[Thomas MacWood]

David
I can guarantee you TE is not hiding anything to ridicule anyone. He has difficulty enough getting his hands on any info beyond C&W. I'm quite aware of Appleton, Merrill, Gardner and Stephen Dacres Bush, and what they did and what they didn't do. Willie Campbell designed the first 9 at Myopia.

TE is all over the lot on this stuff. He knows enough to acknowledge Myopia, TCC and Essex were are all very closely intertwinded, so much so he speculates Campbell was the pro of all three simultaneously. But he also argues Appleton, the master of the hounds, designed Myopia in 1894, while that same year America's first great pro was designing TCC and Essex County. That makes a lot of sense.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

If you think you're so certain Willie Campbell designed the first nine holes of Myopia, you really should produce whatever evidence you have to that effect. Are you even able to describe what those holes were and where they were? If not, why not? For starters, perhaps you might try to prove it by determining when Campbell first arrived in this country. Can you do that?

Would you continue to say Willie Campbell designed the first nine holes at Myopia if it turns out they were already built and in play when he got to this country?

And again, you have offered no opinion on why the club's Secretary, S. Dacre Bush, wrote that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner laid out that original nine. Are you contending the club Secretary lied to the club?

As far as Appleton being the Master of Fox Hounds at that time, it is pretty clear they never would've had golf at Myopia at that time if he was not in that position. The prospect of golf at the Myopia Hunt Club in 1894 was definitely not welcome from the club's polo and fox hunting members.

"Professor Baxter is a caricature probably written into the Run Book by a sarcastic member of the Hunt. The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years; the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another. A member of the Hunt, when asked if they really had a golf course at Myopia, replied; "I believe some do play a game of that name around here.""

Regarding your contention R. M. Appleton knew nothing of golf or golf courses apparently you do not realize one of the first courses in that area was on "Appleton Farm" in Ipswich probably as early as 1892. The "Appleton Farm" which I visited a few weeks ago is quite a thing---it's approximately 1,000 acres and it is now believed to be the oldest farm retained by a single family in America.

I think you might need to do so additional research on who those people were and what they did back there then.

You also label Campbell as the best architect in America and Robert White as a man with no qualifications. I think one would be interested in knowing where you come up with these opinions and how you can justify them, Mr. MacWood. They seem awful arbitrary to me---eg sort of like "the ongoing history of American Golf Architecture according to Mr. MacWood."  Not much different really from your designating H.H. Barker the second best architect in America in 1910. Perhaps you forgot about Herbert Carey Leeds himself in 1910 (by that point he'd been at it for close to fourteen years! ). Since C.B. Macdonald himself labeled Myopia one of the three best courses in the country previous to NGLA one just might think Leeds should get a bit more consideration, don't you think, Mr. MacWood?

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I am also not speculating that Campbell was the pro at all three courses simultaneously. You seem to be the only one who mentioned that. What I did say is he may've taught golf to members of a number of clubs simultaneously. If one considers the minimal amount of golf and golfers there in that early time that was probably not very hard to do.


"He has difficulty enough getting his hands on any info beyond C&W." 

Mr. MacWood:

I was not aware that Myopia, the club, and its own records were the same thing as C&W! It would be interesting to know how you've made that determination, Mr. MacWood.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You are quite mistaken in your post:

Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 05:55:45 pm
"Who is writing the Myopia history?"

Mr. MacWood:

I'm still wondering why you can claim Myopia's history book or history has flaws in it when you don't even know what it says...  Is this another example of Tom Macwood concluding that if he is not aware of something whatever is recorded must be flawed? Unbelievable really!"

Your response was, "Except that MacWood has done no such thing..."

That is wrong.

In reply #7 on this thread, Tom macwood stated, "We've already established you club history is flawed, and I'm afraid C&W's info on White/Mypoia may have come from the author Edward Weeks as well - he is listed in the acknowledgments..."

The phrase "you club history" was in reference to Tom Paul's earlier comments about the Myopia club history.

There are times when you have a valid reason to take Tom Paul to task... this isn't one of them.
 

[Thomas MacWood]

You also label Campbell as the best architect in America and Robert White as a man with no qualifications. I think one would be interested in knowing where you come up with these opinions. They seem awful arbitrary to me. Not much different really from your designating H.H. Barker the second best architect in America in 1910. Perhaps you forgot about Herbert Carey Leeds himself! Since C.B. Macdonald himself labeled Myopia one of the three best courses in the country previous to NGLA one just might think Leeds should get a bit more consideration, don't you think, Mr. MacWood?

Yes I know when Campbell came to America, and I'd love to give the you the date but of course I made that pledge...

Where did I label Campbell "the best architect in America?" I believe I used the phrase America's first great professional, which I took from the article you linked.

This thread has been going on for two days now and no one has been able to produce any background on White pre-1895 (other than the little info I supplied). One would hope, since you're the one theorizing White was involved in the design of the course, that you would have based your theory on a little more than a hunch, but it seems unsupported hunches are your speciality.

PS: There is a very good explanation for Dacre Bush's comments, unfortunately I can't share that with you....but I will give you a hint: Bunker Hill.

[Thomas MacWood]

David,

You are quite mistaken in your post:

Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 05:55:45 pm
"Who is writing the Myopia history?"

Mr. MacWood:

I'm still wondering why you can claim Myopia's history book or history has flaws in it when you don't even know what it says...  Is this another example of Tom Macwood concluding that if he is not aware of something whatever is recorded must be flawed? Unbelievable really!"

Your response was, "Except that MacWood has done no such thing..."

That is wrong.

In reply #7 on this thread, Tom macwood stated, "We've already established you club history is flawed, and I'm afraid C&W's info on White/Mypoia may have come from the author Edward Weeks as well - he is listed in the acknowledgments..."

The phrase "you club history" was in reference to Tom Paul's earlier comments about the Myopia club history.

There are times when you have a valid reason to take Tom Paul to task... this isn't one of them.
 

TE/Phil
It is seriously flawed because:

1. It does not credit Campbell for designing the first nine
2. For not acknowledging that Campbell--arguablly the first great professional in America--was the pro at Myopia
3. For inaccurate information on Robert White
4. For not detailing Leeds trips (beyond 1902) abroad to study golf architecture
5. For not going into where Leeds traveled in the UK
6. For not tying those trips abroad with the changes made to the golf course
7. For ignoring the important relationship between Leeds and Parker.

I'll stop there.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I would not deem any of the things you listed as "flaws" in the Myopia record or the Weeks book because there is nothing about it that is historically inaccurate. The fact that it may not have included some of those details you just listed does not mean to me that it is "flawed" merely that the book is not as detailed as YOU may wish it to be. The important and salient point isn't the book anyway, it's the club's own records (not dissimilar to some of the details of MCC's meeting minutes that were not all included in Merion's club history books). Many of these clubs did not include in their history books all of the details you may want but that does not mean it is not part of the records of these clubs and that it is not accurate. The usual reason some of these clubs did not include some of that detailed information in their history books is simply because they did not want to make their history books too big.

A few of those details of where Leeds was abroad and when he went I'm trying to track at the moment and after having had about a two hour conversation last night with the man the club tells me knows more than anyone about some of those things to do with Leeds I now have some good leads which apparently is material in and around some museums and University libraries in Boston to do with Leeds' life and his other activities.

This man is also aware of the prevalence of the Campbell family in and around Boston golf, particularly Georgina but all of that is long after Willie Campbell died in 1900.

But there is still no solid or significant evidence of Willie Campbell being responsible for the design of the original nine holes in the spring of 1894 and so, ONCE AGAIN, if you really do care about that aspect being seriously considered by Myopia and its history I suggest you cease and desist with this ridiculous cat and mouse charade of yours and just produce it. If you really care about the history of golf architecture that is surely the thing you should do. It has to look to most, at this point, however, that all you really care about is yourself and some standing you expect to promote of yourself as a researcher.   

As I said on another post just produce it on here under your own name. That way everyone can see you can have the credit for it if that is your concern which it appears to be, Mr. MacWood.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I'm glad you took my advice and found someone to conduct research for you. Hopefully by the end of this process we will finally be able to correct the Myopia historical record....not unlike what we did for Merion.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

At this point it does not appear the Myopia historical record needs correcting. My source of last night is not going to do any research for me (he's probably just a little old for that ), he will just introduce me to the resource entities when I go back up there again.

As for Merion, there certainly is one thing that will be corrected and that is Wilson's trip abroad in 1912 has been proven (in the first edition of Tolhurst's Merion history book it was reported as "a romantic story"). The fact that Wilson may've taken no trip abroad in 1910 changes nothing about the accurate historical record of who designed and built Merion East, when and how. There was no Macdonald routing in 1910 (the MCC records prove there could not have been) and some phantom Barker routing generated by the real estate developer who was acting independent of MCC's golf course design interests is of no consequence as it was never even mentioned again in any context (after July 1, 1910) and what was done (in 1911) was very clearly done by others a good deal later according to the club records.

Of course you and your apparent research protege may, and probably will, continue to deny this and to deny the obvious in favor a highly revisionist story but that is of no consequence any longer. The club records speak for themselves, and they are historically accurate, Mr. MacWood.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I believe I may also look into the early records of Essex CC too when up there (an old classmate of mine who I saw up there last week was a recent past president of that club and has a real interest in corroborating the historic accuracy of early events at that course). If you have something you think would be helpful to them I suggest you put it on here too. That way all will see you should get credit for it if in fact it is significant and solid evidence. Obviously, and as always, analysis and consideration of these kinds of things for and with a club, will need to depend on more than just your word.


"Hopefully by the end of this process we will finally be able to correct the Myopia historical record....not unlike what we did for Merion."

Mr. MacWood:

Fortunately, more people and probably people you may not be aware of or even imagine read these some of these discussions that pertain to their clubs and I'm actually grateful that you just keep saying things like that remark above over and over again. Some of these people I think both deserve and enjoy the comic relief, at this point.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

I am not challenging whether the course history book is seriously flawed; I am not in a position to make that judgement even with information you provided.

I challenged David's contention that Tom Paul misrepresented what you said. DAVID quoted TP when he wrote, "Is this another example of Tom Macwood concluding that if he is not aware of something whatever is recorded must be flawed?"

His response was, "Except that MacWood has done no such thing..."

This is incorrect and has now been stated by you once again where you just wrote, "TE/Phil It is seriously flawed because..."

David was wrong. I honestly have no idea if you are correct or not, but I believe that your unsubstantiated statements as to the "serious flaws" in Myopia's history book should be investigated further. But in order to do so it is only fair that you furnish the proof of these statement's and sources for them, otherwise how else can you ever expect that they will do so?

I know you have stated that you "don't want to help Tom Paul" but why not view it that you are providing the information to help Myopia? I am sure that they would appreciate it. I would even volunteer to pass it along on your behalf if you would prefer to do it that way...

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I really don't believe it is necessary to have Mr. MacWood pass his information on to you to have you pass it on to the club. All he needs to do is put it on this website under his own name. Believe me, the club will see it and pick up on it, and consider it as to its significance, and if it appears they haven't done that I will be happy to make them aware that it is on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. After all, that is one of the benefits of this website. I suggest Mr. MacWood try to use it that way.  I really do not understand why he is conducting these kinds of delaying tactics. After a while one really will have to assume he probably doesn't have anything of significance and he knows that. I suspect what he has may be an old Boston Globe article that mentions Willie Campbell designed Myopia's original holes. While that is certainly interesting it by no means constitutes proof he did that.

One obvious check would be to find out when Willie Campbell first got to Boston! 

I have a feeling his grandson may know that (and I may try to reach him) as he's apparently considered to be Willie and Georgina Campbell's primary biographer.

[Thomas MacWood]

Phil:

I really don't believe it is necessary to have Mr. MacWood pass his information on to you to have you pass it on to the club. All he needs to do is put it on this website under his own name. Believe me, the club will see it and pick up on it, and consider it as to its significance, and if it appears they haven't done that I will be happy to make them aware that it is on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. After all, that is one of the benefits of this website. I suggest Mr. MacWood try to use it that way.  I really do not understand why he is conducting these kinds of delaying tactics. After a while one really will have to assume he probably doesn't have anything of significance and he knows that. I suspect what he has may be an old Boston Globe article that mentions Willie Campbell designed Myopia's original holes. While that is certainly interesting it by no means constitutes proof he did that.

One obvious check would be to find out when Willie Campbell first got to Boston! 

I have a feeling his grandson may know that (and I may try to reach him) as he's apparently considered to be Willie and Georgina Campbell's primary biographer.

TE
That is a very good idea, as I suggested to you yesterday. Who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

With all this talk about digging into Willie and Georgina, and now Essex County, what happened to Robert White and your theory. Have you given up on it?

Phil
Thanks for the offer, although I'm not quite clear why it would be better to go through you rather than go directly to the club.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

For starters, why don't you get your research protege who seems to consider himself something of an expert on ship manifest searches to at least determine when Willie Campbell first arrived in America? Don't you at least believe that might have some relevence to the documenting of early architect attributed to Willie Campbell in America? 

Also, Mr. MacWood, even though you are certainly not the only one on this website who does it you just may be the second best on here at taking someone else's ideas or information and trying to make it look like your own and generally in less than 24 hours. That is of course a pretty neat trick on your part.

By the way, no reason at all for you not to go to the club itself. Do you actually know anyone there? Are you even aware they are a bit different from most clubs about outsiders? Do you even know what they said to Ran Morrissett about a course profile, Mr MacWood?

But I would even encourage you to actually go to Myopia if you can figure a way of doing that. I offered to help you in that vein but you refused the offer. Or maybe that wasn't you who refused that offer, it may've been your research protege who refused it. If you do get in contact with them and for some reason they threaten to sue you as that township manager did in Merchantville NJ, I would be more than happy to provide you with the name of a good lawyer in Boston. God knows, I know plenty of them. Maybe even the ex governor would agree to represent you----some good lawyer that one is, Mr. MacWood. He also comes from one of those really old Boston families that frequented those clubs and still do. Perhaps he could even fill you in on some of the "ethos" of it all, if you catcho my drifto, Mr. MacWood.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Thanks for the advice but I already know when Campbell arrived. In fact I've known for some time.

Are you referring to this profile? No I don't know the story, what did they tell him?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/myopiahunt1.html

Thank you for the offer, but we MacWood's are quite comfortable mingling among the bluebloods of Boston and New York. My grandfather was a chauffer for an old established NY family...whose name escapes me. As a result my late father used to summer at Bar Harbor as a kid, by default I guess you could say. He was a caddie at Northeast Harbor GC, and not Kebo, which on further reflection may have been a lucky break.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Regarding the poor fellow in Merchantville, to be honest I never took that threat seriously...at the time it appeared you were trying to intimidate me from writing the Crump essay.

[Andy Hughes]

July 1924:  Planning and constructing of Wolf Hollow CC
Oct 1925:  Course Listing:  Echo Lake CC, Longue Vue C, Greenbrook CC, Manasquan River GC, Wolf Hollow CC, Shorehaven CC

TomM, quite some time ago you posted a picture of a par 3 at Wolf Hollow (Water Gap CC). Can you repost it? It was quite a fearsome, impressive hole and might earn Robert White some small measure of respect here.

Also, the course Wayne listed as 'Greenbrook CC' is likely 'Glenbrook CC' in the Poconos.  MikeC, how did you let that slip by? 

[Bob_Huntley]

I am afraid that the mind set many an American is that an eighteen year old is just out of school. It could well be, that Robert White left school at 13 or 14 years of age and worked as an apprentice to a Pro/Greenkeeper at any number of clubs in Scotland.

I see no reason that he would not be able to hold a job in the fledgling local golf scene at age eighteen.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

It would be better to go directly to the club and I would strongly suggest and hope that you do so. I offered because of your stated refusal to share the info on here because you didn't want to aid TP with the research.

Just trying to be of some help in the name of golf course historical research! 

[TEPaul]

"TE
Regarding the poor fellow in Merchantville, to be honest I never took that threat seriously..."

Mr. MacWood:

Nor did it sound to me like you should have. He didn't sound like he was threatening you, it sounded to me more like a sentiment on his part if you ever came to Merchantville and publicly claimed what you said he told you. For all I know perhaps you two worked it out later. I have no idea about that. I've just never quite understood why you told me all about the conversation you had with him. Did you expect me to never say anything about it to anyone? And if so why was that?

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Is you memory faulty? Don't you remember calling me on the phone and screaming at me, calling me a fraud and liar, and demanding I tell you where the info came from, and threatening that you'd ruin me and my reputation if I did not?

I eventually told you & Wayne where I got the info because to me it really wasn't that big a deal, and I thought you two would use some discression & sensitivity when approaching the poor fellow, obviously that was my mistake. Not only did he not open up to you about Crump by the end of your contact he (allegedely) wanted to sue me!

When you lied and told the poor guy I was planning on writing an article with him as my star witness it was obvious you two had your own agenda working. But in the end it all worked out.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Phil:

It doesn't matter to me at all if Mr. MacWood wants to speak to Myopia directly (my sole concern is that they will do that if he does try to get in touch with them---I would hope they would) because he doesn't want to deal with me. I doesn't matter anyway because whatever he gives them that they choose to consider, in the end I'll be seeing it anyway because I do deal with them in trying to encourage them to become involved with their historic information for the USGA Architecture Archive. So, it doesn't matter to me where information comes from or from whom.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Regarding your post #70 there's no reason to get into all that again on here because that's already happened on here a number of time----including one version you apparently sent to Ran Morrissett to post.

You've obviously got your version and it's pretty much diametrically opposed to Wayne's and mine and both of us had a very nice conversation with that township manager. As far as he's concerned let's just say he has no problem with me and Wayne and he never has. The same can not be said about him with you, unfortunately.

I'm afraid, Mr. MacWood, you've just got a pretty big problem with constantly bragging about your research ability obviously both on here and with everyone else and you telling me all about your conversation with that Merchantville Township manager was just one of many examples of that. I certainly didn't make you say what you did to me. How could I do that? Obviously you wanted to tell me all about it, and you did.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You brought it up, not me.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Mac,

I am not challenging whether the course history book is seriously flawed; I am not in a position to make that judgement even with information you provided.

I challenged David's contention that Tom Paul misrepresented what you said. DAVID quoted TP when he wrote, "Is this another example of Tom Macwood concluding that if he is not aware of something whatever is recorded must be flawed?"

His response was, "Except that MacWood has done no such thing..."

This is incorrect and has now been stated by you once again where you just wrote, "TE/Phil It is seriously flawed because..."

David was wrong. I honestly have no idea if you are correct or not, but I believe that your unsubstantiated statements as to the "serious flaws" in Myopia's history book should be investigated further. But in order to do so it is only fair that you furnish the proof of these statement's and sources for them, otherwise how else can you ever expect that they will do so?

Perhaps I should have been more clear

David,

You are quite mistaken in your post:

Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 05:55:45 pm
"Who is writing the Myopia history?"

Mr. MacWood:

I'm still wondering why you can claim Myopia's history book or history has flaws in it when you don't even know what it says...  Is this another example of Tom Macwood concluding that if he is not aware of something whatever is recorded must be flawed? Unbelievable really!"

Your response was, "Except that MacWood has done no such thing..."

That is wrong.

In reply #7 on this thread, Tom macwood stated, "We've already established you club history is flawed, and I'm afraid C&W's info on White/Mypoia may have come from the author Edward Weeks as well - he is listed in the acknowledgments..."

The phrase "you club history" was in reference to Tom Paul's earlier comments about the Myopia club history.

There are times when you have a valid reason to take Tom Paul to task... this isn't one of them.
 

Phillip,

With allo due respect, I think you may have misunderstood my point.  Probably my fault.

Tom MacWood said that Myopia's history book was seriously flawed and inaccurate.  Since then Tom Paul has been trying to twist this into Myopia's records (such as board meeting minutes) are seriously flawed and inaccurate.    Tom MacWood never said this, so TEPaul just pretends he did.   Pathetic.

There is a difference between a club's records and

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()