Jeff Brauer. You know as well as I do that there was never a chance in hell that I was going to be allowed to review Myopia's records at Myopia, even if I wanted to. They wouldn't even let you on the property, and you are an architect and former president of the esteemed ASGCA, or whatever you guys call yourselves.
Besides, I have never written anything derogatory about the club or how it's operation. To the contrary, Tom MacWood and I (but mostly Tom) have done more to clarify their history than anyone else around here, including a certain friend of yours who has done plenty to embarrass that club and about every other club with which he has ever claimed an association. In fact, so far as I know, the only questionable thing the club has done is choose to deal with your lowlife buddy, but many clubs have made that error. It must come with the territory. But go on and keep pretending you know all about these magical mystery documents. I am sure your buddy appreciates your efforts, as that kind of thing is right up his alley. Maybe it will finally pay off with that access.
Remind me again, what is your purpose here, anyway? You don't research, you don't understand research or analysis, how it works or its purpose, you have at best a superficial interest in the subject matter but are perfectly happy to chirp whatever Cornish, Whitten, or your buddy tells you to chirp. So who are you to lecture me on my research or how it should be done? It is not as if you are my peer here. Not even close. You've got no more basis telling me how to research an analyze as I do telling you how to place drains on fairways. Less probably. So who the hell are you to question my motives and methodology? Who are you to compare what you do around here to what I do? You and your buddy couldn't research your way into or out of a library if you had a map and a guide dog. As soon as you contribute something original and/or relevant, get back to me. Otherwise, when are you going to make good on your promise you keep making to walk away?
You keep on as if May's project was some big well-researched club history created separate and apart from anything Weeks was doing. That is unrealistic, at best.
According to Weeks, he had long been working on his project by the time May would have gotten around to his article. Given May's connections to the guy within the club, do you really think that May was dealing with some separate batch of information? That's rather strange logic, don't you think? And if May had all this great stuff that Weeks didn't, how come it never made its way to Weeks, whose book came out not that many years later?
Look again at May's acknowledgements. Most of his information is coming from the clubs or inside the clubs. With Myopia it looks like he went a bit further, but surely that was because the Club didn't really know, or because Weeks was in the process of trying to figure it out. Either way, given that May's information likely came from his buddy at Myopia, their conclusions can hardly be considered corroborating. For example, if you and your mentor make the same claim based on the same information, that makes it no more likely for it to be true than if only one of you had made the claim.
As for the May quote of the course distance have you really thought of how incredible May's claimed was. Comparing his version to Weeks, the course would grown just short of 900 yards - 878 yards to be exact - in two years. That is a 43% increase in growth, the equivalent of a 7000 yard course being lengthened to over 10,000 yards!
Never mind the percentage change. In real terms, 878 more yard in two years is a huge increase, especially on a course of only nine holes. In yardage terms, it amounts to an additional hole of 400 yards, a 300 yard hole, and a 178 yard hole.
Think of it this way. On average, the distances would have had to increase almost 100 yards per hole (97.7 to be exact.) Yet many of the holes couldn't have increased much at all, so the increase would have had to have been much greater than 100 yards per hole on some of the holes!
And yet, according to Weeks, the first six holes of the supposed "long nine" were also part of the original nine! And remember that except for the first hole, in these days they generally played from green to green. So while some of the original holes may have been somewhat shorter, were they couldn't have been shorter by much, or the golfers would have been walking 90 yards between each green and tee!
According to Weeks, the total distance for the first six holes on the long nine (1912 yards) was only 138 yards shorter than the supposed distancie of the entire original course from only two years earlier (2050 yards.) Yet the original course supposedly contained all six of those holes, plus three more? Unlikely.
Look at the layout. A number of these holes couldn't have been much shorter than they already were. Weeks said the first was 80 yards shorter. This could be --the first tee wasn't necessarily tied to the location of the previous green. Weeks said the second was shorter but was still "three wood shots," and to get to the get from the supposed location of the old first green to the tee box of the third hole (locked in place by the pond) was around 475 yards, so the hole couldn't have reasonably been too much shorter than the 427 yards Weeks claims without necessitating a long hike. The third was locked in place by the swampy bullrushes and was only 100-130 yards on the long version, so it couldn't reasonably have been shorter. The next and was only 250-275 yards even on its lengthened version and the "alps" didn't move, so it is doubtful it was much shorter. The valley hole had to get the golfer all the way back to the pond hole tee so while it could have been somewhat shorter, it couldn't have been too much shorter. And the last was only 250-285 yards after the course was supposedly lengthened. Given it played over a pond to a ridge on the other side, how much shorter could it have been?
Seriously. Where can one find the much shorter versions of these holes? Were the missing three holes less than 100 yards each in length? Even if so, the math still doesn't work. The holes could not reasonably have changed enough to make sense of both Weeks' and May's descriptions. Maybe May read 2950 as 2050. Otherwise, his claim makes no sense.
Think of it as a race course and the greens as checkpoints. We know some of these checkpoints were locked in place by natural features, and we know where others were supposedly located by the description. There just isn't that much room to shorten or lengthen without rearranging the entire thing.
And Mike, rather than railing at me in response, let's try to be productive. Please explain to me where all this distance could have been made up, given Week's description of six of the holes? I could buy a few hundred yards difference. But almost 900 yards? I don't see it. Do you?