[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

You should actually feel some comfort when these guys get ornery and personal because it usually means that the conversation based on facts is not going well for them.

Personally, when I'm called "ridiculous", or told I'm "embarrassing" myself that I'm pretty sure I've struck an important point, so I just have decided in recent months that I'm not going to hurl personal insults in return.

I might joke, or try to introduce humor, ala "The Hulk" mulling things over or Willie Campbell's Indoor facility the other day, but generally I've decided that their theories aren't really worth getting worked up about, or being nasty and insulting in return.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have tried the humor approach, too.  From time to time, both DM and TMac have showed they can be hilarious (and I mean that, not in the TePaul way where hilarious means "wrong."  Often, the humor goes way in light of serious topics like this one......Tis the season, and I just want to wish everyone "Happy Everything" just to make sure I don't offend.


BTW, I basically agree with your middle road position here.  I am trying to figure how much of that is my conciliatory nature vs what might really be the truth, although I wonder if anyone else has pondered their posts in light of their own potential biases?  We all have them, and they may not be wrong, but they do affect posting style and often, conclusions drawn from the same bits of evidence.

Mostly what I agree with you on (and tried to get across in that last post and othes) is that at THAT TIME, Myopia probably didn't care a whit about credit for design.  If their guys started it, called Willie over for some consultation, it was nowhere near the formal process it is today, but IMHO, we are all trying to apply 21st century attribution rules to these situations.

And, lets not forget that the phrase permanent architecture, mentioned in this thread, probably came about for a reason related to the number of courses that were obviously not considered permanent pre 1900 or even 1910, pehraps even as they were being built.  I think Myopia is one of those.  Get er done was the objective of the March meeting.  And we think people are impatient today!

They got it done by hook or by crook.  Why is it so important to challenge the club minutes, attribute it to Campbell or the Club, etc.?  If I read you right, that it sort of your question, too.  IMHO, most of the motivation is a pure love of argument here, but as always I could be wrong.

[Tom MacWood]

I'm sorry, I have little patience for ignorance.

[DMoriarty]

Give us a break Mike, as of yesterday you were hurling insults with the best of them.  Or is it like TEPaul where your insults are supposedly jokes?


Jeff Brauer,

TomM is correct, you should really consider letting the facts shape your theories rather than the other way around.  The mid-May report about the sheep did not say they had already been introduced. It said sheep would soon be introduced onto tbe parcel where the gf course would  be laid out.  

So according to this article (and consistent with every other article) as of mid-May the course had not yet been laid out. And there were no sheep yet.

And I dont think you can impose modern time tables for sodding in 1894.

The most detailed account of the opening said the course had only been laid out for a matter of days, but the went ahead with the tournament because they were anxious to play.  Apparently they were playing on the course before it was ready

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I agree with you 100%.

I don't know how it's not obvious that a project begun by a couple of members with some prior experience (the reason they were called "experts") in the new game set about across the land far from the hunts and the polo fields (which is up on the other side of a large hill that sort of splits the property) and tried to stake out where some golf holes would be placed.  

To think that didn't happen is to believe that Weeks just made that up, which is simply something I can't even get my mind around.   I mean, c'mon...why would he do that?

Of course, that's what was in the administrative records, or so Tom Paul tells us.    But, to believe otherwise we also have to believe that Tom Paul lied to cover Weeks, and presumably to protect the membership.    Again, I can't even begin to get my mind around that type of thinking, so perhaps it's just me and my trusting nature.  

Then, over the next few months it's clear that Campbell played some role of getting the course finished, but the fact it's reported he did it in a couple of days says to me that whatever "laid out" meant to the reporter I'm pretty sure it's not architecture as we know it!   From my perspective, that could have been as simple as laying out formal tees and cutting holes on the greens, or putting out flag sticks and/or perhaps digging some bunkers.    It sure doesn't seem like you could take a pasture-land of any sort and have something "golf-like" on it in just a few days, does it?

In any case, there is enough unknown here that I don't know how anyone can claim that anyone else's theories are embarrassing.

[Tom MacWood]

7) We also learned from the articles that you posted that the course was "laid out" by Willie Campbell supposedly just a "few days" before the opening in mid-June.    I'm surprised no one questioned this, because what the heck could his work have involved Tom, if he could do it in no time at all and have it opened for play in just a "few days"?   I mean, what the heck were the other members doing from early spring til then if Campbell could just snap his fingers and voila!, a golf course appeared out of thin air in just a "few days"?

My "theories" are simply that both the membership was involved, and that Campbell was involved.   While none of us but Tom Paul have seen the administrative records, I don't believe Tom would make up a story here and I seriously doubt Weeks did as well.   When you and David call my supporting evidence "ludicrous", or say I'm "embarrassing" myself, I take heart in knowing that at heart you and David have seen no more of the real evidence than you can from the comfort of your living room.   If you were indeed interested in the truth more than just trying to embarrass Tom Paul here I would think you'd dig deeper and I think others here realize that too.

Moreover, as regards course architecture during that time period, it does appear from much of the work by Campbell, et.al, that indeed it was "simpleton" in nature.    What else could be had in a day's work, Tom?   It was simply locating tees, greens, and perhaps some cross hazards, and anyone with a familiarity with the game at all could have designed the type of courses that were the order of the day in this country at that time.   The courses lacked sophistication, interest, and elegance, but they were functional for the nascent game.

Frankly, I think the pros did the work because that was deemed to be manual labor back then, and not a pursuit for "gentlemen".   I recognize that this is politically incorrect in today's parlance, but it was the reality.

Yes, a few days was not usual in 1894. At that time golf courses were laid out and ready for play in weeks, not months. I'm not aware of a single course built in Boston that year with sodded greens.

[Tom MacWood]

Of course, that's what was in the administrative records, or so Tom Paul tells us.    But, to believe otherwise we also have to believe that Tom Paul lied to cover Weeks, and presumably to protect the membership.    Again, I can't even begin to get my mind around that type of thinking, so perhaps it's just me and my trusting nature.

Tom Paul lying? Are you kidding me?

[Jeff_Brauer]

We know Myopia was sodded, according to Weeks. He QUOTES Dacres Bush as saying:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

Later he says the fairway are cropped by sheep, but does refer to the greens being “cut” so I wonder if there were some kind of crude mowers.”  I am asking and I really don't know, other than TMac's earlier postings on Worthington mowers, but that was a decade later.

Either way, original club minutes say that the club members walked the ground, suggesting they had something to do with routing, layout of the course, etc.  And, these greens were sodded.  Thus, in this case it has nothing to do with TePaul, since we have eliminated him as a middleman.  If you have a beef, its with Bush misrepresnting what happened in 1894, or Weeks misquoting what he wrote in the club minutes.

TMac,

I will also ask from where you speculate that it only took weeks for their wonder grass to grow when it still takes months from seed and at least weeks from sod, but most likely 8 weeks, even with all our technology?

The committee thought it would take months, and from March to June 1 is exactly three months.  And Now, TMac, given I am quoting Weeks who is quoting the club minutes in his history, are you going to say I have my facts wrong again?

Dare I say you should get your math straight?  And respectfully ask where you get this info?  Really, were there other newspaper articles that have told you this?  And, I am asking, not tweaking you. You have them, I don't, but I still wonder if you mean the layout/design or the actual getting into play in weeks.  I understand that on many early sites, it may have been a matter of sheep doing what they do for as long as it took after the greens and tees were leveled.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

Yes, hand mowers were introduced many years prior to this. The first Worthington Mower was simply a gang of these push mower blade assemblies tied together in a rickshaw-looking type of arrangement and pulled by a horse.



The above mower is actually an improvement over the original 1906 version...

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

With the original 1894 nine and for a few years after that at least, the fairways were apparently "cropped" by sheep. There is no question Myopia had a flock of sheep for that purpose on the original 1894 nine and few years thereafter. The sheep were penned in a "fold" near the kennels. This was the same that was explained in the words of Col Francis Appleton on the six hole course on the Appleton Farm that preceded the first golf course at Myopia. The sheep were kept off the greens by a low wire netting. Some years later when Leeds ran the course the fairways were mowed by horse-drawn mowers. They mentioned this because it could become a problem on #5 and #6 which had low wet areas and in those areas Leeds had the horses wear large leather boots.

On the timing of this project this is what I said back on Post #493:

"The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!"


Of course a reality like that never gets a response from these guys! They obviously just choose to ignore it. And apparently the reason they are trying to convince themselves and others that the golf course could not have been laid out before the middle or end of May or so is simply because that is the earliest newspaper report they found about it and newspaper reports are all they ever seen about Myopia so they apparently just figure nothing could have happened before the first newspaper report they're aware of.  

I guess that is one way to look at history and that sure is the way MacWood looks at it or says he does and Moriarty seems to concur. Luckily for the people who ran Myopia back then they did not need to read newspaper reports to inform them what they had just done, were doing, and intended to do in the next three months.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
Where did you come up with 8 weeks?

Yes you do have your facts wrong. Weeks does not say he is quoting the club minutes, and certainly it does not read like an entry into the club minutes.

The first golf course I'm aware of that had sodded greens was Ardsley in 1896, and that was a huge project comparatively - $75,000 and six months to build. But for the sake of argument lets say the greens at Myopia were sodded, who would have been qualified to carry out that work? The Squire & Co or Campbell or someone else? If it were the Squire & Co. 3 months before Campbell, then what you are suggesting is the course was designed and built prior to Campbell's involvement. Why would they even need his involvement in May or June? If you can lay out 9 holes, build and sod greens, you can certainly do anything else required. Again your story makes no logical sense based on how the golf courses in the area (Brookline, Essex County and Myopia) were reported to have developed, and base on the numerous reports Campbell laid out those golf courses. There are no contemporaneous reports of the Squire & Co being involved in any way in the laying out the golf course.  

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood,

I am still trying to get over the part about Mike Cirba having a trusting nature.  I don't recall that trusting nature during any of his multiple witch hunts.

Mike Cirba,  

I never said Weeks was lying or even that TePaul is lying.  You made the same sort of bombastic allegations throughout the Merion discussions, especially regarding Wilson's trip.   But I never claimed that the various Hugh Wilson legends were lies.   People make mistakes, information gets lost or forgotten , and better information sometimes comes around later. And there is a strong instinct among these clubs to come up with a narrative they can be proud of, and this may influence the way they read some of the information.   These things happen.  

If you aren't embarrassed that your key document is a gossip column referral to four beginning golfers as "expert golfers" then that is your prerogative.

I am not sure why you keep saying it everything is so obvious though.   Again we've heard that all before from you, especially when you were dead wrong.     I wish you'd answer my questions.  I don't think you can.  
______________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, you state that "the original club minutes say that they walked around the grounds."  Do they?   How do you know that.   Weeks did not attribute that bit to the "original club minutes," did he?     If not, how do you know this?

As for the sod issue, is that really Weeks quoting from Dacre Bush?  Because if so, then it is NOT not from any sort of "Run Book" or "Log Book"  but of some recollection by Dacre Bush.  Records of club business would certainly list the date of the Annual meeting. And F. Warren, Jr. was reportedly the Secretary in 1893-94, not Bush, so he would be doing the recording, not Bush.  This raises the question of whether Weeks was even relying on club records at all, or some early account of the history by Bush.  

But let's take a closer look at the sod issue because something just hit me.    

Dacre Bush (which Dacre Bush?) reportedly wrote:
“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

What do you suppose the members were opposed to?  Using sod?  I originally thought the members must have been opposed to using sod, presumably because it must have come from somewhere else on the grounds, and that this passage just poorly worded.  But it doesn't really say that, does it?     Besides, they were opposed to something "because of the rough ground." You'd think they'd be in favor of sod because of the rough ground.

I think that the members may have been opposed to beginning play on the course in June 1894, because the course was still so rough.    Instead of waiting, I think Myopia sodded the greens and cut and play began.  

In other words, this may have been all happening in the beginning of June, or just before.  The course had just been laid out and was too rough to play, and many were opposed to starting play on such conditions, but they sodded the greens and started play anyway, with the opening tournament in mid-June, 1894.  

It seems a more reasonable reading than any other, and it is consistent with the newspaper articles.  
______________________________________

As for your question to TMacWood about how long it takes for grass to grow, you are again foisting your modern understanding on a primitive process.  They didn't wait for grass to grow, they generally marked off greens, mowed, and played on what they had.   Except that what they had was so rough they decided to sod the greens so they could play anyway.

Where did you get three months?  Report after report noted that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May.  I suppose again it comes from records you have never seen?    Once Weeks had that March date and the opening date from Dacre Bush, how do you know he just didn't do his best on the details of how it could have happened ("probably marking the greens with pegs")  Or do you really think they did all this in March 1894?  

It is looking more and more like Weeks was just trying to make sense of some information that was none too clear, and that he was trying to write an interesting narrative to boot.  

_____________________________________

TEPaul,  I've done the math, and I have a hard time believing they laid out the course by March 1, 1894.   Yet that is your three months.  

Reportedly, sheep had not yet been introduced (and the course not laid out) by mid-May 1894.    Anyone is welcome to do the math on that one but they won't find three months between mid-May and the first of June.   Or between mid April and the first of June for that matter.  

TEPaul,  

1. How come you know for certain that they staked out the course, yet Weeks is speculating about the same thing?

2. Have you seen actual administrative records at Myopia, or some sort of recollection written by Dacre Bush?  If the latter when was it written and what was the format?

3. You have repeatedly claimed that the records indicate that Robert White was the professional at Myopia in 1896-97, and maybe 1895.   But it seems that Robert White might have moved on to Cincinnati sometime in 1896.   What exactly do the records say about this, and about Robert White?

4.  You refer to your statement the following statement as a reality:   "The members who decided to introduce golf to Myopia Hunt Club informed the club that they could have a nine hole course ready for play in three months. The nine hole course opened for play around June 1, 1894. You do the math!"  A reality based upon what, exactly?  

___________________________________

Tom MacWood,

Shinnecock may have sodded some greens with regular lawn grass.   I'll explain in another thread when I get a chance.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Do you really believe it means much historically if the first farm YOU are aware of that sodded was Ardsley in 1896?  

You should go to Massachussets and visit the Appleton Farm. It's one of the oldest farms in America in the possession of a single family (Appletons). Into the 19th century it became a very progressive farm for all kinds of techniques including grasses and given the Appletons were fox hunters, steeplechasers and particularly polo players for generations, not to even mention they had a golf course before Myopia, they obviously knew a bit more about grasses and sodding than you do. Sodding in polo is not uncommon at all and that isn't hard to tell if one actually ever went to see a polo match personally. Apparently that is not something you ever bothered to do either. And unfortunately it ain't that easy figuring that out just sitting behind a computer in Ohio searching the Internet.

[TEPaul]

"If you aren't embarrassed that your key document is a gossip column referral to four beginning golfers as "expert golfers" then that is your prerogative."


David:

And what's your prerogative? Is it labeling a newspaper article Mike Cirba produced a "gossip column?" How do you know it was a gossip column? Did that newspaper call it a gossip column (not that a number of them back then did not have sections like that, mind you, because they surely did)? And what about those 2-3 newspaper articles you've cited to prove Campbell laid out Myopia? Who were those reporters? What did they know? Where did they get their information? Who did they get it from? Did any of those articles say, and if so why not? Have you any idea at all?  If you do then why don't you produce it? You're the guy who is always demanding "verifiable evidence" for everything aren't you?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

The funny thing is that the articles David posted are from the exact same "gossip column" as mine!  Too funny, but absolutely true!! 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  I've done the math, and I have a hard time believing they laid out the course by March 1, 1894.   Yet that is your three months."


Yes it sure is three months. It's not my three months, it's their three months in 1894. The course opened for play June 1, 1894 and three months before that sure is March 1. It's pretty much like that mathematically every year and sure has been from 1894 to 2010, but yet you have a hard time believing they apparently meant what they said when they reported in the spring of 1894 they had paced off a nine hole golf course at Myopia Hunt Club and it could be ready for play in three months. All they apparently needed to do or did with that original nine is pace of the lengths from nine tees to nine greens, level areas for tees, sod the greens, crop the fairways with sheep and cut the sodded greens when they were ready. As for hazards all they said they used that spring was natural hazards and high rough. Apparently you two think Ted Weeks just made all that up right out of whole cloth. He didn't.

Not to even delve that deeply into the subject that grass hasn't changed that much and any of us who've had any actual experience with golf courses sure do know one just does not sod something like a green and then get a membership and a couple of tournaments to play on it in a few weeks. You can sure do that but you'll very likely make quite the mess out of them. The thing is David, when anyone sods something it does take generally a month or two or three for the roots to take in the soil beneath them to stabilize things and to get the grass growing well in its new medium but perhaps you and Tom MacWood weren't aware of that reality either. And why would you be? I doubt either of you have ever experienced that either first-hand. Have either of you two ever even belonged to a golf club? To me that's a simple straight-forward question and I sure hope neither of you take it as some kind of personal insult!  

Would speaking to any superintendent at least get you two to consider that that's a reality or are you two going to tell them they are speculating or dreaming or even imply that they're lying too?  

I noticed you two just sort of blanched right by what I mentioned to you about Edward Weeks. He was the editor of Atlantic Monthly for almost thirty years. You can still find some of the seminal editorials and articles he wrote in the print medium on the Internet. And to think that some closeted self proclaimed "expert researcher/writer" like Tom MacWood has criticized, as he has on this website, a man like that about his centennial history book on a club he belonged to for years when neither MacWood nor you have ever even had the inclination to go there is pretty much beyond chutzpah and arrogance, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of everyone else other than you two. You two are quite the pair on here for criticizing the histories of clubs you know a limited amount about except on the Internet and have just about never even seen.

I think that pretty much speaks what needs to be said about this thread (and others) and you two!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Do you really believe it means much historically if the first farm YOU are aware of that sodded was Ardsley in 1896?  

You should go to Massachussets and visit the Appleton Farm. It's one of the oldest farms in America in the possession of a single family (Appletons). Into the 19th century it became a very progressive farm for all kinds of techniques including grasses and given the Appletons were fox hunters, steeplechasers and particularly polo players for generations, not to even mention they had a golf course before Myopia, they obviously knew a bit more about grasses and sodding than you do. Sodding in polo is not uncommon at all and that isn't hard to tell if one actually ever went to see a polo match personally. Apparently that is not something you ever bothered to do either. And unfortunately it ain't that easy figuring that out just sitting behind a computer in Ohio searching the Internet.

TEP
Farm? I have no idea if Ardsley was the first or not to build sodded greens, but it is earliest report I have found in America.

The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?

[TEPaul]

"The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?"


Tom:

Why do you even bother to ask me questions if you neither read my answers to you nor understand them? I answered the very same question from you in the last 24 hours at least.

Unlike you, I have done a whole lot of "independent" first-hand research on this golf course, club and its history and its membership IN MASSACHUSSETS!-----Not just on the Internet looking for old, limited, undetailed and probably inaccurate newspaper articles like you.

[TEPaul]

"The funny thing is that the articles David posted are from the exact same "gossip column" as mine!"


Mike:

Well, whatever. Those little mini-subjects just aren't relevent to this subject really, in my opinion, even though Moriarty and some of the others on here sure do take them super-seriously.  I guess that is bound to happen when all of you are dealing with and discussing such limited information on this golf course like about 2-5 newspaper articles from the 19th century. I mean this thread has basically been about nothing but a couple of old newspaper articles and that is definitely NOT the whole and compleat story of the architectural history of Myopia Hunt Club. But I do know at this point that that is almost impossible to get through to some people on this website these days.

[Tom MacWood]

"The other stuff sounds fascinating, if I may ask what is your source of information on Appleton Farms? And speaking of which where did you come up with the golf course at AF being laid out in 1892 or 1893?"


Tom:

Why do you even bother to ask me questions if you neither read my answers to you nor understand them? I answered the very same question from you in the last 24 hours at least.

Unlike you, I have done a whole lot of "independent" first-hand research on this golf course, club and its history and its membership IN MASSACHUSSETS!-----Not just on the Internet looking for old, limited, undetailed and probably inaccurate newspaper articles like you.

TEP
Just asking. I've asked the question several times and for whatever reason you refuse to answer it. I know Weeks mentioned Appleton Farms and 1892, although not together, and knowing your practice of embellishment, I thought maybe you got confused or worse.

Back to your sodding expertise on the polo field I think the better comparison would be grass tennis courts. I found a report from 1893 in which big tennis tournament was played at Saratoga and the courts had been sodded just three weeks before the event. So I guess Jeff's eight weeks may not be accurate.

On a related topic Bush says the new greens were sodded and cut...I don't believe greens or tennis courts were cut in those days, they were rolled.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Just asking. I've asked the question several times and for whatever reason you refuse to answer it. I know Weeks mentioned Appleton Farms and 1892, although not together, and knowing your practice of embellishment, I thought maybe you got confused or worse."


OK, Tom, this one last time I will go find my answer to your question and post it for you. I do get sick of you asking me and everyone else these questions you do and then when they honestly answer them you either ignore them completely or tell them they're confused or speculating or have no right to discuss it because you tell them they haven't done any "independent" research or some other crap. You've got a real problem here with this kind of thing, fella, everyone on here tells you that and you just go on blithely if nothing is happening. It's happening; it continues to happen and the problem has just got to be you, plain and simple. There are a number of us who think you have some kind of psychological problem some kind of ADD, ADAD, DDA, DAD, IOU, IRS, CIA or some such acronym disorder. If you do, why don't you just come clean on it and get it out there? I think you will be surprised and completely relieved in the capacity this website has for understanding if you do.

So, I'll look back and find the answer to your question but why didn't you see it yourself---it's right here on this thread in the last 24 hours? If you tell me that you ask me these questions over and over and over again but yet don't even bother to really read my posts and responses to you do you blame me in the slightest if I get really pissed off at you on here?

[Tom MacWood]

I got the dates on the Appleton Farm while in Massachussetts. It comes from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends (a number of the same names from Myopia Hunt Club and other Boston clubs and summer communities).

I found it. Why the confusion over 1892 or 1893? Did you make copies of the chronicles or take notes?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Once again, I already answered that question of yours about copies and such and I answered them on this thread. I certainly encourage you to go find my answers and responses if you feel like ONCE AGAIN accusing me of changing my story or altering things or speculating or being confused or whatever as you so often do on this website in your ever devolving discussions on here into greater and greater triviality and irrelevence.


Look, you and I are very different people---we come from very different backgrounds and sensibilities but that does not mean those differences and diversity cannot get along on here and survive without adversity and even become symbiotically beneficial, educational and productive for all.

You're a good raw researcher but you do not get personally involved with clubs, memberships and such. You have even stated on here you feel that just might impede your objectivity, historically or otherwise.

I am not much of a raw researcher, at least not on the Internet because I'm not very good or very tech-savy at it. But I sure do have my collaborators with research and I probably have 300,000 "assets" on my computer from it all now! I come at this subject of GCA more from an analytical perspective through my history, my golf experiences and families' experiences and they go back far because I'm 66 and my families' history in the game and its American culture is historically rich. Am I proud of that? Yeah, sure, but I do have some conflicts about it I am willing to explain and discuss for the greater good and the greater understanding of other people on here participating or just viewing.

I think we can do this, you and I. I don't think the mindbendingly competitive minutae that is the majority of a thread like this one is necessary or the way to do it.

Here it comes, Tom MacWood---the ball is coming over into your court now. We can do it----go hit it back and let's have a really good old fashioned rally that is exciting, educational and memorable for the right reasons, not the wrong ones which primarily seem to be with you to just compete on here with anyone and everyone on the item of just research. There is more to truly understanding GCA and its history than just research and more and more of it. We need the informed, experienced, and objective ANALYSIS of all that. Of course we can always throw in the subjective too, but at the end of the day we do need to be OBJECTIVE historians if we ever want to do this odd and interesting subject justice on this Internet website.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac and David, (I just realized I addressed the first part of this to David, and TMac asked about the club minutes)

Yes, it says club records whatever that may be.

The exact quote from the Weeks book is:

Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed in which their recommendation was followed is evident in THIS TERSE ENTRY IN THE CLUB RECORDS BY SECRETARY S. DACRE BUSH:

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began about June 1, 1894.”

How do I know?  I read it.  Are you saying Weeks and Bush are both wrong about what happened?  He is quoting club contemporaneous club records by the club secretary. although it does sound like Bush might have been the secretary a bit later, given the "about March" comment.  Are the wrong?  If so, how do you know?  

As to some of your other reasoning about events I can understand it and have done the same in trying to figure out all the meat on the bone.  So, no problem with that here.  I am still wondering about the whole time line in that three month period.  With a lot of different phrases, and no definitive sentences, its still hard to piece together to the degree we want.

BTW, while I am just as guilty as anyone in trying to fit information into an existing pattern, my first thought was that the ground from tee to green was too rough, and hence, by Mid May.....sheep!  IMHO, the greens were a separate issue and were always intended to be sodded to get the best possible surfaces, and the tees and fw were problems.  Again, that is just me and my take.  Who knows?

Tmac,

8 weeks is common time for modern golf courses to be ready from sod, and seed takes longer, perhaps twice.  I have trouble believing that with 100 years of USGA research and other advancements in irrigation, sod growing, etc. that it would be shorter then than it is now to mature a course, even with lower acceptable standards.  Maybe its just me.

I just saw your three weeks on a tennis court reference and I am sorry that I missed that.  Also to factor in are the types of grasses and times of year.  I doubt that sod grows a lot in early spring most years in Boston.  I think it takes nighttime temps of 59 degrees, or what not.  (from memory of northern grasses and maybe the old grasses were a little different in that regard.....) so in April, it could be more,  in summer less. I have seen sod knit in in three weeks in warm weather, but not be anywhere near perfect, but then again, standards were lower, or maybe, as David suggests, they were rushing, perhaps knowing the grass wasn't fully ready.

And something else occurs to me, albeit a bit unlikely, the phrase "lay sod" and "lay out" are similar enough to perhaps be confused, again by a gossip column reporter who may have had no idea that anything was required to put a golf course in play, as opposed to our knowledge today.

[TEPaul]

"I found it. Why the confusion over 1892 or 1893?"

I don't call it confusion; you do. I have no idea why the history of Appletons Farms was not more specific to a particular date. As I told you many years ago when you posted that thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion" where you wanted to know whose idea every hole was that history just never recorded that kind of specifiity at the time or later. It is really too bad you do not get the sense and drift of that reality in golf course architecture to either understand or appreciate that reality.


"Did you make copies of the chronicles or take notes?"

I did not. Much of it I read on my own or with other people, many of which were really old showing me chronicles and diaries and letters and such and a good deal of it was verbal and colloquial----a form of communication I happen to love but perhaps one, in this particular context, you do not really understand or appreciate.

The point is if you or I sat down and discussed Myopia with the sons or grandsons of the men wrote those 1894 newspaper articles for the Boston Globe or whatever on Myopia and Campbell they would probably have one helluva lesser idea about any of it than the future generations I talk to of the families of Leeds, Shaw, Boardman, Knowles, Appleton, Curtis, Bacon, Merrill, Hunnewell, Gardner, Weeks or any of the rest of them who are still around Myopia today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()