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.
I have a very stupid question. Was Brookline at one time known as the Country Club of Boston?
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.
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? ;)
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.
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?
"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."
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.
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?
. . . Please forgive the quality of the picture. . .
David,
It sucks to be proven wrong. I understand.
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?
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.
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
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.
David,
Are you two years old or did you have a recent birthday?
. . .
Apparently David knows nothing of the history of that Merion courae either.
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)
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.
. . .
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
"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.
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 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..
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.
“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.
Joe,
I don't see Gene and Richard anywhere. Are you sure that's a real photo? Where did you get it from?
In progress:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg/500px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)
:)
"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.
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.
“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."
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?
"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?
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
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.
"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!
Well, if you like rumors, adding sheep to the mix is a good ticket!
Well, if you like rumors, adding sheep to the mix is a good ticket!
Please explain.
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.
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 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
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
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?
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! ;) :-*
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
"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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
"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? ;)
TomM
What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
"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???? ;)
"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?
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?
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?
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.
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 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
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The actual yardage of the 1898 Long Nine was 2928.
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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
Didn't you read the April 15 and June 10 articles I posted a few days ago?
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.
With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then ?
Niall
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>
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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.
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! ;)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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! ;)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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! ;)
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?
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.
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 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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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? ;)
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.
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 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.
"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.
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).
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.
"tePaul,
Had you anticipated this debate, you might have taken better notes!"
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
David,
Far be it for a serious researcher like yourself to rely on anything from a "gossip column".
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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!
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, 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.
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!
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?
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.
My thinking only changed based on my doing my own research since seeing/playing the course in October once you resuscitated this thread.
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?
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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.?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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
If so, then Campbell probably laid it out when he was in town laying out Merion's original course.
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$$
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.
Tom,
So Leeds had already solely designed Kebo Valley and done design work at Palmetto before becoming a member of Myopia?
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.
Ignore it all you want, but the news articles I unearthed and posted here in recent "Weeks" do circumstantially support his account.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Might both sources of information have come from what is referred to as the "Leeds Scrapbook"?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
David,
Willie Dunn, huh?
Thanks for the late weekend laugh.
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?
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?
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. ;)
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.
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. ;)
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 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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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? ;)
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.
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!
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. . .
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? ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sheesh Tom...I respect your work...I really, really do...and try not to get personal about this but do you hear yourself?
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.
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.
Tom MacWood:
Based on what you've learned in the last ten years on this website how would you change any of your posts?
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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 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.
"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.
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? ::)
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.
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.
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)
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??
"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.
"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! ;)
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! ;)
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 ;)
David Moriarty:
So, it's scumbag now, is it?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 was gifted a Weeks Myopia history book for xmas...so that is cool, regardless of what everyone thinks of it...
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.
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.
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.
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. ;)
Those articles must be something else to require all that explanation to tell us what we read! ;)
Those articles must be something else to require all that explanation to tell us what we read! ;)
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.
Joe,
I am not going to strain the eyes to read that whole thing,
Tom MacWood,
Would you now say that this is the earliest use of sod on American golf courses you've seen?
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.
When you find some real documentation that Campbell did something or another specifically, we would love to see it!
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.
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.
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.
David,
What exactly is my agenda?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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;
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.
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.
Well that makes two contmporaneous accounts now of Myopia possibly having not one but TWO courses... ;D
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.
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.
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.
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?
And talk about pretending....David imagines I was talking about him
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. :(
The word used in the book is indeed "evaluation". I'm not sure if Weeks made an error in transcribing Bush's written text.
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!
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?
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...
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.
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.
TMac says everyone involved at Myopia was making things up...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...
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... ;)
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.
-----------------
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.
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??
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.
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?
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?
Kevin,
Would you like ketchup with those worms?
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.
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.
(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? ;)
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
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.
David,
What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?
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.
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.
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 factSee above.
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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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...
"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.
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...
The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.
For example, he calls Bush the Club Secretary and claims Bush's reminiscences - written many years later - are Board records!
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?
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.
Weeks quotes the 1896 Run Book on page 36 of his work.
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?
On page 37, he quotes a July 1895 Boston Herald article concerning an upcoming golf event.
The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
6) The statement by John P. May that the original course played at 2,025 yards.
Tom,
Where are you seeing that today's par three 3rd hole is called "Kennels"?
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.
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.
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?
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.
David,
I believe you are the only one who believes that you can tell us what documents say without seeing them.
Cheers.
I like wings.
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.
Hi Terry,
Thanks for stopping in to say hello! ;D
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Good question, Jeff my good man.
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.
Another good question Jeff.
Mike,
Thanks, but I got to thinking, why do I want to re-visit that train wreck?