[TEPaul]

"TE
You brought it up, not me."

Mr. MacWood:

Did I indeed? Then please allow me to end it as well.

[SPDB]

Loathe to wade into another one of these pissing matches. I'm also not taking sides in any of these skirmishes; I think both sides have acted (to put it charitably) in a regrettable fashion throughout.

I'm just interested in the history of Myopia. If the common acceptance of its origin is wrong, I'd like to know. But so far, all we've gotten is classic question begging logic, to wit:

"The Myopia history is wrong"

"Why"

"Because it doesn't mention that Willie Campbell designed the original 9"

"How do you know that?"

"Because we already proved it."

Again, I'm not criticizing, just curious.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Phil:

I know what you mean when you ask about what Mr. MacWood meant when he says Myopia's history is flawed or when you asked what his protege meant when he said Mr. MacWood did not say that.

Mr. MacWood did say Myopia's history was flawed. This is some of his list of how he thinks it's flawed: Allow me to amend that. Mr. MacWood did not say it was flawed he said it was seriously flawed. Again here is his partial list of how it is seriously flawed:




"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."



Allow me to consider just his first point. It is true that Myopia's history does not credit Willie Campbell for designing the original nine holes of Myopia. AGAIN, the history of the club credits three members, Appleton, Merrill and Gardner with laying out and designing the original nine holes in the early spring of 1894. The centennial history of Myopia (1975) not only mentions these three men laid out the course in the early spring of 1894, this same history book actually quotes the entry in the meeting minutes of the club's executive committee following the report to the executive committee by these three men after they inspected the ground for the layout they were to shortly do. This executive committee entry was by S. Dacre Bush, the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Myopia Hunt Club in 1894. Within three months the course was in play and within five months of that early spring layout of the course there had been two tournaments both of which TCC's Herbert Leeds had won.

I have asked Mr. MacWood to explain why that information from the board of the club is flawed and he has not answered why it is flawed. All he has done is continue to claim that Willie Campbell laid out and designed those first nine holes. The club has no record of this and Tom MacWood continues to refuse to provide any.

Clubs like these I believe are willing to consider information about their architectural history even if it is contrary to what they presently know but any club is unlikely to either accept it or even consider it simply on the word of some man they have never heard of (Mr. MacWood).

Who can blame a club for taking this approach? If anyone wants a club like this (or Merion) to take something they say or claim seriously they just have to produce and provde something solid, significant AND credible. To date neither Merion nor Myopia has seen any solid, significant or credible evidence that they should revise their architectural history as it has been recorded.

[TEPaul]

Mr. SPDB:

Can you really say I'm engaging in a pissing match about Myopia? What I've done is provide the material from the club's history book some of which is a direct quotation from Myopia's executive committee meeting of 1894 by the Secretary of the Board, S. Dacre Bush, about who laid out and designed the original nine holes in the early spring of 1894. What better or more credible evidence can I provide?

I have continuously asked Mr. MacWood to provide evidence that Willie Campbell designed Myopia's original nine holes as he has claimed. He has continued to refuse to do that. I have continuously asked Mr. MacWood to explain how the club's executive committee information is seriously flawed. He has continuously refused to explain why that is. All he has done is continuously state it is seriously flawed without explaining why.

At this point, it appears that Myopia and its history has no knowledge of Willie Campbell designing the original nine holes of their course. One needs to ask why that is, particularly when they have always believed right from the very time it happened in the early spring of 1894 that those original nine holes were laid out by club members, Appleton, Merrill and Gardner.

[Bradley Anderson]

I found this interesting bit about White from a MacGregor Golf Club history.

Robert White, born in St. Andrews, Scotland, was among the vanguard of his countrymen who emigrated to the United States and became its first golf professionals. He was never much of a golfer, by professional standards, but he had a long and distinguished career in American golf that included helping found the PGA of America; he was the association's first president.  Incidentally, he also helped create MacGregor Golf.

 Golf pros of the time were jacks-of-all-trades -- they taught golf, maintained the course, made clubs.  One day, in 1894, while the professional at the Myopia Hunt Club, in Massachusetts, White was in his
shop laboring over a new wood clubhead.  A local carpenter, named
Gardner, happened by.  After watching White saw, file and sweat over his
creation, Gardner remarked, "There's a shoe factory over at Lynn where I
could do that wood job of yours in two or three minutes." Lynn, Massachusetts was then the center of shoe manufacturing in the United
States.  White gave Gardner a chance to match deed to word, and said
later, "The fellow did turn out some beautiful clubheads." He did, almost certainly on a copying lathe used for making shoe lasts.

 Apparently, White was not moved enough by the carpenter's example to look further into how he did the work, for when he became the head professional at the Cincinnati Golf Club, in Ohio, in 1896, a similar incident seems to have occurred.  This time, a member of the club saw White hacking out a wood clubhead the old fashioned way, and told the pro the work he was up to could be done better and much easier on shoe last machinery.  White could see for himself by visiting the Crawford, McGregor & Canby company, a few miles up the road in Dayton. White went to Dayton and met Edward Canby, who realized an opportunity.  He could turn out wooden clubheads on his copying lathes.

This would provide a source of income and keep his workforce active through the inevitable down periods in shoe manufacture, when the need
for lasts slowed.  Furthermore, making wooden clubheads would come
easily to workers generally trained in woodworking.  In addition, Canby
learned from a newspaper article that some 500 golf courses were in play
around the country, that $50 million was invested in the game, and that
over 125,000 golfers in the country were spending an estimated $10
million per year on golf. These were intriguing numbers for an
enterprising businessman like Edward Canby, and in March, 1897, Canby
diversified; his company would make shoe lasts and golf clubs.

[TEPaul]

Bradley (or would you prefer me to address you as Mr. Anderson)?

That is some fun and interesting stuff, most certainly in its detail of the way some things were in golf in bygone days. I love that kind of stuff as it really does show how different things were when golf in America was aborning and beginning to wean and grow from virtually nothing.

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.

Immediately following Robert White as Myopia's pro/greenskeeper was the apparently lovable and jovial pro/greenskeeper John Jones who remained in that capacity at Myopia for many years. A part of the course to the right of #10 (particularly rough country) is still named "Jonesville" because pro Jones was an inveterate slicer and that's where he typically ended up apparently.

There is no question at all that White did become an accomplished golf course architect. One only has to see Longue Vue in Pittsburgh to recognize that.

[Thomas MacWood]

Sean
If you go back a page or two on this thread you will see why I had a problem with the history book

1. The author does not credit Campbell for designing the first nine (I have found evidence he designed Myopia, TCC and Essex County in 1894)
2. The author was unaware Campbell--arguablly the first great professional in America--was the pro at Myopia (This is easily confirmed)
3. The information on Robert White is inaccurate
4. The author claimed to have been working from Leeds scrapbook (which has disappeared) but yet he has no knowledge of Leeds trips (beyond 1902) abroad to study golf architecture (again easily confrimed)
5. Despite the scrapbook the author has no idea where Leeds traveled in the UK
6. Obviouly he was not able to tie those trips abroad to the changes made to the golf course (the timeline and the details of the changes are fairly easy to find)
7. He ignored the important relationship between Leeds and Parker (their living arrangements, Parkers position in the club and Leeds being given carte blanche with golf course, this all should be explored, although its difficult to criticze Weeks for not going into it in the 1970s).
8. The author was confused by S.Dacres Bush's statement, which is the source of erroneous attribution

I hope some day to write an essay on Leeds or Myopia or maybe both where I can go into more detail and tie up some of these loose ends, but for now we'll just have to leave it as is. If you are not satisifed with my summary, and would like to see further documentation, you, TE or anyone are free to dig up the info yourself. If you really don't care, thats fine too.

 

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
It would seem the McGregor GC history does not jive with Myopia history either.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
John Jones was the Myopia pro beginning 1898.

[TEPaul]

Mr MacWood:

With all due respect to you, sir, what you just listed there is real garbage. You have zero idea what Edward Weeks or anyone else at Myopia knew about Leeds' trips abroad, what he saw, what he used as ideas for Myopia etc.

The fact that for a number of days now you seem to completely conclude that since Weeks did not include in his history book some of these facts that he and Myopia did not or could not have known them. The fact that you clearly cannot understand why some club does not include EVERY SINGLE detail about the history of the club, the history and evolution of its architecture or its architect's life that YOU would like to see TODAY pretty much disqualifies you as even a remotely competent analyzer or observer of golf OR architecture. The fact is that information is available and Myopia is aware of it, understands it (all of its history this way), otherwise Mr Sears (and the others who understand and know where these assets are) would not have explained to me last night where IT IS!

This website is sophisticated, or should be, and it is my feeling that most anyone following and seriously considering these questions and these discussions should understand at once that you cannot sit out there in Ohio, never having been to Myopia, knowing noone there, knowing nothing of the "ethos" of the club, remembering nothing of Weeks history book, probably never having even seen it at all, knowing nothing about the clubs records and archives, its historians etc, etc, could not possibly be able to proclaim all of this as 'seriously flawed' as you have continuously done on these threads.

The fact is, Mr. MacWood, as per usual and as per your general modus operandi, you probably found some old article mentioning Willie Campbell designed Myopia (albeit probabaly inaccurate) and you are going to play this bit of trivial information that you probably feel so proprietary about as far as you possibly can. And why? There's no question it is just to promote yourself as this "expert researcher" which you have so shamelessly proclaimed yourself to be on here. This is precisely the same thing you did over five years ago with Merion when you found an article or two stating that Macdonald/Whigam had "advised and made suggestions" on Merion East. Apparently, you felt you'd discovered something theretofore unknown. You hadn't, the club had those articles in their archives probably from the day they were printed. We knew of them for years even if you never did. So did the club and they are reflected accurately into the history of the club as it has always been and been told.

You are not going to prove Myopia's history wrong, Mr. MacWood just as you never came close to proving Merion's history wrong. Will you ever remotely admit you failed at this? Of course not. One does need to ask why you try to do these things since they absolutely never work even if you constantly claim they do. Apparently you have no idea at all about how ungullible people really are, particularly people in and around these clubs.

You are going to write the revised history of Myopia and including Parker's relationship with Leed's??  You have just got to be joking. Go ahead and do it if you want. Nobody of any importance to these clubs and their architecture will be listening or taking it seriously. They will be laughing, as those who know these clubs are now, believe me I really do know, as I hear from them just about daily.

If someone is going to try to act as arrogantly as you do about what you know about some of these clubs you've never even seen, much less any of their records, Mr. MacWood, they pretty much need to have something to back it up with. You just don't, and when you float some bit of trivia (such as the prospect of some old newspaper article) then try to make a big deal out of it, then get called out on producing it and refuse to produce it day after day in this cat and mouse charade of yours, you can pretty much expect that you will get no respect from anyone who really matters on these clubs and subjects.

Carry on, Mr. MacWood, write your "revised" history of Myopia as you claim you will. I'm sure there are plenty who will be amused. I know I will be. 

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul,

What fascinates me about this era is the clubmaking work. I wonder if the sale of golf clubs was a primary source of income for the pro-greenkeeper of that era. I mean is it possible that there may have been as much income in the sale of a few sets of clubs as there was in designing an entire golf course - at least at this stage?

The golf pro here calls me "super-Brad" which always makes me laugh. But you can call me Bradley.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,

What fascinates me about this era is the clubmaking work. I wonder if the sale of golf clubs was a primary source of income for the pro-greenkeeper of that era. I mean is it possible that there may have been as much income in the sale of a few sets of clubs as there was in designing an entire golf course - at least at this stage?"

Mr. Bradley:

Good question but I don't believe so. For a pro back then to sustain himself with clubmaking I believe he would need to produce or mass produce a whole lot more than just for his club. That was just a sideline to some of those early pros but the point is if they didn't do it for their clubs and members back then in the very early days (latter part of the 19th century) those American players would probably have to get them from abroad and as I certainly do know some did.

[SPDB]

Tom:
Fair enough. I encourage you to write something on Leeds/Myopia.  As TEPaul is aware, from his dealings with Kittansett, club histories can sometimes contain large errors (assuming the Kittansett club history is in fact erroneous).

While I take your word in good faith that you have reliable evidence that contradicts the Myopia histories, you have to recall that both you and DavidM. loudly protested that Wayne and TEPaul were selectively or cherrypicking historical documents to support their Merion arguments.

And while I would love it if an esprit de corps existed on here that would promote sharing of information to correct potential inaccuracies, the possibility of such has been obliterated by all of the acrimony and bad blood, for which both sides share equal responsibility. So others clearly are not going to take your claims at face value, which, given the circumstances, is understandable, and barring any substantiation on your part for your claims, it prevents us from moving the ball forward.

As became an issue repeatedly on the Merion thread (going both ways), contradictory claims should be substantiated somewhat, otherwise we just have the question begging problem i cited previously.

Again, I'm not taking sides in this ongoing and movable debate, I'm just anxious to see what you've uncovered.

Other responses below.

1. The author does not credit Campbell for designing the first nine (I have found evidence he designed Myopia, TCC and Essex County in 1894)


2. The author was unaware Campbell--arguablly the first great professional in America--was the pro at Myopia (This is easily confirmed)

see above

4. The author claimed to have been working from Leeds scrapbook (which has disappeared) but yet he has no knowledge of Leeds trips (beyond 1902) abroad to study golf architecture (again easily confrimed)

This assumes that the scrapbook contains information about his trips abroad, which I assume (since the scrapbook has gone missing) is not easily confirmed.

5. Despite the scrapbook the author has no idea where Leeds traveled in the UK

see above

6. Obviouly he was not able to tie those trips abroad to the changes made to the golf course (the timeline and the details of the changes are fairly easy to find)

The trips abroad tie into his trips abroad? While the timing of the trips and changes is probably easily verifiable, is the impact of those trips on Leeds and the effect they had on the changes he made verifiable?

7. For ignoring the important relationship between Leeds and Parker (their living arrangements, Parkers position in the club and Leeds being given carte blanche with golf course should be explored, although its dificult to criticze Weeks for not going into it in the 1970s).

Perhaps the relationship should be explored, but I would be careful imputing anything sinister or improper to it.

I hope some day to write an essay on Leeds or Myopia or maybe both where I can go into more detail and tie up some of these loose ends, but for now we'll just have to leave it as is. If you are not satisifed with my summary, and would like to see further documentation, you, TE or anyone are free to dig up the info yourself. If you really don't care, thats fine too.

I am a bit dissatisfied with your summary, but mainly because its so conclusory. I think anyone would feel likewise. It is not a summary of your findings, rather a summary of your conclusions, but we have nothing to base our satisfaction on. Do you disagree?

If anyone would like to explore Robert White's background I'll be glad to join in.

Agreed. He sounds like an interesting personality.

[TEPaul]

"TE
John Jones was the Myopia pro beginning 1898."


Thank you, Mr. MacWood, but you really didn't need to tell me that. I've had Myopia's history book right here in my office for a couple of years now. You mentioned you read Myopia's history book some years ago. That really isn't true is it? And if it is, do you really remember anything about it? Why don't you at least tell me what it looks like and I'd be more inclined to believe you?

Perhaps Mike Hurzdan has it in his impressive library. What would you be and where would you be if you didn't have Mike Hurzdan's library, Mr. MacWood?

[TEPaul]

"As TEPaul is aware, from his dealings with Kittansett, club histories can sometimes contain large errors (assuming the Kittansett club history is in fact erroneous)."

Mr. Sean:

As of about four years ago when we presented Flynn's hole by hole drawings to Kittansett, their architectural attribution and history now reads "William Flynn/Frederick Hood" and they claim they happily list it that way. We presented them with evidence that was completely solid, significant and credible they were not aware of previously. They are glad for it, and we took it to them in person and got involved in that way with the club. This is why I feel this approach and modus is the only real way to go for the benefit of all.

We even believe we know now, as they do, why they felt previously the course was the design of Frederick Hood.

[Thomas MacWood]

Sean
I'm not exactly sure what conclusory means. I have concluded the history is flawed, and gave my reasons.

Tie the changes to the course to his trips abroad.

[SPDB]

We even believe we know now, as they do, why they felt previously the course was the design of Frederick Hood.

TEPaul:
I'm only Mr. Sean to my amah.  

So why did they feel that way?

[TEPaul]

"Tie the changes to the course to his trips abroad."


This is completely bogus on Mr. MacWood's part, albeit it's probably understandable for someone who apparently knows nothing remotely direct about the famous and unique lore of Leeds and the semi-unique technique for how he constantly altered his course. I'll guarantee you Mr. MacWood gets all this info from me----and you all just watch---within the next 24 hours he will actually claim he told me when I provide him with something!   

Leeds had a course improvement (toughening) technique that I believe I have only heard of one other architect in American history do. I'm quite sure Mr. MacWood does not know who that was. Perhaps by tomorrow he can guess. Leeds was famous around Myopia for this architectural modus operandi---he was even something of an audial spy and from a semi famous place. These are the kinds of things a Mr. MacWood will never know, could never know, unless and until he actually gets involved with a course and unfortunately for him that means going there and getting to know the course, the people, the ethos.

[Thomas MacWood]

There seems to be some conflicting facts.

The club history states White was the pro at Myopia from 1895 to 1897.
C&W said he was the pro at Myopia for a short period around 1895.
The McGregor history has White the pro from 1894 to 1896

Which is accurate, if any?

C&W state White immigrated to the US to study agronomy. When and where did he study agronomy (before or after Myopia)? I believe there was a school in central Mass (Massachusetts Agricultural College) that produced Hatch and Burbeck. I'm not sure if it was around in the 1890s. I would guess the study of agronomy would be at least one year program, maybe two. What year or years did he attend school.

Between 1894 and 1900 did White play in the US Open or any other professional events? If he did that may help in determining when he was at Myopia. If he did not compete...why not?

[Thomas MacWood]

"Tie the changes to the course to his trips abroad."


This is completely bogus on Mr. MacWood's part, albeit it's probably understandable for someone who apparently knows nothing remotely direct about the famous and unique lore of Leeds and the semi-unique technique for how he constantly altered his course. I'll guarantee you Mr. MacWood gets all this info from me----and you all just watch---within the next 24 hours he will actually claim he told me when I provide him with something!   

Leeds had a course improvement (toughening) technique that I believe I have only heard of one other architect in American history do. I'm quite sure Mr. MacWood does not know who that was. Perhaps by tomorrow he can guess. Leeds was famous around Myopia for this architectural modus operandi---he was even something of an audial spy and from a semi famous place. These are the kinds of things a Mr. MacWood will never know, could never know, unless and until he actually gets involved with a course and unfortunately for him that means going there and getting to know the course, the people, the ethos.

Lore being the operative word.

[TEPaul]

"The club history states White was the pro at Myopia from 1895 to 1897."

No, Mr. Macwood, that is not what the Week's club history book states. You know, if and when you say things like that on here, you really ought to have some idea what the book really does say before you  claim on here what it says and also when you claim it is "seriously flawed"! 

Come on Mr. MacWood, you know you've never seen that book or read it and if you ever have you know you have no idea what it says at this point. Everything you're saying it says you got in bits and pieces from me on these posts and the joke of it all is you aren't even reading accurately what I've said.

I have that book right next to me. I've had it here in my office for a couple of years.

Come on, Mr. MacWood, even you have to know, at this point, I just can't allow you to try to get away with what you've been saying on these threads about Myopia. I mean no disrespect to you at all because this is really just about information, accurate informaton but you have gotten completely egregious with what you've said on here about first Merion and now Myopia. You just don't know what you're talking about and I'm sure you really do know I can't let you get away with this on a website like this one. These people who don't really know these courses in detail, but who want to know them and who really do care about them, just deserve better than this. You should be ashamed of yourself with what you're doing on here with some of these clubs and with what you're claiming is inaccurate about their histories.

You are way off base, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I just so wish more people on here could understand this. You just cannot know about these courses that you claim you do the way you've gone about it. Noone can! You just can't understand them from magazine and newspaper articles without doing so much more like really going to them and understanding them. I guess you're just so arrogant with your fixation on research you must think you're the world's sole exception. I just doesn't work that way---it's impossible the way you go about it, Mr. MacWood. This website has just got to know this somehow and someday.

Please stop trying to scam this website and the good participants on it with this kind of charade. They deserve much better, and so do these clubs.

[SPDB]

We even believe we know now, as they do, why they felt previously the course was the design of Frederick Hood.

TEPaul:
I'm only Mr. Sean to my amah. 

So why did they feel that way?

TEPaul:
Ahem.

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

Because Kittansett may be one of the very few courses that was built specifically to Flynn's plans (we and they now have them and the course was built exact to them) where some from Flynn's crew, particularly one of his really hands-on regular foremen (eg William Gordon or some of the other regulars) may not have been on hand during construction. It looks to use like Frederick Hood may've hired local crews and overseen the construction pretty much himself using Flynn's detailed hole by hole drawings with what we call detialed "construction instructions" on the right side. When something like that happens most local people assume a Frederick Hood did it all. And this even despite the fact that pretty contemporaneous a really good local Boston sports writer, A. Linde Fowler, said otherwise (he actually explained the course was what he called one of those new "scientific" designs by Philadelphia's Flynn (and Wilson)).

[Thomas MacWood]

White played in the 1898 Open at Myopia attached to Cinti.
White played in the 1897 Open at Chicago attached to Cinti
White did not play in the 1896 Open at Shinnecock; Campbell was attached to Myopia
White did not play in the 1895 Open at Newport

[Thomas MacWood]

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.

TE
I stand corrected.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()