[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm not sure why you think I should be embarrassed?

I'm not the one here who only has one other person...Tom MacWoodN not coincidentally...who wholly agrees with my viewpoint.

I detect a pattern, but I am glad that you both are so simpatico because it's clearly the season for that type of understanding.

I think it is very funny that you see this matter as either/or when it is so clear it is not, but please do keep at it and perhaps someday both of you will actually use actual club records to bolster your revisionist theories at some future course on some future date.

Or...perhaps not..

[Mike Cirba]

Hey Willie...we jist got charged with creating golf at our club this year...do yo think you can come by in about eight weeks or so to build us a course two or three weeks before opening?

Oh...and please bring some sod for the greens.

Thanks.

[Phil_the_Author]

. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You are relying on the club records?  Well why didn't you say so?   What did they say, exactly?  When did you see them?   What was the format?

And maybe you can clear a few more things up for me . . .  
- Who was it again who designed the course, and how did they design it?
- Did they definitely stake out the course, or probably mark it off with pegs?
- Why was Burnham appointed to the subcommittee and not Gardner?
- When was Campbell hired?  How long was he at the course?   Did the committee supervise him to make sure he laid it out according to what they wanted?
- Why are there so many reports that, as of mid-May, the course had not been laid out?  
- When did Robert White leave Myopia?

I have more questions, but let's start with these.  

As for your sarcasm about when the course was laid out, at whom is it directed?  Me?  Or the multiple reports indicating that the course had not been laid out as of mid-May?

And how does scoffing at me and these reports fit in with your theory that the members designed it and then Campbell laid it out?    When exactly do you think the course was laid out on the ground by Campbell, Mike?  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Please show us any evidence you have that Willie Campbell was involved with planning the holes or routing the golf course at Myopia?

The news reports simply state that he "laid out" the course, presumably "on the ground" as you told us was the meaning of the term in those days,  as they were all reporting after the fact, and there is no evidence at all I've seen from either you or Tom MacWood (or anyone for that matter) that he was involved in the planning or routing stages, which as you've told us is the real "design" stage and the heart of golf couse architecture.

I even quoted your definition above, which as I said, you convincingly argued for a long time and I conceded that I can now see how in some cases (like this one) I can see how laying out a course on the ground could be a separate task from routing or designing holes.   So, you have that going for you.

Please just be consistent in applying the same standards you've demanded of others for several years here.   I cannot for the life of me understand the double standard you are no seemingly insisting we all now suddenly swallow.

So, if you or Tom have any evidence in this regard, I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

Otherwise, I believe, as do others here, that the members likely staked out a course (routed and designed) and then Willie Campbell built it (laid out), perhaps to their plans or perhaps somewhat modified.

What else is there to discuss?   I produced new evidence here after you resuscitated the thread a few weeks ago...if you or Tom have nothing further to add to the evidence, let's just move on rather than just continue this silly arguing.

Thanks


"To the contrary, X was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how X used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.’ The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan.." - David Moriarty

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I think that is a very rude posting, filled with ridiculous leaps of logic. I especially think it highly insulting to twist and misapply what he said... 

[Niall C]

Niall Carlton may be correct that Willie Campbell in helping build the course may have made changes...they may even have been significant, and I'm not denying his importance in early Boston golf.

But we also know that whatever he did it was not deemed to be of great enough significance to include it in the official Myopia administrative records, and we also know that to deny any role in the building of the original golf course to Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner in the face of a rapidly increasing amount of circumstantial evidence that gives them motive, means, and opportunity is simply yet another case of bad revisionist history.

Mike

I'm not going to suggest on this thread that newspaper articles are better than club records or vice versa. I think however how you interpret the information comes down to common sense. With club records, often its not whats in them but what isn't thats interesting.

A striking example is Troon. In the early 1920's MacKenzie totally redesigned the relief course which later became known as the Portland. This was a couple of years before Troon hosted its first Open and the Portland was the main qualifying course for that Open. Famously Saracen, who along with Hagen was favourite to win the Open failed to qualify over the Portland and later had a spat with MacKenzie about the design of the course. MacKenzie talks about the course in The Spirit of St Andrews. At the time he was probably the second most reknowned architect after Colt. There were numerous newspaper and magazine articles about the course and his work. The Portland course today is largely as MacKenzie designed it.

And yet when Neil Crafter contacted the club a couple of years ago their own "historian" was blissfully unaware that MacKenzie had ever been to Troon. Now this is a club that is proud of its history. Proudly on show in the clubhouse are letters from Jones, Saracen, Chick Evans and every Open Champion who won at Troon There is a plan from 1888 of the Old course as well as various photos of Old Tom etc. Yet nothing of MacKenzie. I have read the club history from 1975 (just over 50 years from when MacKenzie was there) which is an excellent read which gives some great information on the evolution of both courses, yet again MacKenzie isn't mentioned.

Clearly club records, and club histories derived from club records are an invaluable source, however I think there is a danger in the way you assume that because something isn't mentioned in those records then it didn't happen. Sometimes magazine and newspaper articles do provide additional information that is worthwhile.

Niall

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

What words did I twist?  I quoted David directly, no?

I'm no the one arguing that it was a summer resort so they couldn't have been there, or telling us that a foot and a half of snow on the ground would have precluded the members efforts to stake out a course, while telling us at the same time that Willie C was outside giving lessons and the citizens were happily golfing at the same time!

Sheesh...what a comedy! 

[Mike Cirba]

Niall,

Point well taken, thanks.

I would agree with you that very few of these stories are as clear cut as we all might prefer.

[TEPaul]

Niall:

The example you gave of Troon is interesting but not very applicable to Myopia as an analogy. With your Troon example Mackenzie redesigned the course in the 1920s and for some reason the club doesn't recognize that despite the fact that the course today is as Mackenzie redesigned it.

Myopia's architectural evolution from the 1894 original nine to the Long Nine (1896-1898) to the eighteen hole course of 1900 which is remarkably similar to today is a vastly different situation.

In other words, what is left on the course today (or was left from the 1894 nine when the 1900 18 hole course was done) from that original 1894 nine is pretty mininmal. There are only perhaps three greens left that were the same place and probably only two that are the same as in 1894. There are approximately six holes that are basically in the same landforms but two of them had tees coming from quite different directions.

Whomever was responsible for the development of the 1894 nine, the point is, unlike Mackenzie's 1920 Troon redesign, there was not much left of the original 1894 course when the eighteen hole Myopia course was done. Therefore to call Myopia today a Willie Campbell golf course (or that of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) doesn't make much sense because it just isn't an accurate description of what was accomplished on that golf course by Leeds from app 1896 into the 1920s and what is there today.

The architectural attribution of Myopia for over 110 years has been Herbert C. Leeds and that is an accurate architect attribution and beyond dispute. The men who were around golf in the first and second decades of the 20th century knew that and wrote that and we know it today.

[Phil_the_Author]

Now Mike,

There you again with those ridiculous leaps of logic! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

If this is comedy, I am not laughing....maybe tragicomedy.

Phil, since you seem to be involved, I have a pre-coffee question this morning for you.

There seems to be some contention about whether the Weeks history is reliable, mostly because it has no reference to WC as pro.  Even if it should (there are some posts saying maybe he never was offically pro) here is my question:

When charged with writing a club history, do you mostly use the club records?

If so, do you often find small sections missing, presumably due to loss, damage, removal, etc?  With no records, what do you do in reporting that area?  Get more info from newspapers?  Say nothing? Speculate?

And most importantly, how do you think that type of omission relates to other portions of the history?  Specifically do you think its likely that because Weeks omitted mention of Campbell, that this caused him to misinterpret key elements of the architectural history when looking at the old club records and scrapbooks?  Or can a club history have a mistake or two and then be pretty accurate the rest of the way?  (Going against the logic some use here)

What do you make of Weeks saying they "probably" put pegs in the ground?  It seems to me he states what the record says when he says they footed the ground, and lets us know where he is speculating by inserting that word in the latter part of the passage when he doesn't really know.  Does inserting that word modify just that part of the sentence, or do you think it calls all of that sentence into question as unauthentic?

Obviously, these questions go to the point of whether the Weeks history, which many have seen, but which some consistently discount as unreliable, should be one of the many accepted sources when piecing together the Myopia history.

Thanks in advance, should you choose to offer your considerable opinion on this question.

[Mike Cirba]

Sorry Phil...

Am I embarrassing myself again? 

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
First you tell us they were traveling out to Hamilton on horseback a la Paul Revere and/or John Adams. Then you tell us any simpleton could lay out a golf course in 1894. And then you try to prove simpletons did design the course by giving us the article with the subcommittee (two of your three are involved) and the article of the four experts playing on opening day (although you claim it is an exhibition prior to the opening). Your three are among the four, with fourth being WB Thomas, the man responsible for bring Campbell to America. You then tell us these two article taken together are a strong indication the Squire & Co were involved in the design. And to top it off you found one of the three visiting his in-laws in Hamilton in the spring, which proves he was in the area presumably on horseback. Anyone could be in the area via relatively short train trip. This may be the most far fetched and convoluted attempt in golfclubatlas history.

[Tom MacWood]

Niall:

The example you gave of Troon is interesting but not very applicable to Myopia as an analogy. With your Troon example Mackenzie redesigned the course in the 1920s and for some reason the club doesn't recognize that despite the fact that the course today is as Mackenzie redesigned it.

Myopia's architectural evolution from the 1894 original nine to the Long Nine (1896-1898) to the eighteen hole course of 1900 which is remarkably similar to today is a vastly different situation.

In other words, what is left on the course today (or was left from the 1894 nine when the 1900 18 hole course was done) from that original 1894 nine is pretty mininmal. There are only perhaps three greens left that were the same place and probably only two that are the same as in 1894. There are approximately six holes that are basically in the same landforms but two of them had tees coming from quite different directions.

Whomever was responsible for the development of the 1894 nine, the point is, unlike Mackenzie's 1920 Troon redesign, there was not much left of the original 1894 course when the eighteen hole Myopia course was done. Therefore to call Myopia today a Willie Campbell golf course (or that of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) doesn't make much sense because it just isn't an accurate description of what was accomplished on that golf course by Leeds from app 1896 into the 1920s and what is there today.

The architectural attribution of Myopia for over 110 years has been Herbert C. Leeds and that is an accurate architect attribution and beyond dispute. The men who were around golf in the first and second decades of the 20th century knew that and wrote that and we know it today.

TEP
You have to admit the board minutes seem to have a lot of holes in them which brings all of it into question, including what exactly Leeds is responsible for. For example the board records had nothing about Campbell laying out the course, which clearly he did. The board records had no record of him being the pro at Myopia, which he was. And they had no idea what years or in what capacity Robert White worked there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Please see my post above.  I am not sure omitting mention of WC calls all of the minutes, or Weeks history into question, even if you think it does.  If whatever Weeks was relying on omitted Campbell, because the records were lost, damaged, etc., why doesn that necessarily mean all the MH records are faulty?  I don't think that logic follows.

And, given some of the other documentation saying WC was unattached in 1896, I am not sure we need to accept that as fact quite yet.  That is part of the frustration here is that all of us argue that "our" facts are the right ones while "their" facts are clearly wrong because they contradict "our" facts.

The only facts we know for sure is that, as per usual, the record is somewhat contradictory.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom Macwood,

I've never had a problem answering that question. As far as I know, White was not the professional at Myopia in 1897. In fact it appears that he was in Cincinnati for PART of 1896 as well, but that is just conjecture still.

I am glad to see that you admit that Tom Paul was correct about the 1896 date. As far as, "And for not knowing he was at Myopia in 1894 that should be noted too don't you think?" I see nothing of any noteworthiness in his not knowing that. I understand that you view it critically and as some sort of proof that he doesn't know the history of Myopia as well as he claims, but then again he did know about White in 1895-96 when others disagreed with that showing he does know a bit more than they thought.

What I think is of noteworthiness is something I mentioned in an earlier post, that is, the question of WHEN White began designing or performing any formal architectural work. You know more about White's history than most on here, and so I am surprised that you apparently haven't thought much about why he wasn't considered to lay out and/or work the course. This was the common practice and expectations of the Scottish pros who came to America at that time. I'm not looking at derailing this thread, but it certainly is an area of architectural history with White that is surprising, that is, why did it take him so long to begin doing that type of work. Everything about his history appears a bit different. From professional to greenkeeper to architect to mixing in being one of the founders of Macgregor sporting goods. There doesn't seem any consistency to what he was doing whereas so many other Scottish pros who came here had very opposite careers.

Anyway, I think that White's early career deserves some looking into and a thread all its own. Unfortunately I am simply too busy at the moment to pursue it...

Phil
The earliest design activity I have seen for White is 1895. According to the 1900 Golf Course guide White was involved in the layout of Cincinnati CC with the golf committee in 1895. Also according to the 1900 guide he designed something called the Avondale Athletic Club course in 1897, also in Cinti. The 1895 date is interesting.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

An interesting set of questions that deserves its own discussion topic. I’ll put together an answer and start one for you as there are a number of participants in the DG who write them and so it might provide for a lively discussion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Thanks.

TMac,

The fact that White and possibly Campbell both left Myopia fairly quickly still has me wondering if they were tough on their early pros and tough to work for, or if the Scotch Pro market was just a sellers market in those days, and they tended to get better offers elsewhere quickly and often.  Do you think its the latter?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Thanks for the info on White. I, too, think the 1895 date is significant since, if we are to believe the newspaper accounts, and in this case I do, White was at Myopia for a good part of 1896. Those at Myopia must have known that he was working elsewhere and so questions come to mind such as:

1- Having a Scottish professional on staff who was known to design golf courses in the U.S., why wouldn't they involve him in their own course work?
2- While it seems apparent that his doing this work at & for another club to be the reason that he left Myopia, was it a voluntary leaving or was he let go for doing it?
3- How does the Macgregor Company play into all of this as he was one of the founders?
4- Why didn't White do more architectural work between then and the mid-teens that we know about? He seems to have been almost reluctant, if that is the right way to put it, to go all out in the four areas in which he was invovled in the golf business hoping one would take off. These four areas are as golf professional, architect and designer, greenkeeper and businessman (Macgregor). It seems that he spent many years having limited success during a time when Scottish Professionals in America were viewed as unquestioned experts and were given preference in teh areas of design and professional positions.

I know this is off-topic, but I think that it would serve for a very good discussion topic, and I'm certain you won't believe this, but I think you should consider starting one and oversee it as it were...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Not sure if TMac started it, but we did discuss White at length last year.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Please see my post above.  I am not sure omitting mention of WC calls all of the minutes, or Weeks history into question, even if you think it does.  If whatever Weeks was relying on omitted Campbell, because the records were lost, damaged, etc., why doesn that necessarily mean all the MH records are faulty?  I don't think that logic follows.

And, given some of the other documentation saying WC was unattached in 1896, I am not sure we need to accept that as fact quite yet.  That is part of the frustration here is that all of us argue that "our" facts are the right ones while "their" facts are clearly wrong because they contradict "our" facts.

The only facts we know for sure is that, as per usual, the record is somewhat contradictory.

I have at least six separate reports from four different sources that report Campbell is the pro at Myopia in 1896, and I'm sure I could find more. I've seen one report that says he was unattached. That being said I do believe he was unattached in the early part of 1896, when he was barnstorming in Philadelphia.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
You have to admit the board minutes seem to have a lot of holes in them which brings all of it into question, including what exactly Leeds is responsible for. For example the board records had nothing about Campbell laying out the course, which clearly he did. The board records had no record of him being the pro at Myopia, which he was. And they had no idea what years or in what capacity Robert White worked there."


Tom MacWood:

No, I do not have to admit that at all and either does Myopia.

First, I think what you need to consider a whole lot more is that Campbell just may not have been or at least may not have been considered by some of those people back then (viz. Myopia) to be anywhere near as big a deal as you think he was and as you have been saying on here he was!

Second, you have a few old newspaper articles that claim Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original nine but what does that mean and when did they say it? A couple of weeks before the course opened for play and after the fact of a few tournaments! What happened before that and what do newspaper articles say about that? Nothing as far as I can see because the club obviously didn't feel like telling the newspapers anything when they began planning a course and those members laid it out. Furthermore do you think one could sod greens and have them in play in a couple of weeks? Did those newspaper articles explain what they meant when they reported Campbell laid it out? No they did not. Did they explain anything he did in detail? No they did not. Does that mean, in your logic, that those newspaper articles have holes in them too because they didn't go into detail?

Not to mention that Myopia recorded three men creating the layout of a golf course before Campbell first arrived in this country. You may want to just discount that because you've never seen it and probably never will but I'm not and either does Myopia, via Weeks or today.

 

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Might he have been the "playing pro", as opposed to the resident pro?

In other words, if White was resident in 1896 might the club have simply leveraged WCs rep for pro competitions and preumably inter-club wagering?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Might he have been the "playing pro", as opposed to the resident pro?

In other words, if White was resident in 1896 might the club have simply leveraged WCs rep for pro competitions and preumably inter-club wagering?

Mike
That is an interesting theory. Can you give any similar examples of a 'playing pro' circa 1896?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()