[TEPaul]

Now listen, Moriarty, I see from one of the incredibly sophisticated options on this website that you are in the midst of posting on this thread and I don’t know what you need to do next in California but here in Philadelphia it’s 2:40 in the morning and I have to hit the rack. I have sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, horses, the odd burro and an elusive wife to deal with no later than 7:15am and if I don’t inform them at that time about the latest on the architectural histories of Merion and Myopia they tend to get vaguely pissed off and fairly hard to manage and frankly that just won’t do.

Good night and good luck.

[DMoriarty]

Start a new thread if you like Tom, but it certainly isn't necessary to start a new thread in order for you to address my concerns.  

I do think it is about Myopia, because you are making claims about Myopia's history yet not backing up those claims with facts. More than that you have insisted that your claims are factual, and have harshly criticized those who refuse to accept what you say as fact. More still, rather than trying to make your case with the information to which you have access, you have repeatedly insisted that we ought to develop a relationship with Merion so we too can access their 114 year old records, and if we don't then we are out of luck.

All if this seems to directly clash with the mission of the USGA archives.   And I don't see how your views about "how things are done" can possibly coexist with what the USGA is supposed to be trying to accomplish.  In short, there just isn't a place for "that is for me to know, and you to find out" in proper historical analysis, yet that is the barrier we repeatedly run into in these discussions.

[Tom MacWood]

Why do I think he may not have been pro?

Just trying to explain why the club records didn't mention it, when all others were mentioned over time.

You think they didn't know what they were writing.  I suspect they do.  And, in the word parsing mode, a pro who regularly taught at Myopia (among others) might have been referred to as the pro at Myopia.  He was a pro.  And he did spend time at Myopia.  So maybe the newspapers didn't know the contractual relationship when they reported it.

Was it reported that WBThomas sponsored him to be pro at Myopia like Ross was recruited, or do we assume that?  Or if he was pro at Brooline and they were related, perhaps he was contracted to be pro there and was on temporary loan.

Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me.

No, it was not reported WB Thomas sponsored him at Myopia. At the end of 1895 it was reported that The Country Club would no longer be retaining Campbell's services, no explanation (I'm sure you'll give us multiple theories why that occurred). He apparently went to Philadelphia in early 1896, and laid out several golf courses. He was the pro at Myopia during the summer and fall. You are allowed to speculate, and you speculate a lot, TEP is the only other person who speculates more (although he often presents his speculation as fact), but you also ask a lot of very good questions.

I don't understand why you give that history book the benefit of the doubt (with little or no supporting documentation) when you have a mountain of contemporaneous material painting a completely different picture. I think you suffer from the same ailment as TEP and Mike Cirba, becoming so emotionally attached to these legends that rational thought alludes you. And there was even more info on this thread prior to GCA changing formats. A lot of this best information was lost when that happened. The 1902 article Joe B posted about Mrs.Campbell was one of the most interesting, relating to Myopia, Franklin Park and other subjects.

With so much contemporaneous information out there regarding Campbell's contribution to early Boston golf and so much contemporaneous information showing Campbell as Myopia's pro there are really only two logical explanations why the author did not mention it in the Myopia history. Myopia's early records are not very good, and the author did not conduct much if any independent research into early Boston golf. That is no great crime IMO, after all Myopia was a hunt club first foremost, and the author was writing about a lot more than just golf. One must also understand the book was written in the mid-70s before there was interest in the history of golf architecture.

[Tom MacWood]

I've added the courses in the UK Campbell designed between 1889 and 1893. I suspect there may be more.

Ranfurly Castle, UK
Monmouthshire, UK
Machrie, UK
Cowal, UK
Rothesay, UK
Kilmacolm, UK
Seascale, UK

The Country Club, MA
Essex County, MA
Myopia Hunt, MA
Franklin Park, MA
Winchester, MA
Tatnuck, MA
Salem, MA
Topsfield, MA
Hawthorn, MA
Cambridge, MA
Nahant, MA
Wakefield, MA
Bridgewater, MA
Beaver Meadow, NH
Wannamoisett, RI
Merion Cricket, PA
Belmont Cricket, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Huntingdon Valley, PA
Moorestown Field, NJ

[Mike Cirba]

I'm emotionally involved with the Myopia history?? 

Now that is indded very funny...thanks TM for the early morning chuckle. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba,

Ditto for me on this one.

TMac,

I for one am NOT emotionally invested in anything.  Like other like minded individuals here, I just get wrapped up in the minutia of some of these early clubs.  As noted before, when I get to the NE, I have tried to spend a day touring each of the courses of fame, and love the look of Myopia among the most of any course I have seen.  I am just trying to understand how the architecture came to be and imagine the thought process that went into it.

I just don't understand the personal animosity that has been generated by the need to clearly attribute the design of a rudimentary nine holes that was 90-100% remodeled within two years.  Many have postulated that "no one cares what XXX thinks" but I can say with 100% certainty that the founders of Myopia DID NOT care what gca.com thought, because it didn't exist!  I speculate that they really didn't care about attribution all that much either.  I don't think we can know to the level of detail that you would want to know, just what happened out there in 1894.  I agree with you that looking at the totality of the records may shed some light on what happened.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the process started with three club members and ended with some involvement by Willie Campbell.  And I am perfectly willing to let Myopia decide the official version if they decide to, and let you and/or others bring forth alternate theories.

To me, the most interesting part of this thread is David and TePaul (and you offered input) suggesting where the possible first routing was, how much was eventually used in the second nine (many hole corridors, extended, etc., but it would be nice to know if any of the very first greens survive in original form....from my take, maybe two did) and then how they assembled the land for the final 18 and integrated the long nine.

I was interested to go back and read all your Willie Campbell research and did find it fascinating.  While speculating, I was simply struck by the difference of Ross sticking with Tufts a lifetime, and Willie coming over and not remaining attached to one club in his very short stay here.  I was not trying to knock WC at all and maybe it would be an interesting project to flesh out all those old Scottish pros to see what their sponsor arrangements were.  Obvioulsly, they varied and I hadn't really considered all that in depth before.

Cheers.

[Mike Cirba]

I don't get it.  We have X different reports that X X laid out the course. We have X different reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of X.  

And so far no one has brought forth anything contradicting any of this.

So what is there to discuss, really?  

And what of this hypocritical notion about how X must have designed it and X must have laid it out?  What support does it have? Other than the wish of some to diminish the legend despite very strong evidence to the contrary?  

Don't get me wrong.  It is possible that X were involved in the initial design process, at least in some consulting capacity, but shouldn't such a notion have at least some factual support before we start drawing that conclusion?    
- David Moriarty


Head hurting...Hulk must think...rrrrrggghhh...

Where has Hulk heard this all before??   Must...Must remember....

Hulk tired....very tired.....turning into puny Banner....

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Trying hard to stay out of the animosity, but I did chuckle when you brought up the so far ignored point that David has to ignore his years of contention that "Laid out" meant to construct on the ground in other places, but here, it must be taken as "to design."

Similarly, TMac considers Worthington, who had laid out one personal course to be an expert co-designer with Tillie at Shawnee, but Appleton, who had designed one personal course, is thought to have no experience and needing Campbell here......

Or that there was "no logic" to putting Myopia on surrounding ground to preserve the hunting grounds, that in a great coincidence, another club of interest has totally wrong minutes and records, and that TePaul is a lying crook with a pathological need to protect a lie, etc.

Now, I fully understand the desire to dig deeper, and I agree newspaper clippings are also a good source to try to do this.  I also understand the frustrations with TePaul's need to bash these guys and admire their relative self restraint in light of this.  So, not trying to bash Tmac and DM, but just point out that we are very quickly getting to another thread where personal animosities (on both sides) dominate.

Frankly, I would be happy to see a revised version of the original nine, provided by DM and tweaked by comments from TMac and TePaul to see exactly where we best envision that original nine to go.  That would be fun, and I think those guys could even work together on that one.

For anyone interested in Willie Campbell, I encourage you to go back a year in time and read TMac's earlier posts which are quite enlightening and fun to read.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Tom MacWood]

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]

Tom MacWood,

If you want to call Philadelphia CC and Belmont CC Willie Campbell courses, be my guest, but I have contemporaneous detailed written evidence to the contrary that is highly factual, coming directly from the clubs in question, including listing the name of each member and a drawing of each course as well as the design history to date.

I don't think you do your great research credentials and abilities any service by continuing to present known inaccuracies as fact.

Mike
Why don't you start a separate thread sharing any documentation you might have...to date you've not presented anything convincing.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

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 MacWood]

Mike,

Our posts crossed.  And while I have no proof of how or what Willie did in design, I offer two thoughts.

Like you, if TMac Google searches and comes up quickly with some articles that associate WC with courses in some way, I would think a professional historian would wait for a second source as confirmation, rather than post them as quickly as he seems to.  Of course, he may have found two sources, and I could be way off base here.  Whatever he does, quickly adding to the list here just appears to make it look haphazard on this screen.

In my speculations on what WC did at Myopia earlier, it occurred to me that if he was kind of a free agent and trying his hand at design in America, he certainly wouldn't be the first to perhaps "exaggerate" his credit at MH to build up his resume.  Again, just speculation, but gca's have padded their resumes as an aid to getting work since the beginning of time.  We will never know, but the confusion at MH between club records and newspaper articles, your examples, etc., all bring that possibility into play.

If you look back to the beginning of the thread there were several articles presented by JoeB dealing with the attributions at Belmont and PhilaCC. It had nothing to do with Google as far as I can tell, but feel free to speculate about me too.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Trying hard to stay out of the animosity, but I did chuckle when you brought up the so far ignored point that David has to ignore his years of contention that "Laid out" meant to construct on the ground in other places, but here, it must be taken as "to design."

Jeff Brauer, If you cannot accurately represent my positions, please refrain from representing them at all.

Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer.

There is plenty of hypocrisy here, but it is not mine.  My understanding of the verb "to lay out" is exactly the same as it has been, and exactly the same as I have explained repeatedly.  

Again, "to lay out" generally meant to lay the course out on the ground and rarely referred the act of planning the course on paper without having laid it out on the ground.  Sometimes, but not always, a course was planned first and then laid out on the ground later, according to that plan.   According to Merion's Board, that is exactly what happened at Merion; the course was laid out according to the the plan determined by CBM and HJW.  In contrast, I have not seen any evidence that at Myopia the course was planned first by Appleton and friends and then laid it later by Campbell according to plan.

Both of you have mocked and ridiculed this understanding for years, as if "to lay out" and "to plan" were always synonymous.  Yet now without explanation you have now both done an about-face now, I guess because it allows you to reach the result you want to reach.  Yet so far as I can tell, neither of you has any support for your theory that in the case of Myopia the course was planned first and then laid out later by Willie Campbell.  

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

To be honest, and you won't like this probably, I give the benefit of the doubt to TePaul.  He has seen the actual historic documents that Weeks wrote from and while he can't post them, he has put up what they said here. I know you and DM think its not valid unless you see it, and I understand that, but we don't all need to share that view on a discussion forum.  

So, I believe the club records should be equal to newspaper clippings in being considered factual documentation, rather than be dismissed out of hand.  That doesn't seem to be too big a strecth and to me, not as big as the remarkable coincidence that any club you have an interest in has a history and contemporary records that are flawed.

As to the two greens theory, TePaul and I discussed that at length on the phone, with me having maps you posted in front of me because I didn't understand his written description of how he thought the first nine was, just out of interest.  As he talked me through it, I began to understand it.  And, from my take on the corridor extensions, reroutings, etc. to the long nine, at most, two greens stay in the exact same location, which was my basis for saying that.  

So, you can broad brush my involvement here as useless and without an understanding of the facts (according to you) but I have tried to figure out what was going on out of pure historic interest.  I will say that your opinion that you call them like you see them, and you don't care who might be illogically offended is a bit self serving.  Hey, we all work in some digs at each other, and know damn well we are doing it!

BTW, I agree you and Mike should start a new thread on the career of WC, accoring to protocol and ease of reading on this site.  Your research on his total design career shouldn't be presented in a Myopia thread, should it?  It deserves its own thread, no doubt.

Like I said yesterday you are well on your way to becoming an official USGA golf architecture archivist. By the way, have you read Week's club history?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

That is exaclty the kind of snotty comment you regularly make that starts these kinds of threads way down hill fast.  Really no value in that and for you to post anything calling anyone else useless and hypocritical is just uber hypocritical.

Grow up.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
I'm sorry if you took offense. It was not meant to be snotty, I honestly believe you are well on your way.

Have you read Weeks' Myopia history?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

There are copyright issues with me posting here but I trust you are familiar with Prosper Sennat's 1898 detailed book on all of the clubs in and around Philly.

If not, you should really try to get ahold of a copy...it's incredibly thorough and very fascinating.

[Mike Cirba]

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?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Wow another one of your non apoligies.  And more snot.

I have told you I have not read it.  Why ask useless and repetitive questions that you know the answer to if not just trying to tweak fellow gca.com participants?

I'll make the same statements you make, if you are not bringing new information to this thread, then don't bother posting just the snot.  I really do appreciate all the time you spend digging at history, and can tolerate the occaisonal digging at me, but c'mon.

You are presented with contemporaneous documentation yet chose to ignore that information and instead put your trust in a book you've never read - bizarre.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

There are copyright issues with me posting here but I trust you are familiar with Prosper Sennat's 1898 detailed book on all of the clubs in and around Philly.

If not, you should really try to get ahold of a copy...it's incredibly thorough and very fascinating.

No, I'm not familar with that book. I'm not up on copyright laws but I thought when a book reached a certain age (70+ years?) it went into the public domain. Certaily you can quote from the book.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You have misrepresented what I wrote and I find your continued description of me based on your misrepresentations as "bizarre" to be insulting, since you don't seem to understand that such things are generally considered impolite.  (and yes, I understand the irony of similarly insulting you in the same sentence)

I wrote that I did not rely on the book, I relied on TePaul's understanding of the original document because he has seen them.  We haven't and I basically agree with you that a semi modern history book is not completly trustworthy.

I believe that if they wrote that three club members laid out the course in the original club records, that there is a very, very high chance that three club members did at least something to lay out the original course.  period.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'd be happy to quote attribution and other info as I have in the past...I just can't scan and post it here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()