[TEPaul]

"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."


Jeff:

To accurately figure out where and what the holes of the original 1894 nine were isn't the easiest thing to do but it's not all that hard either if the people analyzing it and discussing it have all the necessary facts. Unfortunately, most on here don't. The best description of it can be found on Post #393.

The single necessary aspect to understanding it as completely as possible is to know precisely where Dr. S.A. Hopkins property line was where it was contiguous to Myopia's line and land. A map of it is in Weeks' book (with other land acquisitions) but very few have that and so it's hard for them to understand where those three holes on the 1894 nine were on his land and particularly what they looked like. The remaining six holes of the 1894 nine are not that hard to track, including how those six holes changed or not on Leeds' Long Nine.

Hope that helps you.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The Prosper Senat book is a very cool asset for research and information on really early Philadephia golf and architecture. How we came to get a copy of that book is a fascinating story. I have a feeling there may've only been two copies of it originally printed. One went for a ton of money when it came up for auction about 2-3 years ago.

[DMoriarty]

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?

Mike, I have no idea what this means.  A hired hand with experience in construction?  You cannot possibly mean Willie Campbell.  He was no mere hired hand.  "Professor Campbell" (which is how the papers often referred to him) the one of the best golfers in the world, and had plenty of design experience, and laid out other courses for these same men.

Now it is five "tycoons" and not three?   Which is it?  And Mike, to call them the best golfers among the members (in fact Mr. Henry was the first club champion) was not saying much compared to Willie Campbell.   He was well over 30 strokes better than the lot of them.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

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.  

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.

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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?

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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

While using some of Dr S.A. Hopkins land for three holes or portions of them for the 1894 nine may seem illogical to some on this website, it really doesn't matter. It is a fact that is exactly what Myopia Hunt did on that 1894 nine. It was well recorded at the time by the club itself.

But the interesting thing is when Leeds developed the Long Nine the club did not use any of Hopkins land even though they did buy it in 1897 and it was used for the development of the eighteen holes course by Leeds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, he did have at least two courses of design experience before coming over here (according to CW) and more (according to Tom Mac Woods post this morning, which by the way, I don't doubt completely)

He was sponsored by WHThomas to come over here, to work at Brookline and quickly seemed to have performed work at Essex and Myopia, no?  I am not sure what that says, but can easily conclude that his golf layout experience (whether design or construction) was in demand at those socially interrelated clubs)  Exactly how he was under contract to each is currently undiscovered, but in those days it may have been less formal.

Most or many of those pros "did it all" for clubs including design, teaching, maintenance and construction.  I have no doubt that in his brief time at Myopia he did most of that, and somewhere its recorded, as in the newspapers.

The only problem is we want to know if the club members did any stake out, as their club records claimed happened before Willie C got here, and how it got from that to an open golf course in June.

If they laid sod in May, some work had to be done in leveling tees and greens (flatten, but not flat on the greens unless they were perfectly naturally sited)  Not much, but some.  It also strikes me that even today it takes weeks for sod to knit in and root in.  Could they really have laid so in late May and been open in June back then, even with lower putting quality expectations?

Just saying it seems to me that the entire process probably did start in March, before Willie even arrived, but then he got there as soon as he could!

TePaul,

Who knows, maybe they felt bad going back to the well, or maybe the Bush offer was just too good, or maybe current holes 10 and 11 were simply the best holes Leeds saw out there......One thing that strikes me is that we are reaching the point on this thread where its taking longer than the original design process did!

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Having spoken to you yesterday I realize how interested you are in determining what the 1894 nine was, what the Long Nine was and what the eighteen hole course was when it was developed and put into play in 1900-1901. It is also very important to know and understand just how little the routing and those holes (not exactly considering bunkering) have changed from that time (1900-01)until today.

I realize my Post #393 is pretty hard to understand in how these three iterations changed from one to the other because it is essentiailly just in paragraph form and so if given some time I would be glad to put together a hole by hole evolution explaining the holes of those three iterations and how they changed from 1894 to 1900-01 when the course became very largely as it still is today.

As you can imagine, those three original holes on Dr. S.A Hopkins' land on the original 1894 nine are going to be the hardest to track and explain because they were given up early and there is just no drawing or record of precisely where they were on Hopkins' land or even what they were.

Other than those three holes of the 1894 nine (very arguably 2-4) I can do a very comprehensive design evolution explanation and description of the rest of the holes of those three iterations. Would you like that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

NOt if done JUST for my account.

I would also really like to look around the property as you suggest and see if there are any hint of remnants from those first holes.  That would be cool!

[Tom MacWood]

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.

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey Brauer, SIR, Past President of ASGCA, all around August and Great Guy, CME, IOU, IRS:


Why NOT JUST for your account?

Whose account would you like me to do it for? Cirba's? I would be glad to do it for his account too, as he really does seem interested in learning the entire architectural history and evolution of Myopia Hunt Club.

Do you expect me to do it for David Moriarty's and Tom MacWood's accounts?

That may be tough to do since they don't seem to want me to even be allowed to mention any of this stuff much less actually discuss on here any of this or what I know from the club or anywhere else unless I supply them with copies of what I know and have read FIRST!  And they both have stated such on here constantly in terms and words that don't even require their type of parsing!  

[Tom MacWood]

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.

[Tom MacWood]

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.

Apples and oranges comparing 1894 to 1911. From a historical perspective those two projects were lightyears apart.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

A bit OT but would you care to venture a guess as to why MacWood has reverted into one of his "Flaming Yellow Text" modes again?  

[Tom MacWood]

With all due respect TEP's account that the club records claim the Squire & Co laid out the course Weeks does not claim the club records show that, in fact he does not mention where he got the information, and his account of what happened is contained in one paragraph, actually one sentence:

"When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, 'Squire' Merrill and AP Gardner, footed over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs."

I find it hard to believe these fine club records would have record of these gents pegging out the course in the spring, but no record of Willie Campbell ever being involved at the club. And according to TEP's theory they footed off the club acres too. That account reads like fiction to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You are entitled to your opinion, and of course, I see where you are coming from, even if I don't happen to agree.  

That said, I think TePaul has fairly established that Weeks was looking at those same records when he wrote, and was a fairly experienced researcher and journalist himself, no?  Are you trying to throw another historian under the bus on the slimmest of your hunches?

He has also explained why in an overall history he devotes the barest of minimum to the original design.  Brevity doesn't imply inaccuracy in any way. And if Weeks did all that, the phrase "walking the property and probably putting pegs in the ground at greens and tees", it seems pretty clear to me that his take on the original records was that they routed the course.

But, we have covered this ground. I am sure we would all like some new info, along the lines of the TePaul account or beter yet, the DM graphics of the early routing.

[TEPaul]

"Based on the vagueness of the change, if there was a change, I'd say the records do not appear to be very good."



Tom MacWood, you old sly dog you; you know what, you really are some kind of "expert researcher/historian." Have you actually been over to South Hamilton from Ivory Tower, Ohio between yesterday and today and read all those records? If not how could you possibly know if those records are vague or not vague about what they say about anybody or anything, including Hopkins' land?    

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
You are at a disadvantage having not read the book. Weeks himself said the make-up of the original nine was a matter of speculation, obviously he had no record of the original nine, and he presented no proof that the original course was on Hopkins' land.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

You know what you said there in your #591 is frankly really interesting and should be further developed and explained!

It is probably not that often that we read something in any kind of history book and then ask ourselves where in the world the author came up with his explanation and description of someone or something. But in what some of us do on some subjects to do with golf architecture and clubs and courses we sometimes actually do wonder that and even further we then try to go and do go to what we feel may've been the author's sources when he wrote what he did to see what those sources actually say.

I will give you a few really interesting examples of where and when and how that happened later. In some of them what we found really was most interesting.

You know, it's a bit like looking at say that "blue/red" line topo map of Pine Valley that's been hanging on the wall for decades and you realize all the people who've looked at it, and you realize they were probably interested in it but not a one of them ever actually thought to even ask themselves what those blue lines are or what those red lines are, and much less who may've done them or why. And then you realize you are actually looking at something that Harry Colt held in his hands for perhaps a week and you imagine him drawing those thin light blue lines, and maybe doing it in Crump's tent by the pond. And then you imagine Crump holding that thing in his hands for about four years and drawing those bold red lines on it over the years! You may even put your hand right where theirs was so long ago and you realize the only thing that separates you is a thin piece of glass!

WOW! It really gives you some pause when you realize that and think about it, and that it was 93 to 97 years ago and that with what you are looking at with those blue and red lines was how they were just beginning to figure out how and what to design and make what is right outside and so world famous. It's probably something like walking off the first tee of TOC and perhaps stepping in the footprint of Alan Robertson, Old and Young Tom Morris, Willie Park Jr, even Willie Campbell, or Bob Jones or Arnie and Jack and the Boys.

Incredible feeling really, and I guess that's why some of us gravitate to this kind of history the way we do.

[Bryan Izatt]

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,

Was the book published in 1898?  Is there a copyright notice in it from that date?  Or is your version a later publishing?  Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain.  So, you should be able to scan and post.

Is this the same Prosper Senat who was a painter, inventor of a golf tee, patented a design for a sailboat centerboard, and who designed a golf course in Twombly Pastures called the Cape Arundel Golf Club?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

You must have gotten a copy of that Proper Senat book from Wayne Morrison, right? Because if you have an actual one you might have only one of two in the world, and it would be worth a ton of money. The other one was bought by Alister Johnson in the last 2-3 years and for a lot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Weeks said "We know the course was on our grounds and that of Hopkins."  He did not know exactly where but does describe the opening hole, the remnants of the tee on that hole, and corresponds some of but not all of the holes to current holes.

He sounds confident.  He knows where some of the holes were. I presume he had his sources and that was the old club records, maybe the old scrap book, and the same articles you have found and more. 

Again, because he doesn't cite his sources because this is not a scholarly type work, but a popular read for the members, do you believe that indicates inaccuracy in his work?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

No.  I'm sure Weeks just made it all up to lie to the members.

Tom,

It's a copy...not original, but it is an amazingly comprehensive view of these early clubs and courses, as you know.

[TEPaul]

"It's a copy...not original, but it is an amazingly comprehensive view of these early clubs and courses, as you know."

Mike:

Did I ever tell you how we came to get a copy of that book?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()