical research and analysis.  Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 01, 2011, 06:44:41 PM
Mike,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method


For some general info on the historic research methods, here is one source.  I am sure we could all thump our chests or chastise others for their methods based on this.  From my perspective, none of us are qualified historians, free from bias, perfect in method, yada, yada, yada.

Short version: It still depends on the skill of the researcher more than anything!

David,

Weeks text Re: the Hopkins land might be confusing.  The map on pg. 43 does say 51 acres was purchased in 1897, though.

When I have time, I will triple check the measurements against Google.  That bar scale appears to have blocks of 50 yards - unusual except on some golf scorecards.  All in all, I have no trouble presuming that the map in Weeks (although redrawn for the book) came from some records.  While I can understand that there might be some reason he left out Willie Campbell from his book that we don't know or understand, I doubt that every single representation in that book requires skepticism and double checking.

Note: Edited to post the correct link.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 06:46:41 PM
Mike, I am not taking it upon myself to define or determine competent historical analysis.  Rather I am simply communicating to you some of the most basic tenants, without which historical analysis necessarily fails.

Surely Weeks and May had reasons for writing what they wrote.  So what?  That only begs the question:  What were the reasons? Upon what sources did they rely?  Are these sources trustworthy? Are they consistent with what else is out there? Etc.  You don't ask those questions about what May  or Weeks wrote, because you agree with it and want it to be true.  That is shoddy methodology, and the same methodology that has made you look foolish on so many of these issues.

You don't know how long the original course was.  Your refusal to acknowledge this is telling.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 01, 2011, 06:57:04 PM
David,

To be fair, basically those same questions could be asked of those newspaper articles.  Since three read as one, and seem to come from the same source within the club, is it not fair to dig to see where that source was?

The critique of the newspaper articles could go like this:

What were the reasons? - Meet Deadline? Report on high society? Include a famous name to get more readers?

Upon what sources did they rely? - Who in the club gave them that information?  Was he an insider, a press agent, etc.

 Are these sources trustworthy? - See above

Are they consistent with what else is out there? - Why do they contradict club records/history, and vice versa?

A primary source may be one closer in time period or closer to actual events.  I am not sure we can accpet the newspapers as a sole source and not Bush, etc. even if he wrote later, at least according to Wiki.

Not saying either is right or wrong.  I sure see both points.  But, the core principle is to seek out all documents, and that clearly hasn't been done yet, for reasons noted.  Thus, is it fair for any of us to draw a conclusion?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 10:54:29 PM
Jeff Brauer,

"To be fair," the two have nothing to do with each other.

If you want to look something up on Wikipedia perhaps you should try critical thinking, or some such concept that might help you two to analyze the various sources of information.  Perhaps then we could get away from this tit-for-tat illogic where you try to justify your interpretations by comparing them to some reasoning of mine, whether the two are comparable or not.  

For example, you again come at me with this inapt comparison between the newspaper articles and Weeks/May.  There are solid reasons to think that the information in those newspaper articles came from someone who was involved and/or knew what they were talking about.   As for Bush, as I have explained some if it seems credible, other parts don't, yet whether it is credible or not, NOTHING WE'VE SEEN FROM BUSH COMES CLOSE TO ESTABLISHING THAT AM&G LAID OUT THE COURSE.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 01, 2011, 11:21:44 PM
Cmon David...get real.

You haven't the slightest idea who the "source" of thse gossip column articles is, and they were so mistake ridden and wholly ignorant of the nascent game that I've pointed out time and again their errors in place, meaning, contxt, and content to the point of absurdity.

While we don't know the contnets of the Weeks and May articles, at least we know their sources, which is a damn sight better than anonymous articles talking about two links at Myopia, and opening day tourney at Myopia being held at Essex CC in Manchester, HC Leeds only starting to play the game in spring 1894, and an empty pastureland with no course planned on May 19th scheduled to open for golf in just another week or two once the sheep are done eating.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 01, 2011, 11:44:30 PM
Mike,  Posts like that show that you just playing games and that you will say anything if you think it helps you rhetorically.  

One doesn't get much better evidence than an article written at the time of the opening and containing not only a statement of who laid out the course, but also a host of detailed and accurate information about the course and what else was ongoing.  For example, you and everyone else has accepted that the hole names are accurate, yet you think the part about Campbell laying out the course is fiction?  All you are doing is cherry picking out what you like, and dismissing all the rest as unreliable.  

In short, you are extremely disingenuous in the way you deal with the source material.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 07:39:49 AM
David,

My major concern with those articles and why I don't think they are in any way conclusive (besides the obvious factual and contextual errors) is simply the amount of overlapping reporting between Myopia and Essex, where we KNOW Campbell went in June and where we KNOW he laid out a course at that time.

Throw in multiple references to "two links" in multiple papers, which I think is the writers' confused understanding of the nature of those separate clubs and I think one looking at this objectively has to have reasonable doubt in spades!

Even the article you cite as dis-positive confusingly brings Essex into the mix.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 08:27:32 AM
As to John P. May's sources, and what he wrote, I think it should be reiterated at this point;

In the Acknowledgments Section of the 1974 Golf Digest book titled "Great Golf Courses Of The World",  it is written;


The following individuals provided extensive help, research, and background materials for the sections indicated:

US COURSES
- Donald E Casey, president, Chicago Golf Club, for photographs and material on Chicago Golf
- Joseph Hoover Jr., Joseph Hoover and Sons, for photographic film of man courses
- Carlton S. Young, Manager, Myopia Hunt Club, for vintage photographs of Myopia, and Alexander N. Stoddard, Publisher, Essex County Newspaper, for background information on Myopia
- The help of dozens of club managers and presidents of golf courses and clubs in the United States who edited material for accuracy is also gratefully acknowledged.

MEXICO
- and so on....


And, as Phil Young pointed out later, Stoddard served as one of "Masters of the Green" at the club, which essentially equivalent to the Golf Club president, and also was a superb player who once shot 66 at Essex.

And what specifically did May write about the original golf course at Myopia?


MYOPIA HUNT CLUB

The Myopia Hunt Club near Boston sprang from fox hunting, polo, trap shooting, riding plus a healthy interest in lawn tennis.   Myopia first surfaced in 1875 when a tennis club by that name was formed in Winchester, Mass.  In 1881 fox hunting became popular, and the Myopia Fox Hounds was founded.   Finally, on December 16, 1891 the Myopia Hunt Club became official.   It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill, and A. P. Gardner.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on February 02, 2011, 08:42:54 AM
Mike
The only time you have a concern for articles are when they don't match your preconceived notion of the facts. You have presented as many or more articles on this site as anyone. And to my knowledge you have never had direct access to any club records. But despite that you are now parroting the research averse TEP, and advocating his stance comes across as completely hypocritical IMO. And by the way TEP's idea of researching internal club records is picking up a recent club history, and we know how reliable those books can be.

Personally I think it is a complete waste of time engaging you on these historical issues. When you don't like a particular fact legitimate contemporaneous reports become 'gossip columns', well respected professionals become 'itinerants', mentioned in the same breath with poor Tom Dunn, and excellent research sources like Ancestry.com are projected as error prone and completely unreliable. Is your background in politics because you sure have mud slinging and smear tactics down pat?

Because you now see these historical issues through the prism of Merion you are now a biased historical advocate for the status quo instead of an objective analyst searching for the truth.

 

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 09:10:12 AM
Tom MacWood,

I have no issue with newspaper articles, but they are fallible and have been shown to be so.

As mentioned in others posts, I've seen news articles that claimed Fred Pickering laid out Merion, and that William Flynn designed Cobbs Creek, and we've all seen a host of other errors.

However, most times they do report accurately, even if many articles contain minor errors.

This case is a little different, however, Tom, and I think you'd have to acknowledge that.

The reporting of the nascent game in Boston meant that not only were the golfers of that city just learning the game, but the writers of what you have to concede were High Society gossip columns also were learning the game and what it meant.   We therefore have lots of very strange writing about things like "two links", and lot of errors.

You can't deny that.

So, I think it's very reasonable to say that although news articles themselves are evidence, one must consider their veracity and source.   In these cases, we don't know the source, and the writers themselves are anonymous.   Golf is an afterthought to them, and not their primary focus.   They clearly know little about the game and it's reflected in their writing.

So, if what is reported in one of these columns conflicts with what has been reported from internal club sources, then I think we have to view each through the prism of what may be flaws in each.   I would grant you that not every club history is flawless, and they are sometimes maddeningly incomplete.

That being said, you can't replace one flawed system with another and then say you've solved the puzzle.   You haven't.

Unless we can examine ALL the evidence, and consider all their sources intelligently, we are playing with half a deck and this discussion really becomes pointless.

And...if you don't consider and acknowledge that you have your own very real biases as well, I think you are only kidding yourself, Tom.

I will say that I enjoy the fact that you bring information forward...for all of our disagreements I think we at least share a passion for historical research of golf courses, and I thank you for your continued efforts in that regard.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on February 02, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
If you see mention of Appleton or Merrill in a society column it is a legitimate report that you extrude in a million different directions. If you see mention of Campbell laying out Myopia it is a gossip column about an itinerant professional.

Because of you emotional attachment to the Wilson legend at Merion you are now an advocate for the status quo, pure and simple. So when you are not directly disparaging some historical figure threatening the status quo you are throwing out loaded language in a subtle (actually not so subtle) way of disparaging and discrediting.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 09:35:42 AM
Tom,

That really is an unfair assessment.

In the case of Wilson, Joe Bausch found a lot of information that really changed the cast of characters involved at Cobbs Creek and we've embraced it as it tells a richer detailed story.  

In the case of other courses like Philmont (supposedly William Flynn) we've worked to make it clear that evidence instead points to Willie Park, and at Ashbourne (formerly thought to be a J. Franklin Meehan course) was also found to be Willie Park, so please don't tell me that I'm just for the status quo because it's not true.

In the case of Merion, I think the essay and subsequent world war had the benefit of perhaps better explaining the role of CBM and HJ Whigham in the development of that course, but I resist this idea that Wilson wasn't one of the planners of the original course when the evidence indicates he clearly was.   Beyond that, as the man in charge, common sense would dictate that he was the decision maker and should get the credit, no matter who he chose to help advise him.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 10:13:13 AM
Mike Cirba,

Again with the disingenuous broad brush generalizations to try and dismiss an article that, on its face, is a pretty remarkable find.  You wrote:

This case is a little different, however, Tom, and I think you'd have to acknowledge that.

The reporting of the nascent game in Boston meant that not only were the golfers of that city just learning the game, but the writers of what you have to concede were High Society gossip columns also were learning the game and what it meant.   We therefore have lots of very strange writing about things like "two links", and lot of errors.

You can't deny that.


What a joke.   If this case is a little different, it is because of the detail and accuracy and specificity in the key article.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)

You are a fraud on this one, Mike.  This article as about as best as we could ever ask for, and finally cleared up a lot about the early course - including the holes - that was previously unknown.    Your continued attempts to broad brush it with other articles you have misread or distorted is dishonest.   

As for Merion, you are so caught up that you  cannot even avoid distorting its history or my position on it here. A joke. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 10:19:49 AM
David, Tom, and Mike,

Let's be honest here.  First, it is easy to pick out flaws in all our positions and all our methods.  Truthfully, all of us have made numerous mistakes and none proven any truth.   

We really aren't having a great historic discussion. More like a high school debate, but without an adult moderator to tell us its over and time to go home.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 10:28:27 AM
Jeff,

That's exactly my point.

I've only said it about six hundred times previously, but I DO believe Willie Campbell had something to do with the first course at Myopia.

I just also believe the members in question did as well, and these should not be irreconcilable differences or mutually exclusive truths unless someone is just so desperate to prove someone else wrong that they won't accept the reasonableness of the others evidence and position.

I THINK BOTH THINGS ARE TRUE.   Should I shout it from the rooftops and what the hell is so unreasonable about that??

Until we can understand and even examine the sources Weeks and May used to report their findings we are all SOL and definitive answers are not going to be forthcoming.

I guess that makes me a "Fraud" and a "Joke", and whatever block David's Insult-of-the-day meter ends up on when he spins it the next time.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 10:33:42 AM
Mike,

Well stated as to our position.  

We disagree that those three articles are the only reliable source as DM insists.  We think insiders info trump newspaper reporters, with good reason.  In short, those newspaper articles are part of the story, not "as good as it gets" to anyone not trying to make a single point.

Those links, like Wiki, note that good historic method would be to seek out all the relevant documents that might affect the analysis, provide and test alternate hypothesis that fit with all known documents, and refrain from drawing conclusions before assembling all the facts.  That hasn't happened here.  It doesn't surprise me that DM tells me to substitute a link to "critical thinking" since he has been trying to downplay good historic method in favor of critical thinking - his only - to force his points down our throats.

All we have really said is that the story contains conflicting information and won't be told until we understand WHY Willie isn't in the club history.  Three newspaper articles are a good source that must be considered, but stopping there is really very shallow analysis.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 10:47:40 AM
Mike,  Your duplicitousness with the way you deal with the source material is a joke, and exposes you as a fraud.  If you don't like the characterization, change your ways. 

Jeff Brauer,

If additional source material exists, then bring if forward.   But until then, quit pretending to be relying on additional source material.  You are not.   I have all the information you have, and more.   The only difference is, I choose to question it, while you accept it wholeheartedly despite the obvious flaws.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 10:50:01 AM
David,

You miss the point and that last statement exposes the flaw in your thinking.  None of us can get at that material right now.  The flaw is in your thinking that you can overcome that hurdle via the magnifgence of your "critical thinkng."

As to pretending to be relying on source material, right back at ya, bud.  As to choosing to question it, we only choose to question parts of it, all of us, thus revealing our biases.  I admit mine.  You don't.  Your biases keep you from being a good historian.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 10:56:29 AM
I didn't miss the point at all.   You claim proper methodology as you hide behind sources that you don't have, sources that are at this point largely figments of your imagination and the imagination of your buddy.    In contrast, I deal with what we have and do the best I can with it, knowing there is always a possibility that more will be brought forward, that may change my viewpoint.

In this case there is quite a lot available, and the key secondary sourses are a pretty transparent window as to what else is out there, and it ain't much.  The big fictions and fantasies created by your buddy - the Leed's "Diary", the much vaunted Run Books, the records stating that they definitely "staked out the course"  - none of it has panned out.   Sure records may exist, as may a scrapbook, but none of it is nearly what your buddy has portrayed.  He was lying to us or lost in his own fantasyland.   Yet you cling onto his fantasies as if they were scripture.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 11:29:23 AM
David,

I believe you are the only one who believes that you can tell us what documents say without seeing them.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 12:25:55 PM
David,

I believe you are the only one who believes that you can tell us what documents say without seeing them.

Cheers.

Nonsense.  You rely on documents you haven't seen and may not exist all the time.  Just yesterday you were telling me about how Weeks was quoting someone when he wrote about the purchase of the Hopkiuns land, even though he was not.  And you still insist that the information must have come from somewhere accurate and reliable.  Same goes for your frequent references to the supposed Leeds Scrapbook and the supposed records.  You guys tell us repeatedly that these documents must have said exactly the same things as eventually appeared in the weeks book, even though you've never seen these records are know very little about them and nearly nothing about what they say.

All I have done is tell you guys to back up your claims.  You can't, so you try a BizarroLand switcheroo where you ridicule me for refusing to rely on documents none of us have seen and which may not even exist.   That and you repeatedly misrepresent what was contained in the Bush excerpt by pretending it told us who laid out the course.   This sort of thing is about as far from legitimate historical analysis as is possible.   It is one step away from just flat out lying and making up your own sources like your buddy does. 

If you have so much faith in Weeks, then why do you think he was incapable of bringing forward accurate information on the original course?   You seem to have this idea that Weeks' sources would tell us the whole story and so much more, yet Weeks' book contains very little accurate information about the original course. Hmmm, I wonder why? 

Why do you suppose it is that Weeks couldn't even get original holes correct, and he doesn't even know exactly where the course was located or whose land it was on?  Why do you suppose he was speculating even about whether they staked out the original course?   Weeks didn't know, and it is unreasonable for you to assume you would know more based upon the same information.

Yet you guys continue to pretend that there is some holy grail of information which will answer all your questions.  That is always the way it is in these cult things --the promise of salvation if you blindly believe and follow.   But you guys have been duped by a conman.  The same conman has duped you before in similar situations, so I have very little sympathy for you this time.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 12:57:16 PM
David,

I could type out a long response like yours, but its the same arguments again. 

I believe one of the reasons you dismiss the existence or import of internal Myopia documents is that you know that by acting like a horses petute, you have reduced your chances of seeing/analyzing those important documents by about 99.99% so you would prefer to imagine that they don't or never existed.  However, I will wager that few consider that bias as good critical thinking or historic process. Even fewer would believe that this is TePaul's fault, and not your own. 

It is a shame that by the time you get in the gates of the great place that is Myopia, it, like hell itself, will have been frozen over.  (I understand that this may not be the perfect day to use that analogy)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 01:00:22 PM
David,

If Weeks was the only report citing Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner your point might have more merit.

However, the prior John P. May article citing the same three and also including information (course yardage) that Weeks never did makes it reasonable to assume there is a record of this somewhere internal to the club, especially since we know he cited internal club sources.  

I do hope we find out more some day.   Right now, it's a riddle, and your efforts to draw confident and final conclusions really aren't reasonable without all of the sources of information available to us.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 02:53:23 PM
Jeff Brauer.  You know as well as I do that there was never a chance in hell that I was going to be allowed to review Myopia's records at Myopia, even if I wanted to.  They wouldn't even let you on the property, and you are an architect and former president of the esteemed ASGCA, or whatever you guys call yourselves.    

Besides, I have never written anything derogatory about the club or how it's operation.  To the contrary, Tom MacWood and I (but mostly Tom) have done more to clarify their history than anyone else around here, including a certain friend of yours who has done plenty to embarrass that club and about every other club with which he has ever claimed an association.  In fact, so far as I know, the only questionable thing the club has done is choose to deal with your lowlife buddy, but many clubs have made that error.  It must come with the territory.  But go on and keep pretending you know all about these magical mystery documents.  I am sure your buddy appreciates your efforts, as that kind of thing is right up his alley.  Maybe it will finally pay off with that access.

Remind me again, what is your purpose here, anyway?  You don't research, you don't understand research or analysis, how it works or its purpose, you have at best a superficial interest in the subject matter but are perfectly happy to chirp whatever Cornish, Whitten, or your buddy tells you to chirp.  So who are you to lecture me on my research or how it should be done?  It is not as if you are my peer here.  Not even close.  You've got no more basis telling me how to research an analyze as I do telling you how to place drains on fairways.  Less probably.  So who the hell are you to question my motives and methodology?   Who are you to compare what you do around here to what I do?  You and your buddy couldn't research your way into or out of a library if you had a map and a guide dog.  As soon as you contribute something original and/or relevant, get back to me.  Otherwise, when are you going to make good on your promise you keep making to walk away?  
__________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

You keep on as if May's project was some big well-researched club history created separate and apart from anything Weeks was doing.  That is unrealistic, at best.

According to Weeks, he had long been working on his project by the time May would have gotten around to his article.  Given May's connections to the guy within the club, do you really think that May was dealing with some separate batch of information?  That's rather strange logic, don't you think?   And if May had all this great stuff that Weeks didn't, how come it never made its way to Weeks, whose book came out not that many years later?

Look again at May's acknowledgements.  Most of his information is coming from the clubs or inside the clubs.   With Myopia it looks like he went a bit further, but surely that was because the Club didn't really know, or because Weeks was in the process of trying to figure it out.  Either way, given that May's information likely came from his buddy at Myopia, their conclusions can hardly be considered corroborating.    For example, if you and your mentor make the same claim based on the same information, that makes it no more likely for it to be true than if only one of you had made the claim.

As for the May quote of the course distance have you really thought of how incredible May's claimed was.  Comparing his version to Weeks, the course would grown just short of 900 yards - 878 yards to be exact - in two years.  That is a 43% increase in growth, the equivalent of a 7000 yard course being lengthened to over 10,000 yards!  

Never mind the percentage change.  In real terms, 878 more yard in two years is a huge increase, especially on a course of only nine holes. In yardage terms, it amounts to an additional hole of 400 yards, a 300 yard hole, and a 178 yard hole.

Think of it this way.  On average, the distances would have had to increase almost 100 yards per hole (97.7 to be exact.)   Yet many of the holes couldn't have increased much at all, so the increase would have had to have been much greater than 100 yards per hole on some of the holes!    

And yet, according to Weeks, the first six holes of the supposed "long nine" were also part of the original nine!  And remember that except for the first hole, in these days they generally played from green to green.   So while some of the original holes may have been somewhat shorter,  were they couldn't have been shorter by much, or the golfers would have been walking 90 yards between each green and tee!  

According to Weeks, the total distance for the first six holes on the long nine (1912 yards) was only 138 yards shorter than the supposed distancie of the entire original course from only two years earlier (2050 yards.)  Yet the original course supposedly contained all six of those holes, plus three more?   Unlikely.      

Look at the layout.  A number of these holes couldn't have been much shorter than they already were.  Weeks said the first was 80 yards shorter.  This could be --the first tee wasn't necessarily tied to the location of the previous green.  Weeks said the second was shorter but was still "three wood shots,"  and to get to the get from the supposed location of the old first green to the tee box of the third hole (locked in place by the pond) was around 475 yards, so the hole couldn't have reasonably been too much shorter than the 427 yards Weeks claims without necessitating a long hike. The third was locked in place by the swampy bullrushes  and was only 100-130 yards on the long version, so it couldn't reasonably have been shorter.  The next and was only 250-275 yards even on its lengthened version and the "alps" didn't move, so it is doubtful it was much shorter.  The valley hole had to get the golfer all the way back to the pond hole tee so while it could have been somewhat shorter, it couldn't have been too much shorter.   And the last was only 250-285 yards after the course was supposedly lengthened. Given it played over a pond to a ridge on the other side, how much shorter could it have been?  

Seriously.  Where can one find the much shorter versions of these holes?  Were the missing three holes less than 100 yards each in length?    Even if so, the math still doesn't work.  The holes could not reasonably have changed enough to make sense of both Weeks' and May's descriptions.   Maybe May read 2950 as 2050. Otherwise, his claim makes no sense.

Think of it as a race course and the greens as checkpoints.    We know some of these checkpoints were locked in place by natural features, and we know where others were supposedly located by the description.   There just isn't that much room to shorten or lengthen without rearranging the entire thing.  

And Mike, rather than railing at me in response, let's try to be productive.   Please explain to me where all this distance could have been made up, given Week's description of six of the holes?   I could buy a few hundred yards difference. But almost 900 yards?   I don't see it.   Do you?  

Thanks.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 03:24:54 PM
David,

My purpose? Its an open discussion group, so I discuss, with all that entails. 

I admit you are an expert arguer, and I believe all of us who participate in this endless charade probably like the debate aspects more than we really care about history.

I will also admit you spend more of your free time digging up old documents, but do remind you that just the other day, I did do some research on this thread, pulling up old USGS maps and making my own critical analysis of the potential early routing, a subject which fasinates me more than giving credit to either Willie or the club.  As it happened, my work there led me to agree with you, which I was happy to acknowledge.

When I disagree with you, I point it out.  As you tell all of us, if it offends you when I make a point, then I guess that is your problem.

Here is another area where I disagree with you - you shouldn't flatter yourself about how you use documents.  I recall that as to Merion, you maintain that CBM routed the course over a period of time between June and November 1910.  As it happens, there are no documents that have ever come forward proving that, but you still maintain your position.

So, for you to tell anyone else that our positions rely on documents we never seen, its just hypocritical. 

In essence, you believe what you believe and twist the documents (or to be charitable, interpret) them one way based on your biases, and all of us do the same, while drawing different conclusions.

Again, not meaning to offend, but really, just another example of why this thread should end until someone sees the club documents - whatever they turn out to say - to further historical discussion.  I would think this group would be all pissed out by now........

But, I do agree with your last sentence to Mike.  We should all try to be productive.  It was fun to try to piece together a routing, even while admitting that its probably wrong, even if we both agree.  Trading insults based on your supposed historical superiority, well, not so much.  So, lets try to be productive, shall we?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 10:31:50 PM
David,

I was surprised at that total yardage at 2050 yards for eighteen holes too, so I passed it by Tom MacWood who assured me that many of Willie Campbell's earliest courses were indeed in that abbreviated range.

I'm not sure how accurate Weeks was in his admitted speculation about the original course but it does seem from the hole names very likely that we've nailed (as did Weeks) the first, and 6 thru 9, agreed?

That leaves us to figure out four holes, and the combination of John May's yardage and TMac's concurrence, my routing is meant to indicate a course of that total yardage, and also based on the hole names as mentioned in my assumptions on the post where I included a possible routing.

I may be wrong, but I'm trying to work with the very incomplete evidence at our disposal.

Hope that helps!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 10:34:32 PM
Oops...I meant nine holes, not eighteen, but can't edit from my Blackberry.

Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 02, 2011, 11:10:06 PM
Mike Cirba,

It is impossible for me to do it exactly, but when I measure your routing, I come up with something quite a bit longer than 2050 yards. More importantly, I don't think some of your hole estimates are realistic. To keep the yardage down you left fairly substantial walks between tees and greens, sometimes 40-50 yards, and you know as well as I do that this would have been pretty incredible for a course at this time to have such walks.  

If you measure your course point-to-point (a more accurate portrayal of how golf was played back then,) using your green sites as the points, it measures at about 2530 yards.

_____________________

Even you admit that Weeks was likely wrong about his speculation regarding the first nine.   So explain to me how May could have gotten it correct while Weeks had it wrong?  Did Myopia lose more records during the few years between the May article and the Weeks book? Did May refuse to reveal his sources and take his secrets to the grave?  Was there a plot to keep the accurate information from Weeks?

It doesn't make sense that May would have had better information that Weeks.  If anything, May would have been working with more limited information that Weeks, since May apparently went to Weeks' club for his information! I will be very surprised if May's 2050 number is ever confirmed.  By reliable sources, I mean.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 11:20:54 PM
David,

I'll give a shot at yardage measurements of my hypothetical original nine hole course tomorrow....I did Google Earth them all, but as Joe Bausch mentioned, my translation between measuring and "Paint-ing" leaves something to be seriously desired.

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 11:25:11 PM
David,

Once again, we totally agree. It’s like we were separated at birth!

No, just messing with ya again.

For what its worth, I measured the routing that you and I more or less agree on as 2639, assuming the shorter first hole, etc.  Obviously that could vary.

I actually tried several routings, and with the concentration of tees and greens near current 2G, 13T, 12G, 8T, 7G, all of which could have been in the orignial nine, its possible the missing three holes could be where existing 3 and 4 are now, and assuming a cross over at that location with the routing, 8 could be the original 2, but not with the seemingly logical hole names, unless there was some renumbering shortly after opening day.

I even tried a few routings with crossing fw which wouldn't be out of the question either.

Mike,

I am leaving early tomorrow so I won't have a chance to measure yours.  But, for either Davids routing on page 13 or yours, I believe that if it was 2050 yards, the holes would have to be far more compact than any of us show.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 02, 2011, 11:33:20 PM
Jeff,

Understood and agreed.

I was definitely concerned that my yardage would be over the 2050 limit, and considered that in the rest of the routing.

I'll re-measure tomorrow, but imagine that the holes on Dr. Hopkins land are pretty short, and also that the rest of the course is much more abbreviated (while using some of the same hole corridors) as today's course.

I did get some confidence that I wasn't too far from the mark when recently viewing schematics of the original 1894 9 hole courses, as well as the original 1899 5.200 yard course at Brookline, both also very probably laid out by Willie Campbell, where many of the par fours are very short...many under 300 yards, and the par threes are mere pitch shots by today's standards.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 02, 2011, 11:50:53 PM
I seem to recall TePaul mentioning that he saw something where there was only one par 3 on the original course, at least according to something he had seen.  I have slept since that conversation, and maybe either or both of us got that wrong.

As to the length of the Alps hole, at least one old rendering shows that with two centerlines, meaning it might be 260 the long way, and shorter the direct way.

Random thoughts - It may mean nothing, but I did take note of that statement that the first nine was on "the fringes" of the Hopkins Estate. No one has said how big it was.  If small, the  holes may not have extended up to Miles River Road.

Counter to that is the hole name "track" and school", plus the odd fact that the first five holes were named for external features, and the last four for landforms, possibly suggesting exterior and interior holes, such as David's routing would provide.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 03, 2011, 12:57:33 AM
Mike,  I don't think much purpose will be served of you shrinking down your routing.  There is far too much wiggle room between the holes already, and you still to go through those five same holes.     I think looking at it point-to-point gives a better idea of the approximate length of the course.

Here is the point-to-point measure of your course google path measure for your course.   The distance as 2530.    To make this significantly smaller everything would have to squeeze in, but you cannot move the first tee, the bullrushes, the alps, the pond, etc. so it just doesn't work.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopiapttopt-1.jpg?t=1296712200)

And Weeks suggestions work even less at 2050.   

( I just noticed I have my first point on the wrong side of the bunker on one, but it is pretty much the distance to the second that matters.)

 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 03, 2011, 09:41:55 AM
David,

You're probably right about my course being too long, but theoretically, that second hole could go anywhere out towards the river and still be called "Miles River"...even towards today's 4th tee...

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/5404446809_356906dab2_b.jpg)


...which could then really make those three holes occpy the land seen in this vintage photo of the 4th hole.

Please excuse the very large size of the second blowup but I think the detail is worth it.  Just use the scroll bar to scan to the right.

I noted two thiings immediately...1) The school on the hill in the background and 2) The fact that the entire ridge is devoid of trees.

Jeff earlier brought up an issue about playing blindly over the ridge, yet that is almost precisely what today's 7th hole does, so I'm pretty sure these guys weren't averse to blindness and such.

Still, it's a great picture and i'm hopeful it can stimulate useful, if speculative discussion.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5413444016_f4d19ff417_o.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5413444016_f4d19ff417_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 03, 2011, 11:18:03 AM
It could be as simple as this....I replaced holes 2, 3, and 4 with new ones indicated in Blue.

2 would go towards Miles River

3 would come out of a covey...Shooting Box

4 would be from atop the ridge...School in the background.

I would think the total yardage should be around 2050 or thereabouts...

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5413022719_2c08ce8226_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 04, 2011, 12:54:37 AM
Mike Cirba,

The photo above is great, but it sure would help if you cited your source when you post that sort of thing. I have a guess based on what I see, but it'd be just that.  Looks like a nice hole, I can see why it was so praised.  Thanks.   

Are you speculating about the "school" in the background on the hill, or do you know it was a school? If you know, how do you know? As I said, there was a school on that hill but I am not exactly sure when it was built.

As for your latest attempted routing . . .
 - Given that Weeks apparently knew very little about the routing of the first course, why do you include the current 8th hole?   Weren't you speculating that the golfers would have needed to stay out of the way, and away from the horsemen?  Your routing looks like a bit of a maze for them, doesn't it? And with the 8th right across the middle that section of the property.
 - I've never been there, but from the indications I have seen I suspect you have placed your second green and third tee in a swamp.   Take a look at your photo.  The tee in the photo appears to be back a bit from where you have yours and notice the lowland a bit in front of the tee.  Notice that they have placed what looks like a plank path through the area, and if so that would be a pretty good indication that the area was swampy.  I've seen other indications that this general area was swampy as well. 
- A point to point routing, with every hole measured from green to green (and no doglegs considered) comes in at about 2350, a full 300 yards longer than your routing, so you are fudging your tee to green distances by quit a lot.  (It may sound like a strange method, but I think one of the better ones for getting a true idea of distance on these courses.  They just didn't hike to tees, if they had them at all after the first!  For example the "long nine, using your green for the 5th and a substantially shorter green for 8th comes up with an approximate distance of about 2850, which is pretty close.)
- I am not sure your routing makes the most sense when we think of the expansion of the long nine which happened very soon thereafter (and may have been in the works from the beginning.) They would have been relocating the tees and/or greens on 4 or 5 holes.  Are there remnants of greens where you put greens?  Were those spots even suitable for greens?       
- I am not sure how the names make sense where you have the middle holes, track and school in particular.  Maybe we just don't know what the references were for these holes, but I have trouble connecting the current 8th to that (maybe) school house.  [I am not sure I wrote this already, but "school" is (and I assume was) sometimes used to describe the area where they trained the young horses, but that area of the 8th hole seems awfully big and open to me for that sort of thing.]
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 04, 2011, 01:45:03 PM
I'm not sure if it helps at all, but this was Campbell's routing for TCC in 1894.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5397931763_f198f3426b_o.jpg)


Does anyone have the total yardage for this course?   If not, I'm pretty sure we could derive a close estimate from a modern aerial.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 04, 2011, 02:50:37 PM
What is the source of the map?  What is the source of your photo? Was the map from MacWood?

If so, what is your source of those maps, TomM?

Mike, I really don't understand your unwillingness to properly source this stuff. It reeks of the kind of game playing more typical of your mentor.   If the goal is really to figure out what happened then I don't understand your reluctance to be transparent about these things.

You don't really believe you can get any sort of an accurate distance off of that, do you? 

For what it is worth, Campbell's nine hole Franklin course was sometimes referred to as the longest nine hole course in the country. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 04, 2011, 03:01:58 PM
David,

This is neither an academic symposium nor a f:(ing courtroom.

I've already mentioned where this came from...Tom MacWood.

It's a discussion group...if there is something specific you have a question about or feel needs further validation, ask nicely please.

Thanks
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 04, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
I did ask nicely and repeatedly so, but how many times do I have to ask? Sources matter with this stuff.  It is not so difficult to say where you got something, is it?

As for the photograph, I did ask nicely.   Or do you expect me to beg for something that is really just a matter of good practice and common courtesy?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 04, 2011, 03:13:07 PM
The photo I found during an unrelated search recently...and because the site limits ability to copy electronically, I printed, scanned, and blew it up.

It was from a usga bulletin I believe, cica 1910 or so.

I can try to find again if there is some point of contention?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 04, 2011, 03:20:11 PM
No point of contention.   I just wanted to confirm the date so I knew for sure what I was seeing.  Thanks.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 04, 2011, 03:23:03 PM
David,

You're welcome, and your larger point is acknowledged.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on February 04, 2011, 03:29:13 PM
Whaddaya say we all get together for some wings later as a semi-love fest is about to break out.

;D

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Tom MacWood on February 04, 2011, 10:18:03 PM
I like wings.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 05, 2011, 11:26:58 AM
I like wings.

Actually, Joe, in that cooperative spirit...I went looking for both David and Tom at the 19th annual "Wing Bowl" yesterday morning at the Wells Fargo Center in South Philadelphia.

I had heard a rumor that both might be participating as Eaters in the contest, and my interest was especially piqued when I learned that one of the contestatants was nick-named "MacWing", and another had a moniker of "Wingiarty"....

I wasn't that close to the "action", as the following photos demonstrate, but I do know that one of the competitors claimed that there was no way some Phildalphia amateur chefs could make wings "this good...It doesn't make any sense" he was quoted as saying, and was later disqualified for insisting that the professional chefs from Europe be properly attributed,  and the other contestant quit in disgust after trying to get into the private back kitchen to see if he could decipher the recipe for himself and then later saying that his entire unorthodox eating technique was both misunderstood, and misinterpreted, leaving firing a hail of insults at the judges.  ;)  ;D

So, who knows?   It's possible they were here and I didn't get to enjoy their company.  

I was mostly looking at the Wingettes.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5418923172_a93f2670c1_o.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5418923376_ba5eedcbf9_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 05, 2011, 12:07:12 PM
Here's my shot at overlaying the 1894 Willie Campbell nine holes over today's course.

I'm curious what the total yardage would be....it looks as though it picks up a lot in the last two holes, which are similar to today's holes 8 and 14 of the Composite Course.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5397931763_f198f3426b_o.jpg)

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5418448199_0ebfac247d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 06, 2011, 11:42:26 AM
I'll try to measure this later today. 

I'm surprised to find how many of these early nine holes courses were under 2,500 yards, so I'm curious what this will come out to.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on February 06, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
I'll try to measure this later today. 

I'm surprised to find how many of these early nine holes courses were under 2,500 yards, so I'm curious what this will come out to.

Just measured it myself Michael.  A grand total of 15 1/4".

;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Joe Bausch on February 06, 2011, 02:27:14 PM
Here is the entire 1902 article on Mrs. Willie Campbell, including the pictures.  Use the blue slider bar below to navigate!

(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/williecampbell/July6_1902_StPaulGlobe_all.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 06, 2011, 04:17:57 PM
Joe,

Very funny.  ;)

All,

Not sure if this will help give us a sense of Myopia's original, but here's Campbell's routing of Essex CC as it existed in 1899.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5422981914_bdfa880a64_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 06, 2011, 04:30:23 PM
As close as I can determine from rough estimates using Google Earth, Campbell's nine-hole course for TCC comes in at about 2200 yards.

The last hole is by far the longest, similar to what he did at Franklin Park.   

If nothing else, it would seem to indicate that John P. May's understanding that the original nine hole course at Myopia was 2050 yards was definitely in the ballpark.

Here's the aerial of TCC again;

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5418448199_0ebfac247d_b.jpg)


Estimated yardages are as follows;

1 - 240
2 - 327
3 - 150
4 - 275
5 - 195
6 - 83
7 - 175
8 - 305
9 - 450

Total 2200 yards.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 06, 2011, 05:50:22 PM
Mike, I wish you were joking here but apparently you aren't.   

You cannot begin to get an accurate measure by looking at a rough stick drawing without features. 

The Essex map lists yardages.   What was the total distance there?   Franklin Park was listed as one of the longest nines in the Country.  What was the yardage there?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 06, 2011, 07:42:14 PM
David,

Actually, because of the details around the clubhouse with roads, buildings, racetrack, etc.,  all of the holes drawn can very easily be estimated with reasonableness using points of reference against those same structures existing today.

As far as Essex in 1899, five years later, I'm not familiar enough with the evolution of that course to comment but am also not sure how that is relevent as many of these earliest courses were very short initially but quickly sought to expand once the golfers became more proficient, as happened at Myopia and TCC.

In any case, I did say it was estimated but I'd bet I'm within a 10 pct. margin of error of that drawing overall.   If you see anything that looks egregiously drawn on my part or any glaring errors please point them out and I'd be happy to consider your input...

I'm also not sure what your overall beef is here...Tom MacWood has said previously that Willie Campbell did any number of courses in that yardage range.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 06, 2011, 08:55:48 PM
I have little idea how long TCC was, and I don't care.   My "beef" is with your shoddy methodology.  You have nothing but a stick drawing yet you pretend to tell us how long this course was.   Give us a break already.

Adding a fake margin of error to fake measurements doesn't make the phony measurements any less phony. 

You did the same thing with Myopia, and you had over 500 yards between the tees and greens on a 9 hole course!

Just please quit twisting and stretching everything into something it isn't.   
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 06, 2011, 09:06:52 PM
David.

What are you talking about?

The idea behind the Myopia exercise wasn't some precision drill...it was merely to admittedly speculate on where thos holes might have been based on what we know from Weeks as well as the names of the holes.

Go get a beer and relax...you're missing a good game.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 06, 2011, 09:32:40 PM
Your bit with Myopia was to try and prove the course could have been 2050 yards, even though what we know of it makes that extremely unlikely. 

And don't bother telling me what you think I am missing or to relax.  As usual, you have no idea. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 07:26:10 AM
Ummm...I think I did show that the course could have easily been 2050 yards and even agree with you that it's very possible Weeks was confused about using today's 8th hole at all;  he may have mistaken it with it being the second hole of the Long Nine.   

The reason I don't think they went as far into Hopkins Land as you suggest in your routing is simply from having been there, David...it's the lowest, wettest part of the property and later Leeds had trouble there for years, even devising different footwear for the horses to wear so they wouldn't damage the wet turf so much when pulling mowers.   Or, perhaps they did get into those wet areas which is why they were abandoned in the first place for the Long Nine, but I don't think so....I think they just wanted a bigger golf course and Leeds being a top player would have driven that effort..

I hope you enjoyed the game.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 07, 2011, 10:35:18 AM
Mike,

After seeing the other two Willie Campbell routings, which feature both long walks between some tees and greens on one course, and crossing fw on the other, I am now convinced that we should probably give up on trying to find the original routing.  It was fun for a while, but in the end, none of us really do know.

On the serious side, in the old days, we often had infrared photos of courses flown because they do a better job of showing what might be buried under the ground from the old days.  If Myopia was really interested, that kind of photo might show old foundations, training horse or dog tracks, etc. because it records the difference in soil temps and often shows hidden features, which MIGHT show us what was there.

Just a suggestion, but also one that would be subject to interpretation, as many things could have been buried over the years.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 10:51:39 AM
Jeff,

I would agree.

Although we've been told he was a routing master and vastly underrated for his architectural talents, I'm not sure we've seen much evidence of that, frankly and unfortunately, which was my original point on this thread.  

You should see the original nine hole course he designed at Merion...unfortunately there are issues with my posting it here, so I'll send it to you offline.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 11:52:11 AM
Mike,

You didn't come close to showing the course could have been 2050 yards.   From what we know of the course, the starting point, the first hole, and some approximation of the last four holes, it seems rather unlikely that the course was only 2050. 

And you have never even bothered to try and explain why you think that May would have better, more accurate, and more detailed information that did either the club or Weeks just a few years later.   After all, May supposedly got his information from someone at the club, did he not, a former Master of the Hounds or something?    Were they in cahoots to keep the information from Weeks?   

Mike and Jeff,

Neither of you has seen the "original routing" at either of these courses.  You have seen stick drawings of an approximation of the routings giving a general idea of where the courses were located.    Much like with Mike's attempt at his 2050 courses, it is pretty easy to get the scale wrong on those things and to leave excessive distances between just about all the holes.  For you to rely on these as scale drawings is too much.

Mike, as for your last post where you return to mocking Campbell for being an inferior architect, you again show your true form and biases.     You are doing so based upon stick drawings, for goodness sakes.

Look at he stick drawing you just produced of NGLA.   Looks pretty primitive and simple (as most stick drawings do) so shall we start drawing conclusions about CBM's architectural abilities as well based on the stick drawing alone?  Shall we pretend it is too scale and start drawing all sorts of conclusions about the place?

(Actually you used to try to dismiss CBM as a primitive, dark ages, transition architect with no real experience or abilities when he built NGLA, but now that you've seen the place even you know better than that.  I hope.)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 12:18:32 PM
David,

My analysis of Campbell's routing skills and architecture are based on having been on the property in the case of TCC, the contemporanous descriptions of the number of unsual, unfortunate and artificial hazards incorporated into that routing, and having seen more detailed drawings and photographs of the nine-hole course he built at Merion.  

My lord he was a very important figure in early American golf but clearly not so much in architecture.

How much of his work did Ross keep at Franklin Park, which was probably where he spent his greatest effort?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 12:19:40 PM
Your opinion, Mike, and you ought to have some idea by now of how much I value that.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 07, 2011, 12:21:37 PM
David,

To be honest, I am having trouble seeing the difference in you providing a potential routing for MH based on hole names and your critical analysis, or for that matter, using Google to measure yardages, without leaving space between greens and tees and Mike's effort.

Either we examine all potential routings, for fun, or we examine none.  I guess we can go with none under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 12:49:51 PM
Jeff Brauer,

As usual, you portray historical research and analysis as some sort of egalitarian endeavor where every theory, suggestion, supposed proof, and opinion is as valuable as the next, and we have no reasonable means of sorting through any of them.  Such is not the case. 

We don't have to accept all or none.  We distinguish and discriminate between them and accept only what makes the most sense based upon all we know, leaving open the possibility that it all may change in the future.   

Mikes attempted 2050 routings were a joke.  Even you admitted that they were suspect.   Mike's continued faith in this 2050 yard figure is likewise extremely questionable.    As is yours if you still are sticking with this.

As for my routing, it isn't really mine at all in that it uses some approximation of holes that Myopia used at some time or another.  One of the reasons I suggested it, is that your buddy TEPaul had suggested and/or intimated number of times that there may have been holes dropped from the original nine but then brought back for the eighteen.  At the time I thought he might have actually had a basis for saying this, but in retrospect, given how much he has lied about the information he has supposedly seen, that was probably a rash judgment on my part.   

Anyway, I had my reasons for suggesting the possible routing I did, and I still think it makes more sense than anything else I have seen, but it very easily could be wrong.   

As for measuring point to point rather than trying to guess at each hole length, it obviously isn't perfect, but I like it as a general methodoloigy and think it makes a lot of sense in situations were some of the holes are locked into place by what we know of them and/or natural features, and this seems to be the the case with the first course at Myopia. 

Obviously the method doesn't give us an exact distance of the holes or even of the overall coure, but it does give us an approximation of  the distance covered, and provides a general idea of the approximate total distance.   

The methodology also reflects how they thought of the course in the beginning.  This wasn't cart ball, so it would have been a bit unusual for long treks between every hole.   It was a course, like a race course, not a collection of random holes scattered about the country side.   Why else do you think they almost always described the "courses" in total yardage, usually in miles and fractions thereof, like a course for a horse race?

So criticize my methods all you like, but I've measured some old courses point-to-point and compare it to the listed yardage, and so unlike you I have some idea of whether or not the methodology is actually helpful, and certainly more helpful than Mikes bent attempts at proving a point by fudging measures based on a stick drawing.  Perhaps you should test it yourself before criticizing it further. 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 01:07:14 PM
Jeff,

Would you like me to interpret that for you?

David has been arguing here for two points.

The first, that WC laid out the first nine hole for the club and not the members, but more importantly, that this original course is still largely incorporated in todays' routing.

Obviously, accepting May at his word that the course was 2050 yards long doesn't fit at all with his latter theory, even though I've shown how that could be done and reflect the same hole names, even though TMac has told us that WC designed plenty of courses in this yardage range, even though the stick routing for his course at TCC comes out roughly at 2200 yards.

There is also the usual overt explicit "confidence" that only his opinion is valid and worthy but I guess that's his opinion.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 07, 2011, 01:17:17 PM
David,

Of course you think your critical thinking and method is valuble while others isn't.  You always do!  But, as I have pointed out a few times, there have been flaws in all of our "analysis" including some whoppers on your part, that make all of us other than you accept each of your points as potentially flawed, or at least with some reservations.

BTW, I think I know something about measuring golf courses using CAD and aerial photogrhaphy.  I wasn't really criticizing your method, but thought to myself that it was done as much for convenience in using the Google Measuring tool as it was anything else.  It obviously left out the distances between tee and green, which might reduce the total yardage of your measurements somewhat, so your claim that its a superior method to Mikes doesn't fly with me.

As to your statement "The methodology also reflects how they thought of the course in the beginning.  This wasn't cart ball, so it would have been a bit unusual for long treks between every hole."   If Willie C really did route it, Mike provided two examples of his known routings from the same time period, and one included crossing fw.  The other included long walks.  So, based on contemporaneous evidence, rather than your critical analysis, I suggest your statement is likely incorrect, and that any of our routings without crossing fw may be incorrect.

David, I simply think we can discuss all of this without your constant insults.

Mike,

I will concede the point to DM that the 2050 yardage may or may not be valid, because of May's distance from the project, and even with TMac's info, which I basically trust.  See below.

In addition to my points above, I think your translation of the routings also shows that TCC and Essex apparently had little problem abandoning most holes of the first routing when improving their golf course, and may suggest the same was true at MH, discounting the idea (which I actually shared with DM) that the hole names would show us where the course ran.  Without trying to insult anyones perceptions here, I am not sure we can know if clues based on hole names, other course yardages, etc. are the best evidence at this point.  

I had another thought, realizing its secondary evidence, but how long were the best courses in Scotland at this time that he had competed on?  How long were the two courses Willie laid out at this time?  Would it make most sense that the total length would mirror those courses, and be more valid than May's 80 year later article, which might have transposed numerals and/or simply recopied something previously in error?
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 01:32:50 PM
Jeff,

That's all very possible.   Even David's routing may be correct to some degree, but I think reasonable people would concede all of our theories are wholly incomplete and unprovable based on limited evidence at our disposal.

One thing to consider about Willie's courses abroad is that he was designing them for experienced players....I don't know how long Machrie was at the time, for instance, but the fact that he was dealing with mostly beginners here may have influenced him as well.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 01:41:12 PM
Mike Cirba,

Reportedly Campbell did lay out the course initially and so far as I know there is nothing in the historical record refuting this.

But as for the rest you are confusing yourself here.   You are the one with an agenda, as your post a few ago demonstrated.   You are here to run down Campbell to try and build up Leeds.

I've got nothing against either Campbell or Leeds.  I am just curious what happened.   And I don't know how much of Campbell's work was including in the 18 hole course.   Your mentor is the one who suggested that some of the original course may have been dropped for the supposed long nine and then incorporated back into the original 18, and I don't recall you accusing him of having an agenda.   But that is because at the time you both were clinging to the notion that the original course was laid out by the members.  Now that it is obvious it wasn't you move to tearing down the original so you can exaggerate Leeds contribution.
_______________________________

Jeff Brauer,

I don't give a damn about CAD measurements.  You cannot start with a stick routing and then pretend to know how long the course was.  

And again confuse honesty with insults.   For example, I find your last post quite insulting, especially the parts where you equate what you do around here with what I do, but I know that you probably just don't know any better and thought you were being honest.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 01:46:32 PM
David,

If you think you've proven that Willie Campbell designed Myopia's first nine holes, I'm glad you've convinced yourself, I guess.

I certainly don't need to do anything to enhance Leeds' architectural reputation...the contemporaneous record from all of his peers in this country and abroad already did that quite thoroughly.

Have a nice day.  
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 07, 2011, 01:59:41 PM
David,

Mike used the right methodolgy on the TCC routing. I looked at it and many features like roads and property lines were the same then and now.  While its possible that he made a few wrong assumptions as to where greens and tees lie, it looks pretty damn close to my eye.

I understand that he is relying on the veracity of a stick drawing from the old days, and depending on the source of that drawing, it may or may not be accurate.

I don't see where I equate anything I do with what you do. I did point out that you have made some mistakes (as have we all) with your methods.  By your standards, that is just honesty, not insults.  But, I am insulted by your posts often, too.  Most of the time, its just the air of unearned superiority you project.  In other cases, its the way you accuse others (like Mike) of having an agenda to cover your own.  And in other cases, its how you cleverly use insults to try to mask the fact that your argument has little to nothing to back it up.  And perhaps I am just insulted that you think you bringing historical agendas to a discussion group is the right thing to do, and expecting no discussion!

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone is really buying that stchick at this time.  Most have skedaddled this thread or site completely.  Mike and I are willing to continue a civil discussion on possible routings of Myopia just for fun.  If you think it more than that at this point, I respectfully suggest you find a more historically oriented place to vet your opinions.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 02:12:47 PM
I too looked at Mike's stick drawing yardages, and I think they are a joke, as is any effort to conclude accurate distances from a stick drawing where the exact locations of the greens and tees cannot be determined.

As for the rest, you seem to think I care about your opinion of me, even though I keep telling you that I don't.   So far as I can tell you have little to offer here except for your running dialogue on how much you don't like me and my methods.   Considering the company you keep in these matters, I take your dislike of me to be high praise indeed.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on February 07, 2011, 02:26:50 PM
Well Mike, there you have it!  Even though you matched green and tee sites to existing features that were in place then, it just cannot be done!  I agree its at best an estimate, but then, trying to figure out any part of history with this kind of info really is.

What do we think is more accurate - scaled maps or old newspaper articles, records, etc.?  I put my money on maps.  It is possible in CAD to scale aerials, old maps, new maps, etc. very closely, with just one known dimension.  Some of the existing roads on those maps make that very possible.

As David says, its possible that you may have mislocated a few greens or tees that don't correspond closely to known features, but overall, your excersize may contribute something to our understanding, even if not in stand alone fashion.

David,

We have noted you think Mike's excersize is a joke. 

I have already agreed that part of participation on this thread is the personal grudge side of things.  In terms of pure historic contribution, I would still think that pointing out the errors in your logic and method help keep this thread "fair and balanced" for whoever happens to read it in the future.  Hopefully, a casual reader who googles to one of your posts will read far enough through the thread to at least find out that multiple contemporaneous analyzers disagree with your methods, lest your ideas gain any more credibility than they deserve.

For that, I think history will be forever grateful.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: DMoriarty on February 07, 2011, 02:37:16 PM
Jeff Brauer,

You just go right a head and keep telling yourself that, but for you to pretend you are "fair and balanced" after the shit you have pulled (with your creepy buddy and without) is beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on February 07, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Just thought I'd stop bye the parallel universe and say hello...
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Mike Cirba on February 07, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Hi Terry,

Thanks for stopping in to say hello! ;D

Hope all is well with you and yours.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Terry Lavin on February 07, 2011, 03:16:10 PM
Hi Terry,

Thanks for stopping in to say hello! ;D

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Tis!
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 06, 2018, 11:43:42 AM
I was doing a bit of digging on the architectural origins of Essex County Club and came across this Boston Globe 1908 article that provided a good description of Myopia Hunt Club at the time.
What I found relevant to this thread was the contention that Willie Campbell was one of those who believed that the Myopia property and soil was not suitable for golf, although later apparently admitted his mistaken notion.    It's a big article so I hope it's fairly readable for folks.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1823/41428404270_87f33a9969_b.jpg)(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1768/28369553137_5acd34daa8_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 06, 2018, 11:50:57 AM

Cue the music..…"Memories...…."


Does WC not thinking the soil is good suggest he didn't route it, as some have claimed?  Or that he routed it despite his objections?  Just asking.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 06, 2018, 11:57:13 AM

Cue the music..…"Memories...…."


Does WC not thinking the soil is good suggest he didn't route it, as some have claimed?  Or that he routed it despite his objections?  Just asking.
Good question, Jeff my good man.

Apparently the very idea of golf on that land was a heated point of debate within the club but one thing I think we can reasonably conclude is that the club asked Willie Campbell's opinion or that he otherwise offered it independently.

For what it's worth, I believe both stories are true.   I think the "Master of the Hounds" and friends (Appleton had a private course on his property since 1892, if memory serves) plotted out a golf course sometime in the early spring of 1894 and I also believe they brought Willie Campbell over once he arrived in the states to ask his opinion, which may have caused revisions from earlier plans.   That seems to me to be the most plausible explanation.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 06, 2018, 12:48:42 PM
Jeff,

I think what some of the debate that took place here years ago primarily missed is the fact that golf had been played in and around Boston at private country estates for a few years before Willie Campbell's arrival in this country at the end of March in 1894.

Guys like R.M. Appleton, Herbert Leeds, A.P Gardner, and T. Watson Merrill had already been playing golf for some time (one 1894 account mentions golf had been played in Boston for four years at that point), and as mentioned, Appleton had a private course on his family estate in Ipswitch. 

The day before Campbell was to begin teaching duties, this April 8, 1894 Boston Globe article points out that the game already had a stronghold among several prominent Boston citizens.   

If you recall, the Weeks Myopia history book mentions that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill laid out the rough course after the snows melted in the spring of 1894 and some three months later, around June 1, 1894, the course opened for play.   We also know the first tournament was held on June 17th, 1894.   

So yes, I believe both stories are true.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/914/41429833250_2626ab7116_z.jpg)


The following article from the same paper appearing May 20th, 1894 mentions some additional private estate courses as well as some of the same cast of characters already well immersed in the game.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/841/41429860350_b8170f8c66_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 06, 2018, 02:39:46 PM

Mike,


Thanks, but I got to thinking, why do I want to re-visit that train wreck? 
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 06, 2018, 03:10:31 PM

Mike,


Thanks, but I got to thinking, why do I want to re-visit that train wreck?
Another good question Jeff.

I'd simply respond by saying that I believe these reports validate a number of things discussed or conjectured on the thread and provide a fuller picture of what actually happened back then.   I know I feel better and believe I have a more complete understanding after having discovered them.   That and $1.90 gets me a 16 oz. coffee at Wawa, but my OCD is quieted for the moment.

Speaking of trains, do you think you could see the landforms at Pine Valley were a bit unique to south Jersey from the observation car of the train back then?   ;D
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 06, 2018, 03:51:00 PM

Yes, I believe you could.  Max speeds on those lines wasn't that high.....


I am not sure what the argument was all about.  That the story was more marketing than actual fact?  Supposedly Crump had ridden the area on horse earlier?


I agree there is no problem with trying to find out more detail about history of golf courses.  My problem was certain people went in with an agenda to change history, or at least attribution.  I'm with you, I am sure WC had some input here and there, but Leeds probably gets credit for what is there now, for the most part.  If we find out WC laid out holes, 2, 3 and 6 or whatever, or suggested a buried elephant in the 9th green, I am all for it.  I think we all agreed it would be interesting to have been in on all those conversations.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 10, 2018, 07:29:12 PM
Jeff,

I'm not sure if this has ever been posted prior, as a lot of pictures on old threads disappear for a variety of reasons but I think this April 1899 Boston Evening Transcript article makes clear both the attribution as well as what was new, what was changed, and what was retained when the course went from 9 holes to 18.   

If one accepts that there was both an original nine hole course (with hole names a bit different on the original 1894 iteration that did not include the "hill holes", today's 14, 15, & 16) and then the subsequent Long Nine course where the 1898 US Open was played, it seems reasonable to assume that not very much of the original nine remained after this iteration.   Probably the holes closest today to their original iteration are today's 2 (although a hundred yards shorter, 8, and 12. 

I do wish there were a map of it somewhere one of us might stumble upon.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1768/42613269484_b1af2a1764_b.jpg)(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/924/42427095215_843ff423d4_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 10, 2018, 07:43:38 PM
If there is any remaining doubt that the "Hill Holes" did not exist originally, this May 1895 Scribners Magazine snippet indicates that the final hole is the "Pond" hole, which ends at today's 13th green, although the original hole played much shorter with a tee over in what are today the woods left of the Women's tee near a pond.   

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1829/41521383060_8c56d29332.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 11, 2018, 12:13:28 PM
The club men who purportedly staked out the first Myopia Hunt golf course (Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner) had all been playing golf for some time at both Brookline and Essex County, as well as at Appleton's private estate six-hole course.   

A few days before the first tournament at Myopia this Boston Globe article called them "experts" at the game.   

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1766/42440859595_5cb5e9388a.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 11, 2018, 03:41:12 PM
Not to belabor the point but because I'm slightly obsessive compulsive (good thing for a researcher and writer) I will anyway...

The Opening tournament at Myopia took place on June 18th, 1894, and as evidence that all of these men had been playing the game actively for at least a few years at this point, they already had handicaps.

Herbert Leeds, who was already the best golfer at The Country Club was scratch, and of those who were credited with the original layout Appleton was a 6, Merrill a 10, and Gardner an 18.   


These men were not novice babes in the woods, especially relative to the early state of the game in America, but would best be described as converts and enthusiasts who went against the grain and prevailing opinions of their club-mates to introduce the game at Myopia against heavy resistance.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1762/43347995751_3c1910657f_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 12, 2018, 12:05:56 PM
A friend of mine who's a "visual learner" sent me a note offline and asked to see the progression of Myopia between 1894 and the full 18 hole course that opened in 1899, as played in the US Open in 1908.

This first speculative layout drawn atop an aerial of the course is based on the little we know about the original 9 hole course.   From articles we know the hole names, we know that some of the course was on the as yet un-purchased Dr. Hopkins land (seen on the subsequent drawing), and we know that John P. May later wrote that the course was "only 2,050 yards".   Again, this drawing is mostly speculative and I'm hopeful that something more definitive may surface in time.

This is my speculative attempt at the course staked out by members R.W Appleton, A.P. Gardner, and T. Watson "Squire" Merrill in the spring of 1894 (according to Edward Weeks and John P. May), and then "laid out" by Willie Campbell (according to contemporaneous newspapers) that opened in June 1894.

Again, this is only a guess based on the available information at hand.  The second and third drawings are taken from Edward Weeks Myopia Hunt Club history book.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/836/42648054174_85fa864dbe_b.jpg)


Following is what Edward Weeks referred to as the "Long Nine", devised by Herbert Leeds (according to Weeks) that abandoned (for the time being) whatever holes were on the lowlands of the Hopkins property and replaced those three holes with holes on the high ground (7, 8, 9).   It seems likely that Leeds also extended other holes as his course was reported to be about 2,900 yards overall, and likely opened in 1896.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1802/29494778618_c4452f7239_b.jpg)


After purchases of land belonging to Dr. Hopkins, as as well as S. Dacre Bush, a full 18 hole course was created in 1899 and Herbert Leeds continued to refine and modify (and toughen) the course over the next decade and more.   However, the basic routing remained intact, and continues to this day.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1804/29494790088_29e94fb735_b.jpg)


I hope this helps show the progression in a way that is consistent with the various written records, all of which I believe to be accurate.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Sven Nilsen on July 12, 2018, 01:48:38 PM
Mike:

The first full 18 hole course opened in October of 1898.

Oct. 7, 1898 Boston Globe -

(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Ross/Myopia%20-%20Boston%20Globe%20Oct.%207%201898_zpsdx0j8vfn.png)

This was a scant 2 1/2 months after the US Open was played on the 9 hole course that existed at that time (what you call the "Long Nine").  Discussions regarding expanding to 18 holes started as early as Dec. 1897, with work being reported as beginning in April of 1898.

It might make sense to look at this as two courses:

1.  The early 1894 9 hole course, and
2.  The full 18 hole course (with the "Long Nine" being part of that course).

Sven
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Sven Nilsen on July 12, 2018, 01:55:49 PM
To avoid any confusion, I am fully aware that the Long Nine was subsequently altered, as can be deciphered from the following two articles.

May 16, 1898 Brooklyn Daily Eagle -

(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/A1%20Album/Myopia%20-%20Brooklyn%20Daily%20Eagle%20May%2016%201898_zpshze9ehex.png)

May 2, 1899 The Sun -

(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/A1%20Album/Myopia%20-%20The%20Sun%20May%202%201899_zpstzb7te2g.png)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Jeff_Brauer on July 12, 2018, 02:54:58 PM
Had to look it up....
felicitating themselves didn't mean what I thought it might....will study the visuals when I have time later......
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 12, 2018, 03:25:30 PM
Sven,

Thanks for weighing in and for that additional information.   I keep trying to picture today's 16th (9th of the "Long Nine") at 250, and then 275 yards and I'm thinking it was a pretty cool short four.   I'm also trying to envision #11 as a par three but I'm guessing that there was probably a much foreshortened green originally on #10.

By the way, the term "Long Nine" doesn't come from me, but instead comes from Edward Weeks club history book, and he relies on a number of sources that include the club's "Run Books" (assuming those are minutes, or periodic accounts of activity), the Herbert Leeds scrapbook (which has sadly gone missing), and other member and independent accounts.   

Other hole yardages changed considerably between the two courses, with today's 2nd hole being extended about 50 yards and the famous 9th par three going from 100 to 141 yards.

And while it may be easier for us to just consider the two courses we know the most about, as you suggest, the facts indicate that there was a nine hole course prior to the Long Nine, which is reported by Weeks and also by John P. May who wrote that the original nine (he also stated that it was laid out by Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner) was "only 2,050 yards", and ended at today's 13th green.   It was also reported that some of that course was on the low land not yet purchased owned by Dr. Hopkins and today's holes 14, 15, and 16 (holes 7, 8, and 9 of the "Long Nine") were not part of the land used for the original course.   

That fact is proven by the 1895 Scribner's article I posted yesterday that stated the finishing hole was the Pond Hole (a shortened version of today's 13th with a green well left of today's ladies tees in a wooded area that used to have a pond, since overgrown, that needed to be carried or averted to the right on the tee shot).

While it's fascinating to compare the Long Nine and the first (and subsequent) eighteen hole iterations, I'd still love to find more about the original course, no matter who designed it.   I'm wondering if there isn't a map in the Essex County newspaper archives.
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 12, 2018, 03:58:19 PM
More specific, detailed hole information about the "Long Nine" from Club Secretary S. Dacre Bush, as reprinted in Edward Weeks club history book.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/921/28499753207_4f2fb4018e_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 13, 2018, 10:02:21 AM
I also believe the suggestion that Herbert Leeds began work/designed the "Long Nine" even before becoming a member sometime in 1896 is correct.   This March 1896 article from the New York Sun indicates as much.   

***EDIT***  Leeds had actually been a long-standing member of the Myopia Hunt Club for a number of years prior for hunting, baseball, tennis, etc., but when golf came to The Country Club he played out of there as his club affiliation until the spring of 1896 when he changed to Myopia.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/926/28513783437_354e3a1fec_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 13, 2018, 10:26:34 AM
To paint the fullest picture, by January 1894, some months before Willie Campbell arrived in America, all of the men purported to have laid out the original Myopia nine-hole course (Appleton, Gardner, Merrill, as well as Herbert Leeds) were deemed to be local "experts" at the game, based on their play at The Country Club (and private estate golf) to date.

That does not mean I don't believe Campbell was involved in getting the course to fruition after his arrival.  I do believe these men would have looked to his advice and practical knowledge.   But there is nothing that would have precluded them from staking out a golf course prior to his arrival, per the club's information, as they certainly had considerable knowledge of the game.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1788/29513517018_dae804d33c_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on July 20, 2018, 10:56:59 AM
This 1910 map of Myopia Hunt Club has a number of differences from today's course, with some of the most obvious being the 16th playing as a par four, and the 9th not yet having a pond dug.   

I'm going to try to find a better hosting service for this photo (which is about 4.3 Mb) and pretty good quality which is not very translatable to Flickr, unfortunately.   Any suggestions?

More to come on the original nine holes when I get a chance after touring the property again yesterday.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1785/41720843370_4d23f29ff8_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on August 01, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
A couple of additional artifacts to add to this thread;

First, it's of interest to note that as early as March of 1896, less than two years after the first nine hole course was laid out at Myopia, Herbert Leeds was identified as the man who laid out Myopia (due to the creation of the new nine-hole "Long Course" by that time).   Whatever the first course was at Myopia, whether 2,050 yards or not, it was significantly different enough before the 1896 season that Leeds was credited.

One thing that still exists out there (there are a number of things) as a archeological remnant is the original 9th (today's 13th) green, which was very close to today's first green, with just the original 1st tee (today's 2nd tee) between the two greens.   Here it is from behind, and from the side looking towards the first green in two photos.  The side photo shows the flag of today's first green in background so you can see proximity.

This green fell into disuse sometime between 1913 and 1923 according to original maps I have copied.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/848/42885310595_f3d27a881d_b.jpg)
(http://width=800]https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1777/43788536861_de22248dea_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1777/43788536861_de22248dea_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on August 01, 2018, 04:25:45 PM
By the end of 1909, the golf links at Myopia were deemed to be "finished", under the belief that any further changes risked mucking things up as much as improving them as this November Boston Globe article explains.   It was an interesting perspective and certainly noteworthy today as we continually change our championship courses trying to keep up with the technology wars.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1780/41980126770_457d4f8540_b.jpg)

Spoiler alert - More changes were made to the course after 1909.  ;)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on August 22, 2018, 12:07:27 PM
To give you a sense of the level of relative golf architectural related sophistication that already existed by spring of 1894 in the Boston area, this snippet from the July 22, 1894 Philadelphia Inquirer shows that Herbert Leeds had already created the first iteration of his course at Kebo Valley (ME) earlier that year.   If you recall, Myopia Hunt opened in June of that year, and Herbert Leeds was already a member of Myopia Hunt for a number of years prior to the introduction of a golf course there.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1885/43481894754_ee66db765c.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on April 04, 2019, 04:35:38 PM
Came across this article today from January 1894 "Boston Post" that lists those who are avid about the game of golf in the Boston area at that time.   Seems Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill were among them.   

Just wanting to keep this all in one place for future researchers.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7827/46814043634_7c5f4dde3f_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Peter Pallotta on April 04, 2019, 06:56:05 PM
Mike -
never thought of this before, but maybe it's not that Fowler et al knew/understood less about gca than Tom D et al, it's just that they wanted & appreciated a different *kind* of gca, top-shot bunkers and all -- and in part, it's because they wanted & appreciated a different kind of *game*, routine scores of 100+ and all. Maybe Melvin Morrow was right all along; the earliest OTM work, let alone that of the early American amateurs, wasnt 'primitive' at all. It was a choice. All they really and actually needed back then was help with growing the grass!
Maybe.
(Hey, that's something for future researchers to sink their teeth into, eh? Ha ha)

Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on March 19, 2020, 12:01:12 PM
Lots of time indoors at home these days, regrettably, and came across something in a newspaper search that brought to mind this old thread.

I'm not sure if this fact was obvious before in lo these many pages of back and forth but what struck me is that many of the early golfers in the Boston area all belonged to multiple clubs, i.e. Essex, The Country Club, and Myopia.   I'm not sure exactly how many were Essex members exactly, but it seems that all of the Myopia protagonists mentioned in these pages (i.e. Appleton, Gardner, Merrill, Leeds, Bush, Burnham, et.al.) were also members of The Country Club (Brookline) and learned their golf there in 1893 when the first home built course at that club opened in the spring of that year (if not earlier as some golf was played in the Boston area going back to 1890).   

As mentioned earlier, Appleton also had a golf course on his estate prior to the formal opening of the Myopia course in June of 1894 and Herbert Leeds was also a member of Myopia (and TCC) at the time it was built and felt sure enough about his architectural aptitude to design the first course at Kebo Valley that same month.

Chronologically, all from the "Boston Globe"...

December 3, 1893

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49675864398_2b2029fa10.jpg)

January 21, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676683992_c1d738b0bf.jpg)


April 8, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676400251_811e947512_z.jpg)

April 15, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676402011_e1a62fba6c.jpg)


May 6, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49675872158_52ee947454.jpg)

May 13, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49675873693_3cd87150c8.jpg)

June 10, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676407861_bc27bc88e0.jpg)

June 17, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676695547_0565c90632.jpg)


June 17, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49676793282_4bab9f2770.jpg)

June 19, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49675879343_48b920c754_b.jpg)

June 24, 1894

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49675881773_f64d3e26d8.jpg)




Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: MCirba on March 20, 2020, 02:49:11 PM
The original thread here had a lot of discussion related to the fairly rare Edward Weeks centennial history book on Myopia Hunt Club published in 1975.   The sources listed included some arcane terms like "run books", which were thought to be club minutes, as well as the contention that Herbert Leeds had a scrapbook that was used by Weeks as a primary source.   Some doubted their existence, to be frank, and it seems the Leeds scrapbook went missing at some point as well.

There was also some debate about the origin of the first nine hole course, as well as its location.   We've seen from prior documentation that the original nine hole course was replaced in part by the Herbert Leeds "Long Nine" about 1896, which replaced three of the original 1894 holes with the three "Hill Holes" and presumably lengthened others.   

Nevertheless, in an attempt to compile all of the historical evidence in one place, here are Edward Weeks "Acknowledgements" pages as well as his 2-page description of the first course at Myopia and its origins.   I apologize for the quality of the photos and please let me know if something is unreadable.



(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49680336576_0642342056_b.jpg)



(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49680629882_d1875a2516_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49680340281_e1299623e9_b.jpg)



(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49679810108_d3f0c301b2_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
Post by: Bob Montle on March 23, 2020, 09:40:05 AM
This may be slightly off topic, but here is what Andra Kirkaldy wrote in 1921 about his visit to Myopia in 1906.   

"Never in my fifty years of golf have I seen greens to beat these.  They were like velvet."

"We had packed up to leave for Liverpool.  The manager of the Myopia club begged us to play before the members.
(Sandy) Herd did a 75 and I did a 78.  The captain lent us three clubs each, as our own were packed away.  They treated us like lords."

3 clubs each!

If you question his memory regarding what he scored, here is what he wrote about when he was in America:

"It was January 1906 or thereabouts - a year here or there makes no matter."